texts: Why did Ninevites respond the way they did?

texts:
I'm reading through the book of Jonah, and in an historical context it doesn't make much sense to me.

Nineveh was part of Assyrian empire. It practised Ashurism focused on worship of of Ashur and Inanna.

When God sent Jonah to Nineveh I expected the response to be something like:

  "Who is the LORD, that I should obey him ..." Exodus 5:2

Assyrians are also said to have practised homosexuality, which was contrary to Judaism. To me it seems unlikely that an entire city would abandon their religion and established customs instantly on the words of an unknown man calling himself a prophet of some foreign religion.

Is the book of Jonah describing a historical event?


texts: Is falling to the floor during blessings or prayers supported in Roman Catholic doctrine?

texts:
In the Pentecostal Church and some other Christian movements, during blessings or prayers people often fall to the floor. This is critiqued by some people. But today I saw a Roman Catholic priest and exorcist praying or blessing someone, and that person was falling to the floor the same way as happens in the Pentecostal Church. (This was not an exorcism.)

I did not think things like this happened in the Roman Catholic Church—or maybe I did not understand what was going on.

My question:

Is falling to the floor during blessings or prayers supported in Roman Catholic doctrine (much like in the Pentecostal Church)?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that man is no longer made in God's image?

texts:
According to an Adrian Rodgers radio broadcast man is no longer born in God's image due to the Fall. What is the biblical support for this assertion?

The broadcasts are archived here; the one I heard was the Adrian Rodgers radio broadcast today, 8:30 AM (from the Truth Network's flagship station at 11 am EST).  This radio show is Love Worth Finding and has been aired for many years.


texts:
I was asking this question:

How do Christians that do not believe in inerrancy interpret the Bible?

when I realized that my definition of inerrancy is probably different from others'. One definition (in my own words) is "The Bible is inerrant so long as it is translated and interpreted correctly" but a more extreme definition is "The Bible is inerrant and must be interpreted literally".

It seems to me that there are several things that could make the Bible errant (keep in mind that I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of these are the case):

It is dis-proven by science or historical fact
Its original text was misrecorded
Its translation into our native language was incorrect
Its interpretation is not correct

Between the two examples I gave you will either hit up against the facts of science/history (sorry Young Earth creationists, just bear with me), and the infinite possibilities of non-literal interpretations (which, so long as they are not the same, cannot all be right). Therefore there must be some error between God's mouth thousands of years ago and our heads today. It is inescapable the way I see it.

Maybe it's just syntax that's holding me up, but where do people draw the line when they talk about inerrancy? Is it without error between God's mouth and the original transcription? That neglects to recognize the potential for error downstream to the reader. It seems to me that as soon as you allow for interpretation you taint the inerrancy.

In other words, doesn't the fact that we are constricted by the boundaries and limitations of language (whether spoken, written, or read) make inerrancy impossible?


texts: Why can't Catholicism just drop its Marian devotion?

texts:
Catholicism puts great emphasis on the importance on the Mary, the Mother of God. It honors her and insists upon her perpetual sinlessness and perpetual virginity. And in my observation, it seems as though this high opinion of and devotion to Mary is integral to Catholicism.

This is very much in contrast to Protestant traditions which insist that Christ is of sole importance. In the loosely-quoted words of many-a-Protestants:

  Why wouldn't a Christian's devotion be to Christ alone? Why set up
  intermediaries where none are needed? And why contort Mary's role as
  having any more significance than Christ's physical, human mother?
  Doesn't that smell like idolatry to you!?

So, why is she so important in and seemingly integral to Catholicism? Is there theological, symbolic, or spiritual significance?

Do they just assume if they can convince Mary to pray for them, Jesus has to listen because she's His mom? (Lest he be put on a heavenly time-out?)

For the sake of Christian unity or otherwise, why can't the Catholic Church just drop the Marian devotion?

Addendum/Clarification: Is the theology and practice surrounding Mary roughly as integral to Catholicism as the doctrine and meditation of the Holy Trinity? Eliminating the doctrine of the Trinity would fundamentally change the Catholic understanding of God. Would eliminating Mary also change the Catholic understanding of God?


texts: Why are the Gospels silent on the physical appearance of Jesus?

texts:
We have four books which describe the life of Jesus Christ from His birth to His death and resurrection. All the four Gospels are silent about the physical appearance of Jesus. It won't take much words to describe the appearance of Jesus. At least some few words for His height, complexion, hair color, hair length, hair style, ugly or handsome, voice and body size will suffice.

Is there any explicit/implicit reason why the Gospels are silent on the physical appearance of Jesus Christ?


texts: What do the Catholic Church consider constitutes intrinsically impossible things?

texts:
We all know that by his omnipotence, God can do anything and everything "possible".

Q1. If so, what things are considered by the Church to be "impossible" for God to do?

Q2. Is it correct to say that an event is not an impossible event as long as the event has "some possibility" to occur in future (even if it be a very, very slight possibility)?

Thank you,


texts: Is it possible for a spirit to eat fish? Then how did Jesus eat fish after his resurrection (Luke 24:43).


texts: Is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an evangelical worship team's actions?

texts:
Especially since we have switched from in person to live streamed services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continuing as we have had a phased return with both in person people and live steaming, we’ve had a sense of the service being a production.
We’ve avoided using the term “performance” to describe the actions of the worship team, because we consider them to be leading the whole church, not performing to the church.
But we’ve struggled to find an alternative word to describe it. We want to say “you need to prepare to be ready for your X” for example.
It’s possible we’re hunting for a word that doesn’t really exist, nevertheless, is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an Evangelical worship music team's actions?

This is a non-denominational evangelical, independent church. Our hymns are mostly modern with a few more traditional. The instruments are piano keyboard, a couple guitars, drums / cajon and a singer (male or female).
Recent songs have included “Only a Holy God”, “This I Believe”, “Come Holy Spirit”, “Jesus Strong Kind”, “Amazing Grace”, “Yes, finished! the Messiah dies”, others “feel” similar to me!


texts: What does the term ' a wind from God' as used at Genesis 1:2 (NRSVCE) imply?

texts:
Genesis 1:2 (NRSVCE) reads :

  the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The same verse in New King James Version (NKJV)reads:

  The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

I wish to know if the term ' a wind from God' as used in NRSVCE implies the Holy Spirit, or does it only mean a creative energy which set the stage for the creation of primordial life in water? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the latter prospect?


texts:
Until reading the "Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew" by Origen Adamantius, I presumed (based on the teachings of Wikipedia) that the original manuscript of Matthew was written in Greek & that Mark was the earliest gospel.
In contrast to internet, early church scholars like Origen (around 246-248 AD) stated that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew & that Mark was the second gospel account written.

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, "The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." [5151] And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by [5152] Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

Biblehub - Origen's Commentary on Matthew's Gospel
Regarding early church "Commentary of Matthew" by Origen, should Christians trust Matthew was the first Gospel written in Hebrew?


texts: How young do children start to receive communion regularly in Eastern Catholic/Orthodox churches?

texts: I know that in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches communion is given to infants at baptism along with chrismation. What about after that? Do they continue all throughout childhood, or is it just a one time thing until they are older?


texts: What would the Jews of Jesus' time have known about heaven?

texts:
Looking at the cross references for John 12:34,

  34 So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

I found several regarding the eternal kingdom of Christ:

Psalm 89:4

  ‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.’” Selah

Psalm 110:4

  The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Isaiah 9:7

  Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end...

Ezekiel 37:25

  They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever.

Luke 1:33

  and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Given the wealth of such references, and the seemingly common misconception that the Messiah would bring about an earthly kingdom, it made me wonder:
What did the Jews of that time know about heaven, or indeed, about the afterlife? Was it a very concrete thing, was their picture of it accurate (whether somewhat primitive or full and detailed), and was it based on Scripture or on tradition?


texts:
Does anyone know of a good book, website, or general source that focuses on telling the the different narrative form moral-stories of the Bible (e.g. Peter walks on water with Jesus, doubts it, then sinks; etc.)

If this doesn’t exist, I think it would be a great source of historical wisdom to pass through the generations, truth/falseness of the stories aside.

Thank you much for your time.


texts:
Every now and then you hear someone set a date for Christ’s return.

Such dates are bound to fail –

  Matthew 24:36  "No one knows about that day or hour ... "

And when they do fail -

  (Issac Newton) was wary of prophetic date-setting. Newton was worried
  that the failure of fallible human predictions based on divine
  prophecy would bring the Bible into disrepute. (Source)

To stop the doomsayers -

  He estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In
  predicting this he said "This I mention not to assert when the time of
  the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of
  fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by
  doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their
  predictions fail. (Source)

Now my question -

What is the time or events before which Christ couldn't return no matter what? (to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men and satisfy my curiosity)


texts: In Catholicism, what are some examples of views considered opinio tolerata?

texts: In Roman Catholic theology, opinio tolerata (tolerated opinion) refers to beliefs that are considered unlikely to be true, but are nonetheless tolerated by the Church. What are some examples of beliefs that are opinio tolerata? I have heard it suggested that belief in the Limbo of Infants is a contemporary example, but I'm not sure if that is true. In any case, even if that is true, I would be interested in other examples also.


texts:
I'm curious what the Bible states about the soul.

In many different places, especially Deuteronomy, we're told to love or believe "with all our soul." Many people have opinions over what a soul is, what it means to have one, and other properties of the soul, but I'm looking for supporting details.

Where and how does the Bible describe the soul?


texts: What is the religious significance of Christmas lights?

texts: What is the religious significance of the modern practice to decorate the outside of the house and front yard with strings of light?  Is it entirely secular?


texts: What does Christian Science teach about mental illnesses?

texts:
I understand that Christian Science believes that a person with a physical disease should not seek out medical treatment, but instead rely on prayer. Wikipedia says that adherents believe

…that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.
The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care – adherents use dentists, optometrists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, and vaccination when required by law  – but maintains that Christian Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine.

I'm curious to know what Christian Science teaches about mental illnesses (e.g. depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and other mental illnesses recognized by the DSM-5). In particular, I'm wondering if mental illnesses are also described as mental errors or if they are something else. Also, what sort of treatment would be permitted? I presume that taking SSRIs and other medication would be strongly discouraged, but is seeking out a counselor permitted?


texts: What was Esther’s relationship to Mordecai?

texts: Do we know what was Esther's relationship to Mordecai, based on the Jewish and Christian tradition?


texts: Where did the hierarchical designations of priest, cardinal, bishop, and pope come from in the Catholic church?

texts:
Protestantism typically recognizes offices that include pastors, elders, and deacons.  Another common belief is the priesthood of all believers, and thus there is no such designation for a particular office.

Catholicism, by contrast, has priests, cardinals, bishops, and popes.  Where did these designations come from and when did each of them arise?  I know that the word "priest" does appear in the New Testament, but I am unaware of any words from which cardinal, bishop, or pope would be derived.

(I wonder if for the first few centuries, there were only priests and a pope and then over time other offices could have been added.  This is just speculation, though, as I am not too familiar with Catholic history.)


texts:
Are there any Christian Restorationist denominations that believe their establishment was the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?

If so, which denominations and which prophecies?


texts: Is there a study that has been done showing the transformational power of the Holy Spirit in people's lives?

texts: It's pretty clear that the Bible promises to change people's lives. It's also pretty clear that it did significantly change people's lives such as the apostles and others both in the the present day (e.g. Chuck Colson) and throughout history. My question is, has there ever been a study done to show the transformational power Christianity has in a person's life? It seems like a study such as that would provide significant evidence to support the claims of Christianity.


texts: How are conflicting views concerning latae sententiae excommunications resolved in the Catholic Church?

texts:
One might identify the real-world problem behind this question. I have
  tried to put it forth without naming anyone involved in such situation
  and instead posed it as an imaginary situation. Please answer in a
  general way and not by pointing at any specific instance, person or
  group.

Imagine the following situation in the Catholic Church: Some catholic commits an offense which is punishable with a latae sententiae exommunication according to canon law.

As I understand the offender will (at least if the offense is somehow public) be advised by some authority (e.g. the pope or the local bishop) that his actions are leading him into excommunication and that he should stop it.

Now let's further imagine that the offender himself argues that his actions were out of grave necessity. In this case he would not be excommunicated latae sententiae (again, according to my understanding of the matter). He thus continues committing the same offense out of perceived necessity.

On the other hand, the relevant authority (pope/bishop) does not accept his arguments and continues to put forth that the offender is excommunicated as long as the offense continues.

This might now lead to a "but he said"-situation where one group claims that the person in question is and the other group that he is not excommunicated, thus leading to major problems concerning the unity of the church.

My Question: In such a situation, what mechanism is there to create clarity about the status (excommunicated or not) of the offender for himself and the public?


texts: What scholarship exists behind the WikiSource translation of the Bible?

texts:
In response to a question about Onan, @RonMaimon chose the WikiSource translation. Not being familiar with it, I tried to examine it's pedigree, but could not find one. I'd like to know a little about the scholarship of this translation.

I see that it has been in progress since 2006, but can't seem to locate much more than that.

Additionally, Bible Gateway, which has a lot of translations, does not source this one.

I like the idea behind an open source translation, but can't decide if this one is quality or not.

From what base manuscripts is the text drawn? What key manuscripts are referenced (Are we talking Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, papyri, etc.. Or is this based on later translations such as the LXX or even English translations. ) Is Nestle-Aland 27 considered, etc...
What are the credentials of the translators? Put another way, how do I even know if they can read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Unfortunately, I couldn't locate the base manuscripts to do any investigation.
What is the translation philosophy of WikiSource? Is it dynamic or formal equivalence?

For Kjv, hcsb, esv, nrsv, and lots of others, you can easily find the answers, but i had no luck on Wikisource. Even for the NET bible - a public domain bible, I can answer these questions and still retain full insight into the translation choices, but i couldn't locate such a statement for this one.


texts: Second Coming of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday?

texts:
During the Easter Vigil, the Catholic Church will chant (sing) the traditional Easter Proclamation hymn of the Exsultet.
The Exsultet expresses the Church's belief that this is the same night in which the ancient Jews were liberated from their bondage under the Egyptians.

Hæc nox est,
   in qua primum patres nostros, fílios Israel
   edúctos de Ægypto,
   Mare Rubrum sicco vestígio transíre fecísti.
Hæc ígitur nox est,
   quæ peccatórum ténebras colúmnæ illuminatióne purgávit.
Hæc nox est,
   quæ hódie per univérsum mundum in Christo credéntes,
   a vítiis sæculi et calígine peccatórum segregátos,
   reddit grátiæ, sóciat sanctitáti.

The reading of the Exsultet has brought a question in our Church, that I hope someone can answer.
Has any Church Father(s) ever expressed their belief that the Second Coming of Christ would be on the day of the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Easter Sunday)?


texts: Can our own spiritual gifts be given to others?

texts:
Are we able to impart our own spiritual gifts on others? That seemed to be what Paul was doing here.

  Romans 9:1-11 ESV For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

I'm looking for answers supported by scripture.

Are there churches that regularly practice this? Are there any other examples in scripture that imply this?


texts: Is there a logical flow in 2 Timothy 2:4-7?

texts:
No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. (2 Timothy 2:4-7, KJV)

These statements seem disconnected to me. Considering that Paul is asking Timothy to consider these things, I would think there is some connection between these counsels.


texts: How does Free Grace Theology reconcile 1 John?

texts:
My understanding of Free Grace Theology is that it separates the believers salvation from their sanctification, in that sanctification is not the necessary result of salvation.   It separates the call to believe and be saved from the call to follow and be a disciple.  In other words, people may be saved without exactly being "followers" (i.e., without going through the process of sanctification).

There are many passages in 1 John that seem to contradict Free Grace Theology, such as 1 John 3:9-10 (NASB)

  No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in
  him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [10] By this the
  children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone
  who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who
  does not love his brother

This passage seems to contradict Free Grace Theology's teaching that the saved may not be "followers" of Christ.

How do adherents to Free Grace Theology reconcile/interpret 1 John?

Disclaimer: I understand that this passage is not saying that Christians will never sin, lest it contradict 1 John 1:10.


texts:
So David's son had some pretty awesome hair:

  2 Samuel 14:25-26 ESV Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king's weight.

200 shekels is about 5 pounds. That's crazy. It's also crazy that Absalom could get suspended from tree branches by his hair apparently long enough for Joab to have a conversation and then kill him.

  2 Samuel 18:9,14 ESV And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on ... Joab said, “I will not waste time like this with you.” And he took three javelins in his hand and thrust them into the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the oak.

Is this possible? Can hair get that heavy and strong? This has bothered me for a while because I've wondered if this could be some figure of speech even though it's written so plainly.

I feel like the best and most obvious way to answer this would be to just find someone with equivalent hair structure. Whether through an article or picture or anything else.


texts: How did John the Baptist have the "spirit and power of Elijah"?

texts:
As the angel Gabriel said to Zechariah, whose son would be John the Baptist...

  Luke 1:17 (NLT)

  17 He will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah. He will prepare the people for the coming of the Lord. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will cause those who are rebellious to accept the wisdom of the godly.”

I remember Elijah as an Old Testament prophet that performed many miracles, as did Elisha who requested and received Elijah's power. Yet, I don't remember John the Baptist as having performed any miracles. So then, how did John the Baptist have Elijah's "spirit and power"? I'd prefer answers from a perspective as close to that of Wesleyan as possible.


texts: How is God's rest on the 7th day traditionally understood?

texts: It seems that, to an omnipotent and omnipresent being, the concept of rest would be academic. Why did God rest then? How is this traditionally understood? What would have happened if he hadn't rested?


texts: If I win the Powerball jackpot will Catholic Church accept a donation?

texts:
LDS has a policy of not taking gambling winnings including lottery money as donations.
Over the years several other churches have refused as well.
Is there an official policy in Catholic Church about the donation of money won in lottery?


texts: According to the Catholic Church is the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act an unjust law?

texts:
After going off on HIPAA one of the kids brought up Barack Obama and said that, "he's going to make Catholic Hospitals perform abortions." I said that wasn't exactly true, for now, at least, but he was making Catholic Hospitals (and everyone) purchase coverage for something that would allow them to procure an abortion.

So, I know that part is just immoral and evil, but is mandating that families get Health Insurance just for existing something that conflicts with the principle of subsidiarity?  Has anything been published that indicates whether the Catholic position is for purchasing or not purchasing health insurance to be purely a matter of choice left up to the heads of families?


texts: According to the Orthodox church, what is the purpose of the Bible?

texts:
I was raised with the view that the Bible is the book which contains everything we need to know, enumerates everything which is good and everything which is evil, is the manual for how to live a human life, and is the ultimate authority regarding all matters pertaining to Christianity (maybe even everything else as well).

I have even heard people suggest that Jesus is mysteriously united to the Bible in some way because they are both the 'Word of God'.

I do not think the Orthodox believe these things. What do they believe is the Bible's purpose?


texts: Why did Jesus protest before performing his first miracle?

texts:
In John 2:1-12 we read of Christ's first miracle, turning water into wine.  Before he performs his miracle, though, he says to his mother:

  “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

He seems to be protesting his mother's request that he do something about the lack of wine, but then turns right around and makes wine.

What did Jesus mean that his hour had not come?  Why do his actions seem to contradict his words?


texts:
Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him:

  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

John 5:46

Where did Moses write about Jesus? My thoughts were:

  And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Genesis 3:15

and possibly Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

Are there any other places that Moses wrote about Jesus?


texts: According to Wesleyan-Arminianism, does God fail?

texts:
According to Wesleyan-Arminianism, does God try His absolute hardest to save all of mankind- but ultimately fails and has no other choice but to send a majority of mankind to have their flesh burned in eternal hellfire?

This question is similar to How does the Arminian view of salvation account for God's sovereignty?, but I'm not looking for a reconciliation of free-will and God's sovereignty. Thank you.


texts: In light of Joseph being called a righteous man in Matthew 1:19, does this mean that divorce because one of the two was not a virgin at the time of marriage is biblically valid?


texts: Ties between the Jesuits and the Byzantine?

texts: I am reading into Society of Jesus, seeking to uncover its parallels and differences with Orthodox Christianity. It is attested the Jesuit order was formed in France on August 15th 1534, by Ignatius de Loyola and approved by Pope Paul III in Rome on September 1540 [REF] when presented with an outline; unable to uncover this outline, I am interested in discovering the extent in which the order had evangelized according to its Byzantine roots from this point in history on to this present day.


texts: Are there any reports or stories that the pope has seen God face to face in the last 200 years?

texts:
In the Old Testament, there are accounts of people (prophets) who saw God face to face.

Specifically in Genesis 32:30, it says

  And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God
  face to face, and my life is preserved.

If God does not vary or change, then my assumption would be that he is still speaking with others face to face, as he did with Jacob.

Are there any modern (last 200 years) accounts of the pope seeing God face to face?


texts: The anointing of Jesus - one event or multiple events?

texts:
The Anointing of Jesus is recorded in all four Gospels. A woman anoints Jesus' feet with expensive perfume and wipes the perfume with her hair.

Was this one event, or multiple events?

(I tend to think the former, since Jesus said that this story will be told wherever the gospel is preached (Mark 14:9). It may be a stretch, but I thought that would also apply to the four Biblical gospels.)


texts: What is the Catholic Church's official position on the Spanish Inquisition?

texts: The Spanish Inquisition seems to have had plenty of support from the Universal Inquisition at the time, but what is the present Vatican's view? Has the Church repudiated the Inquisition?


texts: Theistic evolution sounds similar to Old Earth Creationism. Both ideas start with the premise that God created. After this, I've heard tale of wars fought between the two camps. What is the gist of the differences between these two ideas?


texts: What does it mean to shed blood in the name of Christ?

texts:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:

  “The… Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV's qualification "even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ" seems to imply that to shed blood in the name of Christ is a work of piety of such value that some parishioners might expect should allow a person to be saved.

This might be confusing to the modern reader, since in modern English, the idiom "to shed blood" usually means to kill another, especially in an act of violence. The non-Catholic might read this as a commendation of those participating in violent acts associated with the Catholic church like the crusades or the execution of heretics.

What does it mean to "shed blood in the name of Christ"?

Do any other Catholic documents use these words to describe an act of piety?


texts: Is there a record of an association of prayer with pain?

texts:
It is well known and well documented that spiritual ecstasies (and the like) are present in Christianity (Paul caught up into heaven &c.). I am looking for theological works which expound on the opposite.

Is there a record (Biblical or extra Biblical) of the association of physical pain with prayer? Clearly Francis of Assisi and all who had the stigmata were afflicted because of/during prayer, but I was wondering if there was any other form which was well known


texts: Why do high-church people call their personalized Bible study exercises "devotionals"?

texts: Why do high-church people call their personalized Bible study exercises "devotionals", as in the Catholic and high-church Anglican traditions?


texts: How does Reformed Theology reconcile Jesus' meaningful temptation and impeccability?

texts:
According to Reformed Theology (the predominant view or an overview of slight variations within), how is the impeccability of Jesus reconciled with the idea that his temptations were authentic to the point he can sympathize with our own (sinful) human temptations?

There would seem to be a contradiction that if he was unable to sin then how was he legitimately tempted to sin? And yet we are told he has in Hebrews 4:15,

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. [ESV]

And James could be understood as saying it is our fallen heart that allows us to be tempted:

  But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. (James 1:14)

If Jesus is sinless and cannot sin then in what way is his temptation comparable to our own?

"This is not a duplicate" Disclaimer:

While a good answer may discuss the exact nature of Jesus' temptation and impeccability, the focus of the question is in the context of their interaction with Hebrews 4:15 and how the tension between the two is resolved.

Assumptions:

Reformed Protestant perspective.
Jesus is and was impeccable.
Impeccability is the inability to sin.
Jesus experienced temptation in a way that is meaningful to us.

Related:

What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation?

What is temptation?


texts: Who in the fourth century had milk instead of wine at communion?

texts:
While reading up on intinction I found a reference to an early practice of using milk instead of wine at communion. This was condemned in a decree of 340AD by Pope Saint Julius I:

For we have heard that some, occupied by ambition, contrary to the divine commands and apostolic custom, offer milk instead of wine at the divine sacrifice.
Audivimus enim quosdam schismatica ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines et apostolicas institutiones lac pro vino in divinis sacrificiis dedicare.

(Translation from the first linked document; the Latin original is Decreta decem juxta Gratianum et Ivonem, decree 7.)
Who were these people that used milk instead of wine? And what does ambition have to do with it?


texts: Where did the trinity concept come from?

texts:
When I read the bible I see God and His Son as distinctly separate beings.  Son sits next to Father.  Son prays to Father.  Yada yada.
How can they be the same person?
And when I read the bible I clearly see the Spirit as being a power that God uses to effect His will here on earth.  Nowhere do I see any evidence that the Spirit is a separate entity.

So where in the bible is evidence that makes many people want to smoosh  them into a single entity?


texts: What scriptural evidence exists in support of our spirit's pre-mortal existence?

texts: Some denominations believe that our spirit existed before we were born on this earth. What scriptural/historical evidence do they use to lay support for their claims?


texts: What is the Eastern-Orthodox interpetation of Romans 3:10-20?

texts: In his book, "On the Bondage of the Will", Martin Luther cites St. Paul in section 151, to back his view that free-will is actually in bondage, specifically Romans 3:10-20, how do Eastern-Orthodox interpret these passages?


texts: Is the Virgin Mary ever referred to as "the Holy Table" (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα)?

texts:
I'm still in the process of translating a work of John of Damascus concerning the Eucharist and the body of Christ, entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν.

In section 4, he writes,

  Ἐκεῖ ἦν ἡ ἁγία Παρθένος ἡ τράπεζα, ἔχουσα τὴν ὕλην τοῦ σώματος.

My tendency is to translate this as, "There was the holy table, the Virgin, bearing the matter of the body." It's talking about the virgin Mary bearing Christ in her womb, and that Christ assumed flesh from her.

However, the phrase ἡ ἁγία Παρθένος ἡ τράπεζα puzzled me. Is Mary ever referred to as "the holy table" (ἡ ἁγία ἡ τράπεζα) in Catholic doctrine?


texts: When does a tradition become a Tradition?

texts:
When does a tradition became a Tradition, equally accepted and honored as the Bible? Or is a Tradition instigated by the Pope? Can anyone provide a specific example of a Tradition they hold equally viable with the scriptures?

From The Catholic Catechism:

  82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”


texts: What is meant by "men have been raised up from the fall to far greater heights?"

texts:
In Catholic theology it is said that "men have been raised up from the fall to far greater heights."1

What is meant by this and how are the "heights" of a different degree than our first parents' state in the Garden of Eden?

A fuller answer will also include the Orthodox meaning should they have the same theology.

1. E.g. Francisca Javiera del valle in "ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT".

  [...] because the mercy of the divine Word decided to raise him up from
  his fall to even greater heights.


texts: According to Aquinas, does "love" towards something always bring "desire" towards that something?

texts: According to Thomas Aquinas, does "love" towards something always bring "desire" towards that something?


texts: Why doesn't the Catholic Church ordain women to be deacons?

texts:
I understand that women within the Roman Catholic Church and I am guessing in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches as well, cannot be ordained Priests.

What I am wondering, is why they cannot be ordained as Permanent Deacons? Where is this written in Canon Law, and if it is, WHY?  The traditional Deacon positions I can understand them not being allowed into, as it leads to the Priesthood.

It would seem to me, that in this day and age of the great lack of Priests we see around our country (USA) and even around the world in many other countries, that this would an excellent way to ensure the Priests that need help would be able to get it. The Women would be doing the exact same duties and functions that Men Permanent Deacons presently do; so it is not like there are any need to change the rules regarding the positions, just the allowance to have women being able to serve as well. This seems to me to be a no-brainer for our Church, and would at the same time give women more inclusion in the Church functions. It could be open to both the laity and Religious women.


texts: Are there two different creation accounts in the bible?

texts:
There are two seemingly contradictory accounts of creation in the Bible.
The first is in Genesis 1:1-2:3.
The second is in Genesis 2:4-25.
Why are there differences in the accounts?


texts: Are there any of the OT commandments of God that have been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the NT?

texts:
Are there some of the Old Testament commandments of God that have been cancelled with the coming of Christ, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament?

New Testament says that some of God-given commandments were abolished or cancelled with the coming, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. For example, circumcision or keeping the Sabbath.

Some parts of the New Testament clearly state that and point to those particular commandments that had been cancelled, for example:

Circumcision:

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

Sacrifices:

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

  ...

  7:15[yet] there arises another
  Priest,

  7:16who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but
  after the power of an endless life

  ...

  7:18For there is verily a
  disannulling of the commandment going before for its weakness and
  unprofitableness.

  7:19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing
  in of a better hope [did]; by which we draw nigh unto God

  ...

  7:28For the
  law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the
  oath, which was since the law, [makes] the Son, who is consecrated for
  ever

  ...

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

  8:7For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then
  should no place have been sought for the second.

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

  ...

  8:13In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
  old. Now that which decays and waxes old [is] ready to vanish away

  ...

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

  10:2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the
  worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

  10:3But
  in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins
  every year.

  10:4For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of
  goats should take away sins

  ...

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

Now, I wonder if there are some of the Old Testament commandments of God that have also been cancelled, but not clearly pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have any (quasi) interdiction against the Harry Potter books?

texts:
Does the Catholic Church or any particular Catholic dioceses forbid the reading of J. K. Rowling's series of books known as Harry Potter? This same question could be applied to the movie series based on these same books.

If so what are it’s theological and moral reasons for doing so.

We know that there are some Catholic schools that have forbidden these books in the libraries of some Catholic Independent Schools. However I am interested if this is the case at any diocesan level or higher?

Or does the Church leave such decisions about reading these books and/or watching the movies at the discretion of the individual or even the local pastor?

Harry Potter books removed from school library because they contain 'real' curses and spells


texts: I was christened as an infant in the Catholic faith. Due to where I lived, a Catholic church was not available, so I attended a Baptist church. I married a Catholic man, when we went to mass with his family, I was told by his family not to partake. It offended me but were they in the right?


texts: How do evangelicals interpret 1 Corinthians 10:16?

texts:
Evangelical Christians do not believe in Transubstantiation. Instead, a view held by many is that the communion elements are mere symbols of Christ's body and blood (source).

  The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the
  blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in
  the body of Christ?

  1 Corinthians 10:16 (ESV)

How do evangelicals holding to the symbolism view interpret 1 Corinthians 10:16? What does it mean to partake in the body and blood of Christ by means of the bread and the cup?


texts:
What is the biblical basis for thinking God established the principle of birthright and inheritance and that He has sovereign control over who He elects
Was God himself the author of this teaching or not?
Although birthright privileges for the firstborn son are mentioned in the Bible at the time of Isaac’s death (circa 1886 B.C.), it was not established in Mosaic Law for another 440 years. Even secular sources acknowledge that the custom of passing on rights and privileges to the eldest son “was sufficiently common in the Middle East for the passage [about Esau and Jacob] to seem plausible to the people living there prior to the Roman Empire.”
See Wikipedia’s article on Primogeniture.
The first mention of birthright and inheritance in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 25. Abraham’s son Isaac became father to twin boys (Esau and Jacob). The firstborn son had the right to inherit a double portion because “he is the beginning of his [father’s] strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17).  The birthright (bekorah) has to do with both position and inheritance. By birthright, the firstborn son inherited the leadership of the family and the judicial authority of his father.  The father would pronounce a blessing which was considered to be the formal act of acknowledging the firstborn as the principal heir.
Yet, even before the twins were born, the Lord predicted that the older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob) (Genesis 25:23).  There are several instances where God’s sovereign will decreed that the firstborn son would not always be the son to inherit.  God cursed Cain, the first son born to Adam and Eve, and blessed Seth, the third son.  Through Seth came Noah, then Shem (who was not the oldest son) and on to Abraham and Isaac (who was not the oldest son), then to Jacob. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 32:28), and he became the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Then, in Exodus 4:23 God calls Israel “my firstborn son”. This goes beyond any human notion of the rights and privileges of the firstborn son but speaks of God’s divine will. God also declared Jesus to be his Son (Matthew 3:17), who is described as “the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth” (Revelation 1:5). There is a spiritual application to this issue of firstborn and inheritance.
What is the biblical basis for thinking God established the principle of birthright and inheritance and that He has sovereign control over who He elects


texts:
Is the feast of 1 Corinthians 5:8 the same feast as 1 Cor 11?

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV)

compared to

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.


texts: According to Reformed Theology, how does one make disciples?

texts: According to Reformed Theology, how does one "make disciples"?  Are "making disciples" and "evangelizing" synonymous?


texts: Why didn't God the Father answer Joseph Smith's questions directly?

texts:
In Joseph's version of the first vision given in the Pearl of Great Price, God the Father directs Joseph Smith to listen to his Son Jesus Christ:

I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description,
standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by
name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear
Him! (JS-History 1:17)

Why did the Father defer to Christ instead of answering Joseph's questions directly?


texts:
A prenuptial agreement typically outlines what happens in the event a marriage ends in divorce or some other dissolution of the marriage. This at first appears to be at odds with the idea of a Catholic marriage being two people vowing to be married "till death do us part" (i.e. they are still married even if they are civilly divorced).

Is a prenuptial agreement permitted for a Catholic marriage? I'm particularly wondering if a prenuptial agreement would be used as grounds for annulment, since it might suggest that they weren't serious about their marriage vows.


texts: If our body is the church, why should we go to a place called church?

texts:
In the old testament days, God asked Moses to construct a place for Him to reside.

Exodus 25:8 (NKJV)
And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them

But in New testament, We read that our own body is the Temple of Holy Spirit.  We read it in a number of places when Paul writes to the Corinthians,

1 Corinthians 6:19 (NKJV)
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
1 Corinthians 3:17 (NIV)
If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV)
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
2 Corinthians-6:16
For you are the temple of the living God

However in Hebrews we have Assembly should not be forsaken.

Hebrews 10:25 (NKJV)
..not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

If our body is the Church, What is the place when we gather on the Sabbath day, as we call it too as Church? Is that just an assembly? Is that just enough to keep our body Holy and ignore the gathering? If God lives in the Church, our Body, Is the congregation is needed?


texts: Why is the sacrifice of Jesus needed for the atonement of sins?

texts:
Christianity teaches that Jesus was crucified in order that ours sins be forgiven, and without this sacrifice then atonement could not be attained. Why did Jesus have to die for our sins in order for us to be forgiven?
Romans 3:25(NIV) "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith..."
Imagine this. Jesus and a man are in an elevator. The man presses the button for the first floor, which is the floor of death. Jesus presses the second button for the second floor, which is the floor of salvation. When both of them reach the floor of death, the man steps out and rabid wolves emerge heading to devour him. Jesus runs off in place of the man and grabs the attention of the rabid wolves so that the man can escape to the elevator and continue to the second floor. Jesus is ravaged by the rabid wolves and the man is saved.
The issue I take with this, is that Jesus did not have to put himself in place of the man. Jesus after all is the one who created the rabid wolves, he is the one who created the elevator. Through his power he could have made the elevator skip a floor, so why did he voluntarily need to enter his creation and die in the man's stead? Sure, the man is saved one way or another, but it could be achieved without sacrifice, so why is Jesus' sacrifice in itself needed?


texts: What Justification can be found in revealing contradictions within the Bible?

texts:
With various, claimed, contradictions within biblical text,

  Jeremiah 17:4 - ...it [anger] will burn forever.
  Jeremiah 3:12 - ...And I will not remain angry forever.

I have seen many that have broken down the text, but we seem, as a society, and many of those that I know that claim much the same, accept things like black holes, or holes in space-time, and other very real seeming intuitive contradictions that have a very real impact on the nature of reality.
People seem content to believe that the nature of reality is not what we thought it was, and find logical contradictions in the truth of the nature of reality, but find it easy to tear down religiously philosophical views. What possible justification can be found in taking these seeming opposing view points?


texts:
In Judges 11, Jephthah vows to give whatever comes out of the door of his house as a burnt offering.

  Judges 11:30-40 (ESV) [emphases mine]

  30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, "If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."

  34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances.

  39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.

Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter? This clearly couldn't be
the will of God (e.g. Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, 32:35).
What did Jephthah mean by his vow?
Surely he knew who lived in his house, and had some expectations on what could come out of the door?


texts: Why have conservative Presbyterians objected to chapters on the Holy Spirit and the Gospel in the Westminster Confession?

texts:
In the United States, the mainline Presbyterian denomination (the PCUSA), along with several other Presbyterian bodies, include two chapters that were first added to the Westminster Confession in 1903.   The PCUSA calls these chapters "Of the Holy Spirit" and "Of the Gospel," while the latter was known as "Of the Gospel of the Love of God and Missions" by the UPCUSA.  They were originally added as chapters 34 and 35 of the Confession, respectively, though now some denominations (like the PCUSA) have renumbered them.

According to this history of changes to the confession, these additions were rejected by the conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church when it was founded in the 1930s.  Here, I'd like to better understand what conservatives specifically objected to.  Historically, what issues with the text of these chapters have conservative opponents expressed?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the historicity of the Bible?

texts:
That same professor who brought this question and this question is at it again. His claim is that the Bible doesn't claim to be a historical account because the thought that one can look to history as an accurate account of what happened doesn't come about until the Enlightenment.

The general argument is that the Bible is a vehicle for a theological message that may have used a historical detail here or there to make it more plausible. I'm investigating the specific claim that the Bible itself does not claim to be historically accurate. My question is what biblical basis there is to claim the Bible is an account of history. Does the Bible claim to be historically accurate (or is there something in the Bible that someone could reasonably interpret as a statement to that effect)?

A verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 would not work, as its claim isn't about anything more than theological and moral value:

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

This question seems to embody everything I've found on this topic so far. Rather than addressing whether the Bible itself explicitly claims to be historically accurate, they go right to defending the historicity of Scripture with outside sources and textual analysis of the stories. Is there a claim to historicity in the Bible?

EDIT: In response to many comments, I think it's necessary to clarify that I asked this question to provide a response to a specific claim. That claim was that the notion of the Bible giving a critical account of facts didn't originate until the Enlightenment. My goal isn't to prove the historicity of scripture by saying "for the Bible tells me so." My goal is to refute that specific claim with evidence from Scripture.


texts: What reasons does Christianity give for "Why There Must Be A God?"

texts:
I realize this question could also be addressed on Philosophy.SE, but I am very interested to get specifically the Christian perspective on this issue.

I was raised Catholic, but have left the Church in the last few years because of conflicts between my beliefs and the Church's. My lack of belief has definitely negatively affected my relationships with my family and I would really like a reason to believe once more. I suppose my real problem is that I have a hard time seeing a scenario, given what we have learned about the universe, that requires God to exist.

The question I would like to pose is, "According to Christianity, why must there be a God?"


texts: Is there an English translation of the Bible that is accepted by most Christians?

texts:
This question is somewhat related to another about whether Catholics are allowed to read the NIV.  But my question is broader: is there an English translation that most church authorities accept?  I would like to find a translation that won't offend:

Catholic Christians
Eastern Orthodox Christians
Most Protestant Christians

I'm largely familiar with Protestantism and I know that you can't please all of us all of the time, so I'm most concerned with the first two.

I'm prompted to ask this question from a paragraph in the Preface to Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job that states:

  I have elected to use the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible throughout this work. It is the only translation that is universally accepted by all three branches of the Christian faith: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.

Is that true?  He gives no source and Wikipedia indicates that all three branches have serious reservations about the translation.  Would any other translation fit the bill?


texts: What does it mean to say the Bible is the "Word of God" and how is it justified?

texts:
How has the phrase the "Word of God" been understood (as applied to The Bible) in the Christian tradition? I assume different sects of Christianity answer this differently and I'm interested in hearing all answers, specifically with regard to the doctrine of the infallibility of The Bible.

I'm familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16:

  "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
  reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."

However, what is the definition of "Scripture" and why are the letters of the New Testament considered scripture?


texts: What would a person need to be able to do to be a saint while he was yet alive?

texts: Normally, sainthood isn't formally considered for an individual until 5 years after the death of a person. If one was determined enough, how could they go about achieving becoming saints and perhaps even become recognized as such by the the Pope, after, and moreover, before one’s death?


texts: What is the Little Office of Our Lady in connection to the Scapular Devotion?

texts:
This is particularly confusing and the wikipedia entry is not helpful.  I've worn a scapular since going to World Youth Day in 2005, but I've never asked a priest to consecrate my devotion.  The reason is, I don't know what the "Little Office of Our Lady" is in connection with the Scapular, it appears to be both a psalter (a book that repeats a lot) or 3 Hail Marys to pray daily.

Hail Mary's I can handle, another prayer book would be a stretch and I'd rather just pray the Liturgy of the Hours.

In the Handbook of Prayers, which contains the rite of consecration, it says that the devotion requires devotees to pray the Little Office of Our Lady daily, but it doesn't specifically say what it is and I've heard priests say it's just 3 Hail Marys.  Some times these devotions let distracted laymen like myself off the hook easy, so maybe it's both.  But if I had a definite answer I'd be a happy dude.


texts: According to Catholic Social Doctrine what duties do Catholics have towards sex offenders on supervisory release?

texts:
If a government authority decides to place two child sex offenders on Supervisory Release in a vacant house in the immediate proximity of ones family, should that placement be fought or is it the duty of Catholics to welcome the imprisoned and the sinner?

Given that the stipulation of their release is that they have no contact with neighbors with children (and especially their children) is it even a charitable thing to have neighbors such as these?


texts: If Christ took our sins on him, why do we still need an imputation of God's righteousness on us?

texts:
I always thought that the imputation of our sins on Jesus so that we are free from sin is what justified us. But according to several passages in the Bible (What is the biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers?) there is also an imputation of God's righteousness onto us.

It seems strange to me that the imputation of our sins on Christ isn't enough to make us righteous before God, but that we would still need an imputation of God's righteousness on us despite our sins having been washed away.
Are these actually two separate acts or are they identical?


texts:
God has one name. ‘’I am Yhwh and that is my name’’ (אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה ה֣וּא שְׁמִ֑י Isaiah 42:8).

In the Hebrew Pentateuch the name of God was the Tetragrammaton (the four letter) ‘Yhwh’.

The Jews respected the Hebrew name of God so much to the point of actually using a substitute word for the divine name which was ‘Adonay’ (my Lord) whenever they spoke of it or read of it in the Tanakh. The exilic Jews followed this tradition of using a substitute for the divine name and they translated the name of God as Kyrios in Greek as found in the Septuagint. Kyrios simply means ‘master, owner, lord’.

What was the reason why the Jews specifically used the substitute Adonay/Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton?


texts: Is it official Catholic dogma that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit?

texts:
I've seen many posts here from Catholics describing Mary as the spouse or wife of the Holy Spirit. Catholic Answers calls it a "pious custom".

Is this official Catholic dogma? If so, when was it formally defined? If it isn't, then how widely supported is it? Where along the path to dogma described by this question is this belief?


texts: The Servetus Controversy: What was Calvin's involvement?

texts:
The "Servetus Controversy" tells of a man named Michael Servetus who was burned at the stake for heresy -- not by Roman Catholic Inquisitors, but by Protestants in 16th century Geneva, France.

Here is a brief description of the event in a document at Calvin.edu, and here is a link to a Youtube video of a panel of Calvinist pastors discussing the topic at a conference.

Are there any authoritative historic documents that shed further light on what Calvin's involvement may have been?


texts: How many letters might Paul have written over his career?

texts: How many letters might Paul have written over his 30+ years as an Apostle?  For example, if one expects that he wrote one letter a month, that would suggest 300-400 letters.  I'm curious if there is any informed opinion on this.


texts: What is the 'reward' that Jesus is referring to in Matthew 6:6?

texts:
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. - Matthew 6:6 NIV

I would like to think that 'reward' refers to answered prayers. But 'true' believers of Christ should know that God answers prayer (James 5:16), so it seems unlikely it is referring to just that. What is an overview of different interpretations of what 'reward' in this verse is referring to.


texts: Outside the Sacrifice of the Mass and the use of the Roman Ritual, are there any Catholic historical traditions that are have been or are in use amongst the Catholic faithful for the feast of the Holy Innocents (December 28), either within religious communities or the domestic church?


texts: Is the biblical idea of being "born again" compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?

texts: Just a simple question: is the biblical idea of being born again compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?


texts:
I have often imagined living as a Jew before Christ and can never really hold the thought that I would enjoy it that much. At first it seemed like a bit of a poor attitude on my part, but then I thought maybe it is just that life seems so much better after Christ? This leads me to a more formal theological question.  'Does the Bible say that it is better to have been born after Christ?' If it is better after Christ, in what specific ways?

Note: When I say as a Jew before Christ, I am imagining myself back then so that it is 'a believing Jew', who believed in the coming Christ and inherited eternal life just as those born after.


texts: How do Young Earth Creationists explain the teeth of animals if there was no death before the fall?

texts: Before the fall of man, did lions and tigers and other sharp-toothed animals have the flesh eating type of teeth? After looking at their teeth structure it seems that their teeth would have a terrible design to eat only plants and herbs. I know the bible doesn't address this but I was wondering how this can be explained if one's theology leaves animals with carnivorous teeth, but no desire to eat carnivorously.


texts: Should a Christian read books known to be heretical / blasphemous / against Christianity?

texts:
Inspired by: May Christians read self improvement books?

May we read un-Christian books? Should we?
In what circumstances?
What guidelines should be used to decide on this?

Some examples of books that I consider relevant for the question:

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens
The Quran
His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman
Gospel of Judas
The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey

I have read some of the mentioned and would not read some. But I can't say what my guidelines would exactly be. Of course, I only know the ones I've read to be heretical/blasphemous/anti-Christian. Others I put on the list based on hearsay.


texts: From a Protestant perspective why didn't the Apostles address the problem of deutrocanonical books?

texts:
The Apostles interacted with Hellenistic Jews (Acts 17:11) who we know historicaly held deutrocanonical books as scripture, why wouldn't St. Paul or any of the other Apostles make it clear that the deutrocanonical books are not inspired?

It would make sense if the Church is to practice sola scriptura (66 books) upon the departure of the apostles.


texts: Do modern descendants of the Levites need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthhood?

texts:
Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to Aaronic priesthood:

  "No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this
  priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron." (D&C 107:16)

If a literal descendant of Aaron were to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints–supposing they could trace their lineage–would they need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthood, or would the church recognize their legal right to it?


texts: Did John Calvin teach that souls 'pre-existed'?

texts:
My understanding of Calvin's teaching on Paul's expression of foreknowledge, election and predestination is that all of these are within the eternal Deity.

That which occurred within Deity (I understand Calvin to have taught) was within the Person of the Father : a matter of his own foreknowledge of whom he would beget, in Christ, in time : a matter of his own divine will and purpose.

My understanding of Calvin's teaching is that no souls did exist or could exist in the eternal existence of God Almighty, and that souls are created in time.

For souls to 'pre-exist' ascribes to human souls an attribute of Deity, I would say. And I do not remember anywhere in Calvin's Institutes that would condone such a concept.

Am I wrong about what I have understood John Calvin's teaching to be, regarding Paul's doctrine?


texts: During Catholic confirmation, what criteria should be used to choose a saint?

texts: When being confirmed in the Catholic Church it is customary to choose a saint.  What criteria should we use to choose this saint?  Should one choose a saint they like?  Would like to be like?  Or one that has strengths where I have weakness?  What guidance has the magisterium given for this process?


texts: When, in recent Church history, do we see results from 'ministering to the Lord'?

texts:
This is a question for Trinitarian Protestants regarding devotion to the Lord prior to evangelical activities.
After the persecution at the time of Stephen's martyrdom, Luke relates the gathering of those who were first called 'Christians' at Antioch and records Barnabus going to Tarsus to find Paul and tells us of the year that they spent there, teaching. Then we learn of the activity of certain :

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. [Acts 13:2 KJV]

Only after a time of such ministration did the Holy Spirit move among that congregation to send out Barnabus and Paul, and subsequently Paul on further journeys, to carry the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean region.
Is there a time in recent Church History when we see such a period of 'ministering to the Lord' resulting in such an initiative ?

I have heard, anecdotally, of such times during the Primitive Brethren movement, during the early 1800s, when prayer meetings were held as Christians gathered out of dead congregations to 'minister to the Lord'. But I have not seen the record of this in print.
And I have heard, again anecdotally, of times of 'revival' in Wales, early in the 1900s, when similar experiences led to 'times of refreshing'.
Can anyone point me in the direction of such narratives reliably documented ?


texts:
Proverbs 14:4

  Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty,
      but from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests.

I've been reading proverbs lately, but I haven't been able to understand this verse! What is the context that this applies to? Is there some kind of metaphor? I can understand the second clause "from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests". This part seems somewhat easily understood. But for the first part, why would you not want oxen in the first place?


texts: Into whose name should Christians be baptised?

texts:
Jesus said, "...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

However, the early church apparently baptised in the name of Jesus:

Acts 8:16
Acts 10:48
Acts 19:5

Which is correct? Or is there a way to combine these?


texts: What is the argument against the ICOC doctrine of "Disciples Baptism"?

texts:
The International Church of Christ, as I understand, teach the idea of "Disciples Baptism", which is distinct from both "Believer's Baptism" and "Infant Baptism".  It teaches that people who are just believers can not be baptized, but only believers who have attained to a certain level of discipleship where they can be considered disciples.

What, is the argument against this specific teaching?


texts:
What are the names of two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus?

I was informed that their names were Dismas and Gestas. When I searched on the Internet, I got similar info.

Is it true that Dismas and Gestas were the name of the two thieves? How were the names  identified?

If those are the names, then which one is with Jesus now?


texts: How are the persons of the Trinity distinctively active in a Christian's prayer?

texts: Another way of asking this question is by saying, "When God interacts with praying Christians, how do the persons of the Trinity interact in ways that neither of the other two persons do?" I'm asking from a biblical, Protestant perspective.


texts: Is there any biblical doctrine on how to avoid paranoia as a Christian under an Protestant framework?

texts:
It seems clear to most who have read the Bible that it portrays Christians as a minority among a wicked world empire that desires nothing less than the extinction of Christ in his church. Jesus said narrow is the road that leads to life and ‘few’ find it. (Math 7:13) Jesus warned his disciples about the world hating them (John 15:18).  Also, even within the church Christians are said to be persecuted by the legalists who are absorbed with the outward form of religion (Gal 4:28) while denying its internal power. (2 Tim 3:5)

Considering this extreme level of conflict that the poor believer finds himself facing (at least according to the biblical proposal) how can he/she avoid spinning 'conspiracy theories' and falling into ‘they are out to get me’ mentality? Is there any doctrine about sanctification within an Protestant framework that would enable a Christian to eliminate paranoia in a hostile world?

Five mainstream protestant theories of sanctification are conveniently found here (Wesleyan, Reformed, Pentecostal, Keswick, Augustinian-Dispensational).  Please state the view that the post, is more or less, ascribing to and show how this view of sanctification would be applied to enable a Christian to manage paranoia in terms of a specific crisis and long term control.


texts: Where does the Bible say to read itself?

texts: It seems rather basic, but I'm having trouble finding verses that say to read God's Word often. It seems like something that Paul said quite a few times, and it's obviously a good thing, but I can't find any specific verses. Can someone help me?


texts: If Satan fell because of sin, then was there sin in heaven at that point?

texts:
Assuming that God cast Satan out of heaven because of his sinful pride and attempt to dethrone God, then doesn't that mean that there was, at that point in time, some sin in heaven? This seems like it would disprove the statement that there can't be any sin in heaven.

If there can, then, then why can't those dwelling in heaven think sinful things, too? It's said in the Bible that you can't be "unsaved", so then I'm guessing that means that He won't throw anyone out of heaven once they're in. What would he do in the event that someone sinned in heaven?

I asked my pastor this once, and he directed me to a passage in Ezra, I think; unfortunately, I don't remember exactly where...


texts: Does one sin if he refuses food that is put before him?

texts: According to Catholicism, is it sinful to refuse food that is put before you, because you does not like the particular food? We suppose that the food served is made for the one who eats it (not in the restaurant, but say for example mother cooks for a child or a cook for the religious)? Is it a mortal sin, and what kind of sin is being committed?


texts: Is there something in Sirach that caused it to be considered Apocrypha?

texts:
My limited research on the topic suggests the only reason Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira, etc.) was put in the Apocrypha was because the Jewish canon excluded it.  As for why the Jewish canon did not include it, I couldn't find any reasoning that involved the content of the book.

Is there something theologically problematic in Sirach that prevents it from being classified as Scripture (from a Protestant view)?


texts:
The pope recieves no salary, but from what I understand, popes do have some personal possessions. A personal possesion is something that you own. For example, Pope Benedict XVI, I believe, had a substantial library of books that he brought with him into the Papal Apartments.

Of course, enumerating everything a certain pope has ever owned is impossible and not very useful. But presumably we can know what sort of personal possessions a typical pope has at a typical point in time. This would shed some light on the daily life of the pope, and might clear up some misconceptions regarding the personal wealth of popes.

Pope John Paul II is the most recent deceased pope, and served as pope for a comparatively long time. The time of death is a unique and definite point, and there are probably objective records of these remaining possessions. Some of those personal possessions might eventually be "relics", and these are important to Catholics.

What personal possessions did Pope John Paul II have at the time of death?


texts:
What do Chinese Christians wear to a Western or Chinese Christian funeral?

In the West, it seems that black is the popular color for death and funerals. You see this in movies, where women would wear black veils and black formal dresses.

In Chinese culture, it is known that white is the color reserved for death and funerals.

So, do Chinese Christians wear white or black at a funeral? Is there a preference for a single color in Christianity for certain occasions, or is this more of a Western cultural thing?


texts: What is the best way to distinguish when God (the son) is talking in His human nature or in His divine?

texts:
In Mark 13:32, Yeshua says:

  But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

I'm going to use Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers since he is not as obvious as other commentators, and he says something interesting that I'll quote at the end:

  Neither the Son.--The addition to St. Matthew's report is every way remarkable. It indicates the self-imposed limitation of the divine attributes which had belonged to our Lord as the eternal Son, and the acquiescence in a power and knowledge which, like that of the human nature which He assumed, were derived and therefore finite. Such a limitation is implied by St. Paul, when he says that our Lord "being in the form of God . . . made Himself of no reputation" (or better, emptied Himself), "and took upon Him the form of a servant." (See Note on Philippians 2:6-7.) It is clear that we cannot consistently take the word "knoweth" as having a different meaning in this clause from that which it bears in the others; and we must therefore reject all interpretations which explain away the force of the words as meaning only that the Son did not declare His knowledge of the time of the far-off event.

In Luke 22:42 Yeshua says:

  Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Ellicott refers us to Matthew 26:39, in which he says:

  Now the "cup" is brought to His lips, and His human will at once shrinks from it and accepts it. The prayer which He had taught His disciples to use, "Lead us not into temptation," is now His prayer, but it is subordinated to that other prayer, which is higher even than it, "Thy will be done." In the prayer "If it be possible" we recognise, as in Mark 13:32, the natural, necessary limits of our Lord's humanity In one sense "with God all things are possible," but even the Divine Omnipotence works through self-imposed laws, in the spiritual as in the natural world, and there also ends cannot be obtained except through their appointed and therefore necessary means.

In John 20:17 Yeshua says:

  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Ellicott says:

  My God, and your God.--This phrase contains the same fulness of meaning, and adds the special thought of the continuity of the human nature of our Lord, which has already appeared in the word "brethren."

So that seems simple enough. Anytime god the son says something that contradicts his divinity, we just ascribe this to his human nature. However, in John 14:28 Yeshua says:

  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Ellicott says:

  On the part of those who assert the divine nature, it has been contended that the Father is greater than the Son only as regards the human nature of the Son; but this is not here thought of. In this passage, as in others of the New Testament, it is plainly asserted that in the divine nature there is a subordination of the Son to the Father.

So apparently ascribing one thing to his human nature while excluding his divinity is wrong, and probably some sort of Nestorianism.

What is the best way to distinguish when god the son is talking in his human nature or his divine?


texts: How to reconcile the Council of Trent and the Apostle John regarding the post-baptismal presence of sin?

texts:
I am struggling to reconcile a very strong statement from the Council of Trent pronouncing anathema with a very strong statement from the Apostle John pronouncing deception and lie.  Both statements seem very clear and diametrically opposed.  Many of the other Epistles also allude to a continued presence of sin but John is so clear that I need not muddy the waters.

To remove all further doubt on the subject, the Council of Trent, after other Councils had defined this, declared it anew, pronouncing anathema against those who should presume to think otherwise, or should dare to assert that although sin is forgiven in Baptism, it is not entirely removed or totally eradicated, but is cut away in such a manner as to leave its roots still fixed in the soul. To use the words of the same holy Council, God hates nothing in those who are regenerated; for there remains nothing deserving of condemnation in those who are truly buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, "who walk not according to the flesh" but putting off the old man, and putting on the new, who is created according to God, become innocent, spotless, pure, upright, and beloved of God. - The Catechism of the Council of Trent (First Effect of Baptism)

1 John 1:8: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The Council of Trent, in this section on baptism, so strongly affirms that sin in a person is utterly remitted and removed that anyone who affirms sin's payment to have been made but sin's presence to remain is pronounced anathema!
The Apostle John so strongly affirms the continued presence of sin in himself and his audience that he declares, "If WE say WE have no sin, WE deceive OURSELVES and the truth is not in US."
Are there any options other than the Apostle John is anathema or the Council of Trent has deceived itself?


texts: What is the origin of the story of the Apostle John surviving being dipped in boiling oil?

texts:
What is the earliest record of the Apostle John being placed in boiling oil and miraculously living? I can't find any scriptural mention of the story. The only reference I have is Tertullian:

"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John [the Baptist]'s; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile."
The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 36


texts: What evidence is available that Mt. Moriah is actually the Temple Mount?

texts:
In Sunday school this week we discussed (among several other things) the sacrifice of Isaac.

The teacher pointed us to a footnote that appears in several editions of the scripture. It seems that scholars think that Mount Moriah, where Abraham was told to go to sacrifice his son is now the location of the Dome of the Rock, which makes it the historic location of the temple, and just a few hundred yards from the historic location of Golgotha.

What historic, archeological and traditional evidence is available to confirm this theory?


texts: What is the basis for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

texts:
Muslims claim that they worship the same god as Christians do.  (Similarly, Christians claim to worship the same God as the Jews do.)

Are there any Christian denominations that accept this claim?  If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim?


texts: Can we know anything about Jesus' appearance from the Bible?

texts:
We know something about Jesus' clothes, that He wore sandals and that He wore a seamless undergarment.

Are there any other clues in the Bible as to His physical appearance?


texts:
On my trip to Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the tour guide told us that inside the church, there is a place where the Cross was located, and right beneath the Cross, there buried the Adam's ( yes, Adam our great-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand ancestor) Skull. When Jesus died, his blood filled the skull, and so on, and so on.

I can't find this reference in the Bible, so I assume that it must come from somewhere, probably from Catholic tradition? But I can't be sure.

Where does the story of "the Cross on top of Adam's Skull" come from?


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, when/how do the 144,000 ascend to Heaven?

texts: Following an invitation, I attended a "Memorial of Jesus' Death" service at a Kingdom Hall recently.  While there, I heard about the 144,000 who will go to heaven to "be kings and priests and rule over" those who remain in earthly paradise.  How/when does this happen?


texts: Does the Bible allow second cousins to marry?

texts: I know that according to the Bible we are not allowed to marry our first cousins. But what if I want to marry my cousin whose grandfather and my grandfather were brothers, so that my father and my cousin's father are first cousins—which would make us second cousins? Is this allowed according to the Bible? Are there any prohibitions in the Bible on second cousins marrying?


texts: Did God accept a sacrifice that was against His own law?

texts:
I am seeking a biblical answer to the following objection:
"Since God clearly prohibited human sacrifices in the Pentateuch, why would He choose to atone for the sins of humanity seemingly in the form of a human sacrifice?"
Now granted it wasn't just a human sacrifice, but Jesus was also fully human so why did God the Father accept a human sacrifice even though it was against his law?
Examples from the Scriptures:
"There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer" Deuteronomy 18:10
"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord." Leviticus 18:21
"And he burned his son as an offering and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger." 2 Kings 21:6


texts: Ascension Mass when traveling between dioceses?

texts: If you live in a diocese that celebrates the Ascension on Thursday, but you're out of town and temporarily in a diocese that celebrates the Ascension on the following Sunday, what are you supposed to do? I know that for short trips you're supposed to follow your home diocese's rules, but in this case the diocese you're in won't have the Mass you're supposed to attend.


texts: Why does the apostle John write far more clearly about the deity of Christ than seems to be the case in the other gospel accounts?

texts:
He starts with a most powerful declaration of the One who became Jesus in the flesh as having being God in the beginning, see John 1:1-14. But from there on in, similar expressions of deity come thick and fast, and with a clarity that seems to be crisper than in the other accounts.
I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others, but to seek from Trinitarians of the Protestant group how they would respond to a non-trinitarian accusing John of portraying Jesus differently to the others, perhaps due to an unwarranted bias.
A linked question The statements of the early Church Fathers regarding the doctrine of the Trinity (pre-Nicea) does allude to John calling the Word 'God' but it enquires about the early Church Fathers and the formation of the formal Trinity doctrine, not about why the apostle John had his particular emphasis in his gospel. I am not searching out the history of the formation of the doctrine but sticking to why John wrote the way he did.
Nor do I want answers majoring on disagreement with my claim that John writes far more clearly about the deity of Christ than do other New Testament writers. That has been dealt with elsewhere on here. Surely nobody will disagree that his first 14 verses are immensely more attention-grabbing as to the deity of Christ than elsewhere in the N.T?
If we can take that as understood, can answers suggest whether or not John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ is too much, or perhaps understood in light of what he wrote in his epistles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?  This should not end up as a mere argument about manuscripts (as if John's strong claims can be diluted by questioning the veracity of ancient manuscripts). I hope answerers will grasp that we view the biblical gospel of John as taken, because that is what Protestant Trinitarians do. If anyone disagrees, please post your own question on that!


texts: What is the source of this quote from Augustine about thanking heretics?

texts:
I am trying to find the source or reference for the following quote by St. Augustine of Hippo (P. S.: I translated this from Arabic, so the verbatim of the English version must be different):

We thank the heretics and "innovators" for what they brought of heresies and doubts against the scripture (bible), that made us understand deeply the scripture, and gain strength in knowledge, and discover treasures that we would not have discovered.


texts: A lot of modern Protestants (typically evangelical protestants) don't really teach an intermediate state or holding place. Many of the major protestant churches, Catholic, and Orthodox churches teach some type of holding place. I understand that Hades/Sheol is the "realm of the dead" and that there are two parts, Paradise and Gehenna. I have heard that the Bosom of Abraham was removed after Jesus descended into the realm of the dead. Is Hades (realm of the dead) still in existence until Judgement Day? I hope I worded this correctly.


texts: Why did the early Christians think Jesus would return soon?

texts:
In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so:

Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9)
Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return.
The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.)

I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense.

So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return?

I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.


texts:
Are the Disciples of Christ trinitarian?

The identity statement from their website is:

  We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world. As part of the one body of Christ we welcome all to the Lord’s Table as God has welcomed us.

I cannot find any references to a trinitarian understanding of the Christian God on their website. I assume this is intentional, in line with another statement of theirs:

  we don’t require acceptance of any formal creed for membership in the church

It appears that they are not taking a stance. This might make them non-trinitarian in the eyes of many, though I would not be surprised if members instead regard their own position as non-committal or members simply differ in opinion. Instead of speculating further, I am hereby asking the community for knowledge or opinions, official or unofficial.


texts: Why is complete consent listed as a requirement for an act to be a mortal sin?

texts:
What does the complete consent, when listed as a requirement for a mortal sin, mean?

Objection: It would seem that there are mortal sins without complete consent.

A woman goes to get an abortion because of fear from her husband.
Her consent is diminished because she does abortion through fear and therefore her act is not done with complete consent.
But still, her act is a mortal sin.

Therefore, it is would seem that complete consent is not a requirement for an act to be a mortal sin.

To be clear, the definition of the mortal sin (from CCC 1856):

  When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature
  incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate
  end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it
  contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love
  of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's
  will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but
  is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless
  chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.


texts: Was the Covenant made with the Church or does 'Everlasting' mean something other than 'eternal?'

texts:
I am posting this question on behalf of another user, and it corresponds to a related textual question.

Galatians 3:16 (KJV) says,

  "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And
  to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
  Christ."

This appears to be referring to the covenant made in Genesis 17:7. On this basis and others, some have concluded that this covenant was made to 'the Church', as St. Augustine would say, "The Israel of God"; they further cite the passage from Galatians 4:24 where Paul cites two covenants - the covenant at Mt. Sinai "which gendereth to bondage"; therefore, the Covenant w/Israel at Mt. Sinai is "bondage", and the New Covenant, which Paul quotes in Hebrews 8:9 from Jer. 31:33, has 'replaced' the Old Covenant in which they quote Hebrews 8:13 (KJV), "Decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." They conclude that this covenant indeed passed away in 70 CE, at the Destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

The meaning of 'olam' which is clear from the Genesis 17:7 text means 'everlasting', and yet it doesn't describe Heb. 8:13. Are we then to 'assume' that Israel's Covenant with God is not the same 'olam' (everlasting) as Gen. 17:7? Or how else can this be understood?


texts:
The other day, me and my friends were discussing about End times pertaining to Mat 24, and came across this verse

  "My words are always true and always here with you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away"
  Mat 24:35

Which says, the earth will be destroyed and a new earth and heaven will be formed according to Rev 21:1. And how Isiah predicts the calamities can be read from this answer.

But I was thinking, maybe if this earth will have such problems, what they can be avoided by migrating to other planets?

Hence the question, do those verses mean only our Earth or the whole land in both Mat 24:35 and Gen 1???

I think there is no mention of other planets of this universe in the Bible.

So, when God was referring to "Earth" in Gen 1, could it be considered as all the land in this universe that God is referring to as Earth? or Should it be considered as he's being specific about only our planet "Earth"?

So, my question is in general How is "earth" interpreted. Could the word be applied to the land of the whole universe?

I request you to focus on the title "Is all the land in the universe called Earth?"


texts: What is the difference between AME and AME Zion Churches

texts: From (limited) personal experience, A.M.E. and A.M.E. Zion churches hold very similar structure, theology, and culture. What are the principle differences? Are there subtle separations in these points, or are they realistically simply two different political entities?