texts: According to pre-tribulation pre-millenialists, when would and will Christians be persecuted for their faith as a sign to the world?

texts:
In Matthew 10:16-25 BSB, it says

  "16 Behold, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On My account, you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say. 20 For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple to be like his teacher and a servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!"

Moreover, it is repeated in Matthew 24:9 BSB,

  9 Then they will deliver you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name.

Now the context of Matthew 10 is when Jesus is sending out the 12 disciples to preach to Israel and he is saying that they will be persecuted, hated, and called all kinds of horrible names. The context of Matthew 24 is a bit of the opposite case; it's now about the end of the Jesus' gospel ministry instead about the beginning of it. During both periods of time, Jesus said they would be persecuted, but now, why not in the middle of the two? Don't get me wrong - I do know of missionaries who are persecuted in other countries and people who go to church in their country despite their country having laws/enforcements against it, but the majority of professing Christians don't get physically, verbally, or mentally persecuted in the way that Jesus said they would be.

However, my questions are the following: according to pre-tribulation pre-millennialists, when will (if they will be) professing Christians be persecuted throughout the world to the full extent that Jesus intended when he said "all nations" would hate Christians? and does persecution (from the world) accurately measure how we are following Jesus since

  18 If the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first. 19 If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. 20 Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. 21 But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:18-22 BSB

and also since Jesus said to

  4 Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. Just as no branch can bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me. John 15:4 BSB

So by being called to remain in Him, will we (according to pre-tribulation pre-millennialists) also, therefore, be called to be perfect and holy, bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and thereby provoking the world to jealousy, thus producing persecution?

Also, I hope to make this question have non-opinionated and non-biased (as humanly possible) answers. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve this question, please chime in below!


texts: Sarah laughed at God and He did not mind

texts:
When God told Abraham that he was to have a son the following year, bible recorded it that Sarah laughed in her heart

  Genesis 18:12-15

  12 Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I have become old, shall I
  have pleasure, my lord being old also?”

  13 And the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I
  indeed bear a child, when I am so old?’

  14 “Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I
  will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a
  son.”

  15 Sarah denied it however, saying, “I did not laugh”; for she was
  afraid. And He said, “No, but you did laugh.”

I can see here that Sarah committed two [great] sins. 1) She mocked God  2) She called God a liar by denying she laughed.

My question is why God chose to overlook her sins and did not punish her for that?


texts:
I listen to heavy music and I have had people tell me on numerous occasions the vocals sound like the voice of Satan, even when the band is clearly Christian (see For Today if you are curious). Movies tend to portray Satan with a raspy, scary, loud voice, but what does the bible say? And conversely, what does the bible say about the voice of God? Here are some verses I found:

Exodus 19:19 (NIV)

  As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and
  the voice of God answered him.

Deuteronomy 5:22 (NIV)

  These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your
  whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire...

1 Kings 19:12 (NIV)

  After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire.
  And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

Job 37:2-5 (NIV)

  Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice, to the rumbling that comes
  from his mouth.  ... After that comes the sound of his roar; he
  thunders with his majestic voice.  When his voice resounds, he holds
  nothing back. God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways...

I couldn't find anything on the voice of Satan.

Is the voice of the devil ever described in the Word or is it something man made?


texts: Is this interview with Pope Francis going to change Christianity?

texts: I was... surprised... to learn this morning that our Pope Francis does not believe in hell. Will this interview change the Catholic Church?


texts: What is "new" in the New Perspective on Paul?

texts:
What specially is new and different in the "New Perspective on Paul" movement? How can the differences to the "old" perspective be summarized?

Note: Please don't make this question about defending one view over the other, only concisely describing any significant differences between them.


texts:
The Immortality of the Soul is "the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence." (source).

What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?


texts: When should Water Baptism be done on a candidate?

texts:
Could you please give me any biblical supports as to when should water baptism be done to a candidate (assuming the candidate has already met the so called "requirements" before being baptized, such as repentance of all sins (past and present); acceptance of the Messiah as Personal Master and Savior; faith on the importance of our Savior's dying on the cross)?

When should the water baptism be done? Should it be on or during a biblical feast, such as Pesach, Shavout or Sukkot? For example, in Acts 2, Peter and the disciples had baptized 3000 believers during the Pentecost. On the water baptism of our Messiah by John, the Scripture is silent on when it was done; it could not be during or before any feast because after His baptism the Ruach Ha Khadosh brought Him to wilderness to be tempted for 40 days. In Acts 10:47-48, concerning the conversion of the centurion, his family and friends, Peter baptized them but again the Scripture is silent on when was it held.


texts: Mark 1:41 - Was Jesus indignant or compassionate?

texts:
http://biblehub.com/mark/1-41.htm

  New International Version
  Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"New Living Translation
  Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out and touched him. "I am willing," he said. "Be healed!"English Standard VersionMoved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.”(...)King James BibleAnd Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.(...)Jubilee Bible 2000
  And Jesus, having mercy on him, put forth his hand and touched him and said unto him, I will; be thou clean.(...)Young's Literal TranslationAnd Jesus having been moved with compassion, having stretched forth the hand, touched him, and saith to him, 'I will; be thou cleansed;'

Yesterday, we had two guys at a table note that their translations of Mark 1:41 said very different things. One guy said that his translation said that Jesus was "moved with compassion," while the other guy's translation said that Jesus was "indignant."

The puzzling thing is that both guys were reading an NIV. The one that said "moved with compassion" was the 1978 version, but the other was an ebook that the guy didn't know how to check the year of but I'm guessing is newer than 1978 since it's an ebook.

Looking at the above link, a lot of the translations (including a literal translation) say "compassion," "mercy" or "pity," which are all similar ideas, but only the NIV says Jesus was "indignant." We discussed this for a while and decided it makes more sense for Jesus to feel compassion than anger in this context, considering the way he reacts to similar situations elsewhere.

Is there a story behind why modern NIV translations say something completely different from the older ones, and different from all these other translations?


texts: Do Mormons/LDS believe that the Bible in any way predicts the coming of Joseph Smith?

texts:
The LDS/Mormon Church, as I understand it, believes that Joseph Smith, Jr. is a prophet of God who restored the true gospel, which had been lost over the centuries.  This, if true, would have been an extremely monumental event.

Are there any biblical prophecies (in the Old or New Testaments) that the LDS church points to as predictions of the coming of Joseph Smith and his work?


texts: Where are the manuscripts of Dean John Burgon?

texts:
Dean John Burgon (1813-1888) says in his book 'Revisions Revised' that he had catalogued 96,000 references to the scriptures in the early church fathers (such as Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine etc) in order to collate them in regard to Textual Criticism.
These 96,000 'Patristic Citations', as they are known, must be held somewhere but I could not find them at the British Library in London where I would have expected them to be documented.
Where else would these be catalogued ?


texts: Who is an "enemy" in the context of this video?

texts:
In the video The Mission of CBI Japan and The Gospel Coalition at approximately 1:25, there's a reference to obeying Christ's call to "love your enemies." (Related question)

I'm a bit confused as to what's meant by "enemies."

There's three interpretations I can think of:

One is a reference to World War II and other events. I'm not what nationality the speaker is, but I'm guessing either American or South Korean, both of whom would have regarded Japan as a past enemy. I don't know whether Christians regard the phrase "love your enemies" as being relevant to people from enemy countries - that sounds like a secular rather than a religious matter.
One is a reference to those who persecute Christians. This doesn't seem plausible to me, because although Japan is predominantly non-Christian, that doesn't equate to persecution. I suspect there's more hostility towards Christians in Australia or the United States than in Japan!
Wikipedia mentions an interpretation of all heathens as being "enemies". But this has a [citation needed] after it.

None of the interpretations seem that plausible. What's meant here?


texts: Did the Quartodecimans perform the eucharist only once a year on Nisan 14?

texts:
The Quartodecimans held a Christian
Passover on Nisan 14. Does this mean that they performed the eucharist (Lord's Supper) only once a year on Nisan 14, or was the Christian Passover something additional to a regular eucharist celebration?


texts: Are there any buildings standing that Jesus visited?

texts: I am wondering if there are any buildings that are still standing that Jesus visited. Thanks.


texts: What was Martin Luther's perspective on the early Christian church?

texts: Was Luther's belief that the church's foundation was faulty to begin with, or that through time it fell into an apostate state and needed to be reformed back?


texts: Is it enough for me to watch a sermon online every Sunday? I have some Christian friends that I spend time with and we pray together sometimes. I study the Bible on my own and listen to my favorite preacher online every week. What need would I have to get up and go to a brick and mortar church every Sunday?


texts: Why did Jesus commit Mary into the care of the beloved disciple, not James, who is known as his brother?

texts: According to John's Gospel Jesus on the cross committed his mother to the care of the Beloved Disciple, not to his brother, James. Admittedly James was not there. However, I wonder if this indicates that Mary was Joseph's second wife (as some have said) and that James was the Son of Joseph but not of Mary and Jesus was her only child. I know there are differences among churches about the duration of Mary's virginity, and proposals that Joseph also was a lifelong virgin, but I am looking for opinions that do not rely on dogma.


texts:
I’m having a discussion about abortion and taxes, and it was mentioned that Jehovah Witnesses have to pay taxes that fund blood transfusions.
Do Jehovah Witnesses believe it is immoral to pay for blood transfusions through taxation?


texts: Was Cain a descendant of the serpent, through Eve?

texts:
In an article by Ben Heath titled Sex Affair in the Garden of Eden, he claims that the sin for which God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden was sexual intercourse with the serpent.

Heath goes on to say that Cain and his descendants are literally physical descendants of the serpent, who he interprets as Satan. The doctrine seems to hold a central place in his other teachings.

Consider 2 Corinthians 11:2-3:

  For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Heath claims that when Paul uses words translated to deceived and beguiled in this and other verses, a better translation is the word seduced, in the sense of tempting to sexual immorality.

In addition, this website offers an apology of the doctrine, which it calls the serpent seed doctrine, saying:

  You see, those who denounce the Serpent seed teaching as heresy not only deny the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they also miss out on the first prophecy of the entire Bible.

According to mainstream Evangelical Protestant denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Assemblies of God, the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopalian Church, is the serpent seed doctrine a valid interpretation of Genesis 3 and subsequent verses in the New Testament about Eve and the serpent?


texts: How do eternal security believers explain these 2 scenarios?

texts:
I'm an eternal security believer but I'm struggling with how I should reconcile this with these two scenarios:

Lucifer falling from Heaven, losing his standing before God and becoming the Adversary that we now infamously know (i.e. Satan).
Adam and Eve spiritually dying the moment that they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of the good and evil, despite being spiritually alive before. Hence, why all humans need to be "born again", per John 3:3.

Were these 2 individuals the only individuals in the Bible to have "lost their salvation/right standing with God"? Or am I missing something here?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic view of Christian perfection or entire sanctification?

texts: Does the Roman Catholic Church have a view on Christian perfection or entire sanctification? If so what is it? To what degree do they believe believers can experience any amount of freedom from sin in this life?


texts: Has the Catholic Church ever opposed interracial marriage?

texts:
A fun refutation of gay marriage supporters who say on Facebook:

  Not too long ago cross-racial marriages were not allowed, supposedly by God.

would be to say, well that's not my church so what do I care, they should have been Catholic to begin with.

However, before I bite off more than is worth chewing and get my apologetic handed back to me in the form of an L on my forehead.  Has it ever been the position of the Universal Church, (not just the Honorable Rev. Bigotus) that people from different races should not marry or that racial purity in humans is an end worth pursuing?


texts: In Matthew 7:21-22 Jesus says for Him to know me I must do His will. There are plenty of scriptures that talk about God seeing us and knowing us, why then does Jesus say I didn't know you? Is it because the word 'know' is more of an intimate 'knowing' ie, a relationship?


texts: Religious justification for creating a large angry scene with the ostensible purpose of making people not gay

texts:
Yesterday, as I imagine happens at many places, a person came to my university, and for 6 hours or so, talked about "thousands of ex-homosexuals experiencing the love of Jesus Christ" and about how one can not be gay.

It was probably one of the most ugly scenes I have ever seen, with people yelling, screaming (both sides) cursing, etc.

My question is as follows: It is my understanding that an important christian ideal is love (i.e. not hate at minimum) one's fellow man, and that this is ace tenet of the religion.

Making a small assumption, I would assume that many people that were protesting, cursing at, yelling at, etc, the person that came to say his piece were incited to hate the individual that came.

While I am not making light of the way that both the new and old testament speak about homosexuality, at the same time, it prompts the question: Why is causing so many people to hate (something that is a core tenet, and a basic principle found throughout the gospels) worth what is honestly a very slight chance of changing their sexuality (something that is not mentioned in the gospels at all as far as I can tell)?

Am I missing something, or is this behavior not religiously justifiable?

Disclaimer: I don't know very much about Christianity, and therefore might be making false assumptions. Please correct me if that is the case.


texts: Where did Aquinas say that the "greatest penalty of sin is the loss of the sense of sin"?

texts:
Can someone point to me where St. Thomas Aquinas said that the, "greatest penalty of sin is the loss of the sense of sin"?

I heard this from Catholic Answers Live last week.


texts:
I'd like to understand the logistics of the Communion in the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's suppose there's a Mass with around 100 people attending Eucharist. Does this mean that the priest has a stack of around 100 Communion wafers, and the entirety of this stack is somewhere on the altar and undergoes transubstantiation? During elevation, is the priest holding only one piece and stores the remaining part somewhere else? Is there a fixed location in a church used to store (unconsecrated) bread?


texts: Which type of Baptism is preferred in today Catholic Parishes?

texts:
Didache 7

  Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first
  explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the
  Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water. But if you have no
  running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold
  water, then in warm. If you have very little, pour water three times
  on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the
  baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any
  others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two
  days beforehand.

According to this old document(~70 AD), here are four possible ways of Baptism, in order of preference.

Running water (Ocean, River etc.)
Still and cold water (Lake, pool, tanks etc.)
Still but warm water
Pouring on the head 3 times (least and exceptional case)

This article on Immersion Baptism is also in favor of immersion. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239 says

  The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly
  speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and
  entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to
  the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most
  expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However,
  from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring
  the water three times over the candidate's head.

As per the CCC, there are two types of Baptism, immersion and pouring. Which one is in common practice today? Which one is preferred today?

Is immersion still practiced in Catholic Parishes today?


texts: What Saints have given guided written meditations?

texts: Recently I have found meditations by St. Francis de Sales in his Introduction to the Devout life, and St Ignatius Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises, that I find have helped to deepen my faith.  Are there any other guided written meditations by other Saints?  I am looking for something more in depth than a paragraph meditation, on that really helps you to meditate on the deeper meaning.


texts: According to Protestantism, why God did not inspire New Testament writers to explicitly assert Sola Scriptura?

texts:
I think it is a fairly uncontroversial claim that the Bible (and particularly the NT) does not explicitly assert Sola Scriptura (e.g. here, here).

Now, if God fully inspired the Bible (even to the point of inerrancy), it is fair to ask, from a Protestant point of view, why God did not inspire biblical authors to explicitly assert Sola Scriptura?

Although the answer "only God knows" is surely valid, theologically speaking, it is uninteresting. There must be several Protestant theologians (and perhaps early Reformers themselves) who have addressed this question, perhaps as an attempt to respond the obvious rebut "but Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible".


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?

Making illegal copies of films, music, books and games
Downloading and seeding torrents
Using someone else's program code without license
Plagiarism (which is like breaking 9th Commandment)

Are the things listed above sinful?

Does it depend on whether we're making money from it?


texts: Did any ancient source believe in more than four gospels?

texts:
I'm listening to a lecture series by Dale Martin (Professor of Religious Studies, Yale), and he makes the passing claim that during development of the New Testament canon there were some who thought that four  gospels should be considered authoritative, but some thought five, and some six.

I can't seem to find any ancient source to back this up. Certainly more than four gospels existed, but are there ancient sources that equates any of them as on par with the four canonical gospels? A list that includes the Gospel of Thomas along side Luke? Or a document that freely quotes from Mark and the Gospel of Peter?

I guess 2 Clement is a possibility, but given the author's usage of the Gospel of Thomas and possibly the Gospel of Peter, perhaps they are better examples.


texts: Was the Nicene Creed accepted under duress?

texts:
In the book Are you Really that Stupid? Observations of a Skeptical Believer, author Joshua Christian makes the claim that the Nicene Creed was accepted under less than ideal (from a theological standpoint) circumstances, involving political maneuvering, blackmail, threats as well as actual instances of violence, in an effort by Constantine to forge a "unified" church, and thus a unified empire.

  [Constantine] now began to pressure all bishops to sign. Arians refusing to sign were exiled.

  ...

  The pressure from the emperor was so great and his reactions so feared that attendees justified their signatures thusly; Apuleius wrote "I pass over in silence... those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane." "the soul is nothing worse for a little ink."

  Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi reported that out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted the creed. Only after returning home did other attendees ... summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, "We committed an impious act, O Prince ... by subscribing to blasphemy from fear of you."

(Emphasis mine)

To what extent is this an accurate account of the Council of Nicaea?


texts:
While this question is similar to this question, I'm certain the answer will be very different, and far more complex....

How was the Old Testament compiled?


texts: Did Jesus say to preach to Gentiles, or not?

texts: Besides Paul, who never met Christ, was Jesus' message ever meant to be told to the Gentiles?


texts:
In Catholicism, one can discern between a robber Council and a true Ecumenical Council: the Pope gives his ratification of one and not the other. Therefore we know that the correct Council was adopted.

Question

In Eastern Orthodoxy, on what basis is one Council accepted (an orthodox Council) and another rejected (a 'robber' Council)—which doesn't strip an Ecumenical Council of its binding authority to teach and inform (i.e. place judgement of Councils on something below the authority of an Ecumenical Council)?1

Thanks in advance.

1 Catholicism rejects the notion that an Ecumenical Council is above the authority of the Pope, which is called the Conciliarist heresy.


texts: Is my view of the Trinity accurate, and what is exactly the role of the Holy Spirit

texts:
I am an Atheist from a Muslim background, I would like to know exactly how do Christians think of Trinity (Especially the Holy Spirit)?

Most Muslims see "Trinity" as three separate persons or entities (God, Christ and the Holy Spirit), although they truly believe (according to the Qur'an) that Jesus is a prophet (human), and that he was supported by the Holy Spirit (Ruh Al-Qudus روح القدس in Arabic, or Ruah Ha-Qodesh רוח הקודש in Hebrew).

The reason Muslims think Christians believe in three Gods, is because Qur'an says so, although it does not necessarily reflect what the doctrine of Trinity stands for.

Anyway, the way I think of it personally is as if God is a man (the father), deliberately controlling the movement of a puppet that looks like a human body (Jesus). And that Jesus is not independent of God as a person, in my own understanding of this idea, is that Jesus and God are actually one person, it is just that unlike other humans, who control their own bodies, Jesus is controlled directly by God Himself.

That is an analogy of what I understand when a Christian tries to explain it.

But I still fail to understand the role of the Holy Spirit? is it like the strings used to connect the Body (Jesus, Son) with the Soul (God, Father) ?

Am I wrong here? Thank you.

Note : Although the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Qur'an, it does not give a definition or account for the word. The Qur'an only states that God sent Jesus as a human prophet, and that He supported him with/through the Holy Spirit.

By the way, there is also a Hadith in Islam, that states that all humans sin, except Jesus.


texts: What does Leviticus 25:10 mean in context?

texts:
The Liberty Bell has an inscription with a quote from Leviticus 25:10:

  Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.

My question is, what does that quote mean in its original context?  Clearly, although it might have been the intent of the people who made the Liberty Bell, it did not mean "Spread the philosophy of classical liberalism to everyone", because liberalism is of course a doctrine that only born in the Enlightenment.  So what does liberty mean in this passage?  Does it mean freeing slaves or something?


texts: How do dispensationalists understand the "antichrists" and "last hour" in 1 John 2:18?

texts:
It seems that a large contingent of Christians believe the antichrist will come soon or at some future time and set in motion the eschatological "end times."
How, then, can dispensationalists reconcile what John says about the "end times" and the coming of anti-Christ in his first Apostolic letter chapter 2 verse 18?

  1 John 2:18, NAB
  Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.


texts: Besides Paul, were there any other enemies of the early church who converted to Christianity?

texts:
As I was listening to a debate between Drs. William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, something Dr. Carrier said caught my attention. He claimed that "[Paul] is alone, actually; there's no other enemies of the church that were converted to join the church." I immediately got a hunch that this was unlikely, but I haven't had any luck in finding other antagonists to the early church who were converted.

Based on the New Testament and contemporary (within the 1-200 AD "Early Church" period) historical records, were there any other enemies of the church, aside from Paul, who converted to Christianity?

For reference, the debate can be found here, and the point containing the quote starts at 1:28:32.

I would greatly appreciate citations in any answers that you might offer.

To further clarify: I'm not looking for answers from sources that Dr. Carrier would necessarily accept as credible (although citations from extra-biblical, historical sources are definitely encouraged). To place a constraint like that on the question might make it impossible to answer, as he states in the video that he doesn't view the gospels as credible. I would certainly accept answers that reference the gospels.

Also, for the purposes of this question, I would define an "enemy of the church" during the apostolic time period as someone who actively persecutes or opposes Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christian churches.


texts: Do these videos represent JW meetings or do they have other secret/sacred meetings that are not available to public?

texts:
[Related to this question but that one is about teachings while this one is about meetings in general]

The answer to this other question about Mormon meetings says about meetings at Mormon temples:

  Temples are very special and sacred places that are only available to
  members of the church in good standing. The worship ceremonies that
  are performed inside are not often discussed outside of the temple,
  not because they're secret, but because they're sacred.

I wanted to ask a similar question about Jehovah's Witnesses as there's this "Theocratic Meetings" YouTube channel that seems to have video feeds of Jehovah's Witnesses meetings. This channel has videos of two types of meetings: "Midweek Meetings" and "Weekend Meetings". The videos for both meeting types are about 1 hr 40 minutes long.

Do JWs have meetings or ceremonies that are not included on this
channel because they are "for members only"?
Are these videos actual and complete Jehovah's Witness meetings or
are there ceremonies that are done in these meetings but not shown
publicly?

Editor's note on November 1, 2019: the linked YouTube channel has no public content and neither YouTube video is publicly visible. They were present at the time of this question, however.


texts: Can a Christian have clinical depression?

texts:
God can grant an amazing peace of mind to a person. Many Christians have been totally calm and prayed for their persecutors while being tortured and killed -- like Stephen, the first martyr.

But do all Christians (I mean those who are saved) have the same kind of peace, or any kind of peace at all? I'd thought a Christian can be completely desperate and hopeless, even to the point of committing suicide. I came across an answer with another point of view, which made me question first the answer, then my own views.

What does the Bible say about this, and what do churches teach?
Can a Christian be desperate and hopeless?
What about clinically depressed?


texts: Where did the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of Old Testament laws come from and when was it popularized?

texts:
When answering this question: How many laws from Old Testament are still valid in New Testament? I was reminded that my answer is not Biblically derived in making the trinary distinction of Old Testament Laws described below:

  Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.
  Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
  Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

To the ancient Jews they were all the same and the Bible makes no apparent distinctions among any of them.

First, does this view have a name? That would make things easier. Now I wonder where did this distinction come from and when was it popularized (because I suspect it is a very old)?

Please do not provide biblical support for this view in your answers unless there is an actual distinction somewhere. I only want to know where it came from and when it was popularized.


texts: Do Lutherans believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (similar to Catholics), and if so, how do they reconcile this with Sola Fide?

texts:
During my internet adventures browsing theological articles and blogs, I somehow picked up the idea that in a similar way to Catholics, Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration and that baptism is, therefore, necessary for salvation.

I also picked up the idea that Lutherans have a robust "high" sacramental theology, similar to Catholics. However, perusing the Wikipedia article on "Lutheran Sacraments" reveals that Lutherans only believe in 3 sacraments, not 7.

I'm wondering, does Lutheranism believe that their sacraments are necessary for salvation (Baptism, Eucharist, Penance)? And if so, how do they reconcile that with the classic Protestant "Salvation by Faith alone" doctrine?


texts: What did the early church fathers have to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”

texts:
I am trying to find out what the early church fathers had to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”.  By that, I refer to the following Bible verses:

To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy... (Jude 24)

...whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:27-28).

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30)

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

From verses such as these, Protestants understand that our eternal security is purchased by Christ, promised by the Father, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.  This assurance is experienced by Christians who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whose lives have been transformed as evidence of the new birth and who live for Christ Jesus and who are prepared to die for Him – born-again Christians.
I say this not to promote a particular belief but to clarify what I mean by expressions like “eternal security” and “assurance of salvation”.  Neither do I wish to enter into a discussion on the theology.  I simply want to know what the early church fathers had to say on this subject.


texts: What are the main differences between the Catholic Popes and the Mormon Prophets?

texts:
I ask this question, as a Catholic, because Mormonism is hierarchical in structure and has a lot of similarities with Catholicism, although seemingly they are superficial as in being surface impretions but I digress.

This question, and the answers, will help shed light on a lot of misunderstandings, I think. Taking something most of us are familiar with, like the Pope (and these days he is quite popular) and contrast him with a leader not so well known which is the Prophet.

  The Specific Elements I Expect in the Answers :

  On Church Management in General

  (1) If both claim the Petrine Seat(by succession or?).

  (2) If both have a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers"  in union with the Pope or Prophet.

  (3) If both have universal jurisdiction as universal pastors of their respective churches. Meaning that they can operate in all
  churches as if they were the head of those individual churches, no
  need to appeal to the locals.

  (4) If both are completely immune from stepping down from the office unless it is their own decision to step down.

  (5) If believers are encouraged to listen to the leader above any other in the hierarchy in case of disagreement between the leader and others
  on none dogmatic issues, as well as disagreements outside of the Church on politics for example.

  On Infallibility

  (6) If both claim to be infallible under certain conditions(if so what are they?) by virtue of their office in the eyes of God.

Of course if the two views differ, the one answering must explain where they differ. It does not need to be overly detailed, one  authoritative official reference for both sides per point will suffice.


texts: How do Trinitarians understand what it means for Jesus to grow 'in favor' with God?

texts:
Luke 2:52 says

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Berean Study Bible)

From a unitarian perspective, the idea that Jesus, who is a man, grew in favour with God seems pretty straightforward. However, it's not clear to me how Trinitarians understand this part of the verse. Jesus is God, so how does God grow 'in favor' with God? So

Who or what exactly is being referred to by 'God' here on a standard Trinitarian interpretation?

How does Jesus, who is God, 'grow in favor' with the referent of the term 'God' - what does that mean exactly?


texts: Is an adult convert to Catholicism required to accept everything in the Catechism before he/she is baptized?

texts:
Prior to being baptized, a prospective adult convert to Catholicism attends the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) wherein they are taught the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

According to Roman Catholicism, is there a requirement of agreement with the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church (i.e., 100% agreement) before a convert is permitted to be baptized?


texts: Could a Christian remain in the sect of the Pharisees?

texts:
Acts 15:5 reads:

  But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed
  stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to
  order them to observe the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5 NET)

This verse does not explicitly state that these Pharisees left or were expelled from the sect upon converting to Christianity.

Are there any historical documents that discuss what would have happened to a member of the Pharisees upon conversion to Christianity?


texts: Did Crimen sollicitationis threaten excommunication for victims reporting crimes to the civil authorities?

texts: Crimen sollicitationis a 1962 document by the Catholic Church describing how various matters should be handled by Church law. I have heard differing claims from various people as to whether the penalty of excommunication applied to a victim reporting their case to the civil authorities. Can anyone confirm how this document was applied?


texts:
What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? Is she a true prophet by the biblical standard?

(This question has been prompted by the comments to the answer to What did the serpent look like?)


texts: Are Christians called to forgive Unbelievers?

texts:
In Matthew 18:21-22, we are asked to forgive not just seven, but "seventy times seven" (unlimited) times our brother.

However, is there any verse concerning how we are to forgive non believers ?


texts: How did Christians cultivate their knowledge of the Bible before mass-printing of the Bible?

texts:
The Bible is by far the most sold book ever. As this site says:

Bible Society’s attempt to calculate the number printed between 1816 and 1975 produced the figure of 2,458,000,000 – almost 2 and a half billion.
Another survey, for the years up to 1992, put it closer to 6 billion.

Nowadays, we could argue that most of Christians (families) own a Bible. But more importantly, most of Christians can read, which mean they, in principle, can read and study the Bible.
However, this has not always been the case. On the one hand, for most of the last two millennia, most of the people were illiterate. The existing data shows that literacy in now-developed countries started to improve only by the Enlightenment period, reaching +80% less than 200 years ago. Such levels of literacy in majority Christian countries of Latin America were only reached less than a century ago:

On the other hand, the availability of Bibles, particularly before the invention of the printing press and the "Gutenberg revolution", was quite constrained. Before the invention of the printing press, bibles were manually copied, primarily by monks. This was a time consuming process, making bibles quite expensive. Thus, bibles were perhaps primarily available in churches, monasteries and some rich individuals' houses (who were the ones that could read, anyway).
So, the question I have is, how did the majority of Christians cultivated their knowledge of the Bible (OT and/or NT)? Probably, one of the original intentions of the writing of the gospels was to make Jesus' teaching and life more widely available for Christians across churches. With the establishment of the Canon of the Bible, this process became mainstream across the established Church (e.g. the commission of the Vulgate by Pope Damasus I).
My intuition tells me that most of Christians learned about the Bible by popular sayings, stories, and calendar celebrations (like Christmas). Those who attended a church service or Mass would learn also from the lectures and sermons. Is there a formal/historical analysis of this situation? Perhaps a book that goes through this?


texts: From the Reformed perspective, what is the meaning of the tearing of the veil in Matt. 27:51?

texts:
Matt. 27:51,

  "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"  (KJV)

Also from Mark 15:38,

  "And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."  (KJV)

Others have maintained that the veil of the temple was different than the veil of the tabernacle; and that the veil of the temple referred only to a first veil hung before the entrance to the temple from the inner court.

But, the Pulpit Commentary at BibleHub offers:

  " The veil of the temple (τοῦ ναοῦ). There were two principal veils in the present temple - one between the vestibule and the holy place, and one other which is that here referred to, a constituent part of the edif[i]ce. This was the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies, which was moved aside only once a year to admit the high priest to the shrine on the great Day of Atonement (Exodus 26:33). It was large and costly, some sixty feet high, and made of rich materials. "  Source: here

And, Vincent's Word Studies offers:

  "According to the Rabbis this was a handbreadth in thickness, and woven of seventy-two twisted plaits, each plait consisting of twenty-four threads. It was sixty feet long and thirty wide. Two of them were made every year, and according to the exaggerated language of the time it needed three hundred priests to manipulate it. This veil was the one which covered the entrance to the holy of Holies, and not, as has been asserted, the veil which hung before the main entrance to the sanctuary."  Same source as above.

The interlinear Greek uses "σκηνὴ" or "skene" for both "tabernacles" in Heb. c. 9 which shows no distinction in a temple vs. a tabernacle for the holy and most holy places.  But, in Matt. 27:51 the Greek is "ναοῦ" or "naou" for "temple".

Were there two veils, and if so which one was torn?  And, what is the significance of the torn veil?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement?

texts:
Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect.

What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?


texts: What denominations subscribe to or accommodate the Annihiliationist doctrine of hell?

texts: I am interested in what denominations allow or require the belief that hell is the annihilation of a conditionally immortal soul rather than the eternal suffering or eventual redemption of such.


texts: What is the difference between original sin and original guilt?

texts: This is a question that every convert to Eastern Orthodoxy always asked. The question can be stated differently: Does the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin include Original Guilt? Fr. John Romanides famously distinguish Ancestral Sin from St. Augustine's Original Sin, claiming the later was erroneously introducing Manichaean view of Original Guilt into Latin theology. Fr. Vladimir Moss wrote extensively to show why the doctrine of Original Sin is Apostolic in origin and dogmatically sound in Orthodoxy. To further clarify why original sin and ancestral sin are not substantially different? It's important to address what is the difference between Original Sin and later theological development from Protestant on Original Guilt?


texts: According to dispensationalism, why will Satan follow what is written in Revelation?

texts: According to dispensationalists, many end times events are literally laid out in the book of Revelation. Specifically about the Anti-Christ and his motive. And we do know what is 666 and why it will be used for. So why should Satan follow the Bible to do everything mentioned in it? There is no need to follow the Bible and hence he acts against Jesus. Why should Satan follow the same number and same process? It is well written how Satan is going to fall. He should go for alternate way right? Like not using 666 or not revealing himself as a Anti-Christ or something?


texts: How does the life of Joseph (son of Jacob) foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah?

texts:
In theology, there are many things identified in the Old Testament as foreshadowing things in the New.  The life of Joseph, the son of Jacob, is one of these that is identified as such the life of Jesus.

What is the identification based on and how exactly does the life of Joseph foreshadow the life of Jesus the Messiah?


texts: According to Catholicism, is the power of exorcism the fruit of the true church?

texts: According to Catholicism, is a Catholic priest's power of exorcism acceptable evidence of the Catholic Church's truth and validity of its claim to be the one true church?


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for Sola Scriptura?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is the basis for Sola Scriptura?

Is there anywhere in the Bible that says Christians should be Sola Scriptura?


texts: What is Alvin Plantinga's view on divine sovereignty and free will?

texts:
The main Wikipedia page on Molinism lists Plantinga as one of its (Molinism's) best known advocates.  However, Plantinga, in a speech given at Azusa Pacific University, describes himself as "a Calvinist, of a certain kind" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UDnOcS20HM 30:55).

Does anyone familiar with Plantinga's work know exactly what his view is, whether it is a hybrid, or has changed from Calvinism to Molinism (or vice-versa) over time?  I am interested in whether he is mainly in agreement with William Lane Craig on this matter, or actually has a more Calvinistic worldview, and if the latter, if and how he has defended this view against objections similar to Craig's (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism).  Of course, I would not expect him to have engaged Craig himself, but certainly these arguments against Calvinism have been around for some time.  It goes without saying that such a defense could have relevance in the life of a Christian contemplating the truth of these views.


texts: Why was Christ's sacrifice such a big cost?

texts:
Many hymns refer to the immense cost that Jesus paid on the cross. In one sense this is consistent with evangelical theology in that Jesus was taking the sins of the world upon himself.

But some songs use phrases like "You gave up everything for me", or "So infinite the cost". What can that mean? Presumably it must be either the Incarnation or, more likely, his sacrifice on the Cross, right? But, well, Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, and ascended back into heaven 40 days after that, going back to the Father.

It always seems to me that Jesus, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, had spent a long time in heaven even after Earth was created before his first coming (at least four thousand years and possibly millions); he's spent at least two thousand years between his first and second comings; and will have eternity with the redeemed praising him after the second coming. So why is spending 3 days (or rather 1-and-a-half days) separated from the Father, or even 33 years on earth, such a big sacrifice in the grand scheme of things? Even more so given "a thousand years are like one day to the Lord".

I'm most interested in answers compatible with a (British) evangelical position, but up for helpful answers from anyone :)


texts: What is the biblical basis for a marriage not sanctioned by the government being a sin?

texts:
If, in fact, the bible is the authority for what Christians believe: what scripture(s) form the basis for the belief that living together in a committed relationship not legally married, is a sin?
The Marriage license was not in existence until the early 1900's. Despite the lack of a government issued legal document, Christians still considered themselves married before that time, are there any scriptures that support that belief or defines what is required by God to be 'Married'? To clarify, my question is:what is the biblical basis for undocumented marriages being sinful?


texts: Did early Chinese Protestant actually call God "(old) Gentleman of Fiery Magnificence", as Wikipedia says?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on 'Chinese names for the God of Abrahamic religions' claims that:

  Protestants originally rendered [the Tetragrammaton] as Yéhuǒhuá (爺火華, literally "(old) Gentleman of Fiery Magnificence," cf. English "Jehovah").

I would love to know if this were true, because it sounds quite strange and funny at the same time.  However, there are no specific citations for this claim, and I can't find from basic googling any English language information backing up this claim. (I don't speak a word of Chinese, so it's possible there's ample evidence on the Sinophone internet that I haven't seen)  Is this actually  true?


texts: When does the obligation to attend Mass begin?

texts:
Does the obligation to attend Mass begin after you have been baptized?

If you were baptized as a child do your parents have to bring you to Mass with them and after a certain age you must decide to go on your own?


texts: Psalms 22, The correlation between King David and Jesus?

texts:
Was the words spoken by David in his time of trouble similar to Jesus words on the cross "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Is it a correlation between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Being that King David and Jesus Christ came from the same "blood " line...Just an interesting thought.


texts: Why does Catholicism impose restrictions on receiving the Eucharist?

texts: At the Last Supper, Jesus commands us to "do this in remembrance of me" (cf. I Cor. 11:24); so, why are there stipulations to receive the Eucharist? Why does the Catholic Church seem to put obstacles to fulfilling one of Jesus' commandments?


texts: If we are saved by grace, then why does Jesus say we must be baptized in both spirit and water?

texts:
Ephesians 2:4-9 says:

  But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He
  loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive
  together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up
  with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ
  Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches
  of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you
  have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the
  gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
  (NASB)

This passage along with various others in the Bible lead us to believe that only by grace we are saved.  Therefore, we are saved when we put our faith in Christ alone, realizing that it was by His blood alone that we have forgiveness of all our past, present, and future sins.  This is known as being "baptized in the Holy Spirit."

However, in John 3:1-5, we see this:

  Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
  Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know
  that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these
  signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to
  him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot
  see the kingdom of God.”  Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be
  born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s
  womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to
  you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into
  the kingdom of God. (NASB)

So in this passage, Jesus is saying that we must be "born of the spirit" (putting our faith in Jesus alone, as mentioned above) and "born of water" (physically immersed in water as a public profession of your faith)?

I believe--and have seen plenty of strong evidence that supports--that it is by your faith in Jesus alone that saves you, and therefore allows you to live eternally in Heaven when you die or the Lord comes back.  However, this verse has always given me trouble with my previously stated belief, and I can't seem to mesh the two together.

So ultimately I am asking this: How do the above two verses correlate with one another in teaching, and why did Jesus say what He did in the Gospel of John if it is only by our faith in Him that allows us to enter into Heaven?


texts: My wife is dressing my son Francis up as... St. Francis for an All Saints party.  I think the timeline is thus that St. Francis could have prayed the Rosary, but it was more of a Dominican thing to do.  Would he have prayed the Rosary or would he have avoided it as being something the distinguished his order from St. Dominic's?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief in incubus and succubus (sex demons)?

texts:
Many people believe in the existence of demonic entities who sexually assault people at night. They are popularly known by the names of incubus and succubus. I don't want to share explicit material on here, but with some quick searches it's not hard to come by stories and first-hand testimonies of people who claim to have had encounters at night with these entities (just search on platforms such as YouTube, Reddit and many forums devoted to the paranormal/supernatural).
Is there any biblical basis to the belief in incubus and succubus? Do the Scriptures give any credence to the possibility of demons having any sort of sexual interaction with human beings?

To show that this is a belief held by many Christians, I invite the reader to check the following posts and books published by Christian deliverance ministries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If whole ministries are developed around the idea of setting people free from demonic oppressions, including sex demons, then it should stand to reason that many professing Christians who are either directly or indirectly linked to these ministries hold these beliefs.


texts: Jesus' Resurrection occurred before angel rolled back the tombstone?

texts:
Many exegetes claim, without proof, that Jesus resurrected before the angel rolled back the stone, in order to show that he passed through it as he could walk through doors or as he was born out of the Blessed Virgin Mother's closed, virginal womb.
Commentaries on

Mt. 28:2 And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 28:Christ had already risen: for as He went out from a closed womb, so He went out from the sealed tomb.

Ven. Bede, as quoted by St. Thomas in Catena in Mt. cap. 28 l. 1:"And came and rolled back the stone;" not to open the door for the Lord to come forth, but to give evidence to men that He was already come forth. For He who as mortal had power to enter the world through the closed womb of a Virgin, He when become immortal, was able to depart out of the world by rising from a sealed sepulchre.

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., Commentary on Matthew 22-28, ch. 28:And rolled away the stone, of the sepulchre of Christ. Not that He might rise out of it, for He had already risen while the sepulchre was closed, but that he might show to the women that Christ their God and Lord had already risen. Opening to them a way to the sepulchre, he showed it to them empty of the body of Christ. For as Christ was born from the closed womb of the Virgin, so also He rose from the closed sepulchre.

But what evidence is there that the Resurrection occurred before the angel rolled back the stone?


texts: Is the presence of evil necessary for good to be expressed?

texts:
In the New Age movement there is no difference between good and evil. 'Good' or 'Bad' actions are just actions that we label as good or bad based on our values.

They say that we are here to remember who we are not. That's why we experience all suffering and 'evil' in the world. Also our human limitations give us the sense of infinity after we die. For us to know what is cold we need to know what is hot and so on...

My question is:
Are evil & suffering necessary for us to experience goodness, love, etc.?

Is Christian perspective, if we stop fighting evil we will lose the sense of love? If not sacrifice, no act of love, etc.?

If this is not Christian perspective, what is it? I'm interested in any denominational opinion. Thanks.


texts: Ephesians 2:2, which one comes first in the Calvinist view?

texts:
Ephesians 2:2 reads:

  in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and
  of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work
  in those who are disobedient.

A. Because the spirit is at work to some people, those people become
disobedient.
B. Because some people are disobedient, the spirit is at work in
those people.

According to Calvinist, is A or B the correct one ?
Thank you.


texts: Why did John Wycliffe oppose papal authority in the 14th century?

texts: He's been called the "Eosphoros of the Reformation", but how did he come to believe that the Bible opposes the idea that papal authority is above government authority?


texts: From a Jehovah's Witness perspective, why don't we have the option to choose whether or not to come to this world?

texts:
I was one of Jehovah's witnesses and would still be one of them, but a question always disturbs me.

Sometimes I think about how life and all the pain and suffering we pass through from childbirth down the time of death, and the question I ask myself is: Why is it that when we are about to be conceived we do not have the option to choose to come into this world or not? If I were given that option I would not choose to come into this world that is filled with all of these problems, even with Jehovah's promise of a new world to come.

(Note: I would love a strong brother in the Jehovah's Witness faith to answer this question.)


texts: Does Exodus 3:14 explain who God is to everyone regardless of time and culture?

texts:
Exodus 3:14 states:

  God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’

This seems appropriate in regard to the Israelites since they have had knowledge of God beforehand, but what about in terms of today and other cultures? Can this as a stand-alone passage be used to describe who God is to a people other than the Israelites and possibly in this present time?

For example, I also read Hebrews 8:10:

  "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."

It seems to apply to the Israelites or "His people", that they should know "I Am" to be the author of these laws which are in their hearts. However, can this be sufficient to those who are not God's people or not Israelites? This passage causes a lot of confusion for those who  live in a culture steeped with traditions of "multiple-gods".

EDIT: Consequently, when Jesus proclaims himself as God, does that only explain who he is based on previous knowledge of who the Father is?


texts: Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

texts:
The christian morality derives from God, and God is benevolent so whatever he commands is morally good. Does that mean that anything God does or commands is morally right? Or does God only act and command that which is morally good?

If it is the former, would any act, no matter how despicable it would be to our current moral standards, be morally good, because God commands it? Or is there a moral standard independent from God, and God only commands what is morally good according to that independent standard?


texts: Does anyone know where CS Lewis said (or maybe implied) the following...?

texts:
"Several times, then, Lewis suggests that heaven will be a place where thinking and experiencing come together. On earth we think about what love is; in heaven Love is a Person we can experience. On earth we read books about many different things, especially God, on the one hand, while some of our experiences of Him are so intense that we cannot put them into words; in heaven the Divine Word speaks to us face to face in a language that lets us hear and say everything we never could before. In heaven to think a thing will be to do it; to do a thing will involve knowing it completely. On earth our words are abstract thoughts that never quite say everything we want them to. In heaven language is a person, and to communicate will be to offer everything we are and to receive back every thought, feeling, and meaning from those with whom we share words".

Charlie Starr


texts: Is 'pure' monotheism of more primitiveness and innateness than the Trinity is?

texts:
I know that it is shocking for Trinitarians to ask this question, but it seems to me that monotheism, pure monotheism is more primitive. While Trinity is of less primitiveness and of less common sense.

Primitive and common sense means near to the pure heart or near to the original state or pureness or innocence or innateness.

So, the question is: is pure monotheism of less primitiveness and of less innateness than Trinity or Tritheism?.


texts: Why don't creationists teach a literal firmament anymore?

texts:
People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood. I want to say they don't believe in the firmament anymore, but I am doubtful most creationists did. Why? Is it because it is too fantastical?

The problem is that such a notion seems to correlate with Genesis and seems to make a lot of other considerations more swallowable, such as the feasibility of centuries old lifespan, adequate conditions to sustain large animal life (dinosaurs, etc), and adequate water for a sudden flood. The only "scientific" model I've heard, coming from Dr Carl Baugh, asserts that waters from the deep under the earth came up and cracked open the firmament; his model is the only creation model that solves so many fundamental problems for creationism I am literally, truly perplexed as to how his model has been seemingly abandoned by the creationist community. I know of no direct arguments against this sort of firmament, except only alternative interpretations of its mention in Genesis. What am I missing?

--

It is the "canopy theory", I believe, that I had in mind in posting the question. My own only exposure to this was from a presentation by Dr Carl Baugh and by reading his old book, Panorama of Creation. I have had difficulty finding anyone endorsing his model, and his model is the only one that answers several questions. My frustration comes out of watching modern depictions via illustrations, 3D graphics, and simulated film artwork, attempting to use fine detail to tell what Genesis earth was like but not filling in these gaps. Blue skies, clouds, rainbows, all post-Noah, all completely against Baugh's model. Does it matter? In an age when modern illustrations like Hollywood are referenced in dialogue with apologetics and truth seekers, yes, I believe so.


texts: Why is "Friends" capitalized in 1 Maccabees in the NRSV?

texts:
Throughout 1 Maccabees in the NRSV, "Friends" is capitalized when referring to the King's friends.  Why is this?  My only guess is it's an official title.

Specifically, I would like to ask about 1 Maccabees 2:18:

  Now be the first to come and do what the king commands, as all the
  Gentiles and the people of Judah and those that are left in Jerusalem
  have done. Then you and your sons will be numbered among the Friends
  of the king, and you and your sons will be honored with silver and
  gold and many gifts.” [NRSV]


texts: What is the support for saying Jesus believed Genesis was a literal account of creation?

texts:
Ken Ham has said "I take Genesis as literal history, as Jesus did."

I've also seen this stated other places, but haven't seen anything that Jesus said which backs up this train of thought.

What is the Biblical support for stating that Jesus took the creation account in Genesis as literal history and not figuratively?


texts: What did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the OT?

texts:
Modern Christians have various ideas of salvation since Jesus came (going to heaven when you die; free from the curse of the law; set free from the flesh, the devil and the world; adopted into God's family, etc.).

What did salvation mean to the Israelites of the OT?


texts: What is the difference between "Elder led" and "Elder ruled"?

texts: In the church government and polity documents (as well as the myriad of meta discussion on the internet) for various Protestant traditions it is common to find either the term "Elder led" or "Elder ruled". What is the difference between these two terms?


texts: How do different Protestant denominations view the relationship between Israel and the Church?

texts:
I know there is some complicated theology, which I am not an expert in, regarding what I am about to ask.  I honestly don't even know the technical terms for what I am trying to describe.  I would like an overview of how different Protestant Christians understand this relationship, explaining the different bases for the following possibilities:

The belief that Israel "became" the Church
The belief that the Israel is still important and hasn't been entirely replaced by the Church


texts:
The title almost says it all:

What's the difference between the Gospel and the Bible? Does one contain  the other or what?
What does each one include?
Where did each one come from (or who authored each, if possible)?

Please forgive my ignorance; if the question is encyclopedic then answering the first item is enough.


texts: Why is the Catholic teaching that Mary's hymen remained intact during childbirth important?

texts:
I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (Summa Theologica q. 35 a. 6), Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (Mariology pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others.
Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism.  She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches.  She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass.
There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God.
In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary did not have pain giving birth to Jesus come from?), included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined.  This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity.  In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity.  Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition.
The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth.  It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child.
If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?


texts: How many prophecies from Hebrew Scriptures are fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s earthly life?

texts:
The number of prophecies from the OT  that are fulfilled in the birth and life of Jesus ranges as high as 456  depending on which group you ask.

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses state the exact number of prophecies they believe are thus fulfilled?


texts:
Cornelius Van Til was the pioneer of presuppositional apologetics, and was one of the founding members of Westminster Theological Seminary. The defenses of faith that he developed sought to apply the Reformed tradition to apologetics.

With Easter almost here this year, I was wondering how Van Til would address the resurrection with unbelievers? In particular, did he use historical proofs for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection?


texts: What is so appealing about Christianity?

texts:
Early Christianity soon after Jesus’ death, in spite of the whole powerful world being against the first believers, kept spreading rapidly in that region. More so because up to the point of Jesus' death he was a rebel and a heretic.  This is also in spite of the fact that people who were propagating it were just illiterate fisherman and ordinary people. I was imagining this scenario, when an ordinary fisherman coming and telling me stories about Jesus and strangely I believe whatever these simple chaps telling me.  No sword nor power but only a simple message of love. No amount of bloodshed or violence or any horrific punishment could muffle its spread.

Then after this initial struggle, a different kind of struggle continued over these two millenniums and is still continuing even now. During this period there were many forces acting against Christianity from outside but more dangerously from within. These internal forces were more dangerous elements who were in better position to discredit it and make it weak. Though this even continues till today, we find that it still striving and vibrant.

So what is that so appealing about Christianity in spite of its passive message?

{I don't think it is a duplicate of this question since that is about "how Christianity is different from other religions" whereas this  "how it survived and spread".


texts: What does it mean for God to be a person?

texts:
What does it mean when Christians say that God is a person? (Representative example here.) Does this mean that Christians believe that God is human?

My experience is with Judaism (in Judaism, God is not referred to as a person).


texts: Is it possible for an atheist to be moral?

texts:
This question is one that hasn't been hit (although it's been approached).

Is it possible for a person to not believe in God but live according to a moral standard?  Or is belief in God a prerequisite for morality?

Morality, defined
In order to help refine this question a bit, we'll have to define morality as the parts of the Bible that tell us what is "right" or "wrong", excluding the parts that talk about how we should worship God.  (I know that practically invalidates the Bible, Christianity, and almost all doctrines on morality, but I can't think of a better way to make sense of this.)

I want to point out that I am seeking a Christian perspective on this.  This does refine the question to deal with morality of the Bible more so than the broader definition of morality.


texts: In which one of the four Gospels is the Old Testament quoted the most?

texts: In which one of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is the Old Testament quoted the most?


texts: Does the Russian Orthodox Church recognize Adolf Hitler as a Saint?

texts: So, I recently found out about how the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces in Russia maintains a section containing Adolf Hitler's hat and uniform as relics within a wing of its building. Since it's my understanding the Catholic and Orthodox churches only maintain relics of the saints, does that mean that the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes Adolf Hitler as a saint? Can someone go to visit the church to see Hitler's hat and pray for him to pray to God on their behalf? If they don't regard Hitler as a saint, then why do they maintain his relics?


texts: According to the Bible narrative, who was the second descendant of Adam to die?

texts:
I was reading a sister site question, "How long (if at all), will it take for the amount of living to exceed the dead population?" and as I read through the answers I realized that until the death of Abel, no human had ever died.

According to the Bible narrative, who was the second person (after Abel) to die, and when did that person die?


texts: Matthew 24:15-20, If we can't go back and get our clothes, where are we to go?

texts:
I'm horrible at asking questions on here, so please bear with me.  As a Protestant, I'm struggling with finding answers to two questions dealing with Matthew 24:15-20.

In Matthew 24:17-18 (NASB), we are told:

  17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get
  the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must
  not turn back to get his cloak."

Lot's wife didn't take God's word literally and paid for it.  I don't want to make the same mistake.  Obviously we have to go somewhere because verse 20 says:

  "pray your flight not be on the sabbath."

According to the Protestant perspective, where are we supposed to go?

Also, why do we have to pray our flight isn't on the sabbath?

Apparently, "flight" during the sabbath would cause us to work, which according to John is not good.  Are we still supposed to keep the sabbath holy and not work? Is the sabbath still holy?  I thought we didn't "have" to observe the sabbath anymore.


texts: Isaiah 25:6 "On this mountain, the Lord of Heavenly Forces"

texts: Where does title "Lord of Heavenly Forces" come from?


texts: Why did the children of Israel run out of food in the wilderness, causing them to complain?

texts:
In the wilderness, the children of Israel on more than one occasion ran out of food and/or water to the point that they complained about it to Moses.

They probably had no way to get food or water on their, depending on the land.  They were completely dependent on God to provide for them.

When they ran out, they would complain to Moses.

Why did it go that far?  Why didn't God provide for them, or why didn't Moses ask God to provide for them, before they ran out?

God and Moses seem to be upset that they are complaining about the food.  Should they have asked for food/water?  Or should they have continued to wait without any food/water for it to be provided?

Presumably, Moses drank the same water they did, so he would also be in the same situation of having nothing to drink.


texts: According to Trinitarian belief how is Isaiah 48:16 interpreted?

texts:
According to belief in the Holy Trinity, how is Isaiah 48:16-17 interpreted?

According to belief in the Trinity is the Holy One of Israel Jesus Christ? Or is God the Father the Holy one of Israel, and why? Or is it The Father, Son and Holy Spirit speaking as one?

  Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. (Isaiah 48:16-17, KJV)


texts: Does the Westminster Confession affirm or deny Luther's predilection for Paul's writings?

texts:
My understanding is that the Westminster Confession is the official defining document of "Reformed theology". That is, if someone is "Reformed" then they agree completely or almost completely with the WC. So my question is about Reformed theology as is defined in the WC.

Also my understanding is that the WC purports to represent the beliefs of the "Reformers" which would include Martin Luther.

My understanding is also that in Reformed theology the entire soteriology of the scriptures are unified in boiling down to two covenants, one of "grace" and one of "works". This means that while Exodus and Romans appear different they are actually only superficially different because at their chewy center they describe the same covenant.

But my understanding of Luther's view was that Paul's gospel was unique and different even from that of the 12. For example, he called James' epistle and "epistle of straw" because it did not share the same core as Paul's letters did. And Luther arranged the NT letters in order based on how consistent they were with Paul.

I'm relating all this because I may be mistaken on some of these points so I wanted to clarify what my impressions are so they can be clarified and that might obviate my question.

But here's my question. Am I correct that the Reformed view of the scriptures is that they actually teach the same gospel in Exodus, Romans and James? Or do they instead affirm Luther's view that Paul's gospel is new and different and not merely superficially different from that of Exodus and James?


texts: Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?

texts:
As I was raised: God is all-loving, and He wants us to be all-loving too.

But, as you may know, homosexuals—particularly in America—have been shown hatred, and even violence (1)(2)(3)(4) from some members of the Christian community. The Wikipedia article on Christianity and homosexuality suggests some of the views from various denominations, but it's largest claim remains unsupported (i.e. that "most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual relationships and sexual acts are sinful." Check the references, they are broken links or only refer to the Methodist Church, so they don't speak for "most Christian denominations").

As I dug deeper into the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, I saw some passages which indicated that homosexuality might be a sin, but the articles are poorly written and lack verifiable citations. Either way, I wasn't able to find any indication that God condones violence by mankind towards homosexuals. You would think that those who so vehemently hate homosexuals would also think that homosexuals are going to Hell when they die; that their fate will be gruesome enough such that anything a human does to add to it prematurely would be like kicking someone who's already dead. Maybe they really haven't thought that one through?

So I'm curious if there is any Biblical support for the idea that God wants us to be cruel to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter). Please carefully note that I'm not merely asking if the Bible is against homosexuality; I'm asking if there is a basis for showing hatred towards others, particularly gays.


texts:
In John 8:1-11, a woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus and was demanded to judge her according to the Law of Moses. Jesus told them that anyone without sin can stone her. No one dared to cast the first stone, probably because they realized that they were not blameless and ultimately everyone left. Now at this point, Jesus could have said,

  "Okay woman. Seems like their is no one without sin who can stone you. Now listen, I am the God of Abraham, I am the God who gave the Law to Moses and since I
  am without sin, I am the only one who can stone you now. As it is not
  right to break the Law that I myself had made, I am now going to stone you to
  death!"

Instead, Jesus said,

  "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more".

Did Jesus break the Law of Moses?
Why didn't Jesus stone the adulteress as He is qualified to stone her?
What can we learn from this story?

Please provide elegant interpretations from any denominations and theologians on this topic.


texts: What is the Scriptural Basis Against the Trinity

texts:
Trinitarianism, or the Trinity, is the belief that God exists as three persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) seperate, but co-equal.

This view is labelled as a heresy by some denominations and orthodoxy by others. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against trinitarianism?


texts:
John 20:24-29
  24Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So 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.”
  26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
  28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
  29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I either always lazily read or remember being taught that Thomas actually touched Jesus's side (or maybe The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio influenced me). But under close reading it appears that Thomas didn't touch Jesus, he merely saw Jesus because the scripture doesn't explicitly say he touched Jesus and Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (emphasis added mine).

Is this a good interpretation and/or is there any other scripture that would support or not support this?


texts: List of papal teachings considered infallible

texts:
After reading When does the Pope speak ex cathedra? I became curious and searched for a list of statements, but couldn't find one.

Does such list exist and if not, why is this the case?


texts: Are there any bundles of subsets of the New Testament that are common?

texts:
In Christianity you have the idea of the "Old Testament". In Judaism, this is broken down into smaller (and larger) chunks. You can find it in the Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament. You can find it in the Tanach, the source of the Old Testament in Christianity. This is divided into the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. Then there are the Five scrolls (Hamesh Megillot). I'm not sure how the Dead Sea Scrolls fit into all this....

But I'm wondering if there are any formal/standard ways of subdividing the New Testament in a similar way. Perhaps there are the Gospels (the 4 first books). Does that count as a standard subset? Then what else for the remainder of the New Testament?

Wikipedia divides it up like this:

The Gospels
Apostolic History
Catholic Epistles
Pauline Epistles
Apocalypse

But that sounds more like categorization than a collection of books like how the Tanach does it. I am trying to imagine, "if I saw a book named 'X', would I know it was part of the New Testament?". So if I saw a book named "The Gospels", I would actually think this is the 4 gospels starting the New Testament. Maybe that's just me? Then if I saw "The Catholic Epistles", I wouldn't think that is a subset of the NT, but maybe it would suffice? Is there a better way?


texts: Is prayer obligated in Christianity, and if so how many times a day?

texts:
Is prayer obligated in Christianity (as it's in Judaism and Islam), and if so how many times a day?
I've heard so many different pieces of information and I'm confused about it.


texts: What is the biblical argument for eating meat, or that vegetarianism is possible but not commanded?

texts:
Vegetarianism seems to becoming more and more popular in various parts of the world today.  Some even claim that Christians should be vegetarians to be in line with the command against killing.

What, then, is the biblical argument in support of eating meat?


texts:
In Rom. 7:18 is stated: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not."

Does this mean that for Paul 'free will' exists but only to perform it is impossible.

Does this verse present a similar point of view as what Rudolf Steiner says that: ' Steiner (1861–1925) initially divides this into the two aspects of freedom: freedom of thought and freedom of action.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Other_views

Or would this verse of Paul be closer to other forms of (in)comptabilism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Western_philosophy


texts:
In Mark 8 and Matthew 16 after the feeding of the four thousand Peter declares Jesus as the messiah. Immediately after this Jesus tells his disciples not to reveal his identity.

How does this reconcile with how in John 6:40 Jesus reveals himself to Jews in the feeding of the five thousand which occurs before the feeding of the four thousand?

Even more problematic is how Jesus tells the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem that they search the scriptures for eternal life, when in actuality they speak of Jesus. This event occurs even before the feeding of the five thousand in John 5:39.


texts: What is the estimated membership of Eastern Lightning?

texts:
Eastern Lightning is a 20th century Chinese Christian movement, primarily known for its belief that God returned to Earth as the woman Yang Xiangbin to lead humanity a third and final time (after Yahweh in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament).

However, the Wikipedia article currently lacks any information about membership. Given that the Chinese government considers the group to be an "evil cult" (邪教; xiéjiào) and tries to suppress it, I suspect that reliable numbers are hard find, but I would like to know how large it’s membership is estimated to be. Is it hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

If possible, I would like to have estimates of their membership both before and after their failed 2012 doomsday prophecy, given that the event was a heavy recruitment tool.


texts: What is the historical reason the King James Version was created?

texts: Many years ago, I heard someone say that the KJV came about because King James I wanted a version of the Bible that supported him getting a divorce. Nowadays, I can't help but wonder how true this is. Thus, I'm asking for the historical reasons the KJV came about.


texts: Which Christian denominations believe Jesus is buried in Japan?

texts: The town of Shingo in Japan claims to be the burial site of Jesus of Nazareth: someone took his place on the cross, and he made his way to Japan, where he died. (Wikipedia.) Do, or did, any denominations of Christianity believe this, and which?


texts: What is the difference between Calvinist "nature" and "nature" in the sense of the Hypostatic union?

texts:
In Christ, one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.

This is called the Hypostatic Union. The following quoted points explain the relevant details of what the Hypostatic Union is and what it entails. They have been obtained from a Google search, and from a major Church that accepts the Hypostatic Union.

  in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person. They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. (article)
  The union in Christ is not a union of two natures directly with one another, but a union of the two in one hypostasis; thus they are distinct yet inseparable, and each acts in communion with the other. (article)
  "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity." (CCC468)
  Obviously there can be only one infinite being, only one God. [...] God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. (article)
  Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will." (CCC475)
  the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. (carm.org article)

Note that the human nature is not absorbed or assumed into the Divine nature. Instead, it is assumed by the Divine Person of Christ. A human being is not assumed by a Divine being, a human nature is assumed by a Divine Person.

Above I am describing certain key features of the Hypostatic Union. There is no argument that the Hypostatic Union is the correct way to see Christ. I think it is, but that is not what this question is about.

My limited understanding of the Calvinist view of the two human natures is as follows:

Calvinists believe that if we are saved, we have "two warring natures". One of these natures is the sanctified nature, and the other is the non-sanctified nature. I have heard these described as two separate wills. I have also heard of these described quite generally as two "parts". (I do not understand what it means for a nature to be a "part" of a person, except in the partless sense of the Hypostatic Union, described above).

This Calvinist view sounds familiar, because (according to the Hypostatic Union) in Christ there are two natures and two wills. But they are never "at war" in Christ: Christ's human nature always and entirely submits to His Divine nature.

Is the Calvinist use of "nature" the same as the use when talking about the human and Divine natures of Christ? If they are different, by virtue of what exactly are they different? Is what Calvinists describe some form of hypostasis, and if not, what is the relation, if any?


texts: What evidence do we have today about Christian groups not represented at the first four ecumenical councils?

texts: Were there any Christian groups that existed during the time of the first four ecumenical councils and that were not represented at them either because they chose not to attend or they were not invited or, perhaps, were not even known?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses have their own version of the Bible? What is their reason for not accepting other versions such as the NIV or the KJV?


texts: According to the Church of England, if humans have free will, why do we ask for things in prayer?

texts:
How does the Church of England reconcile these three things, which seem at odds with each other:

The bible tells us to ask for things in prayer (ask for what we want / ask for bad things not to happen).
Humans have free will.
The universe operates according to physical laws (ignoring miracles reported in the Bible).

I don't know why it took me 30 years to realise that these three don't make sense when you consider them together. If I pray that my children won't get kidnapped or crushed in a landslide, how could God possibly grant that request without denying the kidnapper's free will, or altering the natural state of a cliff face? These might not be great examples; what about asking for someone to be healed, asking for people to survive an earthquake you've just heard about, asking for world leaders to make the right decisions? How can God grant those wishes?

Is there a single thing you can ask for, without violating the 'rules' of free will and nature? Ask for courage/patience for yourself perhaps, that might work.

To my (limited) brain it seems like this one aspect of prayer is pointless. I feel a bit stupid about all those fervent prayers I made for world peace. Why do we ever ask for anything, if it is pointless?

I understand that there are other aspects to prayer (asking forgiveness, expressing love/worship, thanking) so it is just the one aspect (making requests) that seriously troubles me. I must have got it wrong somewhere...


texts: A catholic wanted to have her baptism blessed under full water method. The Church is not familiar with this , so she had a evangelical church do it. So, her local Catholic priest forbid her from receiving communion. She was not aware of the consequences of minor excommunication. Now, what can she do to go to Communion again?


texts: What rubric, canon, and/or rules forbid(s) the use of recorded music in a Tridentine Missa Cantata?

texts:
The question is related to this one: What is the basis for forbidding prerecorded music in worship services?

However, I am interested in the Catholic perspective. What are the canons, rules, and/or rubrics that argue against the use of pre-recorded music during a Sung Mass, specifically, a Sung Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

I know pre-recorded music is not allowed because I've had seminarian friends, ex-seminarian friends, and priest friends expressly tell me so. But I need a source to help them back up their claims against a priest who has allowed the use of audio recordings of the chants and propers during Sung Mass.

Many thanks!


texts: What exactly is the purpose of a Patron Saint?

texts:
From this question: How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint?, I learned that St. Isadore is the patron saint of computer programmers, a group of people in desparate need of a saint if there ever was one.

That said, as a Protestant, I'm not exactly sure what St. Isadore is supposed to be doing for computer programmers.  I know that saints aren't worshipped, nor are they even prayed "to" in the sense that they would answer prayers with something magical - but what exactly is their function? I'm assuming that if the church is going to go through all the trouble of recognizing and naming a saint, there's gotta be a reason for it.