texts: Is every single minute of the year a mass being celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church? If so, since when?

texts:
Update: as stated by brasshat's answer below, the Good Friday mass is not celebrated in the Roman Catholic world. Naturally, this makes the answer to my question apparently trivial. It is not totally trivial though, because there are other rites in the Catholic Church (e.g. Maronite), which use a different calendar. In any case, to move further, take out such voluntary exceptions (i.e. self-imposed) from the calendar year, and assume a year that moves from Good Thursday immediately to Holy Saturday.

This post has two questions:

Imagine you pick a random minute of a random day of a random week of last year (2016). Was there a mass in a Catholic Church or Monastery being celebrated?

I am inclined to say yes, but I'm not sure how to confirm this. For timezones ranging from the West cost of the US to Japan, I would say we have fairly good confidence that masses are being held every morning, and maybe evenings, in every time zone, as they go through fairly a lot of countries with relatively large Catholic populations. I think there might be more issues with UTC +11 (toward the East end of Russia), UTC -8 (Alaska), and UTC -11 to UTC -9 (mainly the Pacific Ocean, and small islands). But, if there is a lot of diversity across mass times among Catholic churches/monasteries (some in the morning, others in the afternoon, and others in the evening; see below), maybe they can compensate for those timezones without much Catholic presence.

Are you aware of any formal analysis of this? I find nothing online. Maybe using some online website like this global registrar, this search tool, this, or this one. The latter show a lot of daily RC masses, at many times, even in cities like London (not "particularly" Catholic densely populated).

"Naturally", Catholic masses were not held every minute of, say, 100 AD. If the answer to the first question is yes, since when are Catholic masses held every minute?

For instance, take the year 1450 AD, before Catholic missionaries set out to establish monasteries and churches in America and the "Far East". Here, we could say that Catholic population was widely distributed between UTC +0 (Portugal) to UTC +6 (West of Russia). Let us assume that Catholic masses started in Portugal at 7 am local time, and finished in Russia at 6pm local time. From the Portuguese perspective (UTC), there was a mass from 7 am until 1 am (which is when the last time Russian mass finished, assuming it lasted one hour). This means that in 1450 AD there was no mass for at least 6 hours of the 24 hour day.

So, my guess here is that at some point, once the West of now-US/then-Mexico (UTC -6) was finally conquered by the Spaniards, and Catholic churches and monasteries were established, we could be more or less sure a Catholic mass was celebrated at all times of the day, every week, and year. This might have happened between the XVI and XVII centuries. Provided that no major global disruption affected mass times (e.g. World Wars), then this would define the lower barrier to since when Catholic masses have been continuously celebrated.


texts: According to Presbyterianism, is there salvation available for Adam and Eve?

texts:
Generally, when I talk to people from other denominations about Adam and Eve, I get the impression that they're not highly liked people.

Do Presbyterians believe there's salvation available to Adam and Eve?


texts:
Civil Disobedience Justified

There is a Biblical precedent for civil disobedience.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego's refused to worship an idol in Daniel 3.
The Israelites' openly rebelled against the government of Egypt in the book of Exodus.
In Acts 5, Peter teaches despite being commanded otherwise by the civil authority.

Civil Disobedience Prohibited

There is also a Biblical precedent for obeying a country's laws regardless of whether the laws are good or not.

Ecclesiastes 8 says to obey the king's command.
Jesus says to pay taxes in Luke 20.
Paul instructs believers to obey the laws of their country in Romans 13.

Modern Examples

Here are some modern examples of where this issue is a sticky one.

Rosa Parks broke the law by refusing to give up her seat to a white person during the American civil rights movement.
Aaron Swartz believed that the current U.S. copyright law was wrong, and practiced civil disobedience by downloading academic articles in a manner that was considered illegal. Copyright law may or may not be Biblical, but if copyright law is harmful, then it's possible that illegal downloading of copyrighted material could possibly be considered a form of civil disobedience.
Adolf Eichmann dutifully obeyed the laws of his country by carrying out the execution of Jews. After WWII, he was sentenced to death on the grounds that he was obligated to break German law, but did not.

The Question

I am not able to differentiate between the cases where civil disobedience is justified and the cases where it is not justified. I can make up answers in each case based on intuition, but what is the Biblical criterion for sifting through each case? Under what circumstances is disobeying a bad law justified or even obligatory? Please provide a clear definition of when civil disobedience is justified Biblically and when it is not justified.

Note on similar questions:

The question, Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?, asks if there are some laws that should be obeyed even if they are not Biblical. The question, Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral?, looks at the same question from a different angle. Neither question sufficiently answers the question: what is the Biblical definition of appropriate civil disobedience?


texts:
Why do Catholics recite the phrase "Thanks be to God" during Mass?

They say this many times too. After the priest speaks, the congregation follows in unison, "Thanks be to God."


texts: Can Orthodox Church members be extraordinary ministers in the Roman Catholic rite?

texts:
It is known that members of the Eastern Orthodox Church who are not formally joined to the Roman Catholic Church can receive Holy Communion and some other mysteries (such as Confession) without any obstacles.

Can the same members of the Orthodox Church who consciously receive Holy Communion and do confession in the Roman Catholic Church but are not formally joined to the Catholic Church take part in extraordinary ministry? If not, which Canons restrict them from doing so, and why?


texts: What's the Biblical basis for the rapture?

texts:
I don't like questioning anyone's faith but one of my friends is a mainstream Christian (Uniting Church) and she believes very firmly in the phenomenon of "rapture".

As I understand it, rapture is when all the good people will be united with Christ upon His Second Coming. Those who are left behind will go through seven years of hell. The initial years will be OK as the world will move towards a 'one world government' but then everyone will be tagged (the devil's mark) and the horrors will follow. Those who refuse to be tagged will be tortured and if they resist, they would be ultimately saved when Christ comes again after seven years.

The worst thing is that there are many dates fixed for rapture, today (24 July) being one of them. These dates are fixed by people who claim that this was revealed to them in some form and they need to share this message with others.

I really don't want to question anyone faith (whether it is revealed to them or not is their business) but the whole rapture 'thingy' sounds very scary to me.

Is there any basis of this interpretation in the Bible?

Note: With faith based matters, you really cannot claim too much objectivity, so scientific measures do not readily apply here. That said, it makes it even more difficult to understand this claim.


texts:
Revelation 20:14 is what I'm talking about. It is only confusing because nearly every translation says something like this:

  14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
  15 And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

First, 'death and hell' are cast in, then the wicked not found in the Book of Life.

Some translations say 'death and Hades'. The NASB says 'death and the grave'.

What kind of place consumes death, hell, the grave, and the wicked, then calls that event the second death? What is the Lake of Fire?

This question exists but it does not have a helpful answer.


texts: What arguments are given that Ephesians was not written by Paul?

texts:
According to the opening paragraph of the article for the Book of Ephesians on Wikipedia, it is not universally held that Ephesians was written by Paul. A source on that site says,

  Hoehner surveys 279 commentators from 1519 to 2001, finding 54% favor Pauline authorship, 39% conclude against Pauline authorship, and 7% remained uncertain.

What arguments support the claim that Paul did not write the book of Ephesians?


texts: Where did the Young Earth Creationist doctrine originate?

texts:
I heard the other day that the literalist interpretation of biblical creation (A literal 7 day creation of the universe) isn't the classical historical interpretation that past Christians held. I was told that YEC was a relatively recent interpretation.

Meaning, has genesis historically been interpreted as figurative/metaphorical (and to what degree if so?) by past Christians?

If so, was YEC the default view? Were there "Old earth creationists" (or anyone who would be analogous to them) in the deep historic past?

On a side note, when did alternative non-literal interpretations of Genesis come about?

To be clear, this question is not the same as: Where does the belief that the Earth is relatively young (6000 years) come from?

Because I am asking about the origins of the doctrine itself, not seeking debate of the particularities of the doctrine and whether or not they are true.


texts: What do baptists mean when they refer to an ordained baptist minister?

texts: In most denominations, ordination refers to the process of being officially recognized and established by an ecclesiastical authority like an elder, a bishop, or a cardinal to be a minister. Given the independent nature of most baptist churches, it's unclear who is doing the ordination and what it means.


texts: Why did not Jesus praise John the Baptist before the latter's disciples?

texts:
At Mtt 11:2-11 we see an account of the delegation that John the Baptist sent to Jesus :

"When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples   and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?”   Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see:  .........   And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John ...."

It appears that Jesus was a  bit disappointed by the doubt that John had expressed, as is evident from Verse 7 :   "" And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.”

But then, once John's disciples have left, Jesus showers praises on John. My question therefore,  is: Why did Jesus wait for the disciples of John the Baptist to leave before showering praises on him ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about the delay ?


texts: Was the doctrine of the rapture rediscovered by the Plymouth Brethern?

texts:
Multiple times I heard the assertion that the doctrine of the rapture was rediscovered by John Darby and/or the Plymouth Brethren, allegedly after it had been lost for approximately 1500 years.

Yet, this assertion was never based with any source.

So, is it true that the doctrine of the rapture (as it was taught by the Plymouth Brethren) was indeed rediscovered by them?


texts: Where do primary sources for the Bible reside?

texts: Bible translations are made from sources.  Where are these sources?  In a university, museum, government agency or what?


texts: Is the "righteousness of God" more than a life of perfect submission?

texts:
Many reformed protestants believe in "double imputation" - the idea that our sin is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. 2 Corinthians 5 is often the source quoted for this:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthains 5:21 (NIV)

The way this has often been explained to me is that we are not able to live a life perfectly obeying God, but Jesus did, and so his life counts for us. But is this all Jesus' righteousness is - the same as if we (theoretically) we to live a life in perfect submission? Or is it correct to say that even if we were to live a perfect life, the "righteousness of God" would still be greater than the righteousness we had achieved?
I'm aware that this is an area of theology I struggle with, so perhaps this question doesn't make sense to people more learned than me. But do any of the greater Reformers, or other notable writers, comment on this comparison?
Note that I am specifically asking about those who believe we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, as opposed to those who understand this verse differently.


texts:
A common soteriological view among Evangelical Christians (such as myself) is that we are saved by grace, through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).  However, this belief is usually accompanied by a belief that the inevitable effect of salvation is a life that bears fruit, and gradually conforms to Christ (sanctification).

1 John 3:9 (NIV)
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
Matthew 7:18 (NIV)
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
James 2:17-19 (NIV)
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
   Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
James 2:24 (NIV)
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It seems clear, especially from James, that genuine saving faith is accompanied by works.  Of course, since we are not saved by works, we conclude that these works are the fruit of our salvation, and not the cause of it.  In other words, we are first saved by grace through our genuine saving faith, and works result.
So it seems that it is possible to have a faith that is non-genuine, or non-saving, and thus does not lead to the bearing of fruit.  My question centers around what the difference between these two types of faith is.
I'm interested in non-Calvinist viewpoints, because I believe that I understand the Calvinist one.
I think a Calvinist's answer to this problem would be that it is God who initiates the salvation process in the elect, and saving faith is the result.  Non-Calvinists would hold that God initiates the salvation process for everyone and draws all men to him, but we must choose Him.  So it is in the non-Calvinist viewpoint that the question arises: If there is such thing as a non-saving faith, or non-genuine "choosing", what characterizes saving faith?


texts: Should a woman cover her head in Christian worship?

texts:
Traditionally in many Christian churches the women would cover their heads in worship citing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.  Why has this practice stopped, and why has it stopped mostly in the last 70 years?  Might we be offending the angels because we are not practicing this?

I am looking for biblical support for the answer not just cultural or opinion.


texts: Was Martin Luther known to have read the First Epistle of Clement?

texts:
The First Epistle of Clement is an early Christian document that was commonly circulated in the early church before being rejected as part of the New Testament canon. There is a passage in it that addresses faith and works that sounds rather reminiscent of Martin Luther's theology 1500 years later (emphasis mine):

  All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It then goes on to talk about the value of works, but doesn't say that there is justification from it.

Is Martin Luther known to have read the First Epistle of Clement? And if so, did he comment on what he thought about it?


texts: What is the source of this quote testifying Mary's assumption?

texts:
In the article, The Assumption of Mary: A Belief since Apostolic Times of EWTN it states:

  At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

What is the source of this spurious quote?


texts: What is the 70 weeks prophesied in Daniel chapter nine?

texts:
In Daniel chapter nine, He prophesies:

  Daniel 9:24  KJV Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish
  the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring
  in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

How can this prophesy be explained?

To explain the 70 week prophesy we have to determine what Daniel meant.


texts: What does the Catholic Church mean by "beatific vision"?

texts:
Is it similar to St Thomas of Aquinas's description?

(Obviously, by 'description', I mean description of what it entails...not what God looks like!)


texts: Are Christians still persecuted in Afghanistan?

texts:
In the past there have been reports that Christians are persecuted in Afghanistan.

Is this still true?


texts: Does the church have any teachings on whether the Assumption of Mary occurred indoors?

texts:
This question is addressed to East Orthodox or Catholics that hold to the teaching of Mary's assumption.

Is there any dogma or tradition concerning whether she was assumed while indoors? And if she was, how could this be achieved if her physical body rose? Surely she could not have just passed through the ceiling with ease.


texts: What are the avenues to developing a true strong faith and relationship with God?

texts:
I'm a fan of and work in the popular Christian music scene. Not being religious, I still do appreciate the goodness, comfort and encouragement of the faith based music.

The question that arises is, does Christianity support the idea that a true strong faith can only come from brokenness and struggles in life? Many people are drawn into the faith via this avenue but can faith just as strong grow out of those with relatively less struggle and problems?

For example, here is a typical story of from an artist in the pop Christian music scene:

http://www.klove.com/music/artists/shawn-mcdonald/

and this pastors story

http://www.harvest.org/crusades/testimonies/a-road-less-traveled.html

Any ideas in what Christianity doctrine says abut this is much appreciated.

Thank you for any help.


texts: How is Article XVII of the Articles of Religion defended by Arminians?

texts:
The beginning of Article 17 (XVII) of the Articles of Religion seems to me to clearly teach Calvinistic predestination:

  Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.

So I found it rather interesting that William Beveridge mentions that some Arminians have interpreted this article differently:

  One Article (the 17th Article) has sometimes been wrested into an Arminian interpretation, but the attempt cannot be looked upon as other than a failure. (Short History, 106)

My reading inclines me to agree with Beveridge's analysis, but before passing too firm a judgment, I'd like to understand how Arminians interpret this article to favor their viewpoint.  I'm not interested in the approach of those who simply reject the article or significant portions of it.

Among those Arminians who hold to the Articles, how do they defend Article 17?


texts: Praying with non-Christians as evangelism?

texts:
From Christianity Today, 07/02/02:

  Twelve days after the September 11 attacks, David Benke followed Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu clerics to the podium of a Yankee Stadium event to honor the missing and the dead. Benke asked attendees to join hands and pray with him "on this field of dreams turned into God's house of prayer." He prayed "in the precious name of Jesus" and sat down.
  That prayer has led to Benke's suspension from the clergy roster of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). It has also exposed deep divisions in the church.

Arguments I remember for this event at the time ranged from "we were overcome by events" to viewing it as an effective form of evangelism. Pr. Benke intentionally entered an arena with non-Christians and then asked them to close their eyes as he said an authentically Christian prayer.

Q: Do any events in the Bible, early church fathers, tent revivalists, or Billy Graham ,  have essentially the same features? Specifically, initiating a prayer with someone who is (not yet, not necessarily intending to become) a Christian? Perhaps the evangelism of the Apostles in either Jewish temples or public square? Did Billy Graham ever ask for public prayer at the beginning of a Crusade, before an altar call?


texts: Is there a book that details what the popes said against reformation leaders?

texts: Can anyone recommend a book that have all the declarations, laws, statements, etc of popes during the times of reformers like Tyndale, Luther, etc.?


texts:
I am not Catholic and I am pretty sure the Rosary is mainly a Catholic artifact, and in modern times devout Catholics seem to always have a Rosary (as in, you know they're Catholic because of the Rosary).

My question is what is the purpose of the Rosary?

(And as a non-Catholic Christian, should I get one?)


texts: According to the Church of God (Cleveland), are children sin-free?

texts: I work with children in a day care that is part of the Church of God.  Naturally, all of the employees except me are of the Church of God, which is fine by me.  I am non-denom.  I find it curious that one of my co-workers stated that the children in my toddlers and twos class are "sin-free."  I feel a bit odd asking anyone there about it since they are all COG.  I don't understand how a human born of Adam and fallen short of the glory of God could be free from sin.  I understand there is an age of accountability around 12 or 13, but does the COG teach that young children are "sin-free"?


texts: What does Lutheranism teaches about demon possession?

texts:
What do various Lutheran Churches from today teach about demon possession? Did Martin Luther, or early Lutheran writers said something about this?

What strikes me the most, is the fact that in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one hears of such cases and knows about various rites of exorcism and so on. But I have never heard of such thing in the mainline protestant realm, only in the evangelical one, even though the Bible talks of such events. Same things about miracle workers.


texts: Why do adherents to the priesthood of all believers still have organized congregations?

texts:
I might be making some naive assumptions here, but I have a hard time seeing what the purpose of congregations are in the context of priesthood of all believers.

As I understand it, priesthood of all believers basically says that all people have direct and equal access to God, as well as equal privilege and authority to minister. What then is the purpose of congregating? Why are those congregations well organized?


texts: Why is it a custom in Baptist Churches to vote on new congregation members?

texts:
My friend recently became a member of the local Baptist church. When she and her mother wanted to join, they went to the preacher and he told them there would be a vote among the congregation members to determine whether they would be accepted into the church. She and her mother had to stand before all the members, and with a show of hands, the congregation agreed to their joining the church.

It struck me as odd because it never occurred to me that there was an acceptance process for the Baptist church. Is this true of all Baptist churches? And what is the scriptural basis for this process?


texts: What is the meaning of "let the dead bury their dead"?

texts:
Matthew 8:21-23 says

  And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead."
  And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. (KJV)

What is the meaning of the dead burying their dead?


texts:
The Bible and Jesus clearly speak of giving money to the church and in turn fellow Christians should give up all they have and look out for one another.

So my question is why does this not happen now a day. I know many in my Church who tithes a lot (I do it myself) but it saddens me that my same Church would probably not give me a grant of money If I suddenly lost my Job or something.

Why has this has happened?

From the days of Paul, Jesus and Timothy to now the church now (was outside of the world) and now it appears (the world is in the church).


texts:
How was sin not counted before the law, like Paul says in Romans 5? What does that practically mean? I'm not looking for hermeneutics only, but a scriptural/historical/real world example of someone's sin not counting, whatever that means.

  Romans 5:12-14 ESV Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

People before the law were still certainly guilty of wrongdoing and God held them to that, like when God told Abimelech he would be wrong for sleeping with a man's wife, or when God cursed Cain to be a wanderer for killing Abel.


texts: When was Good Friday first called "Good"?

texts:
In my other question,  I discovered that special commemoration on Friday was held as early as the 3rd century.  I also discovered that there was not necessarily a connection to the title "Good" Friday.

When was the Friday Passion week day first called "Good"? This can be in any language as long as the title or description is using something that can be understood the same (Latin Bonum/Bene?)

But it needs to be as an actual title, not just someone writing that the Friday is good,  or that it will be a good Friday(this year).


texts: What does the word Glory mean in the Bible?

texts: Does it mean Might, majesty, light, happiness or power? Or all those things ( in which case, how to tell what context it's being used in?


texts: Who is the object of the New Covenant and what are it's terms?

texts:
I've asked this question to several people over the years, only professing Christians and particularly those who tout them selves as 'New Testament Christians'. And this is an important question as Mathew 26:28 tells us that this is the Covenant offered in Christs very own blood: Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant (testament), which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Any one with apt comprehension can identify the parties to this Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 and Jeramiah 31, yet even more so for some one with legal background such as a contract lawyer the party and terms here specified are clad tight:

  Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
  Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
  Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
  Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

  Jer 31:35  Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
  Jer 31:36  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Now this is repeated in Hebrews 8, as I had said. By expository bible study and exegeting this text to understand what Christ is affecting in his blood what do you all arrive at for the what, who, why, and how?


texts: What is the New Testament basis for the idea the God is a God of judgment and vengeance?

texts:
The New Testament is frequently seen as presenting a God of love, compassion and mercy, while the Old Testament is often viewed as presenting a God of judgment and vengeance.  However, the Bible collectively presents God as unchanging.

What, then, is the New Testament basis that supports the idea that God is a God of judgment and vengeance?


texts: What do modern evangelicals/dispensationalists believe about the general resurrection and final judgment?

texts:
I grew up attending several Baptist/Church of God/Non-denominational churches growing up in the United States (we moved around a bunch). Until I was an adult and actually read the New Testament for myself, I had never even heard of the general resurrection and final judgement.

It seemed the emphasis was on your fate immediately after death and the general feeling was that God would review your entire life and judge you at that moment chick track style. There was a big emphasis on eschatology, however mainly focused on dispensationalism, in particular the rapture. Most of any discussion was about when the rapture would happen but the idea was that all Christians would be in heaven at that point and that was pretty much the end of the story.

I actually brought this up at once in a small group a few years ago, and the leader kind of made a comment implying what I was talking about was a bit unorthodox and steered the conversation in a different direction.

A few related questions:

What do dispensationalists believe about the general resurrection and final judgement?
Why the complete lack of interest and teaching about this topic that seems so important in the NT?
Is this lack of interest/teaching widespread outside of evangelicals in the USA?


texts: What does it mean to not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

texts:
Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? (Isa 58:7 NIV).

Does this mean more like members of the family, or my own physical body? Thanks.


texts: Why do some adherents to the Westminster Standards sing hymns, rather than just psalms?

texts:
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 21.5, in its list of elements that are "parts of the ordinary religious worship of God," includes the:

  singing of psalms with grace in the heart

The Confession makes no mention of the singing of hymns or other songs, however.  Thus some adherents to the Westminster Standards, like the RPCNA, argue that this indicates a position of "exclusive psalmody," that is, that only selections from the canonical book of Psalms should be sung in worship services.

However, this section of the Westminster Confession is also approved by other Presbyterian denominations, like the PCA and the OPC, which reject exclusive psalmody.  Their worship services often include the singing of psalms, but not exclusively – they also sing hymns and, in some congregations, contemporary praise songs.

The PCA and OPC both use a version of the Westminster Standards that differs in some respects from the one approved by the Westminster Divines in the 17th century.  So why did they not also change this line to more clearly indicate their belief that the singing of other songs is acceptable?

That is: What is the basis for understanding the Westminster Standards as permitting hymns and other non-psalms in worship?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Can Humans become Angels?

I have always wondered if in the afterlife humans can decide to become angels, and I have always wondered what is the difference between an archangel and an angel?


texts: Who instituted the practice of sacrifice?

texts:
Sacrifice plays a very important role in the Bible.  One of the earliest stories, that of Cain and Abel, begins with two sacrifices.  The death of Jesus on the Cross was a sacrifice.

Here is how the first sacrifice is described, in Genesis 4:3-6:

  In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the ground, while Abel, for his part, brought the fatty portion* of the firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected. Then the LORD said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected?

Does the Bible ever say who first instituted this practice, and when? The purpose animal sacrifice is discussed [here]
 (What was the purpose to animal sacrifices?).
Did it develop naturally?
Was it instituted directly by God, through a command?
Do we know?


texts: In the tradition of Jehovah's Witnesses, does Romans 6:23 mean that all people who are resurrected have their sins blotted out?

texts:
Since the Bible itself says there is to be a resurrection of the good and bad (Acts 24:15) how do Jehovah's Witnesses explain their position that death blots out the sins of all?
If death blots out sin would not all those resurrected be without sin?


texts: I'm new here, I was just wondering of someone knows what books were used for English catechesis prior to the 1960's in English speaking countries. I'd like to teach my CCD kids a few prayers in Latin but am not well versed in the language.  I've got Cassel's Latin Dictionary, but I find that to be a little Virgil heavy and Vatican lite, so there's a lot of words that I don't know how to properly pronounce and I'm not interested at mastering the language, just rote memorization for something fun to do on Wednesday nights.


texts: Does the Bible espouse moral absolutism or moral relativism?

texts:
I believe that throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Bible espouses moral absolutism.

Yet, I recently read on this site a response to a question about slavery:

  As stated, slavery was a fact of the Ancient World, and so when the
  Bible addresses the topic, it should not be compared against the
  sensibilities of the modern world, but rather against the
  sensibilities of the ones to whom the Bible was addressed.

...

  It is an anachronism to apply questions of, for example, feminism
  or communism, to the Scriptures, because the original audience would
  have had no means of apprehending it as such.

If this statement is correct, then the Bible cannot appropriately speak to issues like slavery or women's rights because it was written in a different era. Therefore are we all left to interpret and filter the Bible through the lens of our current times and adopt moral relativism for ourselves?

P.S. Here's a quick refresher about the differences between moral relativism and moral absolutism.


texts: L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.  I was just wondering if they claim to be Christian in any event?


texts: What is "intercession" and what kinds of "intercessory prayer" are there?

texts:
Different traditions seem to have different ideas about intercession.

What are the major different types of "intercessory prayer" and which traditions employ them?

If applicable to the definition, how is human intercessory prayer different different from the intercession that Christ makes on behalf of believers?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What does INRI stand for?

In Jesus Cross there is symbol like INRI, What does it exactly means and why they are keeping this still in cross any conditions or story behind this steel plate or this symbol in cross.Please refer the following location : INRI in Cross


texts: Can the ancestral sin doctrine (and Paul's epistles) survive without a single breeding pair?

texts:
The necessity of salvation in Christian doctrine seems to be inextricably linked to the view that the entirety of human nature somehow springs from the gametes (and perhaps education) of a single original breeding pair (Adam and Eve's nature & nurture). From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and
  justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all
  human beings.

  417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded
  by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and
  justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

  418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its
  powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death,
  and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

Paul's writings had a large role in the development of this theology:

  Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and
  through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned
  (Romans 5.12)

Modern biology doesn't allow the possibility that there ever was a bottleneck of two (or perhaps even one, given that Eve was cloned from the ribs of Adam) in Homo Sapiens history:

Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences
Population bottleneck
Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith

So can the ancestral sin theology and the foundational Pauline writings stand in the absence of an original breeding pair, or do they become meaningless?

(Since this is not a truth question, but a theological inference question please see the comment to avoid arguing uselessly outside the question)


texts: Are there any traditions or schools of thought that track Jesus' movements?

texts:
I'm trying to put together a timeline of Jesus' ministry and it would be really cool to be able to say with some confidence where Jesus was when he spoke this or that given verse. Hoping some tradition has already worked it out, but I can't find anything. Googling "jesus movement", "find jesus", and similar phrases gives me humorous but unhelpful results.

If being more specific will help, here's a specific question: where was Jesus between Matthew 12:46 ("these are my mother and brothers") and Matthew 13:54 (coming to his hometown)? I thought I had read somewhere that the "mother and brothers" thing happened in Capernaum, but now I can't find any biblical support for it, and in Matthew 13:54, coming into his hometown, that's Capernaum (I think?), so I don't see how he could have been in Capernaum already.


texts: According to the Anglican Church, did the prophets in Old Testament have a concept of life after death?

texts:
I'm a non-denominational Christian who visits whatever Church happens to be close when I'm travelling. I was visiting an Anglican church today, and the reverend gave a sermon from Old testament.

She mentioned that:

God has been slowly revealing his plans, and there are several things we know that folks in OT times didn't.
They didn't have any concept of after death life, making their sacrifices for faith of even greater value than ours who know they'll go to heaven. There are OT verses that suggest no life after death.

I was taken by surprise at this as I always thought that the the prophets of Old Testament always had full revelation and understanding perhaps even greater than ours, since they had direct contact with God and had information from extra books that we no longer have (the Book of Jasher, etc.).

My questions:

Is this the official theology of the Anglican Church, or just that reverend's own view?
If it is official Anglican theology, what is their Scriptural basis for it?


texts:
I hear "God Bless America" often.  It has puzzled me for many years because it doesn't makes sense to me that God cares about man-made borders or political systems.  The only land I've heard referred to that God prefers is Israel.

Is there any scripture where it shows that God would care about one country more than another?

Further, is there any scripture that indicates that God prefers one political system over another?


texts: Is Hell eternal, or do some/all escape it?

texts:
In his recent book, Love Wins, author and pastor Rob Bell caused quite a bit of controversy (and anger) by making the argument that Heaven is the state that we are in when we follow God's will and Hell is the state we are in when we follow our own will, and that after death there is no reason to think that we will continue on in these state. He argues that we obviously have the choice to follow God's will our or own in life, but it is debatable if that decision will be available after death.

He essentially cites every single mention of Hell in the Bible and makes the case that most are fairly ambiguous when it comes to the eternal state of those who die rejecting God's will. He explains that a lot of the modern imagery of hell is a product of the middle ages, and is not in fact Biblically based (Satan is the ruler of hell, etc). I couldn't help but notice he did not mention several versus that did not mention hell explicitly, but which clearly reference it and seem to make clear it is eternal.

He also went on to cite a number of versus that indicate that God wants everyone to be saved and ask the question 'Does God get what he wants?'

  who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

1 Timothy 2:4

So, is it debatable? Are there any denominations which do not place those who rejected or never heard the gospel in hell forever? Is it heretical to believe that some non Christians will not be in hell forever?


texts: What is the Wesleyan Church's View of Initial, Progressive, and Entire Sanctification?

texts: Entire Sanctification, sometimes referred to as Christian Perfection,  is a doctrine that was re-popularized by John Wesley. He rediscovered it in his readings of the Church Fathers, and through biblical reflection. My question is specific to the Wesleyan Church.


texts: According to the Holy Spirit's infallible inspiration of scripture, is anything ever recorded that is unnecessary or curious?

texts:
I wonder sometimes where the role of Bible trivia and extensive historical research plays into the Bible.  For example, Melchisedec, is a type of Christ in a great part because the Bible does not provide any genealogical record of him, he just appears as though he never had a beginning. If somebody found some ancient monument that recorded an oral history of Melchisedec's parents, to best grasp the meaning in the Bible one would have to try and not think about that discovery.  It would be very curious and unnecessary information.

I am not questioning if Q & A about various things does not have some theoretical value, as it eventually pertains to life and death.  However, as far as scriptures themselves are concerned, is the Bible ever interested in the curious for the sake of general interest, or the unnecessary to life and death?


texts: Why are the disciples addressed differently in different contexts?

texts:
At John 21: 4-5 we see a post-resurrection event when Jesus addresses the disciples as children:

  Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples
  did not know that it was Jesus.  Jesus said to them, “Children, have
  you any fish?

Elsewhere, we see Jesus referring to them as brothers:

  Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to
  go to Galilee; there they will see me."(Matt 28:10)

I am curious to know the significance of two different types of attributes viz. 'brothers' and 'children' used by Jesus while referring to his disciples.

What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about their significance?


texts:
Ok, where i gather, we have a Brethren-like "house church" system, which means that we have no building for the chuch meeting. But the number of members are increasing and we are about to face a decision: split the members into 2 house groups or go up and rent a hall in order to gather everyone at one place.
We had a discussion about that with the elders and one argument was that

There is no reference of a christian regular gathering model in the New Testment other than house gathering (eg. Act 2:46; Rom 16:5, 14, 15; 1Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2). And the reference of the Temple in Acts 2:6 wasn't properly a christian meeting, but a practice of Judaism transfered to Christianity at that time.

But the counter-argument to the above was that

There is no doctrine at all about the place of gathering in the New Testment. We have doctrine about how to gather, what to do and how to do almost everything in the church meeting, how to order the meeting, even the necessity of gather, but no word is written about where the meeting have to be done. We only have examples and to make theology out of examples we need to (specially) consider the context, and in considering the early church context (historical, cultural, religious, thological) we see why they gathered in houses, but this is no such thing as a limit, but a solid ground for us to build uppon.

The controversy
After the discussion, the question was settled: are the examples of house gatherings in the new testment an evidence of a theological stablishment, a oral doctrinal statement and a common sense at the early church that just houses are expected to host the Church regular gathering? Or just the natural flow that the Holy Spirit choose?
My questions

Is there any writting from a reliable source of church meeting in the early church (400AD-) outside the context of a house host?

Is there any writting from a reliable source that the church had a prohibition in the theological ground for hosting a meeting in a rented or built hall instead of the house context?

Is there any good argument about why should we host the church regular meeting in a hall building, if there is no example of that in the NT?

Sorry for my bad english, portuguese speaker here. God bless.


texts: Hierarchy of Catholicism, government, and papal teaching

texts:
The bible teaches that we should submit to our governments in:

Romans 13:1-2 (KJV)

  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
  power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever
  therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and
  they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

  Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake:
  whether it be to the king, as supreme ; Or unto governors, as unto
  them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the
  praise of them that do well.

Examples of this submission can be found in stories of Peter and Paul (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; 1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11)

The Catholic church considers the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ

  The traditional assertion of Catholics in this matter is that each
  pope has the totality and supremacy of the power Christ left on earth
  for the building up of the kingdom of God. The pope is said to have
  the plenitudo potestatis, or fullness of power. His authority, direct
  from Christ after the manner of a vicar, extends equally directly to
  each man, woman and child committed to his care, namely all men. This
  fact of papal primacy has been denied on numerous occasions, but
  chiefly in five great eras of the Church's history.

Furthermore, there is the papal infallibility which further illustrates the power of the pope.  Which is biblically backed as he is "the next Peter" in Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17

  It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a
  personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any
  pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of
  Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the
  exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal
  decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when
  approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be
  considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the
  pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already
  mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

Do the papal teachings supersede government rules where they conflict?  Is there an historic precedence of either?

On the surface, it would be easy to say, "the Pope is the Vicars, he rules".  But we must consider that historically the pope (the person, not the title) hasn't always been a good representation for the church, either because the wrong person was chosen or another reason.  Which is why I'm looking for an historic precedence.


texts:
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that after the original sin, man was not only kicked out of paradise, but heaven was closed to him so that the after death, the souls of the just were in limbo awaiting liberation by Christ.

On Good Friday, Jesus promises the good thief that he will be with him that day in Paradise1.

In the Apostles' Creed, it is recited in the 4th thru 6th articles:

  He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was  crucified, died, and was
  buried.

  He descended into hell. On the third day  he rose again.

  He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Here is my question:

On Good Friday, did Jesus descend into hell (limbo), free the just souls who went before him, who then accompanied him with great joy into heaven?

Or did he free them, place them into paradise - the one Adam forfeited for him and us - rise on Easter Sunday, and then conduct the souls into heaven when he ascended on ascension Thursday? Or was it at some other time?

According to Catholicism, when exactly were the souls of those who died before Christ conducted to heaven?

1. Cf. Luke 23:43 (RSVCE).


texts: Is there a story in the Bible about a certain person named Cartaphilus?

texts: Where is it located in the Bible about the man whom was cursed to walk the face of the earth forever? (I believe his name was Cartaphilus.)


texts: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God equips humans today with the gift of prophecy?

texts: On a number of occasions, God revealed information about future events that were to take place by giving humans the gift of prophecy. Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe God still does this today, or has that means of communication ceased to be used?


texts: Why do some Christians use a period instead of a colon in verse references?

texts:
In the same way some countries write $1,000, some write $1.000, what do we learn when someone uses this alternative way of writing out verse references?

I have one lecturer that prefers this. i.e. They will write Jonah 1.5 instead of Jonah 1:5. I am wondering if anyone can enlighten me as to where this tradition comes from? i.e Who made it popular, does it reflect this person comes from a particular background?


texts: Why does God not show Himself beyond reasonable doubt?

texts:
In this answer I commented that Christians believe that "God does not show himself as this would take away free will", to which I was answered "The only reason he would not show himself is that it would utterly destroy us to behold him."

Which one is correct (if any)?

Examples of proof without doubt:

He could encode the Bible in the digits of π (making it a statistical, logical and mathematical miracle).
Put His "trademark" in the rules of logic, or in our DNA.
Write Schroendiger's law in the Bible.
Make an exact, impossible to forge, prediction or series of predictions, which are then correct, but impossible to make for a non omniscient human.


texts: What is the "glory of God" in Romans 3:23?

texts:
In a gospel presentation, we might use Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
What have sinners fallen from, exactly, with regards to the glory of God?
The verse wasn't meant to be understood as fallen from a high moral state, or fallen short of a good reputation in the community, for example.
I'd like answers from the perspective of those who ascribe to the Apostle's Creed.


texts:
At his birth he was called JESUS! After his exaltation he was given a NAME!
Phillipians 2:9

  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name

What is that name?


texts: The Jehovah's Witness perspective concerning the Four Horsemen

texts:
As a continuation of this question and this question:

Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses have an official interpretation of these verses? And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by the Jehovah's Witness faith?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Romans 10?

texts:
Recently I was listening to a lecture by Reformed theologian Robert Cara, in which he mentioned how frequently NT writers connect and apply OT Yahweh references to Jesus.  A number of examples could be given, but one of the stronger ones is Romans 10:9–13, which reads:

  [I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [ESV]

In verses 9, 12, and 13, "Lord" is a translation of the Greek word kyrios, and verse 9 clearly associates "Lord" with Jesus.  The same association seems to continue in verses 12 and 13.  But, crucially, verse 13 is a quote of Joel 2:32, where the Hebrew text clearly shows Yahweh.

Thus, the argument goes, Jesus is the "Lord" in verse 12 who is called upon, and in verse 13 Paul connects this "Lord" (Jesus) with Joel 2:32's Yahweh. This indicates that he believes Jesus is truly the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh).

How do Jehovah's Witness's explain this?  Do they interpret Romans 10 differently, or Joel 2 differently, or have some other explanation?

Similar issue: How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Ephesians 4?

Lecture 06 Acts 1–2, starting 39:20


texts:
Col 3:12 says "Put on ... bowels of mercies..." (KJV) listing traits Christians should foster.

How do mercies relate to one's intestines (bowels)?  Bowels appear in other Scriptures as well, not talking about digestion and elimination.  Bowels are very important for living beings, but it isn't polite to discuss your bowels/bowel movements in public.  It's an unappetizing subject.


texts: Why was December 25th chosen as the day to celebrate Jesus' birth?


texts: Should those who fall away and return to the church be baptized again? - Overview

texts:
It is not uncommon for believers to be faithful for years, but "fall away", only to return years later with a reaffirmation of faith. Often this is common with teens who have a "wild" 20's and 30's, but return to the church in their middle age. But it is also plenty common outside of those specific ages.

Once returned to the fold, these new-old-believers often want and attain a second baptism, as a public show of their return to the faith.

Are there any Denominations which address a believer's second baptism? What is an overview of the beliefs on this common occurrence?

Note: This question is about adult believers who've been baptized, leave the faith, but return and desire a second baptism. This question is not about a believer's desire to be baptized despite having been by their parents as an infant.


texts: Did Martin Luther think John Calvin is a "son of the devil"?

texts:
I read from here (a Chinese website) that Martin Luther called John Calvin a son of the Devil.

Now I have never seen this quote anywhere. Did Luther say something like this to Calvin? If yes, why?


texts: Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise

texts: What does this mean? “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”


texts: What mainstream denominations (if any) hold a Young Earth Creationist view?

texts: As the title asks, which mainstream denominations hold a YEC View?


texts: Why did Luther not support iconoclasm like some other reformers?

texts:
During the Reformation, Protestant reformers such as Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin promoted Iconoclasm among their followers. I have found information about Luther opposing it, but little about why.

Why exactly did Luther oppose iconoclasm when other leaders supported it?

Illustration in a deluxe Luther Bible showing God creating the world

The same illustration in a deluxe Luther Bible owned by Count Joachim, in which he erased the depiction of God because of his support of iconoclasm


texts: Are there any surviving writings by Marcion or is everything we know of him what his enemies wrote of him?

texts:
I'm growing increasingly suspicious that Marcion was more of a dispensationalist or "hyper-dispensationalist" who fell victim to misrepresentation by those who either did not understand him or agree with him. Do we have any surviving texts that were written by himself or his proponents? Or by any of his detractors that might put him in a light other than the official view?

Please see this related question and the way the enemies of dispensationalist views characterize it as "gnosticism" etc. to see what my concern is: What is the argument AGAINST the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?


texts:
There is a charismatic church called People of Praise that is under a good deal of scrutiny at the moment because a member of this church may well be appointed to the US Supreme Court. Wikipedia has little information about the doctrines of People of Praise, calling it

  an independent Christian charismatic "covenant community" with no other ecclesial affiliation
  People of Praise - WikiPedia

yet strongly indicates a relationship with the Catholic church, especially involving its ecumenism.

I normally wouldn't put Charismatic and Catholic in the same sentence, so I'm confused what their core doctrines may be.

Their own official site says

  A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.
  Who We Are - People of Praise

This leaves me with the impression that People of Praise is not a unique church of its own, but a pact of Christians from diverse churches that may have conflicting doctrines, but they seek to do good Christian work together all the same. If this is true, then their list of official doctrines is probably smaller, perhaps only limited to "Jesus is Lord" or something similar.

Even perhaps their official dogma may be non-existent, in light of the following:

  Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.
  ibid

What do People of Praise generally believe; what is their central dogma? If they have none, under what central plan do they congregate (i.e. why do they exist)?


texts:
There are different Herods in the Bible. We have Herod the Great who ruled when Jesus was born and Herod Antipas, who ruled later.

I have seen in several places that Herod the Great is called "king" and Herod Antipas is called "tetrarch", apart from some texts written with simple language like Gospel of Mark where he is also called king.

My question is – was Herod Antipas a true, "full" king? Or does his title suggest that he was someone lower than king? Was he coronated? Is a tetrarch a king or something more like a prince or duke?


texts: If an individual sins because God "hardened their heart", does that make God the direct responsible of the sin (i.e. a sinner)?

texts:
In the Bible we find passages such as:
Exodus 7:3-4

3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.

Exodus 11:9-10

9 The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Romans 9:16-18

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Joshua 11:20

20 For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

I have two questions:

When God hardens someone's heart, does this override the individual's free will, rendering the individual for all practical purposes a puppet subject to God's manipulation?
Assuming that the answer to 1) is yes: If someone operates in a "heart hardened by God" state, and in that state the individual sins, given that the individual was being manipulated by God, does that free the individual from moral responsibility and make God the direct responsible of the sin (i.e. a sinner)?


texts: What is the biblical basis against a child's right to privacy?

texts:
The so-called "right to privacy" is a hot-button issue in many modern societies, and within that discussion, the question of a child's right to privacy is often raised.  Christians take positions in the debate, and at least sometimes point to the Bible to make their case.  Evangelical author Edward T. Welch writes:

  Scripture seems to lean in the direction of rejecting the concept of privacy in the parent-child relationship. (Addictions, 95)

Welch doesn't provide any explicit biblical support for this claim, so my question is: what is the biblical basis against the idea of a child's right to privacy in relation to their parents?

Here I am talking about children who are legal minors living with their parents, and I'm specifically asking about their privacy within the parent-child relationship.  The question of a child's privacy within the church or society at large is a separate issue.  I'm also focusing on the question of a right to privacy, not whether it is biblical for parents to give their child privacy in certain situations.


texts: Where can I find out more about other people rising from the dead, when Jesus died on the Cross?

texts:
51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two
  pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the
  bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves
  opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death.
  53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death,
  they went into the holy city, and many people saw them. -Matthew 27:51

Aside from Jesus healing people, this appears to me as the biggest supernatural event in the Gospel: Other people rising from the dead, out of graves!

However, there is only 1 line given to this?

Are there any more details about what happened here?

Thanks!


texts:
When people say "I am waiting on God." Are they afraid to take action in their own lives?
I have heard so many people in the church claim that they know the will of God, and what God's will is for my life. How do we know if this is legitimate or someone simply trying to further their own agenda?
If we are thankful for what we have, we will never set goals or try to improve ourselves or try to solve various problems within society?
How do we know when God truly intervenes?


texts: Is there an English translation of the OT, which is strictly based on the Septuagint?

texts:
The Masoretic Text was used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, such as the King James Version (KJV), and American Standard Version, and for some versions of Catholic Bibles (after 1943). However, the text is sometimes adjusted to conform to the Greek LXX in passages where clarification or Christological interpretation was felt necessary.

But is there any English translation, which only uses the Septuagint (LXX)?


texts: If "God" is a Trinity, where in the Bible does the word "God" refer to the Trinity?

texts: There may be places where the word is ambiguous.   What I am looking for is one example that must be all three.


texts: Why did Jesus write on the ground in John 8:6-11?

texts:
John 8 describes a woman caught in adultery and brought before Jesus by the scribes and the Pharisees. In those passages, Jesus writes on the ground twice:

  4 They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.
  5 Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
  6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.
  7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
  8 Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
  9 And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.

What purpose did this serve? Why did Jesus write on the ground?

(I've been unable to find a good answer elsewhere due to all the speculation and occasional jokes - please avoid these. An answer is "speculative" if it describes something that could have happened without giving a good reason for why that really did happen.)


texts:
A document published by the church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints titled the proclamation to the family  refers to a premortal identity and purpose or a premortal realm.

How is the LDS churches belief on a pre-mortal existence different than other Christian religions?


texts: Are there any verses showing God being fooled or deceived?

texts: Are there any passages in the bible (old or new) that display god as getting tricked by somebody? For example in the Garden of Eden God didn't know (or seemed to not know) about the apple being eaten until he was told. Could they have lied? Are there any examples of something like this happening?


texts: Do any groups of Quakers still disapprove of the fine arts?

texts:
The family of the great painter Benjamin West belonged to a Society of Friends when West was a child, and according to his biography, in that environment his prodigious artistic talents were not viewed positively.  The boy's future occupation was the subject of a public meeting of the Society, since it held

  that things merely ornamental were not necessary to the well-being of man, and that all superfluous things should be excluded from the usages and manners of their society.

"The study of the fine arts" was therefore prohibited, and only after significant debate was Benjamin West permitted to develop his talent.

Now to my question: do any current branches of the Society of Friends (Quakers) still generally disapprove of the fine arts?  I'm aware of the existence of the Conservative Friends, but it's not clear to me if they would discourage or prohibit the creation of merely "ornamental" images.  Do all Friends now view the fine arts as a legitimate occupation, or do some groups still see it as something to be avoided?

Galt, John, The Life, Studies, and Works of Benjamin West, Part 1, Chapter 3


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that it is sinful to vote for a pro-abortion politician?

texts:
Say that a person were to vote for a candidate because they liked their positions on a variety of issues. However, they were also pro-abortion, meaning that they are at odds with the Catholic Church's position on abortion, which teaches that it is a mortal sin. Moreover, the Church teaches that aiding someone in getting an abortion is also a mortal sin.

Does the Catholic Church teach that it is sinful to vote for a politician who is pro-abortion (i.e. supportive of abortion rights)?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that God stores our prayers?

texts: I've heard that God stores our prayers. Where does He store them; is it in a bottle, a scroll, a book? What scripture supports this claim?


texts: What do the Nicene, Apostles, Chalcedonian, Creeds add to the concept of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that is not found directly in the Bible?

texts: There were opposing views especially on the nature of God and His relationship to Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. That was in part the reason for the councils. To try to unify the church and come to some form of consensus on the many points of doctrine that were in conflict. I would assume that the discussions were similar in nature to the ones we are having here on this site. What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity? and... Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity Both sides using the scriptures in support of their beliefs. Some how they were able to come to some sort of consensus and the resulting creeds were deemed infallible by the church. Those who disagreed with them were often excommunicated and even exiled. That is the reason for my question. What did the Non-Trinitarians believe was being added to the concept of God by these creeds that they could not accept and risked their lives to oppose?


texts: According to Pentecostalism/Charismaticism, can Satan understand all tongues?

texts:
This question is geared towards Pentecostals and Charismatics (although all views are welcome), can Satan understand the tongues that are spoken by a person that is speaking in tongues as uttered by the Holy Spirit?

Here is one passage that when taken literately can imply that only God can hear the spoken utterance, but it context it doesn't really hold up since the context is order of worship. but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor 14:28)

Since Satan was an angel and has been around the earth since the creation (and Babel), is it possible that he is able to understand the utterance of men and angels If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)

One more argument that one can make is that the "Holy Spirit" is Holy and Satan is not, therefore Satan cannot understand the Holy utterances of the Holy Spirit.  But I have been unable to find biblical support for this claim.

This question popped up during a casual discussion with my Charismatic friend and I'm Pentecostal.


texts: How do you explain the Christian Message to people who have no Christian vocabulary or context?

texts:
Original Question: Is it possible to give some brief description of Christian faith to non-believing listeners without exposing them to context requiring faith?

If yes, can you provide one? Any term requiring faith (like God, prayer, sermon) should be clarified in the answer using terms clear to non-believers (like love or selfishnes).

By brief I mean to be able to say it under 1 minute in normal speed speech.


texts: Did anyone who was a part of the Counter reformation consider Luther to be the Antichrist?

texts:
Were there any writings from the counter-reformation which had arguments in support of the idea that Martin Luther was a/the Antichrist? He seems to fit the bill. He initiated a great apostasy from the true faith which carries on to this day and led to an enduring culture of schism in Western Christianity, fuelled by his illogical Sola Scriptura doctrine. The "lawless one" and "the man of sin, the son of perdition" seem to apply nicely to him.

Did anyone from the counter reformation identify Luther as "the lawless one", "the man of sin", "the son of perdition" or "the antichrist"?


texts: Is there extrabiblical first-century documentation of sadducee theology?

texts: The Bible mentions a few things about the sadducees' beliefs, such as in Acts 23:8, but doesn't reveal much detail. Are there any documents aside from the Bible from the first century AD (or first few centuries) which document what the sadducees believed?


texts: How do Protestants view "Catholic" miracles, such as those that attest to a saint?

texts:
An important part of Catholicism is the canonization of saints in the present day. One of the criteria for canonization is the confirmation of miracles associated with the would-be saint. In particular, a great number of "modern" Catholic miracles involve the Virgin Mary, e.g. the "Miracle of the Sun" at Fatima.

Given that protestants believe miracles occurred historically, as recorded in the Bible, and also that protestants are unlikely to believe that the Virgin Mary is performing miracles in the modern days, my question is the following:

  How do protestants react to Catholic miracles? If these claims are met with disbelief, how does a protestant defend her disbelief in the miracles in a way which is not also applicable to the miracles in the Bible?

If it will result in a sharper answer, a response which focuses on one specific miracle, like the Miracle of the Sun, would be helpful and interesting.


texts: What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the NASB and ESV?

texts:
I've read both the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version for some time now. I frankly can't tell which one I'm reading; they're that close. Many passages are translated with the exact same wording.

What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the two?


texts: Biblical basis for "We are the living law"?

texts:
I found myself at a bewilderment when, yesterday during our Prayer/Bible study group, a member of the group started teaching us the concept of "We are the living law".

His reasoning/support behind this?

Christ died and fulfilled the Law, but it's not done away with.
We are appointed to die once, and when we accept Christ we experience that death and have "the righteous blood [of Christ] applied [to us]."

There were a few other points I can't recall at the moment, but I will edit the question if I remember.

My question is - are there any denominations that teach this doctrine? I found this particular teaching very uncomfortable, as the "head" if our group. I apologize if this question is unclear. If there are edits to be made, do please suggest them.

In short, I'm curious if there is a biblical basis for this teaching - and if so - if there are any other denominations that teach this.


texts: Why is oil the suitable "matter" for the Sacrament of Confirmation?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that for each of the seven sacraments she administers, there is matter and form of the sacrament [cf. Sacraments | New Advent].

Some catechisms also describe a sacrament as "an outward sign of inward grace instituted by Christ".

To me, it is easier to understand "pouring of/living water" being the matter of the sacrament of baptism [cleansing from original sin], but it is not readily apparent to me why anointing with chrism is required matter for the sacrament of confirmation.

Why is oil the suitable matter for the sacrament of confirmation?

The best answer will also explain how oil is connected with receiving the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation.


texts: What is the Catholic concept of "freedom to sin"?

texts:
This question is inspired by a question posted on ScienceFiction&Fantasy.SE. The central issue (vastly oversimplifying) is whether it's more evil to compel someone to do good than to compel them to do evil.

The comments on my answer brought up the faith of the author of the work under discussion, a Roman Catholic, and the notion of "freedom to sin;" one SFF user posted an anecdote from their Catholic school teachings, saying (emphasis mine):

  I can remember being [taught] (in Catholic school) that intending to steal something when the opportunity arises, is still a sin even if the opportunity doesn't arise. The choice to commit the sin is as bad as committing the sin. Freedom to sin is an important part of Catholicism. Removing that freedom (forcing them to walk the correct path) removes the truth of their redemption (because they did not make the choice). It will demonize the "good path" because it is a thing you are enslaved to, and so one will eventually rebel against it.

Another SFF user1 posted a link to the Summa Theologica in comments, particularly the bit on whether will is the subject of sin, but I'll admit that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the language.

Doing my own research, I found a bit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church discussing the freedom of choosing between good and evil, which I found easier to read, but I'm still having trouble grasping the finer details.

As a non-Catholic, can anyone explain this concept to me? Helping me to understand the meaning of these (or other) texts would be most helpful, but I'll take any help I can get.

1 Who is also a user here; hi, Matt!


texts: Where can I find the Orthodox response to the Augsburg Confession?

texts:
According to Steven Runciman's The Great Church in Captivity (excerpt), the Orthodox Patriarch Jeremias II wrote a letter detailing the differences between the Orthodox doctrines and Lutheran teachings.

Is an English translation of the letter publicly available, and where can I find it? My searches keep taking me back to the linked book excerpt above.


texts: How does Christianity view participation in dangerous sports?

texts:
Many of the sports we play today expose the participants to physical dangers they would not otherwise have been subject to. Examples could be skiing, surfing, high speed car races or stunt biking. Other sports even put the lives of opponents at risk at the hands of the players as a direct result of the nature of the sport. Boxing would be one example.

How do Christians tend to view participation in these sports? Are there any current or historical statements where a particular Christian tradition has taken a stand one way or the other on participation in such sports? If so what traditions and what did they base their belief on?

Are there any other doctrines that play into this? Does holding a particular belief on a different issue tend to correlate with a particular stance on this one?


texts: Did God give Moses visions of History and the Tabernacle on Mount Sinai?

texts:
After Moses spent forty days and nights on the mountain, he gave the people the requirements God had told him to say to the Israelites:

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

  Exodus 19:3  And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

In the chapters between 19 and 25 are the laws God gave Moses, but in chapter 25,God in giving Moses instructions on building the Tabernacle said:

  Exodus 25:8 and 9  And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

according to that Scripture God showed Moses some visions, and also;

  Exodus 25:40  And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

If I am reading the Scriptures correctly God not only told Moses what to tell the Israelites to do, but also gave him visions of exactly how the Tabernacle and its furnishings should be made.

Did God also give Moses visions of History which he then recorded in Genesis?


texts: Is there a Catholic list of Old Testament sacraments?

texts:
Augustine said that there are fewer sacraments in the New Covenant than there were in the Old:

  Thus the sacraments of the Old Testament, which were celebrated in obedience to the law, were types of Christ who was to come; and when Christ fulfilled them by His advent they were done away, and were done away because they were fulfilled. For Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill. And now that the righteousness of faith is revealed, and the children of God are called into liberty, and the yoke of bondage which was required for a carnal and stiffnecked people is taken away, other sacraments are instituted, greater in efficacy, more beneficial in their use, easier in performance, and fewer in number.

My denomination, Presbyterianism, teaches that there are two (not seven, as Catholics would have it) New Testament sacraments, each derived from a particular one of the two Old Testament sacraments. A good explanation can be found in Fisher's Catechism (Q93), particularly sub-questions 1, 17, and 18.

Do any Catholic sources have a list of Old Testament sacraments, and how they each reached their fulfillment in the seven New Testament sacraments?


texts:
I was reading about ... hold on, what was I reading about? Nevermind, I was URL surfing. Jumping around from one link to another I somehow got to this -

  He [Nero] was known for having captured Christians burned in his garden at
  night for a source of light. (Source)

I rubbed my eyes and squinted at the monitor. I wasn't hallucinating. I would never have believed such an outrageous statement had I not read it on wikipedia. :P

And it gets progressively worse -

  In the words of Tacitus, Christians showed "hatred of the human race"
  (odium generis humani). Christians were thought to use black magic in
  pursuit of revolutionary aims, and to practice incest and cannibalism.

  "The Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every
  misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls,
  if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds
  its rain, if there is earthquake or famine or plague, straightway the
  cry arises: 'The Christians to the lions!'"

I tried to visualize and think just why would a belief system grow in such an environment. It seems counter intuitive. Let's look at the points -

Open persecution. In modern times most of the countries have laws against religious violence. Persecutions are done by violent mobs but aren't state sponsored (exceptions apply). But with open support of government it would've been much worse.
Small population. Hundreds of Christians are martyred nowadays. But since the population is already so large it doesn't have much effect.
No written Bibles. Imagine hearing sermons from a traveling missionary and then hanging onto that for the rest of your life. Repeated readings of the Bible makes it easier to learn your religion and not forget basic tenets of your faith.
Underground churches. No fellowship and support of other people to let you hang on when times are tough.
Hard to earn your bread. Economic system was organized in a way to favor certain people. In modern times corporate culture has
removed religion and other personal factors from economy. Christians
would've found themselves at the bottom of this socioeconomic system.
And whenever you did catch a fish or log some timber, your house is
open to robbery. Law enforcement doesn't give a rat.

  The Persecution in Lyon was preceded by mob violence, including
  assaults, robberies and stonings.
  Cultural isolation. Marriages, funerals and family life in general were difficult. You can imagine the difficulty by hearing the complaints of minorities in modern society and multiplying that many times over.
  Impracticality. There's little incentive to listen to that Babbling missionary when you've just returned from a Saturday night carnage show at the neighborhood Colosseum. You surely wouldn't want yourself to be cast in the next show, do you?

  It astounds my mind; just why would a religion sprout in such an environment?

Note: Please don't say that it was God's will. And please no quoting Acts 5:39.


texts: According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, what is the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer?

texts: What does the LDS/Mormon church teach about the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer? Are they beings on the same level or of the same origin? What are their natures? What texts are used to teach specifically about the relationship between them?


texts: How many of each species went onto the Ark?

texts:
"The animals went in two-by-two, hurrah, hurrah!" - we're taught this nursery rhyme from a young age, and go throughout life believing that one male, and one female of each species was present on the Ark in order to re-populate the world after the flood.

  Genesis 6:19 - "You are to bring into the ark two of all living
  creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of
  every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of
  creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept
  alive."

  Genesis 7:2 -"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal,
  a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a
  male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male
  and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

I find the verses above somewhat confusing with regards to how many of each species would have been present on the Ark. How do people who take the Ark narrative literally interpret this?


texts:
Does Vatican (or Holy See) publish the miracles it has approved? I'm seeking a list of currently approved miracles (any kind, really, including apparitions, eucharistic miracles and so on). I was, however, unable to find an official source.
This is all I've come up with: Marian Apparitions.
This is not enough:

firstly because it's hard to tell which are Catholic Church approved (and, under Vatican approved tab there are only 15 of them listed [which seems a bit low to me])
secondly, because under different tabs, there's an occasional duplication
thirdly, it's not an official source

Edit:
I am looking for that kind of miracles, that are marked as worthy of belief ("Constat de supernaturalitate") see here.


texts:
Thomas More was canonized in 1935 by the Catholic Church. During his chancellorship between 1525-1529 in the campaign against the reformation people were killed and tortured in his name, for example, for the crime of owning an English Bible, something that is quite normal nowadays.

For what reasons do the Catholic Church justify his canonization?


texts: Is there any Biblical Basis for 400 years of silence between Old and New Testament?

texts:
When I was researching about the deuterocanon (or the apocrypha, as most Protestants call them) I stumbled upon the notion that God was silent during a period of 400 years between the end of the Old Testament (after the Prophet Malachi) and the beginning of New Testament time (namely the appereance of John the baptist).

From a Protestant point of view where the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are not considered scripture, there is indeed a 400 year gap in revelation -- no prophets, no inspired writings, nothing.

From a Catholic (or Orthodox) point of view however there is scripture written and inspiration taking place during that period and there is no gap (at least not that long) in in Gods revelation.

Now, when looking for reasons why christians consider the deuterocanon/apocrypha inspired or not I am sometimes told that those writings originated in a period where God was silent and thus cannot be considered scripture (like here, here or here).

To me this is:

A circular argument (apocrypha are not scriptural -> God was silent 400 years -> in those 400 years no inspired scripture was written -> apocrypha are not scriptural) or
There must be another reason to believe God was silent for that period. This reason would break the circle in (1) and make the stated argument valid.

My Question: What biblical basis give adherents of a large time of Gods silence between the Prophet Malachi and John the Baptist beside the (perceived) fact of missing inspired scripture in that period?

A best answer could simply cite the prophet X in saying: "Listen, God will be silent for 400 years before the fulfillment of time." and then stating that this fulfillment of time has come with Christ. But there may be more to say to that matter ...


texts: According to Catholicism, is there hope for people to get saved after they're dead?

texts:
Do Catholics believe that there is hope for salvation after death?

If they do not have faith in Jesus as the messiah before they die, is there any hope for them?


texts: Does the cosmological argument ignore the Spirituality of God?

texts:
In studying Christianity it is inevitable that one comes to the point where the existence of God is compared to the existence of the Universe. This is loosely embraced in the Cosmological argument.

  The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.
  Like most arguments for the existence of God, the cosmological argument exists in several forms; two of those are: the temporal, kalam cosmological argument (i.e. the first cause argument), and the modal argument from contingency. The main distinguishing feature between these two arguments is the way in which they evade an initial objection to the argument, introduced with a question: “Does God have a cause of his existence?” [Robin Le Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism, Routledge 1996, Chapter 1]

Basically the reasoning that all things have a causative factor is the basis for proclaiming that God exists. However, the argument is made that if all things must have a causative factor then God also must have a causative factor.
In attempting to verify the existence of God the logic of the existence of the Cosmos is an attempt to prove that God exists. The fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that God and creation are existent in two very differing realms. While the Cosmos is in the material realm (where objects have matter and occupy space) God resides in the Spiritual realm (which has no matter and occupies no Space).

Spirituality has no need of a beginning or an end since there is no form of matter to decay.

The concept of the Spiritual Realm is hard to grasp in that it has no substance. My question is does any Denomination separate its belief in Heaven from the prevalent Cosmological arguments and portend that Spirituality having no substance and occupying no space has no need for a causative factor.


texts: What does giving up free will and giving it to Jesus mean?

texts: Is there a majority opinion as to what giving up free will and giving it to Jesus means? What does this action look like? Are there any real life examples?


texts: What is the biblical meaning of "sanctification"?

texts:
I understand that sanctification is used as a post-reformational theological term to refer to the ongoing process of Christian growth.

But, biblically speaking, is this always what is meant? I know that the word literally means "to make holy," which does not necessitate an ongoing process (and neither a one-time event). I am a bit nervous about limiting the semantic range when something broader may be intended in scripture.

So what is the semantic range of the word as used in scripture?


texts: Are there any Catholic saints or notable theologians that have interpreted 666 in the manner as explained below?

texts:
Are there any Catholic saints or notable theologians that have interpreted the the Beast of Revelations number 666 in the following way?

The first 6 is linked to the six days of creation and in the eyes one day to the Lord is like a thousand days. - (2Peter 3:8)

The second 6, is linked to the age of the world as being 6,000 years old when the Beast of Revelation will appear.

The final 6, is referred to as being the the sixth age of the Church (or Creation).

  Six Ages

  The Six Ages, as formulated by Saint Augustine, are defined in De catechizandis rudibus (On the catechizing of the uninstructed), Chapter 22:

  The First Age "is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood," i.e. the Antediluvian period.
  The Second Age "extends from that period on to Abraham, who was called the father indeed of all nations.."
  The Third Age "extends from Abraham on to David the king."
  The Fourth Age is "from David on to that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia."
  The Fifth Age is "from that transmigration down to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ."
  The Sixth Age: "With His [Jesus Christ's] coming the sixth age has entered on its process."

  The Ages reflect the seven days of creation, of which the last day is the rest of Sabbath, illustrating the human journey to find eternal rest with God, a common Christian narrative. - Six Ages of the World (Wikipedia)

I vaguely recall reading about this some decades ago. Can anyone point me to a source or sources of this information?

  Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. - Revelation 13:18

The interpretation given dwelt more on the time when the man, known as the Antichrist was going to appear, rather than on the interpretation that the numbers were more personally linked to the man of perdition.

Can anyone recall which Catholic author(s) wrote about this?


texts: Catholic position about non-truthfully conversion to islam

texts:
Two people, call them Jones (Catholic) and Fatima (Muslim), want to marry: first civilly and if the bishop gives a dispensation, religiously.

Fatima is from a Muslim country that prohibits Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men, threatening that "crime" with severe punishment. In order for the civil marriage to be approved in Fatima's country, Jones (from a western country) decides to convert to Islam formally, as it is the only way he and his wife can stay in contact with Fatima's (non-devotional) Muslim family in the theocratic country.

What is the Catholic position about the acceptability of Jones' mimicked conversion to Islam while he still considers himself to be Catholic?


texts: Help me locate a passage regarding driving out the Canaanites before Israel

texts:
I have embedded in my memory that somewhere in the Old Testament there is a passage, where God says something to effect of:

  If you knew how evil these Canaanites were, you would not wonder why I drove them out / destroyed them.

For the life of me I can not remember the exact wording in any language I know.


texts: How could Queen Victoria of England marry her first cousin?  Isn't it forbidden by the church to marry one's first cousin?


texts: How is rosary different from chanting Mantra?

texts:
I'd like to know the Catholic teaching or opinion on rosary similarities with eastern religion prayers like chanting mantra.

I checked something about chanting mantra and it uses the same way of focusing on every word and even the way how it sounds.


texts: Catholic's view on artificial self-enhancement

texts:
I am writing a story wherein a pill to increase empathy and awareness of your fellow human being is invented. I was wondering what the view of the Catholic church is on self-enhancement. I went to a catholic school all of my life and have read large parts of the Bible, but the most I got out of my limited education on the subject was that one should be cautious when adopting new technologies.

I did see a few questions on medication and seeking medical treatment, where the general consensus was that it depended on personal beliefs. I was wondering if there were any passages of the bible relevant to this or if the Catholic church has made any statement. I think this question is plausibly answerable considering the Catholic church has made statements about various other sci-fi phenomenon, such as the possibility of extra-terrestrials.


texts: Catholicism: Does a second marriage become valid when the previous spouse dies

texts:
Assuming Ann is Catholic and married to Bob. She later gets a civil divorce from Bob and gets married outside the church to Chris. Bob later dies.

Is Ann's new marriage now valid? If not, can she get a dispensation? Or does she need to marry Chris a second time?