texts: What is the "veil" that covers the heart when the Old Testament is read?

texts:
2 Corinthians 3:13-18 (NIV)

  We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent
  the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their
  minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the
  old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ
  is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers
  their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken
  away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
  there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the
  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with
  ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

Paul is speaking here about a "veil" that covers the hearts of people (probably the Israelites) which prevents them from seeing the glory of God when they read the Old Testament.

What exactly is this "veil" that Paul speaks of? What exactly does it conceal? Does it still cover the hearts of people? Is there any possibility that this "veil" still covers the hearts of some Christians today?


texts: Apart from Milan is there any other Roman Catholic place where Lent does not start on Ash Wednesday?

texts:
In Milan and, I gather, throughout that whole region, Lent does not begin on Ash Wednesday as it does in most Roman Catholic and Protestant areas, but on the following Sunday.

A friend told me that the carnival continued there later than elsewhere in Italy. I initially assumed this was simply an extra-religious extension but in fact it seems they follow a different "rite", the Ambrosian rite, and Lent really is later than elsewhere.

The standard Lent consists of 46 days of which 6 are Sundays and 40 are weekdays, giving the 40 days of Lent from Ash Wednesday to Easter Eve; but apparently in Milan Sundays count toward the 40.

My question is whether there are any other parts of the Roman Catholic Church, whether geographical or otherwise, in which the normal liturgical calendar does mot apply.

(By the words "standard" and "normal" I mean no more than the most usual.)


texts: What books did Calvin consider canonical?

texts:
Sometimes it seems that much is made of Calvin's collections of commentaries and sermons not including certain books  that are in the Protestant canon (Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation) or that he seemed to quote Baruch as Scripture.

Did Calvin anywhere give a list of accepted and rejected books of Scripture?


texts: How is Christian worship different than Christian religion?

texts:
I'm afraid I may have slunk to the depths of troll question engineering, but I'm having a hard time with this answer.

According to some facebook meme

it is "dictionarily" invalid to argue that "sanctity" is a state that can be enforced by the government.

I attempted to call this particular facebook personality out on the carpet by saying that their definition of religious was invalid; that it did not include worship.

I've been hearing a lot about this recently on Relevant Radio concerning the redefinition of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean literally, freedom of worship, instead of freedom of religion.

Did any of the Popes write on this?  What is Christian religion over and above Christian worship and why must it be protected?


texts: Who gets treated better in the afterlife?

texts:
What sort of people get treated better in the afterlife ?
And how much do the little things weigh(like praying every evening, or occasionally swearing) in comparison to the bigger ones ?
Even if it sounds like a rather idiotic question, would be nice to get serious answers. Thanks for you answers in advance


texts: Why do Catholics put so much faith in the Virgin Mary?

texts:
I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title.

Giving Mary praise

I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right?

So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us?

Intercession

When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you?

I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.


texts: When did people start to deny Jesus as a historical person?

texts:
Somewhat related to this question:

What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history?

Is there any record of when people started to give the idea that Jesus never existed? Is this a 19th - 21th century phenomena, or did it arise earlier?

I frequently meet people that say Jesus never existed and at best they pull forth Josephus as an argument to back up their standpoint. A lot of people also argue that Jesus was a common name and it was likely a collection of fantasy stories and myths about a lot of people of the time, etc., etc.

So, again, I'm not after contemporary or other sources mentioning Jesus, but wondered when the denial of Jesus as a historical person came about. Is there for example a specific historical person, work or society that is seen as a milestone for this etc?


texts: What does Aquinas mean when he speaks of "state of perfection", or more broadly, what does Catholic Church mean by "state of perfection"? He often uses this phrase in works like Summa Theologiae, On the perfection of spiritual life etc.


texts: Is there a script of St. Francis' "famous" speach in Bologna, the 15th of August of 1222?

texts:
I was reading a book about St. Francis and there is a mention about a "famous" speech he gave in the piazza of Bologna, the 15th of August of 1222. There are several descriptions around of this speech. For example, this book mentions:

Footnote 69 above mentions this page in Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The key passage is:

This text was originally published in Historia Salonitana and can be found here, together with an English translation  (page 178 and 179 respectively).

I haven't however found the original sermon. This blog entry seems to incorrectly state that the above document contains the full sermon.

Anyone aware of where can such sermon be found?


texts: In Catholicism, what can the Saints be patrons of?

texts:
St. Patrick is known for evangelizing Ireland. Since most saints I hear of are also characterized as "the Patron Saint of X", I wondered what Patrick was the Patron of. According to the wikipedia article, he is a Patron Saint of Ireland along with two others.

I was expecting a position or social class. Like carpenters, miners, loggers, etc. So now I have this question. What things can a saint be a patron of?

So it seems there are patron saints for trade positions and nations.

Are there Patron Saints to:

Emotional types of people - e.g. hot-tempered, passive, patient, generous etc.
Benignly physically characterized people - e.g. blonde, green-eyed, tall, etc.
Morbidly physically characterized people - e.g. hospitalized, murdered, disfigured, etc.
Human journeys - Suffering, oppression, conquering, etc.
Types of status - e.g. wealthy, poor, leader, surf, etc.
Types of relationships - e.g. sisters, brothers, fathers, etc.
Animals or kinds of animals.
Inanimate things - e.g. candles, cake, ice cream, etc.
Earthly things - e.g. dirt, rocks, wind, rain, sunshine, the moon, stars, etc.
Characterized things - e.g. made of specific materials, lost, stolen, etc.
Holy things - e.g. relics, priestly possessions, etc.
Events - e.g. birthdays, death days, graduations, etc.
Holidays - e.g. Christmas, Easter, Lent, etc.
Others I haven't thought of.

I did find this page, which helps a bit. I see places, occupations, illnesses and their caregivers, activities (e.g. baptism) and animals. Is there some sort of logical categories that saints can be patrons of and categories that they cannot be patrons of?


texts: If the word "Brother" is ambiguous as far as The Bible is concerned, can we be named Brothers of Jesus Christ?

texts: According to Catholicism and some evangelical denomination in order to give justifications the perpetual virginity of Mary, they affirm that the word "Brother" in the Bible is ambiguous and include cousin and relatives. But if that is the case, can we really be named brothers of Jesus? or we should be just cousins or relatives of Christ?


texts: What is the earliest instance of Eucharistic adoration?

texts:
Eucharistic adoration is a practice in Catholicism in which the Eucharist, being bread that has literally turned into the body of Christ, is publicly displayed. Commonly, it is placed in a monstrance and the faithful sit in silence and pray or otherwise reflect on the fact that they are in the presence of Christ's body. It is not consumed as it would be during Communion, and the faithful simply look at it.

What is the earliest recorded instance of this practice? To be clear, I'm not talking about simply saving the Eucharist for the sick or a later time, but rather to have it displayed for adoration without consuming it.


texts: Was the mode of execution for Jesus required to be crucifixion?

texts:
Did Jesus need to die on a cross or were there alternative endings?  Would being stabbed with a sword or if he died during the beatings have been good enough?

Specifically, are there prophecies held by various denominations that require the Jesus' method of execution specifically to be crucifixion, or was it simply enough that Jesus die in some fashion?


texts: Why didn't the Archangel Michael save Jesus when he was crucified?

texts:
I have read several articles about Michael the archangel, who is meant for the protection of people and souls.

Out of curiosity, I wondered: since Jesus is Son of God and also a prophet, why didn't God's Archangel Michael save Jesus when he was crucified?


texts: What does "Jesus did not commit himself unto them" (John 2:24) mean?

texts:
I have trouble understanding what John 2:24 and John 2:25 mean. Does anyone know what it means for Jesus to not "commit himself unto them"?

  John 2:22-25 (KJV)
   22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.


texts: I seek the LDS perspective concerning Cornelius and his house receiving the Holy Ghost without laying on of hands in Acts 10:44-45

texts:
While Yet Speaking - The Holy Ghost Preemptively Fell on All

  Acts 10:44  While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

(This_post) I found open, answered and accepted.  Support for the accepted answer was scant in my opinion, and I find the following interpretation of Joseph Smith to be incorrect, leaving me unsatisfied with the answer.

I am seeking a plausible explanation for two apparent contradictions. In Acts 10:44 above and 10:45 here:

  Acts 10:45  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Not so much verse 44) but verse 45) uses the words "gift of the Holy Ghost."

  Joseph Smith taught:
     There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized.  Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. [See Acts 10:1–48.] Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; for the spirits might say unto him, as they did to the sons of Sceva: ‘Paul we know and Jesus we know, but who are ye?’ [See Acts 19:13–15.]
  History of the Church, 4:555; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Mar. 20, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff.

What is of particular interest is that this happened without the laying on of hands.  I understand that the laying on of hand is not a dispensable role in the ordinance. Also, that the facilitators of these sacred ordinances must belong the Melchisedec priesthood.

Finally, the question:
Is there a satisfactory explanation for the order, and process of these events as they are here in Cornelius's case, and everyone with him? I see two parts here, the first is the order, and the second is no laying on of hands.

1)**Joseph Smith says that Cornelius could not receive the **gift of the Holy Ghost before baptism and claims that he does not.

  "he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized."

2) Joseph Smith teaches that Cornelius could only receive the gift of the Holy Ghostby the laying on of hands and It looks like Peter believed that they had when he says 47)"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"


texts: What are the rules or laws a Catholic must follow if he/she has a website or blog?

texts: Are there any rules or laws (of the Code of Canon Law) that a Catholic must adhere to if he/she operates a blog or website in which he may teach or write about the Catholic faith?


texts: The "quieting of concupiscence" (remedium concupiscentiae) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. Casti Connubii §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?


texts: Is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism?

texts: Can the sacrament of confirmation become obsolete in the Roman Catholic Church if the bishop is actually present and takes the time to do the 4th part of the baptismal rite during the baptism of the baby? Similarly, in the baptism of an adult convert to the RCC, will the baptismal rite have to be postponed if the bishop is not present at the ceremony to do the 4th part of the baptismal rite (the laying-on of hands and episcopal anointing)? Ultimately, the question boils down to this: is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism?


texts:
According to an answer on this site, we can still be happy while knowing that people are in Hell and suffering. Growing up, they've always told us that the Bible says that when we enter Heaven, we are given everything we have and/or could ever want.

What if I wanted to visit a loved on in who was sent to Hell? Is there any scriptural evidence that states, or suggests that we will be allowed to visit people in Hell?


texts: What is the puropse of the other choirs of angels?

texts: There are nine choirs of angels: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Archangels, Principalities, and Angels.  What do the Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities do?  Are they just in heaven praising God, or do they have some special function in the universe?


texts: At what point is a new soul created according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
It seems clear that Catholic Church rejected Origen's claim that souls were created and existed before conception and birth.

Does the Church pinpoint fertilization of the egg as the moment a soul is created, or upon implantation, or once the heart starts beating, or at some other stage before birth? Or is it upon the taking of the first breath, since the Greek word pneuma ("breath") is associated with the word "soul"? Or does it happen at some other point in time?

According to the Catholic Church, when do souls start to exist?


texts: Has the Vatican issued clarification for pictures which appear to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur'an?

texts:
In comments which I have come across on the internet, this picture is thought to be very scandalous as it appears to show Pope St John Paul II kissing the Qur'an.

Have the Vatican issued a document to clarify the story behind the picture or explain his actions?


texts: In Isaiah chapters 40-48 there are several different titles for God, for example Creator, Redeemer, Savior, The First and the Last, King of Israel. After considering these titles I came to the conclusion that God in these chapters was referring to Jesus Christ and not God the Father because they all match titles given to Christ and never specify the father. What evidences are there of Jehovah being Jesus Christ in these verses, and what evidences are there against it? Answers from believers in the trinity, or not are both welcome.


texts: Is "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" preaching heresy?

texts:
I love the song "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing." It's beautiful, and the backstory is pretty amazing.  My problem is that I always shudder every time I sing this line in the third verse:

  O to grace, how great a debtor, daily I'm constrained to be

I keep noodling over that sentence. From a mainstream Protestant perspective, is it really possible to be in debt to grace?  Isn't the point that grace means I don't have a debt as far as God is concerned?

Or, am I just reading too much into this?


texts:
Is belief in the suspension or replacement of any of the previous covenants necessary for salvation today?

To those who wants a longer wording: Is belief in the suspension or replacement of any of the previous Biblical Covenants necessary for Salvation after the New Covenant or New Testament was given? Why? Why not?

I have no interest whatsoever in promoting one Christian view over the other, and therefore, I am always interested in an overview ... of the major views in Christianity in regards to this question.


texts: Is foot washing a form of sin cleansing?

texts:
I'm currently studying John 13:1-20.  I go to a church where they believe that foot washing is an ordinance similar to baptism and the Lord's supper.  I personally disagree and believe that as Jesus said, v.15 (ESV)

For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I
have done to you.

I believe that Jesus is demonstrating that if the greatest (being Jesus) is willing to serve the lowliest of tasks, we too should be willing to serve one another in humility. So I understand that as acts of kindness and service (which can obviously take many forms).
Where I'm really struggling from an exegetical perspective is in v10 which says

Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean.

My assumption is that Jesus meant by you are already completely clean, is that by faith in Christ they have been cleansed of all sin, and have transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light.
So my question finally is, what connection does the symbol of washing only the feet have to do with the cleansing of the overall body.  If the cleansing of the body is the forgiveness of sin by grace through faith, then what does the washing of the feet symbolically represent, and how does that link back to forgiveness of sin? I hope that makes sense.  If you need any clarifications please let me know.


texts:
Just a question that ought to have a concrete answer and be a good example for how the process of canonization works for my Religious Ed. class:

Who has been declared blessed for the longest period of time without being canonized?
Who is the oldest person to have been declared blessed (died shortest after Christ)?

Bonus points if anyone knows who has been 'venerable' or 'servant of God' for the longest or is the oldest

(Bonus points may be stored up and redeemed in Heaven, where neither moth nor worm may spoil them)


texts: Into how many languages has the Bible been translated?

texts: I understand that the Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book in the world.  What is the current total of languages into which the Bible, or part of the Bible, has been translated.  I would also be interested to know if there are any predictions about how long it will be before the Bible is translated into every language.


texts:
The actual Number of The Beast is only mentioned in Revelation 13:18;  In the Greek manuscripts, the  number is rendered  as χξϛ  or "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave The Beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

What is the more common belief between the two? What are some examples of Churches that belief in 666 and some in 616? Are there other interpretations this question does not consider?


texts: What do the verses in Luke 5:20-25 teach us?

texts:
They have always puzzled me and I fail to understand what is what.

Luke 5:20-23

  When Jesus saw their faith he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Then the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to think to themselves, “Who is this man who is uttering blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” When Jesus perceived their hostile thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you raising objections within yourselves? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’?

Knowing that Jesus is Son of God: what is the difference between these two sentences, which prompted Jesus to say them? Which statement is the easier to say?

It is becomes more puzzling when Jesus says the second sentence.

Luke 5:24-25

  But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he said to the paralyzed man – “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher and go home.” Immediately he stood up before them, picked up the stretcher he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.

It is not clear whether Jesus said the easier one or the tougher one. Why He did not say the first: that is, “your sins are forgiven?”

Is it that this sentence was easier to say?


texts:
Genesis 1:1-2 accounts what was before God gave form to the Earth, and that is water:

  1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  — Genesis 1:1-2

Now that might be interpreted as a metaphor for "vastness", maybe, but other verses in Genesis also seem to assert the same thing:

  6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.  — Genesis 1:6-8

In those verses it is described how God separates water. The separation is called "sky" (this will be relevant later, that's why I made it bold). It also says there is water both under the sky (on Earth) and also above the sky (in space?).

Furthermore, in the account of Noah's Flood, it is described how God opened up the "sky" (among other means of flooding the planet).

  11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.  — Genesis 7:11-12

The question:
Obviously it makes no sense to say the universe is full of water. What does the word mean then, in those passages? What is it used as a metaphor for?


texts: How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's «Amoris Lætitia»?

texts: How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's Amoris Lætitia?


texts: Why doesn't the Catholic Church kill heretics anymore?

texts:
So the Catholic church used their influence to sanction the execution of so-called "heretics" and now they do not. Somewhere in the middle they stopped supporting executions based on heresy.

Why did they stop? Was a formal reason given? This question sheds some great light as to when they stopped and began hinting as to why but doesn't really dig deep into it.

Important Note: The premise of my question is that the Catholic church had the de facto ability to convict and order executions based on so-called "heresy" and that it followed through with that ability. I acknowledge that technically the Catholic church itself never executed anyone, but through its influence on secular government had, in effect, the ability to execute through excommunication.

Some examples of this include The Massacre of Mérindol, Jan Hus, Cathar Crusade, Inquisitions, Joan of Arc, Priscillian, and the Stratford Massacre.


texts: Is there a concise eschatology in the Catholic Church?

texts:
In many Protestant traditions, eschatology has a major bearing on many other aspects of the faith, including soteriology and Christology. Especially in Pentacostal and Charismatic churches, as well as groups like the Jehovah's Whitnesses and the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, end times teachings have a major influence on operations and ministries of the church.

Does the Catholic Church have a difinitive doctrine of the end of days and second coming of Christ?


texts: What is so special about sitting at God's "right hand"?

texts:
This concept seems to show up in a few places:

  Psalms 110:1 (NIV)
  The LORD says to my lord:
     “Sit at my right hand
     until I make your enemies
     a footstool for your feet.”

  Ephesians 1:19–20 (NIV)
  ...and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms...

  Romans 8:34 (NIV)
  Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Clearly, undeniably Jesus is at the "right hand of God".  But what does that mean or signify?  Would being at the left hand of God be a bad thing?

Scope: I'm specifically seeking a mainstream Protestant exegesis of this text, although I suspect the understanding will be universal across all denominations and doctrines (although I could be wrong).


texts: Are the gospels enough to convince one of the divinity of Christ?

texts:
This is a follow-up to my previous question.
Thomas had received the message from his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Being the skeptic that he is, he then rejected their testimony saying that he would not believe until he had seen Jesus for himself. (John 20:25)
This puts us, modern day readers of the gospel, in an awkward situation. Thomas' evidence was vastly superior to ours. Not only did he have evidence from direct eye-witness accounts, he could even interact with these witnesses and ask them questions about their testimony. On top of that, Thomas had previously met Jesus personally and had witnessed other miracles of his doing.
Everything taken into account, Thomas did not hold this as vindication of the resurrection, and Jesus being considerate of that decided to live up to Thomas' standards by manifesting himself directly.
Our sources on the other hand are accounts written after the time of Jesus, none written by eye-witness accounts (unless you consider Matthew and John traditions to be reliable, which most scholars believe to be anonymous) and most of the gospels, the synoptic gospels, are thought to have been based on a common written source rather than be independent testimonies of Jesus' ministry.)
Regarding Paul, we read that he was a Pharisee and a persecuter of the early disciples, whom he deemed as blasphemers. Paul came to believe in Jesus only after his revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus directly manifested himself to him.
So if Thomas would not put up with evidence that is infinitely more valuable to what we have today, if Paul would not accept the testimony preached by the early disciples, why should we accept the resurrection, as related in the gospels? The common denominator of both is that they set their senses as their standard for truth, either by their sight, hearing, or touch. Can such a person who does not receive a revelation of this sort be faulted for disbelieving?


texts: Pope Benedict XVI recently announced his resignation. What other Popes have abdicated in the past? The media keep pointing to Gregory XII, but it is my understanding that he was deposed by the Council of Constance (involuntarily).


texts: What is the dominant theory of atonement in Catholic theology?

texts:
Having a little trouble phrasing the question due to my own ignorance.
I grew up celebrating Christmas and Hanukah as basically family gift giving events, as many others do, and I'm trying in adulthood to have at least a basic understanding of actual religious doctrine.

In general I'm trying to receive an answer from someone who can explain why Catholicism follows a particular theory of atonement over others, and in doing so elucidate as to how these theories differ at least to the degree that one is more favourable for Catholics over another or others.

Looking for a simple explanation, hopefully.

From my (limited) understanding there are the following broad theories:
Satisfaction theory of atonement, substitutionary atonement, penal substitution, ransom theory, maybe more.


texts: Is the sermon on the mount intended for unbelievers?

texts:
I'd like to know if Jesus' sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) is directed at an unbelieving audience or an audience of believers. I'd argue its for unbelievers. At this point in time the disciples weren't truly believers (they wanted Jesus for political reasons, this was made clear when they left him during his final hour). The climax of the sermon Matt 5:48 "Be perfect as I am perfect" denotes condemnation since its impossible for anyone to achieve perfection without Christ.

I'm under the impression it's geared towards unbelievers, to show them they are incapable of receiving salvation outside of Christ.

Any problems with my thinking?


texts: Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine?

texts: The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the flood seems implausible to me due to this detail. How could animals accustomed to thriving in extreme temperatures be found in a common place for preservation aboard the ark?


texts:
What does the Roman Catholic church teach about those who die having never heard of Christ? Is there any possibility of salvation for them?

Related:
What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus? This question has too broad of a scope according to the new guidelines, and it doesn't have a good answer from the Roman Catholic point of view.

What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians?


texts: How did the "wise men" become known as 3 kings?

texts:
In Matt 2, the men from east who came to visit Baby Jesus are referred to as wise men.

However, now they are also known as three kings. When did they become known as "kings" rather than "wise men" and what is the basis for the description?

Additionally, they are often referred to as the 3 magi. What is the basis for each of these descriptors?


texts: Why do some denominations not wash feet before taking communion?

texts: Why is it that some denominations follow the ordinance of humility as described in John 13 while others do not? What reason is there for not performing the foot washing ceremony before partaking in the Lord's Supper?


texts: Eastern Orthodoxy: What is the 'nous' and how is it distinguished from your mind and the rest of your spirit?

texts:
Basically, this question is two-fold:

Give me a good explanation of what the 'nous' is and what it is not, especially compared to the mind and the other components of the spirit, from the Eastern Orthodox standpoint.
What techniques have been used and are excepted by the Eastern Orthodox for recognizing when the nous is at work vs. other components of the spirit and body (how to I recognize the nous at work within myself?).

Answers should be backed by references to what theologians and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church have taught/written on the subject.


texts: What does Paul mean when he says Jesus "emptied himself"?

texts:
In Philipians 2:7 Paul writes:

  but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in
  the likeness of men (ESV)

I always understood this to mean that he was humble enough to come into our world as a man to die on a cross. Something that I read recently though suggested that Jesus gave up some of his Godly characteristics to become a man (I'm not sure what charcteristics). This seems wrong to me as I always understood Jesus adds humanity to his Godliness, not removing Godliness to become human.

Is there a common protestant understanding of what "emptied himself" means in this verse?


texts: What does Unitarianism think about Judaism?

texts:
As Christians know, the Christian sect called Unitarianism is very interesting. For example, Unitarians believe in one G-d, rejecting the Trinity. They stress the oneness and unity of G-d. Famous Unitarian Christians are, for example, Sir Isaac Newton.

This Christian sect emerged in Poland, Hungary, and England during the Reformation (16th-17th century). These Christians follow the teachings of the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus, who criticized the Trinity in his book De Trinitatis Erroribus (On the Erroneous Understanding of the Trinity 1531). In short, they believe Jesus was a Jew who was inspired in his moral teachings by G-d and is a savior but not G-d incarnated. In this way, they are similar to the Arian faith, which was an early Christian sect that said Jesus was only a human. They also reject the Christian concept of original sin as well as predestination.

Since Judaism is very similar, and since Unitarians do not put emphasis on belief, what are some other similarities between Unitarians and Jews?


texts: When did physical Death come to the world?

texts: Death is certain. It comes to everybody except to those stated in the bible. But where and when did Death come to the world. Is it a natural phenomenon or something like a curse?


texts: Canon law - vows, acquired rights meaning problem

texts:
I have a problem with meaning of dispensation from vow restrictions (canon law 1196). I have read that dispensation must not injured rights acquired by others (i have read that it's regards lawfully rights). Question is: I vowed only to God (none hear that) to won't do action to my brother which is also a lawfully right acquired by him before my vow to God. And now I don't know if dispensation from my vow injured his acquired rights or not?
Problem is in meaning acquired rights - acquired at all (in lifetime) or only by vow?
Please respond and sorry for my language. Regards.


texts: Are there any major Protestant denominations that have rejected salvation by faith alone?

texts:
According to the Wikipedia article on Sola Fide:

  "Faith alone" is foundational to Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian denominations. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.

However, are there any major Protestant denominations that have explicitly rejected justification, or salvation, by faith alone?

If so, what do they substitute for Sola fide?

Please provide quotes from, or at least references to, the documents in which any such Protestant denominations reject justification by faith alone and explain their alternate position on justification and salvation.

(Related but not identical question: Protestant denominations that reject solas?)


texts:
We see in society today that the bottom third of society are disenfranchied and led by loud mouths with empty promises. (Perhaps this has always been the case).

My rough understanding of Wesley from history is that he came during a time of great economic change (The Industrial revolution) when thousands were left out of work, and gave them purpose, and helped them integrate into the new world created by the Industrial Revolution. (sounds familiar to something similar happening today).

My question is: Is there evidence to suggest that John Wesley targeted the bottom third of society?


texts:
The Scripture mentions homosexual practises a lot but Scripture seems silent about transsexualism.

This question is asking answers from a Protestant perspective preferably those who uphold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura of the Reformation.

How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism?


texts: What is the biblical basis for baptism by immersion?

texts:
There are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling.  As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.

What is the biblical basis for immersion according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?


texts: What is the Protestant argument against Immaculate Conception?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches the idea of Immaculate Conception, which is defined by Pius IX as follows:

  "In the first instance of her [Mary's] conception, by a singular
  privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus
  Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all
  stain of original sin." Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
  (source)

However, Protestant theology typically rejects the idea of Immaculate Conception entirely.

What, then, is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Immaculate Conception?


texts: What is the process by which Pope Shenuda (Coptic) will be replaced?

texts: Following the death of the highest bishop of the Coptic church on March 17, 2012, what is the process by which he will be replaced?


texts: How do schisms in the church fit into the plans of a monotheistic God?

texts:
Before 1054 a reasonable claim could be made that there existed "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", as the Nicene Creed puts it.  Since then, the visible church has divided into at least three strands, if not many more.

Given ongoing efforts to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches, I assume that each believes that schism does not serve God's greater purpose.  (Feel free to provide an answer if I'm wrong or miss some nuance, however.)  Many Protestants believe that both the Western and Eastern churches are wrong or at least misguided to the extent that they are no longer the one true church.

But many Protestants, myself included, believe that the invisible church is infused within all the traditions of the church.  We hold that while some traditions (notably our own) are more faithful to Jesus' original call, all Christian traditions that cling to the ancient creeds will be represented in the Resurrection at the end of this world.  But if so, what good purpose could there be for schisms, sects, denominations, synods, conferences, and offshoots?  Isn't the acceptance of organizations that proclaim theology antithetical to what we know to be true more a product of postmodernism than anything found in the Bible?

N.B.: This question serves the purpose of devil's advocate for the May blog topic: What is the church?  I have a number of ideas about how to answer the question, but I'd like to have my beliefs tested before I publish them to a broader audience.


texts: Why is this music chosen for a Catholic Mass?

texts: At 06:00 in this video (Levithögmässa. 23 november 2019, Göteborg) of Mass in the Extraordinary Form, some special music is performed. Why would anyone choose what I refer to as "concert music" for Mass? Why do some people have this instead of normal church music? I do not hear this as church music at all. Why is this music choosen in stead of normal standard church music? I can see Gregorian Chant and hymns as church music, but this does not sound like "church" at all. Please help me understand this.


texts: Relative popularity of premillenialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism in North America (excluding Catholics and Orthodox)?

texts:
There has been some discussion on SE about the differences between the various schools of eschatological thought surrounding the 1000 years ('the millennium') described in Revelation chapter 20. I am interested in the relative popularity of these different views amongst North American Christians who are not Catholic or from one of the Eastern Orthodox churches (since these groups are well documented in terms of populations, and have always been amillennialist in outlook).

While some have made claims along the lines of, e.g., "school X has been hemorrhaging members for the last 20 years" etc, this is usually tendentious. I have found it very difficult to find actual statistics and other hard facts about the numbers of adherents these four-ish schools below (premillennialism itself could be divided up and counted as five separate schools of their own!) and their sub-categories have, and how they are changing over time relative to each other:

preterism: considers that all events discussed in Revelation (and the rest of the NT) have already occurred historically, and the 1000 years does not refer to any future events. Common amongst some mainline Protestant groups.
premillennial dispensationalism: considers that believers will be gathered up to heaven in a rapture which could occur at any moment, following which 7 years of tribulation will occur, followed by the Second Coming which will precipitate 1000 literal years of Jesus' rule on earth. This has four sub-categories: pre-Tribulation, post-Tribulation, mid-Tribulation and pre-Wrath, based on differing views about the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation. Particularly popular amongst conservative Evangelical groups.
historic premillennialism: same as above, but does not posit a separation between church and the Jewish people, and little emphasis on different 'dispensations' or particular time periods wherein God works differently. Popular amongst a variety of groups.
postmillennialism: the 1000 years is a general description of the post-Resurrection world, where the church will continue to increase until the entire world gradually becomes the Kingdom of God, whereupon the Second Coming will occur. No rapture. A common view amongst Calvinist groups and Christian Reconstructionists, but not limited to them.
amillennialism: the 1000 years is symbolic and does not refer to any actual time period, and there is no rapture, just the Second Coming only. The standard view of Christianity (both Western and Eastern), until the Protestant Reformation. It is still the standard in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and some mainline Protestant groups.

Can anyone provide any information as to (1) the (rough) numbers of people who support these various views today, and (2) whether these populations have changed significantly over the last 30 years, say since 1980 and (3) what the major drivers possibly underlying such changes could be? (E.g., premillennial dispensationalism was extremely popular across all of North America during the early 20th century [linked to the Scofield Reference Bible], and had another spike in appeal during the 60s and 70s [aided by the Arab-Israeli wars], but seems to have declined since then - perhaps, since my info is anecdotal at best).


texts: What arguments do scholars present for historicity of the fall?

texts: What arguments and writings have been used to defend the Genesis account of the fall as a historical event? Is there evidence apart from the writings in Genesis that man was at one time not fallen?


texts: What is the connection between St. Michael and people who work in grocery stores?

texts:
When examining the wikipedia page on St. Michael it says:

Michael the Archangel is the patron saint of grocers, mariners,
paratroopers, police officers, and military personnel.

Mariners, military, and cops I can understand. But how did St. Michael come to be known as the patron for grocery store workers?


texts:
In Genesis 1:3 New International Version it is written:

  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Is this a figure of speech or did God actually utter the words "Let there be light" ? I assume since this is during creation no one else was around to hear it. So if it is an exact quote when did God pass on this information to a human so they could even know what God said at the time ?


texts: Is there a difference between Liberal, Progressive, and Emergent Christianity?

texts:
In many evangelical circles I hear people use the terms liberal, progressive and emergent quite a bit, especially recently.

Do these all refer to the same categorization of groups or of thought? Or do these have a more precise meaning?


texts: Should Catholics ignore Hebrews 13:3 if a Prisoner is excommunicated?

texts:
After researching "Excommunication", I discovered this publication regarding the Catholic Church :

The Catholic Church cannot, nor does it wish to, oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; it even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the church, nevertheless, are the providential and regular channel through which divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person no longer has access.

In the papal bull "Exsurge Domine" (May 16, 1520), Pope Leo X condemned Luther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pope Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei" (August 28, 1794) condemned the notion which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_(Catholic_Church)]

The term "binding" in relation to people reminded me of Hebrews 13:3.

Hebrews 13:3

Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2013:3&version=KJV]

The phrase "as being yourselves also in the body" made me rethink what Excommunication entails for prisoners.

If people are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church, then does their status remain "in the body"?

If a prisoner has been excommunicated, Then do Catholics feel the need to observe Hebrews 13:3?

Does excommunication block Prisoners from prison ministry?


texts: Why did God create Adam and Eve so that they would sin?

texts:
According to If Adam and Eve were perfect, why did they choose to sin? the serpent tricked Eve into eating the apple.

So either the serpent or humans sinned because of free will. But God is sovereign which means he defined exactly what free will is and also knows the outcome of every variation. He still chose the variation which eventually resulted in sin.

It seems to me like God wanted them to sin. He is almighty and could create humans who won't sin even if they had free will. It's not the free will which made them sin but the emotions and wills which God also gave them.

So why did God create Adam and Eve so that they would sin?


texts: What happens to a diocese when a bishop dies unexpectedly?

texts:
Our bishop passed away last week unexpectedly, the only thing I've heard is that it may the Vatican 6-9 months to replace him.
What is the process and who is in charge of the diocese during this time?
Are confirmations and ordinations put on hold?
What about the other functions that the bishop delegates to priests (but the laity takes for granted)?


texts: According to SDA can all pastors forgive sin, or just the original twelve apostles?

texts:
I have a question relating to Matthew 18:18. I want to specifically ask the Seventh-day Adventist church about this.

It says:

  "I can assure you that when you speak judgment here on earth, it will
  be God's judgment. And when you promise forgiveness here on earth, it
  will be God's forgiveness." Matthew 18:18 ERV

Does this verse apply only to the twelve apostles that Jesus spoke at that time, or does it also apply to all pastors and ministers, that they can forgive sin, and/or does it also apply to churches today that whoever they "loose" from their churches would be "loosed" from heaven? So if a church today (let's suppose it's the one true church) excommunicate a member does that mean that that person is excommunicated in heaven?

Does Seventh-day Adventism vary from mainstream Christianity on this topic?


texts:
John Piper is the well known and highly regarded (and recently retired) Pastor for Preaching and Teaching at Bethlehem Church in Minnesota, and the leader of Desiring God Ministries. Piper is widely recognized for his ability to teach, and he has contributed significantly to the revitalization of the Reformed faith that has taken place in the American church in recent decades.

I recently heard it said that he does not subscribe to all five of the "Main Points of Doctrine" in the Canons of Dordt, popularly known as the five points of Calvinism, or "T.U.L.I.P." -- specifically, that he does not agree with limited atonement.

Is this true? If so, where has he said so online?


texts: Is any of Jesus' carpentry still around?

texts:
Is there any of Jesus' carpentry still around or artifacts that people believe can be attributed to Jesus' work as a carpenter? Obviously this can't be answered with scripture alone.

Since Google didn't help, the answer I'm looking for is one that shows there IS some artifact that a significant number of people believe Jesus made (along with some interesting details about it) or that there for sure isn't any such artifact. I'm not looking for a list...though if you find more than one that would be fine to add to your answer.


texts:
Jesus's prayer in the garden, where he asks God for this cup to pass from him, seems to imply that Jesus did not want to die. In the gospel of John, Jesus gives a defence to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world". That seems like an effective defence, because it convinced Pilate that Jesus was innocent.

Despite this, a popular belief in Christianity is that Jesus did not defend himself and was in fact deliberately trying to get himself killed. This raises some questions for me:

How is this belief reconciled with the aforementioned scene in John?
If Jesus was trying to get himself killed, what would his motivation be? One suggestion I've heard it's that he was trying to fulfill OT prophecy about the Messiah humbling himself and remaining silent when accused. Another proposed motivation is that Jesus was trying to be wrongfully punished to allow God to forgive sin. What is the evidence that Jesus was psychologically motivated this way? Are there any other more plausible motivations?
Wouldn't Jesus trying to get himself killed conflict with the claim that he was obedient unto death? I.e it would seem to eliminate death as a cost of his obedience because the cost is self inflicted.

An alternative theory I am exploring is that Jesus did not want to die, and did attempt to defend himself to a morally permissable degree which would render him not responsible for his death, i.e he was killed by circumstances beyond his control. Are there any defences of this theory, either in church history of by contemporary scholars?


texts: How is 2 Thessalonians 2:3 understood by those who believe in the imminence of Christ's return?

texts:
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Paul writes:

  Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until
  the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of
  destruction. (NET)

For those who believe in the imminence of Christ's return, that is, he could return suddenly at any moment, how do they understand this verse to have already been fulfilled, and who do they understand to be the revealed man of lawlessness? It seems clear that this verse must be fulfilled before Christ's return could be imminent.


texts: Why were the Israelites not circumcised in the desert?

texts:
Genesis 21:4 (NIV) When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham
  circumcised him, as God commanded him.

Starting with Abraham, the Israelite men were circumcised, and boys at the eighth day after birth. It was commanded again in the desert through Moses:

  Leviticus 12:3 (NIV) On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

But the children born in the desert were not circumcised:

  Joshua 5:5 (NIV) All the people that came out had been circumcised,
  but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from
  Egypt had not.

How is this possible? Did they disobey God and not circumcise their children in the desert?


texts: According to Catholicism, how should one read the Catholic Bible?

texts:
Is there any order that we should follow to read the bible?
Like whether we should follow some chronological order or just read randomly.
I am just starting to read the Catholic Bible and don't know where and how to start.


texts: What things led to the canonization of Thomas More?

texts: Besides his martyrdom, what were some specific things that led to the canonization of Thomas More?


texts: What are the memorized lines people are reciting in church?

texts: I didn't attend church as a child, but have now been visiting a couple different ones. Whether Catholic or Lutheran, at various points during the service, the faithful recite a text in common together, as if cued. What are these? And how can I look them up to learn them myself? Thank you, much appreciated.


texts:
The laws in the Old Testament can be separated into 3 categories as useful guides:

Moral laws.
Ceremonial laws.
Civil laws.

Moral laws deal with right and wrong behaviour, in relations to the relationships an individual has with their neighbours and God.

Ceremonial laws deal with how one is to conduct themselves before God's presence, including the need to be pure etc. This may be controversial to Christians but I don't think ceremonial laws are just laws that pertain to Jews. That's because in the bigger picture, ceremonial laws teach OT believers, regardless of ethnicity, about the nature of sacrifice and atonement according to Hebrews 10:3, which foreshadow Jesus's ultimate atoning sacrifice for humanity. Additionally, it also teaches humanity the fundamental concept that God only accepts and dwells with those who are sinless. In short, its like a special treat for believers, after accepting God as their Saviour, since it tells the mechanisms by which God accepts and forgives them. That's also probably why God rarely (or never) condemned those completely distanced from Israelite culture based on their violation of the ceremonial laws. They've already rejected God, which in turn is rejection of His provisions to forgive. It'd be superfluous and God is always pesky about judging fairly and impartially.

So what are civil laws? I constantly hear conflicting opinions such as how civil laws are really just penalties for moral law violations etc. If so, why make the distinction? And according to Google, civil means anything that's not related to military or ecclesiastic affairs. Do these laws refer to the ones that specifically enable Israel to function properly as a nation, which in turn showcase God's pragmatic wisdom? Laws related to infrastructure such as estbalishing borders in the Promised Land, slave-based economy, monarchy, quarantine etc.??

There's plenty of laws like this in the Old Testament and I don't necessarily see how it relates to morality or even worshipping God (but of course, He places regulations so that the infrastructure can benefit the community). And unlike the moral and ceremonial law, these laws aren't necessarily universal and can be dropped depending on Israel's environment/situation. Eg in the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah, God never once condemned the Israelites for not restoring the monarchy once they returned from exile to re-establish their nation. Should there be a better and less misleading term for such laws?

FYI: Jesus fulfilled the civil laws, as part of His mission to fulfill the entire 613 commandments, by perfectly encapsulating the underlying wisdom of these laws (1 Corinthians 1:30). This underlying pragmatic wisdom is also useful for the NT Israel (aka the Church) to adopt, especially since they are in this world, although they're not part of it.

Some of you may think that because these "pragmatic" OT civil laws could be used (and dropped) at any circumstance, does this mean that we should adopt some of them in today's politics so that governments can be more "biblical"? Whilst some of these laws may fit for today's world, such as the quarantine and hygiene laws in Exodus, they do not always fit. A slave-based economy, for example, would be very impractical for today's world. Even in the quarantine and hygiene laws, they do not account for all diseases. So the best way to make politics more "biblical"? Rely on wisdom. Enforce a universal morality. Punish those who wish to destroy/ruin society.


texts: Why do the later versions of the Book of Mormon contain added phrases that seem to change the nature of Christ?

texts:
The original 1830  Book of Mormon contained statements to the effect that "Jesus Christ is God the Eternal Father" in three separate places (1 Nephi 11:21, 32, 13:40, source). Only recently did I discover that all later printings have this statement edited. I verified this fact with cover and page photos on the 1830 Book of Mormon website. Translation of the plates was claimed to be inspired, and when complete it was confirmed by God to be correct.

The official LDS view was that in 1837 the Book of Mormon was "versified" from paragraph form for convenience and corrected only in grammar and spelling. Why then was this statement edited by adding three words in the 1837 (and subsequent) editions to read "Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Eternal Father" thus changing its meaning in those same three places?

1 Nephi 11:21:

Full page

1 Nephi 11:32:

Full page

Read 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 on LDS.org.

1 Ne. 13:40:

Full page

Read 1 Nephi 13:40 on LDS.org.

See other pages from the original 1830 edition.


texts:
What does the Bible say about how a Christian should feel inside?

Should it be:

  Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world
  giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let
  it be afraid. —John 14:27

  For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of
  love, and of a sound mind. —II Timothy 1: 7

or is it more like:

  Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the LORD delivers him
  out of them all. -Psalm 34:19

For example, at Church I get the feeling it is more the later one, of an anxious awaiting for the Lord to deliver people out of persistent trouble or stress, more than peace and joy inside.

Is that wrong?


texts: How does a full preterist interpret the 'Thousand-years reign' in Revelation 20

texts:
A full preterist is someone who believes that all the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.

Then in Revelation 20:4 (RSV-2CE):

  Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgement was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

How does a full preterist interpret the Thousand-year reign of Christ?


texts: What is the basis for missions in a wider hope/inclusive framework?

texts:
I read No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized by John Sanders. I am persuaded about a wider hope for salvation other than exlusivism provides. I grew up in plain ole Baptist North Carolina and I was already suspicious of the exclusive position ("if people aren't evangelized they go to hell"), and this book cemented my belief that this thinking is wrong. However, now my foundation for missions is on shaky ground. I don't even know what real missions looks like any more.

In a "wider hope" (inclusivist) framework, what is missions and how is it implemented?


texts: Why do some Christians object to images of Jesus?

texts:
Within some branches of Protestantism, many Christians believe that "images of Jesus" are sinful, and that Christians should not attempt to produce them.  Some go so far as to say that they should be avoided in thought as well:

  The sins forbidden in the second commandment are [...] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever (Westminster Larger Catechism, Answer 109)

Many Christians, however, interpret this commandment differently.  Millions use a crucifix instead of a cross, for example, and even many Protestants don't see an issue with pictures of Jesus.  For example, evangelical Hank Hanegraaff writes:

  If the second commandment condemns images of Jesus, then it condemns making images of anything at all [....] in context, the commandment is not an injunction against making “graven images,” but an injunction against worshiping them. (source)

What is an overview of arguments, particularly biblical arguments, presented by those who object to the creation and use of images of Jesus?


texts:
There was a show on the History channel stating that some scholars believe Adam and Eve were alive with a third human, Lilith. Lilith disobeyed Adam and Eve, so God sent her to live on earth as a demon.

Is this just Jewish mythology or should it be considered part of the religion?

What place does Lilith have in Christianity? Is she part of the devil, an evil angel, is she relevant today?

How should a Christian view her? For example, Adam and Eve directly effect each of our lives right now, since eating from the tree of knowledge...is there something analogous to this with Lilith?

http://www.bitterwaters.com/Lilith_in_Bible.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#In_the_Bible

Thank You.


texts: Looking for red letter bible in database format

texts:
I've found a couple databases or xml (programming-friendly) Bibles online that I can work with for an application that I'm building.

One thing that I'd really like to find but haven't been able to is a red-letter edition of the KJV in some sort of programming friendly file, whether this is a database, a strictly-formatted text file (or likely, set of text files) or something like an XML or JSON fileset.

Does anyone know where I might find one?

I assume, but cannot be sure, that the red-lettering (Jesus' and sometimes God's words) still leaves the work in the public domain?

Edit: I had found johnhurt.com, a site that has a few bibles in access .mdb format, but they aren't red-letter. Still, much better than nothing, but thanks to the answer below, I have exactly what I want and more!


texts: Why aren't Christmas and New Year's Day the same date?

texts:
As I understand it, the modern calendar is separated by Jesus's birth (B.C. for "before Christ" and A.D. for Anno Domini). Ignoring the fact that Christ was probably born between 6-4 B.C and possibly in a different month altogether, then wouldn't that make Christmas and New Year's Day the same day?
From what I have been able to find, New Year's day would correspond to Christ's Brit Milah, which is celebrated as the Feast of the Circumcision (and Naming) of Christ. But that brings up the question, if B.C. means "before Christ," would that imply that Pope Gregory XIII, who  made the Gregorian Calendar, thought Jesus was not officially the Christ until his Brit Milah? Or am I over-interpreting the proximity of Christmas and New Year's Day, which could be a mere coincidence?


texts: If Eastern Orthodoxy sees marriage as an eternal and unbreakable bond, why do they permit divorce?

texts:
The Wikipedia article for Marriage in Eastern Orthodoxy describes in almost poetic terms how marriage cannot be dissolved, even by death, because Christ has defeated death. If I'm interpreting all this correctly, it seems to be saying that marriage is an eternal bond which cannot be broken by anything, similar to how a persons baptism, confirmation, and holy ordination leave indelible marks on the soul of that person, none of which can be revoked.

If this is the case, then why is divorce permitted? What is the theology that makes eternal marriage and divorce consistent with each other? Is "divorce" just another way of saying "annulment"? That is, when an Eastern Orthodox says that two people are "divorced", is this just a way of saying that there was never a valid marriage in the first place? (Similar to Catholics)


texts: Can Pope use his Interdict power to force changes in national laws regarding abortion?

texts: I had once read in Church history about Rome's use of the Interdict power during the Protestant split, that is, to instruct the clergy of an entire nation to deny the Sacraments.  Rome's intended reaction was for the Catholic populace against their Protestant masters to instantly revolt and restore said nation to Catholicism.   Since Rome's attitude regarding abortion is well known, then why does't Rome get serious and use Interdict to deny the sacraments to all nations whose laws allow abortion, in order to force change?


texts: Were there implicit laws not referenced in the Acts 15 letter to gentile believers?

texts:
In Acts 29 the Jewish Christian Elders in Jerusalem sent a letter to the gentile believers throughout the world, instructing them to be at peace, and stating that they were not required to follow Jewish tradition.

  For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:  that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. Acts 15:28-29 ESV

This is obviously in response to the circumcision party, and it's fairly obvious that they're saying circumcision and the dietary laws were not required of gentiles, but it doesn't seem to saying anything about the laws we still consider core (murder, covetousness, stealing, etc).

Was there some implicit set of laws that was not referenced, but would be understood by both parties to be in effect?


texts: What mainstream sects object to infant baptism?

texts:
I recently had an interesting discussion with a person who did piercing for a living at one point in time in his life. He told me that the shop he worked had a policy where the would not pierce a baby's ears. To him it was an issue of ethics. He told me that the shop he worked for would only pierce a girl's ears if she was at least 5 years of age and only if the child / girl specifically asked for it herself.
I have done some soul searching and I have come to realise that this issue of ethics has come to encompass my views on infant baptism as well. I don't believe that any person has the right to choose to have another baptised. It is to me a deeply personal decision that everyone must come to ass they become of age.
Ultimately I would like to share what religious beliefs I may have with my children, but I must give them the chance to become Richard Dawkins, junior if that is what they want to become (Even if that would to happen it would grieve me.)
I'm just wondering what kind of denomination holds these beliefs or a reasonable facsimile thereof. My upbringing was entirely secular so I'm completely ignorant on how a person would choose a church. This issue is important to me, if I do ever get the chance to have a child.


texts:
There must be someone to oficially call the cardinals to a conclave. Who is it?

It can't be the old pope - resignation is hardly the normal situation, so the old pope is supposed to be dead. I guess it's some of the cardinals, probably Cardinal Camerlegno, but I'd be interrested in some proof.


texts: Why was the epistle of Clement to Corinth not considered canonical?

texts: I'm wondering on this one. I'm reading Eusebius and he states that at least one letter from the Bishop Clement (c. 35 AD - 99 AD) to Corinth was considered worthy to be read and was circulated among the early Church in the first and second centuries. Why was it not included in the canon?


texts: According to reformed theology, why are certain important doctrines not "obvious"? [i.e. why does the Westminister Confession even exist?]

texts:
Consider the important doctrines of:

divinity of Christ
doctrine of Trinity
doctrine of predestination

Consider in general, that the Westminister Confession is shorter than most books of the Bible.

Question

Why were these doctrines not explicitly stated in the Bible? The Westminister Confession ... is a document that reformed theology embraces, but other parts of "Christianity" may reject.

Yet, if these books were explicitly stated in the Bible, they'd be canon.

Thus, according to reformed theologians, why was the Westminister Confession something that had to be discovered via "human reasoning" rather than explicitly stated in the Bible?


texts: What is the Catholic view of separation of church and state in terms of war and application of the death penalty?

texts:
Note: This question was an honest search for a Catholic view not an accusation or attack. If I had written an attack it would be a 1000 times more severe and to a specific point. The defensive response in some of the comments leads me to agree that I should have specified the question more narrowly. However I had to ask my real question to get the answer I was looking for. I will now have to also vote to close the question as it seems a little to complicated for the stack exchange guidelines. Thanks to the accepted answer, and the considerable effort it takes to provide one. I know how it feels to he on the other end, and sometimes this community gives better quality answers than can be obtained elsewhere and the person making the question can be very ungrateful if it conflicts with their own faith.

I have never encountered a Protestant leader who believed at any point in history that the church should take up arms, acting as a sort of temporary civil power, and engage in military conflict or apply the death penalty to heretics.  I'm sure there might be some odd exception to the rule but, in general, Protestant churches hold separation of church and state. Where there may have been any direct official church involvement in any such action in old Lutheran or Anglican or whatever churches, Protestants in general would unanimously denounce those actions, as the church is separated from state functions. Some Protestants think it's acceptable as a 'citizen' to support the government on civil grounds to war, or even to apply the death penalty, but not as a church. At least this is the most common Protestant view.

However, I was surprised when I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. It more or less describes it as something that was necessary for the church to do at the time and does not seem to be opposed to that period when Popes led military conflicts and applied death penalties to perceived heretical Christians, even as they took the clear lead.

So it really leaves me wondering: Does the Catholic Church still think such things are OK? Is it OK that at times in history, or potentially the future, Catholics will bear the sword and become a civil power rather then a spiritual one only?

I really mean is it considered OK at times to 'take the clear lead' in commanding others to kill people, as they did when killing people through the crusades and bulls against perceived heretics. I do not mean merely Catholic citizens following their kings or government, but the 'command' of those kings or governments 'to kill.' Does the Catholic church separate church and state or assume it is a state with power to declare war and kill if it seems God's will?

I always thought the whole world no longer approved of that, but now am thinking maybe because Catholics can't admit Papal errors they are sort of stuck approving all those ugly things done in the past by their Popes, but am not sure if my instincts are wrong. Maybe Catholics do oppose direct church involvement in killing others. I really am curious to find a reliable answer on this. I would like to know if Protestants and Catholics generally have a different view.


texts: Why do Catholics make the sign of the cross at the Eucharist?

texts: I know that no where in the Catholic Rite of Communion does it state that the communicant must make the sign of the cross after reception of the Eucharist in either species. So why is it that so many children are taught to do so in preparation of their First Eucharist?


texts: What did Pope Francis mean when he said "who am I to judge" homosexuals?

texts:
It's approaching two years since this happened, but it seems relevant in light of recent events concerning homosexuality.

Speaking to reporters on his plane who had asked him about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican, Francis said, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

Clearly the church judges their actions (whenever there are actions accompanying the desires). What exactly did he mean by "who am I to judge"?


texts: Could the Pope be removed from office for lapses in judgment?

texts: While the question is brushed up against in What would happen if the Pope were to abuse his power?, that question focused more on heresy and the Pope's ability to make heretical statements under ex cathedra (i.e. The Pope instructs Catholics to practice open idolatry). My question is broader in the sense that any man is fallible and may make errors in judgment not related to doctrine that could harm the Catholic Church as a body. What options exist to remove a sitting Pope who has committed egregious errors that have damaged the credibility of The Church (and/or the position), but refuses to step down? Or is the position itself unimpeachable under all circumstances?


texts: Did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green? (Origin of the story)

texts:
William Blake's preface to Milton, commonly called Jerusalem and set to a famous hymn tune by Hubert Parry, questions whether the child Jesus might have visited England.

  And did those feet in ancient time
  Walk upon England's mountains green:
  And was the holy Lamb of God,
  On England's pleasant pastures seen!

This apparently refers to an old tradition, not originated by Blake, that Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus to Glastonbury; after the crucifixion, Joseph returned, possibly carrying the Holy Grail.

Whether this actually happened is not my question.

What I would like to know is: what is the origin of the story? According to Wikipedia, Robert de Boron wrote about Joseph and the Grail, but it does not mention if he wrote about an earlier visit by Jesus himself. So how and when did the story get started?


texts: How often are books quoted outside of their own book?

texts:
I am trying to put an estimation together of how much of the bible we have today. I know that there are multiple books missing from the bible.

1 Chr 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, (KJV)
Num. 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, (KJV)

Further examples are in Jos 10:13, 1 Kng 11:41, 2 Chr 9:29 12:15 20:34 33:19, 1 Cor 5:9, and Jude 1:14.
My question is which books of the Bible are quoted by other books outside of their own pages, and how many times each?


texts: What is an overview of "mysteries" in the Catholic Church?

texts:
In some of my reading on Catholic doctrines, I've noticed that some teachings are clearly explained with rational or moral arguments, and others are called mysteries, that often lack such clear explanations.

What is an overview of doctrines within the Catholic Church that are "mysteries"?


texts: What percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis in a literal sense?

texts: This obviously varies massively between denominations and even within denominations. I am trying to assess what percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis absolutely literally (six-day creation within the last 10,000 years, Noah's global flood, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc.) as opposed to allegorically.


texts: What is the basis of God's Goodness/Righteousness?

texts:
I would like an Answer from a Reformed/Calvinist Perspective.

There are many instances in scripture that affirm GOD is good (Psalm 119:68, 1 Tim 4:4).

And that God is Righteous (Psalm 48:10, Jeremiah 12:1).

I was considering God's Sovereignty - that all things move according to his will. Which means, earthquakes, disease, death etc... And he has the right to - for example, Kill a person, because all people are his possessions.

So a person sins if he kills another person because he has no right to the lives of other people. But if a person were to kill a character in his/her books - is is not a sin, since the author has the right to do whatever he wants in his book.

Because God owns all the earth, he has all rights to do whatever he wants. And cannot be guilty of sin- since there are no bounds for him to overstep.

This is the only way I have thought of to reconcile 'God is Good' and 'God caused the earthquake'.

However, If I was an author who killed a character in my book - you would not necessarily regard it as a 'good' action, just that the author cannot be condemned for it.

So is the Righteousness of God based on the nature of his position over the world? or is God just defined as Righteous.

Thanks.


texts: Do any Christian traditions assert that there can be more than one "messiah"?

texts:
Do any Christian traditions assert that there can be more than one messiah? Does the term 'messiah' as carried over from Hebrew thought come to mean a singular entity, utterly unique or is this a term that can be more loosely used to describe a plurality of entities.

How essential is singularity in the meaning of 'messiah' as understood through the full messianic concept held among Christian traditions? Are there cases where a Christian tradition speaks of multiple 'messiahs'?


texts:
In some churches I have seen, the peacock is used in furniture or other similar items:

It can also be seen in some Iconography and decoration:

I was just wondering what the symbolism of the Peacock actually is, and what churches this symbol is used in?
Seems to me to that it is just a proud bird!


texts: How do Calvinists explain God's wanting no one to perish and electing some to judgement?

texts:
I have two ideas that have support in the bible, but seem to contradict! Please help! I am looking for a Calvinist/Evangelical answer.

These two verses have the general effect that God does not want anybody to go to hell.

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9, NIV)

and

  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)

However, God clearly claims his sovereignty over souls going to heaven and hell. He decides who goes to heaven, and who doesn't.

  And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Exodus 33:19)

and

  21 Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? 22 What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:21–22)

So one 'will' of Seems to be, he doesn't want anyone to go to hell. On the other hand, he clearly says he sends people to hell according to... a different will?!

I think the same problem applies in 'God doesn't want anyone to commit murder in general, however he clearly wanted the Jews crucify the Son of God'

Can anybody explain to me how Calvinists resolve these tensions?


texts:
Is there an official list of objects that must be blessed by a priest for a variety of purposes?

General Example:  religious coins, saint necklaces, anniversary gifts given to or from someone etc.

The Green Scapular for example must be blessed by a priest. And someone must say a particular prayer daily. This is an example of an religious object a priest must bless.


texts: How are doxologies formed for common prayers?

texts:
I'm not sure of the exact definition, but a doxology seems to be a prayer tagged at the end which consists of some sort of invocation of the Blessed Trinity.

I'm just wondering if the actual words in a given doxology are important or if in prayer books, like the Book of Common Prayer (for the Liturgy of the Hours) the doxology given is just the most common one used, but shortened for some reason.

  Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and shall be forever

The prayer we teach in Religious Ed. is similar, and the one used in praying the Rosary

  Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and shall be forever world without end.

So, this is a three part question.

Why do we pray a particular version of the 'Glory Be' during the Rosary and another during the Liturgy of the Hours
Is the prayer interchangeable (especially when said in private)
Is the translation likely to resemble the Latin more closely in the future, with the changes to the Mass?


texts: What is the biblical basis for restitution?

texts: What is the New Testament Biblical basis for making restitution? I've read the story of Zacchaeus, and it's not completely set in stone as to what the structure is. The biggest question I have is if you've tried making restitution and the involved party won't accept your offer, should you do it anyway or is that "dishonoring" in any way?


texts: Is faith the only thing we need to attain salvation?

texts: There may be some denominations that believe faith is the only necessary thing to have to attain salvation or eternal life. However, I do not conform with this because faith is just the beginning, and faith is not just the only commandment given by Christ. Can you tell me Biblical facts or verses concerning this topic, whether faith is the only thing necessary or not?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for claiming that Paul upholds and teaches the Torah law?

texts:
What scriptural support is there to back the idea that Paul not only supported the Torah, but also promoted it?

UPDATE:

For those needing clarification:

"support"

be actively interested in and concerned for the success of
suggest the truth of; corroborate.
give approval, comfort, or encouragement to.

"promote"

further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.


texts: According to Catholic doctrine, would a cloned human being have a soul?

texts:
Recently I heard from my devout religious acquaintance that, according to Christian (Catholic) faith, a cloned individual wouldn't actually be a person. She explained that a human being consists of a body and a soul (it's the philosophy of St Thomas, the conception is derived form Aristotle, I suppose). As the flesh can be created by scientists, only God can grant something (somebody) with a soul. As cloning is — according to her — an artificial way of creating a man, you can't divide the spirit like you can split the cells.

So I’m asking you a question: Is this really part of Catholic ethics? I understand that the Church is against cloning, but this is the first time I’ve heard that the “effect” of it is, so to say, punished. The same could apply to in vitro conception, but I suppose cloning could be taken as a more radical version of this.


texts:
How did the practice of soliciting the prayers of dead saints originate? Did it start based on something in the bible? The apocrypha? A papal decree?

On a side note, which groups practice this type of prayer?

I am interested in the circumstances in which these types of prayers started. I do not intend to get answers regarding if or why/why not it is acceptable. There are other questions for those topics.


texts: Are there cases of popular atheists who used to publicly defend atheism (via debates, books, etc.) but eventually ended up converting to Christianity?

texts:
Examples of popular atheists known for participating in debates with believers and publicly defending atheistic positions are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra and pretty much the whole staff and many popular guests of The Atheist Experience show.
Are there recorded cases of atheists in this category who eventually ended up converting to Christianity? What led to their conversion?


texts: Does transubstantiation teach that the Son regularly returns physically?

texts:
Is Catholicism's accidents and species/transubstantiation teaching that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, returned or regularly returns physically, with a second, mute, nonhuman, physical appearance? (Rather than that He incarnates again, often, as bread and wine?)
And relatedly: what would Catholicism say is the point of such a phenomenon? (Or would it say simply that it is?)


texts: Is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary?

texts: According to Catholic teaching, is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary?


texts: Did Philip see Jesus turn water into wine?

texts: Did the disciple Philip witness Jesus turning water into wine? To my knowledge the verse doesn't explicitly state which disciples were with Jesus but is it known whether Philip was traveling with Him at that point?


texts: Meaning of "Confirmatio" in relation to the Sacrament of Confirmation (Sacramentum Confirmationis)

texts:
Of the seven sacraments of the Christian faith (as held by the Roman Catholic Church), one is "confirmation." This is derived from the Latin word confirmatio, as seen in the Latin text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. Confirmatio in Oeconomia salutis

The Lewis & Short lexicon defines the Latin word confirmatio as:

I.a securing, establishing, confirming (in good prose, but only in trop. signif.; most freq. in Cic., Caes., and Quint.). *
I. In gen.: “perpetuae libertatis,” Cic. Fam. 12, 8, 1.—
II. Esp.
A. A confirming, fortifying, quieting of a wavering, fearful mind; encouragement, consolation: “animi,” Caes. B. C. 1, 21; Cic. Fam. 6, 6, 1: “Ciceronis,” id. Att. 14, 13, 4: “neque enim confirmatione nostrā egebat virtus tua,” id. Fam. 6, 3, 1.—
B. A confirming, verifying of a fact, assertion, etc.: “perfugae,” Caes. B. G. 3, 18; Cic. Inv. 1, 30, 48; Quint. 2, 17, 12.—Hence,

In rhet., an adducing of proofs, Cic. Inv. 1, 24, 34; id. Part. Or. 8, 27; Quint. 4, 3, 1; 4, 4, 1; 4, 2, 79; 5, 14, 6 Spald. al.

When is the Latin word confirmatio first used in the writings of the early Church fathers to refer to this specific sacrament?

Based on the definition of the word provided by Lewis & Short's lexicon, how should we understand the meaning of confirmatio in the context of this sacrament? Does it mean that someone is confirmed to be a Christian upon the administration of this sacrament?

If so, if one has not yet performed the sacrament of confirmation, are they not considered a Christian (Catholic)?


texts:
In his article "Mysticism in the Early Church, in The American Journal of Theology, Aurther C McGiffert says,

  Closely connected with Paul, John, and Ignatius are the Gnosics, the most famous heretics and the ablest thinkers of the second century who represent the later Platonic tendency in philosophy. Gnostics, like all the later Platonists, were dualists, primarily interested in the redemption of the spirit of man from his material environment; and they became Christians because they were convinced that in Christianity were to be found as nowhere else the means of such redemption. Christ, they believed, in revealing God to man, had placed redemption within the grasp of those capable of receiving and understanding his message, and through the knowledge imparted by him he had brought about a union with God, which means ultimately a complete and permanent break with the flesh and the world and an eternal life in the spiritual realm.

Is there any historical evidence that Gnosticism disappeared because Gnostics converted to Christianity?


texts: Why did Calvin reject these Catholic doctrines about Mary?

texts:
The Catholic Church has a few teachings about the Mother of our Lord that are not accepted by many Protestants. This is not evident in the doctrines of many early Protestant reformers including Luther, Zwigli, and Bucer. From a theological standpoint, many protestant viewpoints do not differ significantly from the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary.

Calvin, on the other hand, does. For instance, Calvin disagreed with the practice of calling Mary the "mother of God," saying,

  "I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. ... To call the Virgin Mary the mother of God can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.

Consider for example,

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The perpetual virginity of Mary
The intercessory role of Mary

It's been said that Calvin's genius was not in creating new ideas but in developing existing thought to its logical conclusion. Did Calvin comment on these doctrines? What were his conclusions?


texts: Was the Last Supper not the Passover meal?

texts: The accepted answer on How long was Jesus in the tomb? would only have been possible if the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which I had always thought it was.  Was the Last Supper in fact not the Passover meal?


texts: Is there a Biblical basis for not believing that Global Warming is occurring?

texts: This is something that has confused me over the years. It appears that many Christians stand against the belief that global warming or climate change is occurring. But I have yet to hear any biblical reasoning. What is the biblical basis, if any, that some Christians claim that there is no (potentially devastating) climate change? Furthermore, how does this affect how a Christian should believe and act regarding this issue?


texts: How do those who believe in salvation by grace, and in works being the fruit of salvation, explain Galatians 6:8-9?

texts:
My understanding of the relationship between works and salvation is that works are the inevitable fruit of salvation by grace (1 John 3:6, Matthew 7:16-18).  And my understanding of perseverance is that the genuinely saved will persevere (Philippians 1:6, 1 John 2:19).

However, this passage from Galatians does not seem to fit cleanly with my understanding:

  Galatians 6:8-9 (NASB)
  8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

Particularly in verse 9, Paul seems to be telling the Galatians to keep doing good in order to reap eternal life.  Furthermore, it sounds like this "doing good" falls under human responsibility, or why would Paul need to admonish the Galatians to do so?  That sounds a lot like works salvation.

How do those with understandings similar to mine explain/interpret this verse?  How does the context shed light on this passage?


texts: Is there Scriptural Evidence that Moses had a command that made it Lawful for a Man to Divorce his Wife?

texts:
From Jesus' answer in this Gospel passage,

  Teaching about Divorce Mark 10:1-3 (RSVCE)
  10 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds
  gathered to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them. 2
  And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful
  for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses
  command you?”

is there scriptural evidence to show that Moses had a command that made it Lawful for a Man to Divorce his Wife?

This question was prompted by The seriousness of sin changed?.

If Moses commanded [from God], it would seem that God had made a reversal twice: After establishing marriage in Gan Eden, the reversal with Moses, and a reversal back again with Jesus.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, why does God hurt others to punish David in 2 Samuel:24?

texts:
Why does God hurt innocent people to punish King David? Moreover, even David doesn't understand it, raising the additional problem of why God would give a punishment not understood by the person supposed to be punished.

From the lectionary - January 31, 2018 :

  He asked: "Do you want a three years' famine to come upon your land, or to flee from your enemy three months while he pursues you, or to have a three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider and decide what I must reply to him who sent me." David answered Gad: "I am in very serious difficulty. Let us fall by the hand of God, for he is most merciful; but let me not fall by the hand of man." Thus David chose the pestilence. Now it was the time of the wheat harvest when the plague broke out among the people. The LORD then sent a pestilence over Israel from morning until the time appointed, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba died. But when the angel stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD regretted the calamity and said to the angel causing the destruction among the people, "Enough now! Stay your hand." The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to the LORD: "It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong. But these are sheep; what have they done?


texts: According to Catholicism did Pope Linus know that he was the Pope and Head of the Church?

texts:
If the paltry evidence that Linus became the first bishop(?) of Rome it is odd that Paul's letter "Romans" does not mention him while it mentions:

Phebe, Priscilla, Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Adronicus, Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philogus, Julia, Nereus and last, and apparently not the least: Olympas.

Did I miss anybody? If so, I apologize and meant you no disrespect!

So if we accept the testimony of a Catholic that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, it is certainly not evident in the scriptures.

But assuming that he was the first bishop of Rome by the Catholic definition of that term, then he was made the Poppa of the Church, the head of the Church (universal?) and the "vicar" of Christ. Would he have been aware of the role as defined today by Catholicism?

Unfortunately, possibly due to a clerical oversight, while Paul defined the role of deacon (which does not include creed-writing) he failed to mention the role of Christ's "vicar" (IE: being the head of the Church).

So how would Linus have any clue as to what his job entailed except by what Paul had described as the role of a bishop?:

  1Ti 3:1-13 KJV - 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now, I don't see "vicar of Christ" there in Paul's instructions, so how would Linus know to think of his job as being the Head of the Church, Christ's vicar, etc. Those were later inventions.

So isn't it disingenuous to refer to Linus as the first "Papa" seeing he had no role in Rome,  is only mentioned once in the scriptures and that in association with another person of whom we know nothing about?

Linus would not know he was the head of the Church because Paul, the Apostle who wrote a huge chunk of the NT and that specifically was the part that relates to the gentile saints (all the other scrolls being directed to Jews). Paul wrote:

  Eph 5:23 KJV - 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

So isn't it disingenuous to refer to Linus as the first "Pope"? Or would he in fact have consciously been incorporated into an existing organization that ruled the church universal?