texts: How can I understand the rise of the Egyptians as a race in the Old Testament?

texts:
The Old Testament states that God created the world and God created man.  We see the lineage of Adam and Eve, to Abraham, and so forth while the Hebrew nation is created.  Then, seemingly from left field, the Egyptians appear, and they are considered evil because they are worshiping multiple Gods and have enslaved the Hebrews, etc. This ultimately leads to the plague and the story of Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt.

I am struggling with how to state this question, but here it goes: If God created all mankind, how did nations such as the Egyptians end up so far off course?  Would they not have been descendants of Abraham as well?

This does not seem to be covered by the Old Testament (much like the gap in Jesus' early years in the New Testament), so I am perplexed.  It almost seems as though they evolved on a separate path.  Can anyone point me to resources that would fill this gap?  Or have I missed a critical passage in the Old Testament somewhere?


texts: Is an intellectual comprehension of the gospel by the earthly mind required for salvation?

texts:
The root of this question stems from wondering whether someone can have a saving relationship with Jesus without having the mental capacity or maturity that would be required to understand the gospel even as a little child. Three specific types of people who might fall into this category are:

People with profound mental disabilities
Unborn (or newborn) children
People in a "vegetative" state due to some trauma or medical condition

One example that might apply to this is John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit "from the womb" (Luke 1:15). Are there any other scriptures that speak to the possibility of knowing God apart from an active, intellectual assent by the "understanding" part of the human mind?

UPDATE:
If it helps to clarify, the underlying element I'm most interested in is whether or not there is a scripturally identifiable division between the spiritual part of us and the physical part of us in terms of how we relate to God. Perhaps it sounds pretty simple when phrased this way, as most people would probably say "yes", but I've not heard much discussed on how that division actually plays out. Perhaps because in life we attempt to worship him with every part of our being, there isn't as much need to understand the division. But in the case of a person whose natural mental faculties are diminished or undeveloped, it seems to me that the spiritual/soul part of them should still be able to relate to God on that level. And my question, then, is do the scriptures speak to how the spiritual/soul part of us may still be able to commune with God in such circumstances. The salvation part of it is important (because true fellowship/communion with God can't be separated from salvation), but it's the "can such a person still relate to God on a deep level in the spiritual/soul plane though facing limitations in the capacity of their earthly mind" question that I'm interested in.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, when did the Church begin?

texts: I would love to have an official document that says that the Church began on such and such a date but more importantly, scripturally speaking, what scriptural event describes the birth?


texts:
Eighty Three percent of college students and fifty five percent of pastors are said to be addicted to pornography. (link) Even the most Godly men, like David (OT) has been trapped by these desires.

It seems that the more I try to fight these desires, the stronger that they become. It doesn't matter if I see a beautiful woman walking down the street or if I see an image on the internet, the passion inside of me begins to burn when I force myself to turn away.

  1 Corinthians 10:13 NIV

  No temptation has overtaken you except what
  is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be
  tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will
  also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

In my opinion it's very likely that masturbation is a sin that leads to death. In this next verse, I take it very literally, I see Jesus talking about our lusts and possibly even masturbation.

  Matthew 18:8 NIV

  If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw
  it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to
  have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

I do believe that if God says we are secure in our salvation, that nobody can change that. However I also believe that if God says we are no longer worthy of salvation because we have fallen away from the faith, then our security and salvation is lost.

Just before this verse above, Jesus was talking about plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin. I believe that Jesus is literally telling us that if we continue to lust and to gratify ourselves that we need to purge that evil from amung us and literally cut off your hand. I don't see this as a metiphor at all.

For those of you that will say you do not agree that cutting a part of your body off will solve this problem, keep in mind then that you call Jesus a liar.

  Hebrews 12:4 NIV

  In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point
  of shedding your blood.

He's right, I have not resisted to this point yet. So I want to know from the community, how do you resist temptation? How do you literally detoxify yourself from this poison?


texts: What is the function of permanent acolytes and lectors in the Catholic Church?

texts:
Prior to this motu proprio the only purpose of the order of acolyte or lector in the Catholic Church that I knew of was to prepare permanent deacons for ordination.
So, if the purpose is expanded to all lay people, what function will acolytes perform in the future?  Will we be expecting itinerant acolytes going from parish to parish helping at masses?  Will we be wowed by one superior lector?


texts: Is Cecil B. DeMille's narration of Moses in the desert based on the Bible?

texts:
In Cecil B. DeMille's classic 1956 movie "The Ten Commandments", there is a scene where Moses is wandering through the desert.  Demille provides the following narration:

  Into the blistering wilderness, the man who walked with kings now walks alone. Torn from the pinnacle of royal power, stripped of all rank and earthly wealth, a forsaken man without a country and without a hope, his soul in turmoil. Like the hot winds and raging sands that lash him with the fury of a taskmaster’s whip, he is driven forward, always forward, by a God unknown for a land unseen into the molten wilderness, where granite sentinels stand as towers of living death to bar his way. Each night brings the black embrace of loneliness. In the mocking whisper of the wind, he hears the echoing voices of the dark. His tortured mind wonders if they call the memory of past triumphs or wail forebodings of disasters yet to come, or whether the desert’s hot breath has melted his reason into madness. He cannot cool the burning kiss of thirst upon his lips, or shade the scorching fury of the sun. All about is desolation. He can neither bless nor curse the Power that moves him, for he does not know from where it comes. Learning that it can be more terrible to live than to die, he is driven onward, through the burning crucible of desert, where holy men and prophets are cleansed and purged for God’s great purpose. Until at last, at the end of human strength, beaten into the dust from which he came, the metal is ready for the Maker’s Hand.

My question is, is this narration a paraphrase from the book of Exodus, or is it just something DeMille made up whole cloth?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You in Advance.


texts: How does prayer and action affect God's plan?

texts:
Here is a scenario to explain my question.
If God planned to give you a car on your 30th birthday but you did not pray for it, will he not give it to you?
Or what if its not in his plan to give you a car on your 30th birthday and you prayed for it will he give it to you?

Note: The above example is just to illustrate. Don't use the above
example to answer this question.

I'm confused on how this thing work. Which is prioritized? The plan or prayer or the action?
Or maybe something like this could explain my question better.
Which of these could actually yield results based on what the bible say about prayer?
GODS PLAN + PRAYER + ACTION =  ?

GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + ACTION = ?

NOT GODS PLAN + PRAYED FOR + ACTION = ?

NOT GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + ACTION = ?

GODS PLAN + PRAYER + NO ACTION =  ?

GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + NO ACTION = ?

NOT GODS PLAN + PRAYED FOR + NO ACTION = ?

NOT GODS PLAN + NOT PRAYED FOR + NO ACTION = ?

But I'm quite confused on the prayer and action thing. I'm not sure that God's plan depends on our prayer or action.
So what does really make things happen for us? Any sources from scripture that can explain this?
Some term definition for this specific question.

Action - actual related physical work/labor
Gods Plan - God's divine plan
Prayer - asking things to happen through prayer

The fact is I've seen people that do not pray to the Christian God especially non-believers or believer of other faith, but still things happen for them. They become successful and able to have what they work for. It might be in sports, in studies and in life overall. Does this mean prayer is not necessary for things to happen for them? That hard work is enough? How does God's plan come into picture?


texts:
Question: What was the normal way to cross the Jordan River during first century in Israel?

Reading John 1:28 it says that John was baptizing on the East side of the Jordan River and I've wondered how the people would get to him.  And not just him but any travel that may require crossing the river.  I'm sure that it could probably be crossed by swimming but it seems that hauling goods and possessions, families, or even the upper class like the priests this wouldn't have been the case.  No where in scripture do I find mention of a bridge. Through different google searches the earliest bridge I could find was circa 700CE.

Information on the river itself:

The baptismal site of Bethany Beyond the Jordan (John 1:28) is near the southern end of the Jordan River, across from Jericho and 8 kilometres south of the King Hussein (or Allenby) Bridge. It is 40 minutes by car from the Jordanian capital of Amman.

El-Ghor:
"Twenty miles below Lake Galilee the river is joined by the important Wady el-Jalud, which descends through the valley of Jezreel between Mt. Gilboa and the range of the Little Hermon (the hill Moreh of Jdg 7:1). This valley leads up from the Jordan to the valley of Esdrelon and thence to Nazareth, and furnished the usual route for Jews going from Jerusalem to Nazareth when they wished to avoid the Samaritans."

Deep and turbulent during the rainy season, the Jordan is reduced to a sluggish, shallow stream during the summer.

The Jordan River only reaches 20 yards across in some places, and its deepest point is around 17 feet.

From the Sea of Galilee, at the level of 682 feet below the Mediterranean, the river flows through a long, low plain called “the region of Jordan” (Matt. 3:5), and by the modern Arabs the Ghor, or “sunken plain.” This section is properly the Jordan of Scripture. Down through the midst of the “plain of Jordan” there winds a ravine varying in breadth from 200 yards to half a mile, and in depth from 40 to 150 feet. Through it the Jordan flows in a rapid, rugged, tortuous course down to the Dead Sea.


texts:
In this answer about Pelagianism (Did Pelagius believe in "faith alone"?) the author makes a sort of apology for Pelagianism and claims that St. John Chrysostom was Pelagian himself. The author says in the comments: "early synergist fathers implicitly believed same that man can be saved without grace ... Chrysostom was a Pelagian". I haven't yet dug into the works of this St. John, but found a good article about the topic:

St John Chrysostom on Grace and Free Will

In which there is the following paragraph:

  Chrysostom then raises as a possible objection the famous statement of St. Paul in Romans, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (9:16). His reply is that St. Paul here uses the common idiomatic device in which one who is the author of the greater part of a work is said to be its sole cause, as when a house is said to be an architect’s doing even though in fact he only designed it.  Paul’s purpose, he says, is “that we should not be lifted up …Even though you run (he would say), even though you excel, do not consider the well-doing your own; for if you do not obtain the impulse from above, all is to no purpose.”

The footnote cites the source as:

  Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 12.3 (PG 63 100);  tr. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First
  Series (= NPNF) (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1983 [reprint]), vol. 14. I have modified
  translations from NPNF for the sake of style and to bring out important features of the Greek.

I think the author of the aforementioned post is conflating patristic synergism with Pelagianism and therefore teaching what mainline Christianity has considered heresy since the Pelagian controversies. However, I don't have a larger perspective on the views of St. John Chrysostom. Is the referenced article correct and does St. John Chrysostom indisputably teach synergism and that man cannot be saved without grace?


texts: Has the gospel been "preached to all nations"?

texts:
Concerning the end of the world and when this will happen Mark 13:10 says:

  And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (NIV)

Has the gospel been preached to all nations?


texts:
What does the phrase "God of God" means in the Nicene Creed?

  We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
  visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the
  Father,the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God
  of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,
  being of one substance with the Father;

  By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

  Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and
  was made man;

  He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

  From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

  And in the Holy Ghost.

  But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not
  before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of
  another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or
  'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic
  and apostolic Church.

Reference:

http://www.churchhistory101.com/century4-p8.php


texts: According to Catholicism, how does God expect us to realize the truth of Christianity?

texts: I am sincerely sorry if this is under-researched/sourced, but according to Catholicism, how does He want people to discern [Catholic] Christianity's veracity? I have posted this on other SE religion sites.


texts: Do preterists who profess the two-age model believe that Jesus is still with us?

texts: Many preterists (full or partial) hold to the two-age model of eschatology (the Jewish age ended in 70 A.D., ushering in the Gentile age). How do preterists reconcile this perspective with Jesus' promise in Matthew 28:20 that He will be with Christians "all the days until the completion of the age" (literal translation). Does that mean that Jesus is no longer with us since the age to which He was referring has ended from a preterist perspective?


texts:
There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives.

Here is another example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council.

So, the question is: How can common believers in the Roman Catholic Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?


texts: Why do Baptists believe in the autonomy of local congregations?

texts: Why do Baptists reject the idea of a central authority and instead place authority in the local congregations? Does this have a biblical basis or is it a result of past conflict with authority figures?


texts: If God is unable to change, why did he (after the Flood)?

texts:
If God is All-Knowing (as I've heard) and unable to change, then why did he change his mind after the Flood?

  And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said
  in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's
  sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;
  neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have
  done. (KJV, Genesis 8.21)


texts: Was it common in Biblical and Early Church times to use sports for illustrating sermons and lessons (as Pope Francis and Paul did)?

texts:
The Ancient Olympic Games were a very famous event in ancient times. Taking advantage of their popularity, Paul used them (specifically, the Stadion/200 metres and boxing games) in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 to illustrate his teachings (maybe in the same way Pope Francis does with football?) by comparing the race to life, the prize to salvation, the fighting to Christian life:

  Don't you know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run like that, that you may win. Every man who strives in the games exercises self-control in all things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. I therefore run like that, as not uncertainly. I fight like that, as not beating the air, but I beat my body and bring it into submission, lest by any means, after I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.

Was the usage of sports to illustrate religious teachings (in the same way Paul and Francis did) or to comment a church statement (by analogy, etc) a common thing in ancient times? Do it occur in other places of the Bible, and did other popes do it?


texts: What is the difference between ESV, NIV and NKJV

texts: My daughter is In college and is wanting to buy a new Bible. She has these three options.. I would like her to have one that is easier to understand but still accurate. What are the differences and what do you recommend for her?


texts: How does Reformed Theology consider passages that may imply that God is the "subject of sufferings"?

texts:
In A Dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World, John Edwards makes the following statement,

  Because it is evident, by both Scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy: that he cannot be profited by, or receive anything from, the creature; or be the subject of any sufferings, or diminution of his glory and felicity, from any other being.

It is however not immediately evident by either Scripture or reason to me that God is infinitely and unchangably happy, nor that God is not subject to any sufferings. In fact, numerous passages in the scriptures describe instances in which God is angry or wrathful and is thus unhappy, and also instances when God is greiving or sorrowful and is thus subjected of suffering.

For me personally, the sufferings of God, especially the contrast between those sufferings caused in him by the Acuser, Man, and those caused in him by the ministry of Jesus, is a central theme of the narrative of redemption.

How are passages that contain these themes handled by Edwards and other Reformed teachers that follow him, in the context of his statement here?


texts: How is the atonement sufficient for salvation according to Calvinists?

texts:
Because there is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that Christ laid down his life only for believers (the elect), Calvinists typically defend their doctrine of limited atonement by claiming the following argument:

1) The atonement is sufficient for salvation.

2) If Christ shed his blood (made atonement) for all men, then all men would be saved.

3) It is not the case that all men are saved.

Therefore, Christ did not shed his blood for the sins of all men but for the elect only.

In light of many clear and explicit Bible verses which state that Christ did, in fact, taste death for every man, all men, whole world, etc, Arminians typically state that the atonement was made provisionally for all men at the cross, but it only becomes effective if/when one believes. It seems like the Arminian agrees with the first premise of the limited atonement argument -- that the atonement is sufficient for salvation. In order to avoid universalism, the Arminian is forced to conclude the the blood-atonement is merely provisional rather than actual. But what if both Calvinists and Arminians are wrong on this point? Is it possible that Christ made actual atonement for all men, but not all men are saved?

This leads to my question:

What is the basis for arguing that the atonement is sufficient for salvation?
Do Calvinists use biblical arguments, and, if so, how do they deal with all the Bible verses which clearly state that faith is necessary for salvation?
If not, then what argument can a Calvinist use to support the doctrine of limited atonement?


texts: Was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee?

texts: Was that Pentecost, during which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the apostles in the book of Acts was also a time of jubilee? From what I see, the Pentecost was a holiday to commemorate God's giving Ten Commandments to His people - once every year. And the year of jubilee was established in the Old testament - according to what I can tell from Leviticus 25 - as a year of commemoration of the nation of Israel entering the promised land - once every 50 years. So, was that Pentecost in the Acts also a time of the year of jubilee?


texts: What type of angel was the Morning Star?

texts:
I've read in various places that Lucifer was 'Chief of the Seraphim,' 'Cherubim that covers,' and 'Archangel of the Crown'.  All accounts say he was God's greatest angelic creation, but what kind: Seraph, Cherub, or Archangel?

I'm a novelist and I am currently doing research. If you don't mind, I would like to know what the general consensus or most common views are across Christianity.


texts: Why was Solomon chosen as King instead of one of his brothers?

texts:
1 Kings tells us that, when David was elderly and impotent, Adonijah considered himself as heir-apparent and crowned himself, but Nathan the Prophet and Bathsheba approached David:

  She said to him, “My lord, you yourself swore to me your servant by the Lord your God: ‘Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne.’ But now Adonijah has become king, and you, my lord the king, do not know about it.

Why would David have chosen Solomon, the younger candidate, as a successor?


texts:
If you are in a state of mortal sin (let's use living in sin as an example) and you commit more sins does that mean you're in an even more sinful state?

If you are in mortal sin and then skip mass and then take the name of the Lord in vain are you in triple mortal sin or does it just not matter anymore? Mortal is mortal?


texts: What does "Tres Personae" mean in Tertullian's "Una Substantia Tres Personae"?

texts:
I've read the internet about Tertullian's "tres personae, una substantia" of Trinity. It seems that his "tres personae, una substantia" is rejected by all kind of Christianity.

However I would like to know what the Tertullian's "Tres Personae" mean since from the internet I read about English, the word [Person] has different meaning with [Persona].

Now it seems to me the "Tres Personae" is [Three Persona], not [Three Persons], while in the point of view of the pro-Trinity majority (as far as I know) it's about [Three Persons].

So, my question is – did Tertullian meant of his "Personae" a Person? or a Persona?

Or did I make mistake which actually in English language, there is no difference between Persona and Person?


texts:
What is the Catholic doctrine on how to humble oneself before the Lord?

How can one live such a life of humility, where we walk in a humble way before God and man?


texts: Do people in non-Christian cultures use swear words related to the dominant religion?

texts:
As I'm sure you're aware, people in English-speaking Christian countries often use the words "God" and "Jesus" or other Bible-related words like "damn" and "Hell" as swear words.

Do people in non-Christian cultures use words from their own religions as swear words? Like, if someone in a Muslim country bumps his head does he say "Mohammed damn it!"? Do Buddhists who lose something say, "Oh, Nirvana!"? Or whatever.

I'm just curious whether the idea of using "religious words" as swear words is something unique to Christian cultures, or is found in the cultures of other religions.


texts: In the Catholic tradition, what happens to one who grew up a faithful Catholic, apostatized, and then later returned to faith? What would the process of returning to the church look like? (i.e. Would they need to be re-baptized? Would they have to go through RCIA?)


texts: Wasn't Peter just trying to avoid getting caught when he denied Jesus three times?

texts: Simon Peter's denial of Jesus is seen as a horrible sin, but it seems to me that it wasn't that bad; Peter was among enemies and they surely would have taken Peter or sent him out if they found out he was Jesus' disciple. So why was Peter's denial of Jesus so bad given that Peter couldn't tell them the truth if he wanted to stay and see what happens with Jesus?


texts: What's the origin of the Catholic object that is a staff with a crucifix on top?

texts: Like I asked in the title, what's the name and origin of a staff with a crucifix on top? Like the one depicted in the picture.


texts: In which language is the Bible most read today? In a recent discussion, we surmised that the most read language translation of the Bible would be English. I am hoping to have a more definitive answer than a probably prejudiced guess.


texts: What is the significance of the Bible to Christianity?

texts:
What exactly is the significance of the Bible to Christianity?

Is Christianity defined by the Bible?

If so, is belief in the Bible the most important (or foundational) belief in Christianity?  Is it the basis of Christianity?
If not, what is it defined by, exactly?

Can you be a Christian and not believe in the Bible?
Can you be a Christian without ever having been taught from the Bible?

If so, why is the Bible important to Christianity?

If the answer is dependent upon tradition (I don't know if it is), please answer from a Protestant perspective.


texts: Ephesians 1: 13-14 and falling from grace

texts:
Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV

  [13] In whom ye also trusted , after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [14] Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

How would one, who doesn't believe in the doctrine of "once saved always saved", go about explaining this passage? It seems to me that this passage is saying that once you believe, you are "sealed" (or marked) with the "earnest (pledge) of our inheritance" (the Holy Spirit). How could one lose their salvation if they have the pledge of inheritance by being sealed with the Holy Spirit? Unless that seal can be broken. Are there any other interpretations?


texts: According to Calvinism, when and what happen during the Lord's Passover in the time of Moses?

texts:
Exodus 12:11

  This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt,
  your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in
  haste; it is the LORD's Passover.

From the verse above, my guess is like this :
on the day the Israel eat the lamb - it is the day of the Lord's Passover.

Exodus 12:6

  Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the
  members of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight.

From the verse above, my guess is like this :
The lambs are slaughtered on Nissan 14

Leviticus 23:5

  The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the
  first month.

From the verse above, my guess is like this :
The LORD's Passover day is on Nissan 14

My own conclusion for the time being :
The Lord's Passover is on Nissan 14 - within the same day, some things that happen were [slaughter the lamb, smear the lamb's blood on the door, roast the lamb, eat the lamb with unleavened bread, the dead of the firstborn son]

But that's a non-Christian conclusion. That's why I ask here : According to Calvinism, what date and what happen during the Lord's Passover in the time of Moses ?

Thank you.


texts:
I came across this verse:

  Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17, KJV)

What does it mean to judge the fatherless?


texts: Why is the Crucifixion said to have been between 30-33 AD, if Jesus was born between 4-6 B.C. and lived to be 33 years old?

texts:
Here are the facts as far I know:

Jesus must have been born between 4 and 6 B.C. to precede Herod.
Jesus's ministry begins when He was about 30 years of age
He engages in a 3-3.5 year ministry
He is crucified under Pontius Pilate
He therefore lives to be around 33 and a half years old

Therefore, shouldn't the year of His death be around 28-29 A.D.?

Why does Wikipedia state:

  The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judea, most probably between the years 30 and 33 AD.

Is there that much ambiguity as to the "about"?

I realize there is further complication because Luke states that the "15th year of Tiberius's reign" is when John the Baptist begins to preach. Moreover, there is no scholarly consensus as to whether Luke marks the beginning of Tiberius's reign to when Tiberius was co-regent with Augustus (11 A.D.) or when he takes full possession of power (August of 14 A.D.)

What is the scholarly consensus as to how to how these dates are synthesized?


texts: What does Paul mean when he speaks of "in Christ"?

texts: Does Paul point to any type of mystical experience when he speaks of "in Christ"? What does he express? It seems this phrase cannot be taken literally - so what is the deeper meaning of it, possibly from a philological point of view?


texts:
Does the following verse imply that your salvation can be lost?  It does not say, "... unless you've accepted Jesus"

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NIV

  Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
  God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters
  nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the
  greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
  kingdom of God.

I am specifically asking for an answer from a "keeping salvation" apologist.


texts: Did Jesus say that he was coming back within a generation?

texts:
It seems that Jesus was admitting that he would return after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.
That the abomination of desolation was the Roman leader Titus.
14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation[w] standing where it[x] should not be” (let the reader understand),[y] “then those in Judea must flee[z] to the mountains. 15 The one on the roof[aa] must not come down or go inside to take anything out of his house.[ab] 16 The one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! 18 Pray that it may not be in winter. (Mark 13:14-18 NET)
Jesus then says that after this happens he will come back.
“But in those days, after that suffering,[ai] the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light... Then everyone[ak] will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds[al] with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.´(Mark 13:24,27 NET).


texts:
We see St. Paul chastising the Corinthians for improper behavior during the Eucharistic meals, in 1 Cor 11:21-29 (NRSVCE):

When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper.  For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk.  What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? ......... Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.  Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

One is inclined to believe that the Eucharistic celebration of the Early Church  consisted of an entire meal, and not just receiving of small pieces of sacramental bread as we do today. Acts refers to the  custom as “breaking of the bread” (2:42 and  20:7).
My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, did the Eucharistic celebration of Early Church consist of an entire meal?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for considering Satan the author of evil?

texts: Satan in Job seems to be characterized as a servant of the Lord and in Isaiah Lucifer is mentioned as a destroyer of cities. It's never really clear why evil exists. In a couple places in the Old Testament it is mentioned that God is all good. So what's the Biblical basis for believing that evil comes from the devil?


texts: Is repentance of sins possible outside the Gospels?

texts:
Does every human being, at least once in their lifetime, have a genuine chance to repent of their sins, turn away from them and start living a righteous life? If so, does this also include people who never hear the Gospel? What does repentance of sins look like for a non-Christian who dies never having the Gospel preached to them?
I would be interested in an overview of main Christian viewpoints regarding these questions.


texts: Has any church organization refused lottery winnings as donation?

texts:
Sometimes I've played the lottery when it gets over $100 million, thinking I could retire on a small fortune and then give tens of millions away to charity, including of course, Christian ones.

Has anyone ever seen a congregation or parachurch organization (pick the Billy Graham Evangelical Association for example) flatly refuse a donation because it came from lottery winnings? I'm actually wondering about the prevalence of such refusals, or denominational / charity by-laws that state up front they would not accept such funds.

I'm not immediately interested in debating the sinfulness of playing the lottery. Although citations of its sinfulness in refusing donations is of course of interest.


texts: Are there documented reports about Jews around the time of Jesus? And what did they say about the first christians?

texts:
Are there any reliable documented reports of Jewish individuals, leaders or groups, around the time of Jesus?

Who were they?

And what did they say about Jesus and/or the first Christians?


texts: Which temple is being referred to in Acts 2:46?

texts:
In the book of Acts, a certain temple seems to be being referred to in chapter 2 verse 46:

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.

Which temple is this?


texts: What is the origin of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

texts: How old is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in what manner was it conceived and instituted?


texts: When Lucifer defied God he must have thought he stood a chance of winning. Did he? And if not how is it he didn't realize that?


texts: Why does the Eastern Orthodox church forbid blind men from becoming priests?

texts:
An Eastern Orthodox man told me that, because he was blind, canon law forbid him from serving as a priest. He was quite okay with this (and served his church in other capacities), but unfortunately didn't have the time to elaborate on the rationale for why Eastern Orthodoxy had this restriction.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church forbid blind men from serving as priests? And does this restriction apply to men with other disabilities (e.g. deafness)?


texts: How do Protestants who do not hold Communion/Eucharist every week interpret Acts 2:42?

texts:
Acts 2:40-42 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. 41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they were persevering in the teaching of the apostles, and in coming together, and the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The "breaking of bread" was an early, primitive way of referring to the Eucharist (both come from the Last Supper or Institution, where Christ "broke bread" and "gave thanks" - Gk. eucharistesas Lk. 22:19).
Many modern Protestant denominations don't hold Eucharist more than about once a year. How do such denominations or groups defend their stance, based on Acts 2:42, which seems to imply a perseverance and regular celebration thereof?
Thanks in advance.


texts: Is it possible the Biblical and scientific timelines for the age of the earth could link up?

texts: In many versions of the Bible I have read, in footnotes/endnotes they say the Hebrew term for "day" could also mean "period of time."  So if you took "period of time" to mean oh say, a billion years, pow, the Earth could be seen as 5 to 7 billion years old, which agrees roughly with the scientific community's view.  Then that leaves room for things like evolution, fossil and fossil fuel formation, etc.  Is this something anyone sees as plausible?


texts: What was the first name of Barabbas whom Pilate let off from the prison?

texts:
In Contemporary English Version we see at Matt 27:17 :

"So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, “Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”.

Not many versions of the Bible give us the idea that the first name of Barabbas (literally,son of the father) was Jesus.

My question is : What does the Catholic tradition say about the first name of Barabbas whom Pilate let off from the prison ?


texts:
In some strands of Reformed theology, the regulative principle of worship is understood to mean that "church holidays," not specifically established in the Bible, should not be recognized in public worship.  Thus in some denominations, church services around Christmas and Easter make no special mention of the holidays.

John Calvin, of course, was a developer and proponent of the regulative principle of worship, but it's not clear to me how strictly he applied the rule to the case of Christmas.  There seems to be an ongoing debate over his beliefs which is a bit difficult to wade through (see, for example, quotes in favor and against).

Here, I'd like to suspend judgment on what he thought, and instead focus on what he did.  Did Calvin recognize or observe Christmas during public worship? Did he do so only in certain places or times in his career? And if so, in what way did he observe it?  Casual mention in an unrelated sermon, more hymns about Christ's birth than usual, or perhaps a sermon text like Micah 5 or Luke 2?

To be clear, I'm not interested in whether or not Calvin gave gifts on Christmas or otherwise celebrated the holiday outside public worship.  I'm only asking about his application of the regulative principle of worship, which applies only to public worship services.


texts: What is the stance of the LDS Church on gender?

texts:
Gender is a hot topic as of late, with a seemingly small but very vocal minority preaching that gender is fluid, non-binary, and that people may choose to identify with whatever gender they wish.

What is the official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter?


texts: What's the biblical basis for the belief that God truly judges our hearts behind our actions and not the actions themselves?

texts:
What's the biblical basis for the belief that God ultimately judges a thing to be a sin or not based on the intentions in our heart and not the action solely?

That would seem to be the indication in this passage, though the context of this verse is not speaking specifically of judgment of sin.

  1 Samuel 16:7 ESV But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/45327/11471


texts:
At Matthew 27:17 of Contemporary English Version we read:

"So when the crowd came together, Pilate asked them, “Which prisoner do you want me to set free? Do you want Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”

But in RSVCE, we read the same verse as follows:

"So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Barab′bas or Jesus who is called Christ?”

While it appears that the name Barabbas was an attribute meaning ' son of the father' or ' like father like son'  in a more cynical way,   it is difficult to believe that he also bore the name Jesus . I wish to know what the view of Catholic Church on the presentation of Barabbas with the first name Jesus, is.


texts: Discrepancy between Yahweh (Christian Bibles) and Eh-yeh (Torah)

texts:
I am currently working on a religious drama and outsmarted myself. I come to you for help.

Growing up Jewish, I did not hear the term Yahweh until I was 14 in Western Civilization. "Well, you know, right? It's, you know, God." And my reply, "I have no idea what you're talking about, and seriously, there isn't even a w in Hebrew so try again." Nor in Ancient Greek! Although, some would say the Hebrew letter vav can behave like a w.

Next, my Torah portion included Exodus 3:14 (and I gotta tell you, reading off an animal skin scroll is cool!). It says Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh. Even among Jews, there is some controversy because of limitations within Hebrew of future tense. However, "I shall be what I shall be" is without fault as an English translation of the Hebrew. Certainly the Christian Bible "I am who [what] I am" is a very different statement. The Torah has been meticulously transcribed letter by letter for 2600 years

So I asked a (Conservative) rabbi. We agreed the line from Exodus 3:14 contained neither a Yah nor a weh. "So, Rabbi, where does this word come from?" She says, "Well it really has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14. Here read this." And I read, "Barukh atah Adonai--"

"You can stop there," she says. "The third word does not state 'Adonai.' Why do you say that?" And my response is "Because that [what I read] is how we spell our Lord's name on paper--probably to prevent us from being insulting." And she says "And what does it actually read?" My Hebrew is not so great but I manage "Yeh-vah?" She says, "That's the best I can do."

Although I might benefit from seeing a Protestant minister, I wound up with a visit at a nearby Catholic Church. Although we came to no further conclusion on the matter, we agreed that Yeshua was an awfully nice Hebrew name.

I've read quite a bit over the years on the subject. Most of the commentary is either too mystical or too one-sided to be useful to my project or me.

Specifically, how did "Yahweh" become a word of such prominence in Western literature and lexicon?

I've redacted the latter part of my question, and thank you for your information thus far.

For clarification, I'll add: YHVH, or whatever you want to call it, is little more than a placeholder in modern Hebrew prayers; it is simply not said, and has been further redacted to YY. I've seen it a million times, but I just say Lord ("Adonai"). The idea that the placeholder held any real significance was lost on me until much later in life. I do not know what was spoken in biblical times, but that doesn't matter. The discussion of Jehovah below is helpful, but as long as I'm still open for business ...

Edit: I recently asked an Orthodox rabbi. Orthodox Judaism tends to be more mystical, if you will (Chabad.org). The response: "It is actually one of many names for the Divine. ... It was not used in general prayers during the times of the Temple [Kings]. ... It is unknown what was spoken during the time of Moses."


texts: If the earthly sanctuary is a replica of the heavenly sanctuary, can there be death in heaven?

texts:
Please excuse what appears to be a bit of a confused question...I am trying to make sense of something that I simply do not fully understand in my own mind. The question is therefore very difficult for me to word as I would like.
After the Jews came out of Egypt and God led them to Mt Sinai,  God said to Moses..
Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Exodus 25.8 New International Version
the Lord gave Moses blueprints for one of the most mysterious structures ever built? ... a unique temple that represented God’s dwelling place among His people. Its overall design and services showed this nation of freed slaves a three-dimensional panorama of the plan of salvation https://sdarm.org/publications/bible-study-guide/ptoc/lesson-14
In studying a visual image of the layout of the Tabernacle that Moses was asked to have built, the alter of sacrifice where the lamb was slain and offered as a burnt offering was in the courtyard https://www.goodseed.com/diagram-of-the-tabernacle-and-basic-layout.html
Where are the laver and alter of sacrifice located in the heavenly sanctuary model that the earthly one is based upon as given to Moses?
How do we interpret the relationship between the heavenly and earthly sanctuary, the services, and the plan of salvation...ie, is the courtyard of the heavenly sanctuary actually this earth where Jesus was sacrificed?
Finally, does that therefore mean that there can be no death in Heaven because sin only exists on this earth?
Given the idea that at least part of the heavenly sanctuary might very well be on earth (the courtyard containing the alter of sacrifice and laver), is it possible that in fact the entire heavenly sanctuary is a metaphor for the plan of salvation itself rather than a single literal place/structure in heaven.


texts:
Why was the name of Pontius Pilate included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed? Why was it important to mention his name in the creed? If only because of historicity, then wouldn't just a mention "governor of Judaea" have sufficed? Or at the very least the name of the Caesar would have served better then (just like it was a custom in many historical writings, Gospels included): "governor of Judaea under Emperor Tiberius".
Yet we see exactly Pontius Pilate's name mentioned. Why is it so? It is especially interesting a question when you consider the other names mentioned in the creed, that is, only two names: "Jesus Christ" and "Mary"!
Nicene creed that preceded the Niceno-Constantinopolitan did not include "Pontius Pilate", which means that there must have been a valid reason for the inclusion. Besides, the reason must be stated in the documents of the Second Council. However, I haven't met the stated reason yet. The wikipage on Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed doesn't have an answer to this question.


texts: Does the Catholic Church consider the 40 year trek in the wilderness an allegory?

texts:
Much of the story about the Israelites 40 year wandering in the desert wilderness is as hard to believe as the flood in Noah's day and the allegorical creation account in Genesis.

Does the Catholic Church take all of the events in the account of the wilderness trek (manna, quail, copper serpent, sandals and clothes that don't wear out etc...) as literal or is it another allegory that is meant to teach us that we must rely on God for salvation?

If taken as literal were they made ignorant by God so as not to be able to find their way? In 40 years walking in a straight line how many times could one circle the globe? Walking 20 miles a day one could theoretically walk around the globe in 3.5 years in 40 years nearly 12 laps around the equator


texts: Did the Second Council of Orange deny the "certain efficacy" of grace?

texts:
B. B. Warfield says in The Plan of Salvation [PDF]:

  Into the place of Pelagianism there stepped at once Semipelagianism; and when the controversy with Semi-pelagianism had been fought and won, into the place of Semi-pelagianism there stepped that semi-semi-pelagianism which the Council of Orange betrayed the Church into. ... The necessity of grace had been acknowledged as the result of the Pelagian controversy: its preveniency, as the result of the Semi-pelagian controversy: but its certain efficacy, its "irresistibility" men call it, was by the fatal compromise of Orange denied. ...  [After Orange it was not] any longer legally possible to ascribe salvation so entirely to the grace of God that it could complete itself without the aid of the discredited human will—its aid only as empowered and moved by prevenient grace indeed, but not effectually moved, so that it could not hold back and defeat the operations of saving grace.

But I've read through the canons of the Council of Orange and I don't see how he concludes that. Is he right?


texts: "God Bubble" - Who teaches/believes such a concept and what is the basic teaching behind the concept?

texts:
It's not often I hear a new one, but today one of the people I know mostly on social media posted the following:

  A God bubble needs to comfort and heal [name deleted] while she battles
  the reoccurance of [disease/condition]. I ask that you
  please send up your prayers and lift her to the Lord to heal her as
  quickly as possible and to give her mama and loving caregivers
  strength to see her through this once again. Blessings of thanks to
  all of you

This person is known to be among the more Charismatic groups of Christians, and it would not surprise me to learn that the concept of a "God Bubble" is a term commonly used among Charismatic.  If so, I'm looking for examples of teachings on the subject, a general feel for how widespread the belief in a concept of a "God Bubble" is, and which groups teach such a concept.

*It's obvious the term refers to some sort of protection around an individual.  I'm not as much interested in what the term means, as I am in knowing who teaches this concept, and references to sermons or articles describing the concept and the Biblical basis behind it.


texts: What is the purpose of degrees in the Knights of Columbus?

texts: The Knights of Columbus seems to have some system like the Freemasons do when it comes to degrees. But since those organizations are diametrically opposed, what is the point of the four degrees in the Knights of Columbus?


texts: What is the moral status of common-law marriage?

texts:
It is a common Christian belief that sex outside of marriage (whether extra-marital or pre-marital) is sinful. But what about common law marriage? In 10 US states and the District of Columbia (source), a marriage can be contracted by a cohabiting couple putting themselves forward as married - beyond mere cohabitation, there is a necessity to present one's selves as being married. (Which as a practical matter is not hard - many people will assume that a cohabiting couple are married, so in a common-law marriage jurisdiction, a cohabiting couple can become married simply by doing nothing to disabuse others of the perception that they are married.) So, if a couple have a legally recognised common law marriage, are they sinning by living together and having sexual relations? Is a marriage ceremony or a legal document morally necessarily to be married? (If it is, did Adam and Eve have a ceremony or a contract?)

Does the jurisdiction in which the couple live matter for the purposes of its moral status? Is a cohabiting couple, presenting as married, in a common law jurisdiction in which such presentation is sufficient to become married, not sinning by having sexual relations, while a cohabiting couple, making the same presentation, in a jurisdiction which does not recognise common-law marriage, sinning? (Many jurisdictions which used to recognise common-law marriage no longer do - that is true of most US states, most Canadian provinces, Scotland, among others.)

If the legal status of the relationship is relevant to its moral status - what is the moral relevance of jurisdictions (like Australia or France) which provide legal recognition to cohabiting couples which is legally distinct from marriage? (i.e. de facto status in Australia, pacte civil de solidarité in France). If legal recognition is morally significant, does it morally matter whether a jurisdiction considers a relationship established by repute to be equal in status to formal marriages, or to have some distinct legally recognised status?

(In this question I am only asking about heterosexual couples who are exclusively monogamous, who are freely consenting, adults, of sound mind, and not related.)


texts: What is the Biblical basis that God does not punish disobedient Christians beyond the immediate natural consequences?

texts:
Suppose that a person is faithful and counted among those in Christ, and the person is disobedient in some manner.

What is the biblical basis that God does not intervene to punish this Christian beyond the immediate natural consequences of their actions, because Christ has already borne the punishment of their transgressions?


texts:
Do Christians in general treat Friday as a special day, perhaps with a worship service, prayers or confession? Is it more or less special than Sunday?

If most don't, are there some Christians who do hold Friday as special in some way, perhaps holding worship services on Friday?


texts: Is it moral or immoral for Satan to punish souls for immoral acts?

texts:
Satan, to my understanding, punishes souls in hell as a result of their immoral acts on earth.  It also is my understanding that the concept of Satan represents pure immorality (evil).

Does that mean it is immoral to punish souls in hell or is it actually moral?


texts: Do the Scriptures support the 'Simulated Universe' idea?

texts:
If you were to Google "simulated universe" you'll find that major science institutions are starting to hypothesize that the universe is 'very possibly' a 'simulated environment' at the lowest level - where this simulated (created) environment supports all needed elements to facilitate true organic existence (they are not claiming that we are simulated). One article even went as far as referencing 'the being(s) behind the simulation'  (Creators)

Although these hypotheses vary, I've seen a few different schools that have studied the possibility (such as University of Washington) and are coming to the conclusion that it can even be simulated on a small scale within the near future.

My question is whether the Scriptures support such an idea? I've never studied the Word from this angle so I can't say either way.

Just to be clear, I know that we and even the universe are not digital simulations - but is there any way that the universe could have not just  formed by God's will,  but also that the formation is bound through God's constant will?


texts: How many Pentecostals and Charismatics are there in the U.S. today?

texts:
I am currently conducting research which seeks to establish that Charismatic Christianity, which started with Charles Parham in the early 20th century, has had the greatest influence on the church in America up into today.

One possible piece of evidence for my case rests on the total population of Charismatic Christians in America. This number is difficult to discern though for a number of couple of reasons:

  Firstly, although there are denominations which represent Charismatic
  beliefs such as Assemblies of God, United Pentecostal Church
  International etc., these populations are not comprehensive in
  examining the totality of Charismatic influence; many
  non-denominational churches hold beliefs similar to Pentecostals for
  example.

  Secondly, virtually all Protestant denominations & Catholicism have
  some influence of Charismatic Christianity in them
  today.
  The measure of this influence is difficult to quantify when
  determining how many Charismatic Christians are in actually in the
  population of Christians in America.

Given these difficulties listed, I am curious if any scholarly research group has conducted research to best piece together an estimate which best identifies the population of those which subscribe to the theology first promulgated by Charles Parham in the early 1900's.


texts: In the Catholic Church, is there specific canon law on voluntary excommunication?

texts: Is there such a thing as voluntary excommunication from the Catholic Church? Maybe a latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae? If there is, how could it be done? Is there some kind of formal process?


texts: What does the Bible say about life before conception?

texts:
I recently spoke with a friend of mine and he was wondering if we are alive before conception. We know that there is life after death according to the Bible, but what does the Bible say about "life" before birth?

All I could dig up was this:

  Jeremiah 1:4-5 (ESV)
  4  Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5   “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
  and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

And this:

  Psalm 139:15-16 (NIV1984)
  15 My frame was not hidden from you
     when I was made in the secret place.
  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
  16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
  All the days ordained for me
     were written in your book
     before one of them came to be.

Any insight?

Edit: It is clear that we do not have physical being before birth but is there something in the Bible that might prove or disprove the existence of our souls before conception?


texts: Is Matthew 26:32 and John 20:9 a mistake stating that Jesus told the disciples He would rise again then stating they didn't know after it happened?

texts:
Matthew 26:32 Jesus tells the disciples that He will die and rise again.

  But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

John 20:9 says that the disciples didn't know that Jesus would rise again?

  For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Is this a mistake?


texts: Following the Doctrine in Council of Trent, does God give a soul to human at conception deprived of sanctifying grace?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained, that God intended our first parents to give their descendants the blessings of original justice. When they lost the gifts, however, they could not give them to their posterity. Thus, the 5th session of the Council of Trent (1546) teaches that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not imitation.

However, the contention arises in, if original sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation. Somehow understanding it biologically implied that the transmission would be thru sexual procreation.. but the Council implied only a metaphysical transmission since the soul is immaterial being...
I will quote the interpretation of Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P.
 (Thomistic Evolution site):

  Now, some may read this statement by the Council of Trent – that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not by imitation – as a claim that original sin is transmitted biologically. However, the consequences of original sin are privations in the soul of the human being. Because of the original sin, his soul lacks grace and the preternatural gifts. Thus, when the Council of Trent teaches that the consequences of the original sin are transmitted by propagation and not by imitation, we should understand this as a metaphysical and not a biological claim. As an immaterial spirit, our soul and its properties are not determined by our genes. Instead, when God creates our souls when we are conceived, He creates them without the graces and gifts that we should have inherited from our original parents.

In view of the Catholic Church Teaching defined in Council of Trent: Does God give a human soul deprived of sanctifying grace at conception?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Jesus' words in Matthew 24:1–34, about the generation that would not pass away before great tribulation?

texts: Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the last days started in 1914 because that was the year that the world changed from the start of WW1. The drastic changes from 1914 onward are the sign of the Lord's presence. Those who saw the sign starting in 1914 were the first of a generation that would not pass away before the last days ended. How do JWs define the term "generation" as used here?


texts: In what ways did orthodox trinitarianism diverge from Tertullian's proto-trinitarianism?

texts:
Tertullian is well known as the first Latin writer to use the word "trinity" (trinitas) and as a proponent of trinitarian doctrine in general. But there were many trinitarian controversies between his time and that of the Nicene Creed. Books and articles about the doctrine often say that it was not "settled" until then (or later).

What aspects of Tertullian's doctrine of the trinity are claimed by scholars to be opposed to later orthodox formulations of the doctrine? And where specifically in his writings do such scholars point to make their case?


texts: What's the justification for believing that God interacts with us today the same way He did thousands of years ago?

texts:
Most Christians I have come across believe that because

  8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

God must interact with people today the same way He did back then. One way this belief is expressed is that God speaks to us only or primarily though the Bible, for example. There seems to be this implicit assumption that humans today are basically the same as humans back then, so what God said to them applies just as well to us. I think is clearly not the case; the way we act and think today is vastly different, as are most of the issues we face.

The way a father interacts with his child changes as his child matures. What I would like to know is how prominent Christian theologians make the case against this possibility. I want to know how great theologians (on the order of, say, Augustine, John Bunyam, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley, and the like) justify this belief that the way God behaves towards humans today is much the same way He behaved towards them thousands of years ago. Widely-accepted sources of theology such as the Westminster Catechism are also acceptable. It seems to me that this sort of belief is fairly consistent across denominations and branches, so I don't think I need to scope it any tighter.

Note: such a justification should not depend on God's character/characteristics being unchanging. A father's character need not change (though it probably will) for his interactions with his children to change as they get older.

Okay, I'm gonna try to clarify my question. The Bible makes it quite clear that God does not change. His nature, essence, and Being do not change in the slightest. However, that doesn't preclude God from changing the way He acts towards us. Many societies today are vastly different from the societies of the ancients. Take the rise of democracy, for instance, or the rise of various economic systems like capitalism and communism. Take the advent of Science and how electronic/computer technology has become so pervasive and significant. The controversies surrounding abortion and contraception absolutely could not have happened two thousand years ago.

So then, is there a good justification for believing that God behaves towards us today the same way He did towards the ancients? I don't want a Biblically-based answer as there are too many varying interpretations of what it says, so I want an answer that derives from a prominent theologian's work. If one of those great theologians actually directly answers that question, that would be ideal.


texts: I've heard it said that Pope St. John Paul II wrote in front of the blessed sacrament. Is this true?

texts: I occasionally get the dirty look from people in the adoration chapel, when writing, and was wondering if it's true that Pope St. John Paul II wrote in the adoration chapel.


texts: What is the significance of the burning bush?

texts:
In Exodus 3, God reveals himself to Moses through the sign of a burning bush, which miraculously is not consumed by the flames. Here is Exodus 3:1-6 in the NRSV:

  Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian; he led his flock beyond the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush; he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. Then Moses said, "I must turn aside and look at this great sight, and see why the bush is not burned up." When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." Then he said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Why does God choose to use the sign of the burning bush, as opposed to any other miracle?

It seems to me that there should be some reason why a blazing (but not consumed) bush in the middle of the wilderness is particularly appropriate for the message that God was delivering to Moses. I was also wondering whether there is a specifically Christian interpretation of this event, given the other parallels between the Exodus and the work of Jesus.


texts: What is depicted on this piece of artwork?

texts:
Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This particular piece is a very beautiful piece in my opinion. This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

I am really intrigued by the artwork itself.

Is it possible for someone to identify this scene?


texts: What is the Catholic position on ethnic parishes today?

texts:
I was thinking about this comment concerning cliquishness in the churches and how they can help build each other up (or avoid strife).

Smaller towns in rural America with large immigrant Hispanic populations often have Mass in Spanish usually with a visiting pastor. It once was the case that there would be a Polish church and a German church and an Italian church and maybe an Irish church in different neighborhoods.  But nowadays, we're lucky if there's one church for a 30 mile radius and we have to share resources.

I just wonder what the official status of these sub-parishes is.  If Mass is only offered in your native language once every month is that all you're obligated to attend?  Is Bishops goal of having Hispanic outreach to just get people in the door or to make them full fledged parishioners?


texts: Christian apologetics regarding the killing of innocent children during the Genesis flood

texts:
I'm trying to catalog the various justifications that are put forth when it is claimed that killing innocent children in the Genesis flood was some combination of immoral, cruel, or unjust.

Here are some of the common answers I've come across:

God can do whatever he wants. (video video)
The children were not innocent, due to original sin. (link)
Society was extremely wicked during this period. Children endured physical abuse, sexual abuse, abandonment, starvation via neglect, child slavery, etc. The wicked men were killed out of justice. The children were killed to put them out of their misery.
The flood is allegory. God didn't actually kill all of humanity except for Noah and his family. (link)

Note that 3 is in conflict with 2.

4 makes 2 and 3 moot.

Proponents of 1 consider the rest of the justifications unnecessary.

What are some other justifications that people have put forth? Views from all denominations welcome.

UPDATE

Man was warned by Noah for 100 years before the flood came. When innocent children died, it was the fault of their parents for not building boats, not the fault of God. (See comment below by NigelJ and link)
Infants and children immediately went to heaven when they died in the flood so this is not ultimately viewed as cruel.


texts: Who are the "Non-Evangelical Protestants"?

texts:
I think this is an important question, because there is this group called "Non-Evangelical Protestants" that research articles may use in order to distinguish them from "Evangelical Protestants" and "Catholics".

I have a hunch that they are "American Mainline Protestants".


texts: Was the Synagogue of Satan the same as the Synagogue of Libertines?

texts:
If the Synagogue of Libertines (Acts 6: 9) was Hellenist it would not have been regarded as properly Jewish by conservative Jews.

  Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the
  synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of
  them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. (Acts 6:9, KJV)

Is this what Revelation 2:9 and Rev. 3: 9 talks about?

  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich)
  and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not,
  but are the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9, KJV)

  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are
  Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and
  worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
  (Revelation 3:9, KJV)


texts: What did Jesus do regarding the Jews believing that some diseases were sometimes due to sin?

texts:
In relation to these two questions:

What evidence is there that the Jews thought leprosy was due to sin?

What does it mean to say that mental illness is a modern-day leprosy?

Obviously, Jesus didn't go into details about biology and psychology. Those things barely work with some people in modern society. So what did He do? Did He actually correct some people? What did Jesus say to convince them?

As far as I am able to recall, Jesus showed sympathy to the diseased by interacting or dining with them, which implies "So what if disease or their diseases are caused by sin? We still shouldn't refuse to interact with them."

That's a great lesson really, but did He also correct people? I kind of feel that He probably didn't because that wasn't really His point of being on Earth (left that to the scientists centuries later).

On the other hand, I kind of feel that such lesson or even a nudge towards things like that would have been largely helpful. I don't see any practical value in Jesus talking about calculus or gravity those don't have much to do with morality and religion, but I think some lessons or nudges about very simple biology such as some of the causes of diseases, which might eventually lead those people to think that, more often than not, diseases are caused more by physical evils than moral evils.


texts: Can someone look into a mirror and not liking what he or she sees be capable of loving his neighbour?

texts: The greatest command is to love your neighbor as yourself... ??


texts: Are those that enter into a marriage that is later annulled required to do any penance?

texts:
I understand that in Catholicism, annulments are sometimes issued for marriages that meet certain criteria.  I'm wondering if the simple fact that the couple entered into a marriage that was not right or properly sanctioned by God if it is considered to have been a sin to do so.  It does appear, perhaps, that the couple would have been involved in a sexual relationship with someone who was not rightfully their spouse.

So, the question is, "Is there any penance required for those who have entered into a marriage that is later annulled?" and, if so, "What is the nature of that penance?"


texts: I'm looking for the name and singer/composer of a toddler song.  The words I remember are " Tap tap tap, tap tap tap, someone's building  up a place for me....building me a home in heaven.  Jesus, building me a home in heaven, Jesus building me a home in heaven...."  It was a great song to do with motions similar to the wise man built his house upon the rock.  I can't find or remember enough of the song.  It could be from the late 80s or early 90s.  Thanks.


texts: What would happen to somebody voting in opposition to a proposition at LDS General Conference?

texts:
I'm watching the semi-annual LDS General Conference. One segment just went by that was some general business of voting to retain people in various roles or assign new ones. Several thousand people are present and voting.

The camera work going into the live broadcast was hard to see, but it looked like the entire audience voted on every issue instantly and unanimously. Having watched and participated in many similar events both secular and in various Christian traditions, this seems inconsistent with what inevitably crops up: human nature seems to dictate that given enough people, there is always some sub-set of nay-sayers.

What do these votes represent? Have these issues been vetted some other way first? What procedure would be followed in the event of some opposition votes? Is it an issue of needing a majority? What personal experiences would somebody expect if they were to vote against an issue like retaining a prophet or one of the other major leadership roles in the LDS church?


texts:
Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords? Was he suggesting they be warriors like the ancient Israelites?

  “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! (Luke 22:36, NLT)


texts: In the Anglican Church, how is the Archbishop appointed?

texts:
The current Archbishop of Sydney is retiering this week. What is the process involved in appointing the new Archbishop in the Anglican Church?

i.e. who can nominate them, who can vote for them, what voting system is used, does anyone have to approve the decision, etc.

If you feel this question is too broad, please let me know and I'll split it up.

If the process is different around the world, then please specify how it works for Sydney.


texts: How does Christ's hypostatic union affect the temporal nature of the Trinity?

texts:
The term hypostatic union is a concise way to say that Jesus was fully God and fully Man at the same time (glossing over the details). There are a number of opinions on the precise details of this union, but I think that by and large, most would agree that the hypostatic union did not exist before Jesus was born.

This raises an interesting question. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet, He changed upon being born. And given that after the Resurrection, His body still had the flesh wounds, He Ascended to Heaven in that body, and is described with a body in Revelation, a reasonable assumption would be that Christ still exists in the hypostatic union and will do so for eternity.

At first glance, it seems that an atemporal God (the Son) is joined together with a temporal body (Jesus). If this is correct, then how does the Hypostatic Union affect the temporal/atemporal nature of the Trinity? If this is incorrect, then where is my error in thinking?

Sources deriving from the writings of great theologians (especially in the first few centuries) would be most appreciated, but well-supported exegesis would be fine as well.


texts: Why is our righteousness as filthy rags?

texts:
I want to know why man's righteousness is as filthy rags, especially as it relates to the idea of works righteousness, or earning one's own salvation. Is it because humans are incapable of offering up works of righteousness due that are ends in themselves? To put it another way, is it because the expectation of a reward nullifies the benevolence of the act? If so, how does Christianity address this?

The relevant quote from Isaiah 64:6 is given below:

  All of us have become like one who is unclean

  and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;

  we all shrivel up like a leaf,

  and like the wind our sins sweep us away.


texts: Were Adam and Eve meant to live forever; had they not disobeyed God?

texts:
In the book of Genesis we are led to believe that as God created man he was immortal.

  Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Does that indicate that Adam and Eve and all who came after them would still be alive today had they not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


texts: What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants?

texts:
My question is posed to the Protestant churches that teach that man is saved by faith alone.

If a person is saved by faith alone, what happens to children who die before they are able to conceive of the meaning of Christ's death and their own need for him and therefore cannot have a saving faith in his work?

I heard the John Calvin taught that unbaptized infants were saved by their parents' faith. I've also heard that some Calvinist pastors will say that there is no way of knowing, because God has chosen which will go to heaven and hell apart from human action. Some Roman Catholic teachers taught that there was a place in Hell (or between Heaven and Hell) called limbo for unbaptized infants, but I see that Pope Francis has stated that unbaptized infants do have hope of salvation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html). But I'm looking for an overview of the positions that are taught as doctrine in the Protestant churches, or are at least in writing from their leaders.


texts: What differences will being a Christian make in this life?

texts:
What are the differences being a Christian will make in this life (on earth not entrance into heaven or hell)?

Or is it just a group identity of a hopeful passage into Heaven upon the next life and really will not make much difference on this earth if it is ruled by the fall of man?


texts: Why did Ezekiel say that God gave laws to the people that were not good?

texts:
Ezekiel 20:23-25

  23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

Here we have God, speaking through Ezekiel, saying that he had given the people bad statutes (or laws in some translations) whereby they should not live (or by which they die, again depending on translation).

The only thing that I can figure is that Ezekiel, being from the priestly class, would have been more in favor of the stricter laws given Leviticus. He thought the laws given in Deuteronomy (like only having to sacrifice in the temple once a year, akin to Christians going to Church once a year) were leading the people to death. However, even given the interpretation, it is still a bit disturbing that we have God saying that he purposely gave the people bad laws that they could not live by. You get the picture of pious Jews, trying to live righteously, following the law, only they have been tricked by God himself.

What is going on here? I am not able to understand or interpret this scripture.


texts: What is the earliest manuscript of the Gloria in excelsis Deo (Greater Doxology) hymn?


texts: What does inherit the earth mean in Matthew 5:5

texts:
I had a discussion with some friends last night about the meaning of the phrase "the meek will inherit the earth" in Matthew.

Matthew 5:5. NIV

  Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.

There were a whole lot of different ideas flying around. Just wondering, is that talking about this present earth, or the next? Also, is it speaking corporately or individually? Not sure if there's a "right" answer for this question.


texts: What was the early-Christendom position on attributing pagan names to Christian concepts (mainly god)? Was there opposition to doing this?

texts:
In the ancient times, the newly-converted European cultures naturally reused their native "pagan" words to refer to some of the newly-acquired Christian concepts, rather then re-inventing the wheel. Were there, in the history of Early-Christianity, conservative priests or people who were opposed to such naming, mainly in the case of Latin people naming the Christian God "Deus" (which once had a "pagan" sense), by calling such thing an "heresy", "idolatry", "paganism", etc?

Other cases are Latin "Inferno" and Greek "Hades", formerly Roman and Greek mythology concepts, that came to refer to the Christian hell in the Latin and Greek languages, respectively (but I think those cases might be not as heretic as attributing the name of pagan god(s) to God). How strongly was this objected to?


texts:
For instance lets say there's a patron saint of infants, but that a recently canonized saint is clearly superior to the previous one when it comes to infants.

Is it not then warrented to make the previous saint step down to leave the place of patron saint to someone who is holier?

Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans and some Lutherans believe in patron saints. But considering that Catholicism has the most well defined grasp this doctrine I would prefer an answer which agrees with Catholic theology.


texts: What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?

texts:
In Matthew 23:9, Jesus says:

Matthew 23:9 (NIV)
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

What is the Roman Catholic view on this? In the Roman Catholic Church there are at least two titles that are based on the word father: abbot (head of a monastery) and pope (head of the Church). In addition to this, it is common to address a priest with the title father (at least in fiction). How do the Roman Catholic Church reconcile these two facts?


texts: How do Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists reconcile Hebrews 8:13?

texts:
Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists believe God has two covenants: one with the Christians and one with the Jews but that appears to be going against the grain of what Hebrews 8:13 says.

  "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (NIV)


texts: Where does the word 'Eloheim' originate from?

texts:
Elohim being referred to as the Father whom is a God

  When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. - God (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

Eloheim associates with multiple 'Gods' in this particular article

Enrichment Section A: Who Is the God of the Old Testament (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)

  The word Elohim is a plural form of the Hebrew word for God, although
  modern scholars agree that it should be taken as a singular noun even
  though the im ending is a plural form. Joseph Smith, however,
  indicated the significance of the plural form:

  “If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, … ‘The head one of
  the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.’ I once asked a
  learned Jew, ‘If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words
  ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim
  plural?’ He replied, ‘That is the rule with few exceptions; but in
  this case it would ruin the Bible.’ He acknowledged I was right.

  “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods
  beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling
  on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way
  through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when
  you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the
  beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.” (Teachings, p. 372.)

In this specific case Joseph Smith is referring to Genesis where it says

  'Let us make man in our own image' - Genesis 1:26

So it is evident that he is using Genesis as the core of the word 'Eloheim'. In the original Hebrew manuscripts; the writer uses the word Elohim

  ’ĕ·lō·hîm (אֱלֹהִ֖ים)

From my research it seems 'Eloheim' doesn't exist in the Hebrew nor English vocabulary (I could be very wrong, so please correct me if so). Now let us consider if this was a typo - Why would the Father be referred to the same as the plurality of Gods?

Also note how the 'learned Jew' said it would ruin the Bible, so it is evident he is talking about the Bible in this context.

With all this in mind, where does the word 'Eloheim' originate from?


texts: What is involved in the consecration of a Church?

texts: What is actually involved in consecrating a Catholic church? Does a priest or bishop just come and say a prayer over/towards the building? If so, what is the prayer? Are there any liturgical gestures or motions that the priest/bishop has to do? I'm interested in the details


texts: How many languages did apostle Paul speak?

texts: Of course, he could speak Hebrew and from such examples like preaching the gospel in Athens it seems that he had no problem speaking Greek. He also wanted to visit Rome, while there were no Jews living in Rome at that time, so does it mean that he could also speak Latin? Also he wanted to go to Spain. Does it mean that he could also speak Spanish? Was Spanish existent at that time?


texts: Why (how) does Jesus' coat have no seam?

texts:
When Jesus is arrested and His captors take His clothes, they split them in four parts. However, His coat they did not split, as John records, "the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout." See John 19:23,24.

Is this seamless robe only significant because it led to the fulfillment of the scripture in Psalm 22? Is there a theological or doctrinal symbolic significance of having no seam?

I don't even know the process of weaving - how would you make a coat without seams? (I assume it has sleeves)


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the idea that God doesn't have form?

texts:
In Genesis, God walks on the garden of Eden. Israelites saw a sapphire throne below God's feet. Ezekiel saw a throne and someone sitting on it. So is John in revelation. In Mamre, Abraham saw 3 guys, and Christians believe one of them is God. Does God have a form as seen by John the Apostle?

I saw some atheist sites, that interpret the Bible based on what it actually says, even think that Abraham must have seen 3 gods, El Shaddai, Yahweh, and maybe Elyon, coming to Abraham.

In any case, several times in the bible, God is described as having form. People just can't see it because they die if they do.

Yet many believe that God has no form. What verses in the Bible are used to say, "God has no form"?


texts: Why do some Pentecostal preachers claim that Lucifer was a worship leader?

texts:
Here in Brazil, there are some Pentecostal preachers who claim that Satan (Lucifer) was the "Minister of Praise in heaven" or the "ruler of the Celestial Choir".

According to a Pentecostal perspective, what the biblical basis for such an assertion?


texts: Is there a connection between St. Ambrose's "casta meretrix" and Apocalypse 17,1?

texts: The origins of the epithet "casta meretrix" are debated and not clear, do you know if anyone has ever related that to the words of John of Patmos "the great whore that sits on many waters" that many refer to the Roman Church?


texts: Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)?

texts:
I understand that the Old Testament prophecies many different things about the Messiah who was to come, including the virgin birth, His suffering, His resurrection, etc.

However, is there anything in the Old Testament that indicates the time in history in which He would come, or is it just "some time in the future"?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic method of salvation?

texts: Evangelicals believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith, that Christ's death and resurrection alone is the basis of their Salvation.  Is this comparable to the Roman Catholic concept of salvation?


texts: In what order were the books in the New Testament written?

texts:
I'm just curious as to the actual timeline and known dates of the New Testament books.  I know the version fo the Bible I read had the letters from Paul ordered by their size, and not when they were written.

For clarification, I don't want to know in what order the events happened chronologically;  I want to know when each of the Gospels were written and completed, and all the epistles.  So if each book had been published individually, in what order would they have been recieved by readers?


texts: Is it more important that a worship service be contemplative or instructive, and how do we know?

texts:
Per this link, there is a very definite effect of technology in worship.

The benefits of using, say, an iPad to reference Scripture and all of the additional source material (commentaries, interlinears, etc...) are fairly straightforward - the pastor can teach, and leave as an exercise to the "student," finding the resources, etc... needed to back up an presentation. Additionally, if the preacher references "Balaam" or uses a word like "eschatalogical hope," it is beneficial if people can look up that term.

On the other hand, if the point of a sermon and or a worship service is simply to bring about a contemplative mental state, then these distractions (e.g. the lights emanating from the device, the temptation to go to non-church resources) would most likely outweigh the benefits.

So, how do Christians even go about answering what the purpose of the worship service is, in order to decide for themselves if i-Paraphenalia is to be encouraged or discouraged?


texts: The Apostle Paul and the doctrine of forgiveness?

texts:
Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done (2 Timothy 4:14).

Forgiveness is central in Christianity with all the great churches.Jesus own words:Forgive them father for they know not what they do.

Here we see the Apostle Paul speaking about "repayment" for harm done to him.
What is the Catholic doctrine on this verse or how one is to understand judgment vs forgiveness in this verse?


texts: What's the significance of this image for Jehovah's Witnesses?

texts:
I was browsing through the friends of one of my Facebook friends. One of them is, I am guessing, a Jehovah's Witness because some of their posts have Jehovah's Witness-related entries such as photos of Kingdom Halls. One of the images I saw under his account was the following:

There was no explanation with this image, so I thought I would ask about it here.

Updated question:

If this is from Nebuchadnezzar's dream (as commented by user bradimus) then what is the JW interpretation of the dream or at least of this image in the dream?


texts: Is there a quote/saying in bible "Do not close the mouth of a bull which threshes the grain"?

texts: I am wondering if there is a quote in Bible saying "Do not mask/close the mouth of a bull which threshes the grain"?  Meaning, let the animal have its food while it works . When it comes to human, pay well to the workers.


texts:
The Filial Correction petition on Amoris Laetetia filed by numerous priest, theologians and other lay person failed because they do not follow the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

In below article Cardinal Muller made a remarks;

  "The defender of the right Catholic doctrine and of the people of God".  With these words one of the main critics of the pontificate of Francis, the journalist Antonio Socci, rightly celebrated, some time ago, the current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ratzingerian Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

Just last night, the cardinal Müller did his job and intervened (the video below) during the "Vatican Rooms" program of Tgcom24:

  "a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far, it
  is not possible at this time because it is not a danger for the faith,
  as St. Thomas said. Amoris Laetitia is very clear in his doctrine
  and we can interpret the whole doctrine of Jesus on marriage, the
  whole doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history".

The German cardinal Brandmüller has, however, stated that Burke did not speak as a "spokesman" of the set of four cardinals, but expressed "full autonomy in its opinion, which certainly could be shared as well by other cardinals'. In any case, he reminded his colleague that any "correction" will have to "take place in the caritatis room". So not publicly. A suitable warning, Müller himself explained:

  "The cardinals have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was
  amazed because it became public, forcing the Pope to say yes or no. I
  do not like this . It is damaging for the Church to discuss these
  things publicly." - Il card. Müller: «Amoris Laetitia è chiara nella dottrina, i dubia non servono»

What is the significance of Donum Veritatis if applied to Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Clergy?


texts:
Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 are almost identical with little differences.

Is there any reason why the same psalm is repeated?

Are these psalms composed by the same author?


texts:
According to the RCC is it allowed to have more then one wife?

You have several Men living with more the one wife in the bible and you also have the "Let deacons each be the husband of one wife" verse from Timothy.
So there are roles that one should consider only having one wife.

Exodus 21:10:

  If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

1 Timothy 3:12:

  Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

Isaiah 4:1:

  And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach."


texts: Are there any mentions of seraphs intermingling with other characters in the Bible? All I know about them is that they are in hymns.


texts: Was Judas a partaker of the feet washing by Jesus?

texts:
When Jesus washed his disciples feet in John 13, did he wash Judas' feet as well? If he did, does this not mean that Judas has a part in the salvation of Christ?

  John 13:8:  Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

Well except that verse 27-30 happened before the washing of the feet...

  John 13:27:  And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.


texts: Does the Codex Amiatinus exist online anywhere in *text* format?

texts: Wondering if there is a complete etext (i.e. not image or PDF) form of the Latin Codex Amiatinus for free download online. Wikipedia links to images, but I would like text.


texts: Is Jesus saying "God willing" the same as "Insallah", said by Muslims before doing anything?

texts: Is Jesus saying "God willing" the same as "Insallah" said by Muslims before doing anything?


texts: Is there any Ethiopian ancient source about the eunuch who was evangelized by Philip?

texts:
We all know that passage from Acts 8, where Philip preached and baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch.

I've read in an article that Ethiopian Christian tradition talks about this Eunuch, who came from Jerusalem with the message of Jesus.

But are there any early Ethiopian records of that story? I've searched and found nothing.


texts: Does the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution say that non-Catholic Christians cannot be saved?

texts:
The Wikipedia page on Salvation in Christianity says the following about the Catholic view of salvation of non-Catholics:

  Nevertheless, individual Protestants aware of the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church, but fail to join its membership, "cannot be saved" since they are living in open contempt towards God's known truth.

This statement is sourced by Lumen Gentium, a 1964 Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution that was a major document of Vatican II. Wikipedia didn't say which part, but as best I can tell, it is referring to Chapter II, Section 14:

  This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Is it accurate to say that this passage is saying that Protestants (or at least those who know the historical basis for the Catholic Church) cannot be saved unless they join the Catholic Church? Or is there something that I am missing?