texts: Does the Catholic church have an officially-sanctioned, organized form of spirituality analogous to Orthodox hesychasm?

texts: According to my understanding, hesychasm, along with asceticism, is the official, traditional, and uniformly accepted spiritual path of the Orthodox church. Is there an analogous, well-defined, widely-accepted spiritual path in the Catholic church?


texts:
When Jesus spoke of God, he often said Father, or Lord. Or at least he used the corresponding words in the language of his time. Of course, these words have an ordinary meaning, besides designing the deity. But it also happens that Jesus say God (Dieu, in French). For instance in Mat 22:21 So, give back ... to God what is God's. However the etymology of words such that god or dieu is not biblical. For instance, the french word comes from (as I was told) the greek god Zeus ! I presume that the word god must likewise come from Germanic mythology. In arab countries, the equivalent is Allah, even for Christians. The general rule is that we use the common name for a deity, but with an upper case initial, to mark that God is unique. But God, or Dieu, is by no means God's name.

So, which word did Jesus employ, when He spoke of "God" ?

Certainly, Jesus did not pronounce the tetragram, which had not been in use for several centuries. The only clue that I found is in Mat 27:46, where Jesus says Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? I doubt however that this gives the answer to my question: the name Eli must not have been common at that time, since in the next verse, some in the crowd misunderstand, thinking that He calls the prophet Elias. After all, Jesus is citing Ps 22:2, in the original Hebrew, a language that was not any more in use.


texts: What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life?

texts:
We read at Gen 5:1-2:
""... When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.  Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created. "
That implies that each human being continues to belong to his/her  gender in the life-after-life. Now, there are some who opt to change their gender for various reasons, former wrestler Gabbi Tuft being the latest edition to the list. To what gender do such individuals belong to, in the life to come  is a matter of curiosity for all. Will they retain the gender in which they had been born , or will they change over to the newly assumed gender , in the life to come ? My  question therefore,  is: What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life ?


texts: What is the meaning of "Advocata Nostra" according to Catholic Tradition & Teaching?

texts:
The famous hymn "Salve Regina" in Latin contains the words "Advocata Nostra"
and it is recited at the end of the Holy Rosary.

What is the meaning of that phrase "Advocata Nostra" according to Church Tradition and Teaching? Is it biblical?

  Salve Regina

  *Salve, Regina, mater misericordiae:

  Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve.

  Ad te clamamus, exsules, filii Hevae.

  Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes

  in hac lacrimarum valle.*

  Eia ergo, Advocata nostra,

  *illos tuos misericordes oculos

  ad nos converte.

  Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui,*

  *nobis, post hoc exsilium ostende.

  O clemens: O pia: O dulcis*

  Virgo Maria.

This famous hymn is alluded to Mary as the "Advocata Nostra" or "Gracious Advocate" aside from being the Mother of Mercy or Mater Misericordiae.

I am looking for a sound doctrine or the roots of that phrase who formulate or articulate the lyrics of this famous Catholic hymn specifically expounding the importance of the word "Advocata Nostra" to Catholic beliefs.

An apostolic tradition, church father commentaries or teaching and Catholic Church doctrines would be appreciated.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for 'term eldership'?

texts: Some churches who appoint elders do so for a term (3 years is typical from what I have seen).  Other churches ordain elders for life.  Is there a Biblical basis for ordaining elders for a term?


texts: Why did the Jansenists practice such harsh penances?

texts: If the Jansenists did not deny the gratuity of grace, thinking grace cannot be earned or merited, why did they practice penances sometimes considered harsh?


texts:
Matthew 18:9, NIV:

  And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Does this mean that people who are (or become) blind in this life will be blind in Heaven as well?

The logical extension of this idea would be, if you're in a car accident, and your legs are lost, and you become blind... then you die from complications a day later, you'll be a blind paraplegic in Heaven. Is this a fair understanding of the verse?


texts: What does the LDS Church teach about the pre-existence of each person prior to conception?

texts: I have read somewhere that the LDS teaches that each person existed prior to physical conception.  What are the specifics of this teaching?


texts: Do any Christian groups refer to God as "she", "it" or "they"? (Or is it always "He"?)

texts:
In this age of “Political Correctness”, it seems that many people now frown upon the use of he as a gender-neutral pronoun with which to refer to the Christian God, though it was universally used for centuries before the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s. Julian of Norwich and Hildegard of Bingen both referred to “Mother God” in the Middle Ages, but there seem to be no other notable examples throughout history.

Are there any traditions which avoid the wrath of those who object to male-dominated language and refer to the Christian God as she, it or they? Or is God always male and he?


texts: Scriptural basis for replacement theology?

texts:
There exist groups who believe that Christians or believers of Jesus completely replaced Jews as Israel and as the chosen people, and that Jews no longer have a valid relationship with G-d, unless they become Christians.

Is such a theology prevalent within Christianity? What is the scriptural basis both for and against it?


texts: Was the Tabernacle and its furnishings a copy of things in Heaven?

texts:
Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament.

Revelation  11:19  KJV

  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain.

Exodus 25:9  KJV

  According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Exodus  25:40  KJV

  And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount.

The word translated here as pattern could have just as easily been translated model.

  H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f.
  1. structure
  2. (by implication) a model, resemblance
  KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude.

Are there any theological suppositions about this?


texts: Was Zacchaeus saved before he met Jesus?

texts:
If Zacchaeus was saved when he met Jesus, then wouldn't Zacchaeus be saved by works?

8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Luke 19:8-9

Is this saying Zacchaeus was saved from hell because he decided to do good deeds?
I thought we were saved by grace through faith?

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

Would it be possible that Zacchaeus was already saved before he met Jesus? Because if not it looks like he gets saved by works.


texts:
While writing a paper for school, I looked back at this answer so I could use that passage as a reference. In doing so, I got a good look at the title of the book, which I never had before. It’s called In Reply to a Letter by W. A. Anderson, Sometime Vicar of St. Margaret's, Leicester—Now Priest of Rome. It was written by “a layman,” but it was published in London in mdccclii (1852 in Arabic numerals).

I thought the Pope was the Bishop of Rome and that when there’s a bishop there isn’t a priest. Is this book talking about the priest of a normal parish somewhere in Rome as opposed to the Vatican? The man wasn’t the pope. I’d look in the book to see if I could find what it says, but Google Books won’t let me read any more than I have.

Ideally I’m looking for an answer that provides possible explanations for what office this W. A. Anderson held. Even better would be a source mentioning Father Anderson by name*. When it comes down to it, though, I’ll take any sourced answer I can get. Thanks for your time.

*Does the RCC keep a database of priests somewhere?


texts: How does leaving a 'gift at the altar' reconcile with reformed views of the need to 'approach the throne of grace' in everything?

texts:
Jesus said:

  “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24, NIV)

However, this might make someone infer that while we have any 'big sin' in our life, like hateful anger for a brother, we should reform our life before approaching God. Clearly such a works based concept is absolutely opposed to the gospel. So the question is what is a valid exegesis of Mathew 5:23-24 that does not conflict with our need to approach the throne of grace to enable this 'leaving the gift at the altar' and attempt of reconciliation with a brother?

Is there any sin that we must straighten out before approaching the throne of grace?

Note: I was first tempted to ask this question on BH.SE but I realized although asking for an exegesis, this is actually exploring the entire theological framework of reformed theology because the belief that one may have to take care of any sin first, and then approach God is in direct conflict with a reformed position and so the question is more theological than exegetical.


texts: Why are some people born into famine and starvation?

texts:
I was raised Christadelphian, and after 17 years of education and reading the bible, I dismissed my faith and left the church. One of my main reasons for turning my back on God was this.

Why is it that children are born in Africa, with HIV or AID's, these children die of starvation and disease before they even learn to speak.

  John 3:16 NIV

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

These children never have the chance to become baptised and give themselves to christ, they're minds never mature to an age where it's possible for them to understand this concept, nor in many places in the world, has the word of the christian god even reached.

If God is just, loving and merciful, why does he allow this to happen?


texts: Why do Evangelicals like a spirituality book by a 16th century Catholic monk?

texts:
I recall in my early days as a Christian I remember reading a book called ‘The Practice of the Presence of God’ by a Monk called Brother Lawrence in France.  It always baffles me a bit that this book exists at that time and that reformed theologians and evangelicals will recommend it to others.

Some think Protestants admire Mother Teresa, but I would have to say I have rarely seen a book by Mother Teresa in an Evangelical Christian bookstore but have commonly found this little book by Brother Lawrence?

What I am wondering is according to evangelical or reformed thought why would this book above possibly all other Catholic books in the last 1000 years be so appealing? Why would it seem so non-Catholic and acceptable to those who strongly oppose Catholicism?


texts: What biblical support do Arminians and open theists find for libertarian free will?

texts:
Libertarian free will is the position that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. Libertarians generally argue that we cannot be held responsible for our own choices unless we were entirely able to have made a contrary choice instead.1

I’ve included both Arminians and open theists in the question because my understanding is they would generally agree on their views and would both self-identify as holding the libertarian free will position.2

Please no philosophical or logical arguments or opinions. The question here is what case can be made for this view from the Bible. Answers are welcome from determinists and compatibilists as long as you think you can faithfully represent the libertarian position (always cite your
sources if applicable!).

1 This is not to be confused with the political view known as libertarianism. Political libertarianism and libertarian free will, sometimes called metaphysical libertarianism, are completely unrelated. For a fuller definition see Theopedia › Libertarian free will.
2 For an Arminian defending libertarian free well and self-identifying as libertarian, see Society of Evangelical Arminians › Libertarian free will. For an open theist, see ReKnew.org › Is Free Will compatible with Predestination?.


texts: What is the biblical basis against polygamy in the New Covenant?

texts: Assuming the Old Covenant is obsolete and fulfilled (Heb 7:18-19), what is the biblical argument against allowing the practice of polygamy?


texts:
In Aquinas' Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum (Explanation of the Apostles' Creed), his explanation in Article 9 of the Church being "catholic" includes this statement:

Nam aliqui dixerunt, quod Ecclesia debet durare usque ad certum tempus. Sed hoc est falsum: quia haec Ecclesia incepit a tempore Abel, et durabit usque ad finem saeculi…
Some have said that the Church will exist only up to a certain time. But this is false, for the Church began to exist in the time of Abel and will endure up to the end of the world…

I presume that the Abel he is referring to is the one of Cain and Abel in Genesis. Unfortunately, Aquinas doesn't explain in this text his reasoning for why the Church began to exist at this time, as opposed to with Adam and Eve, with any of the Jewish heroes of faith, or with Jesus.
On what basis does Thomas Aquinas say that the Church existed since the time of Abel?


texts: What practical effect do stock worship phrases, like "God be magnified", have?

texts: In our worship to God many times we utter phrases like "God I magnify you" or "God be magnified". I used to wonder, is God really magnified by saying those words? How can we really magnify God or have him magnified?


texts: Where did the artistic rendering of Jesus originate?

texts: There seems to be a pretty recognizable and consistent artistic image of Jesus Christ, despite the lack of evidence of what he looked like. Where did this initial image originate?


texts: Can a child presented by a same sex couple be validly baptized in the Catholic Church?

texts:
In Instrumentum Laboris 2014, the working document for the October 2014 Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops in Rome, #120 The Transmission of the Faith to Children in Same Sex Unions has in part

  However, when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism,
  almost all the responses emphasize that the child must be received
  with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other
  children. Many responses indicate that it would be helpful to receive
  more concrete pastoral directives in these situations. Clearly, the
  Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in
  transmitting the faith to the child. Should a reasonable doubt exist
  in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child
  in the Christian faith, proper support is to be secured in the same
  manner as for any other couple seeking the baptism of their children.
  In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings
  could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully
  to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with
  particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and
  godmother.

Focusing the on - Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child - what are these actual elements that the Church has a duty to ascertain?

Answering with basis from the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition), can a child presented by a same sex couple be validly baptized in the Catholic Church?

cf. illicit vs. invalid | C.SE.

Please see:

This article Baptize but Be Discreet: On the Catholic Baptism of children presented by homosexual and other irregular parents | Msgr. Charles Pope and comments.
Does the Pope have the authority to baptize aliens (martians)?. It was my thinking there that the Pope's Martians were children in same sex unions, who the same sex couple presented to the Church for Baptism.


texts:
I recently moved from home after college, starting my own life and all, and am currently looking for a church I can join and become part of.

In my country, we have had many cases of 'fake' pastors and preachers - adulterers, fake miracles, others greedy for power, fame and money, etc.

In Matthew 7:15-20, Jesus says that you shall recognize them by their fruits.

  15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
  16: You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
  17: Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
  18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
  19: Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
  20: Why by their fruits you shall know them.

Which are these fruits? How can I distinguish between a real and a fake pastor without waiting for them to appear on the news for having done some crazy scheme somewhere? Is there a way I can know them at first glance or something?


texts: According to the Bible how does one receive the gift of the Holy Ghost?

texts:
Does one automatically receive the Holy Ghost after they accept Christ or does it have to be received through the laying on of hands as spoken of in Acts 8?

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.


texts: What does "two becoming one flesh" refer to?

texts:
In the Bible, when it refers to “two becoming one flesh”, does it mean that

the physical act of sex creates a position where both bodies are connected?

or

the flesh (DNA) from the man and and the woman unite to form one flesh (a child derived from both father and mother)?

or

something else entirely?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for born-again virginity?

texts: The concept of being born again as a virgin spiritually (although physical virginity is no longer intact) has been a catchphrase I've noticed in the past few years. What is the Biblical basis for this trend? I would like to know if Jesus specifically had anything to say about this. From what I understand, He pardoned the sexual sins of Mary Magdalene, for example, but did not mention the need to be a born-again virgin, merely chaste from that point forward (not re-claiming virginity). If this does not come from the Bible, where did the idea for the need to be a born-again virgin originate?


texts: Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god?

texts:
Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god (i.e., whether they be a false god or true god)? In other words, is there an example of praying to something/someone who is assumed or acknowledged to be a creature rather than the Creator?

By the English verb "praying," I am referring to a conjugation of the Greek verb προσεύχομαι, and by the English noun "prayer," I am referring to the noun Greek προσευχή. Or, if in the Old Testament, I am referring to a conjugation of the Hebrew verb הִתְפַּלֵּל, or the Hebrew noun תְּפִלָּה.


texts: God's sovereignty and man's predicament in light of evil forces

texts: Since God is sovereign and is not answerable to anyone about his doing, why should God allow the evil to continue to grow and the aftermath of man suffering the consequences while the fallen demonic or angelic beings who foment man's rebellion against God go scot-free for thousands of years?  Would God not know that we humans are pawns in the hands of two awesome spiritual forces that war against each other? At any given point of time in human history, we do not find righteous people exceeding the evil doers?  This remains a conundrum for me.  Any answer.


texts: Are Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic allowed to break the host?

texts:
I'd like to know if Eucharistic Ministers are allowed to break a consecrated host?

I witnessed this happening and I didn't think they had the right to do it.

I was searching for the answer but some say yes and another no. Is there any official teaching or how do I find out if it's ok in my parish or diocese?


texts: We see the mention of a freshwater lake of 167 km square in Israel called as the Sea of Galilee or the Sea of Tiberias at Mtt 4:18, Mtt 15:29, Mk 1:16, Mk 7:31 and Jn 16:1. I wish to know the logic behind calling a lake a sea.


texts: What is the age at which Peter the Apostle died?

texts:
In John 21:18–19 (RSVCE) we hear Jesus telling Peter:

  “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.”  (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Neither the Acts of the Apostles nor the Epistles give an account of how and at what age Peter died. If the words of Jesus to Peter are to be taken as a prophecy, the latter must have died at a ripe age.

My question therefore is: what account does the Catholic Church give on the death of Peter the Apostle, with specific reference to the age at which he died?


texts: Is compatibilism compatible with the doctrine of the Catholic Church?

texts:
My usual reasoning was that it was not on the basis that:

Determinism would entail predestination, which is rejected by the Catholic Church;
The alternative - quantum mind - is trickier, but:

To my intuition, true randomness entailed by quantum mechanics make it impossible for people to be responsible for their actions, which is necessary for the doctrine of sin;
Quantum brain is dubious at best anyway.

However, it should be noted that in spite of scientific arguments against incompatibilist free will, I can't see the Church vehemently opposing these arguments, hinting that the Church might not view the rejection of incompatibilist free will as a threat to its doctrine; which hints that compatibilism is, in fact, compatible with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What is the state of affairs?


texts: In which US states are Catholic dioceses being investigated for Sexual Abuse?

texts:
I recently read something in my parish’s bulletin saying that our diocese was getting investigated by the Attorney General for sex abuse.

With this announcement, Wisconsin will join at least 22 other states that have launched investigations into sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and others in position of leadership.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/04/23/wisconsin-attorney-general-to-investigate-sex-abuse-by-catholic-clerics/

But I can't find a list of which states are getting investigated currently.
Are there new allegations of sexual abuse that Catholics should know about or is this just the same stories as before being rehashed?


texts: How does the Catholic Church narrate the seal which was put on the tomb of Jesus?

texts:
We see  at Matt 27: 64-66 the Chief Priests and Pharisees getting permission to secure the tomb of Jesus :

"....Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.”  Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.”  So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone. ""

In the account of Mark at 16:1-4, we get the narration of women disciples visiting   the tomb of Jesus :

"When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.   And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.   They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”   When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back"

There is no mention of the `seal'which the High Priests and Pharisees put on the tomb of Jesus , in Mark's account which only mentions the large stone. One therefore, is left to presume that what Matthew meant by ``seal' is only the large stone which was guarded by soldiers, and that the preceding day of Resurrection having been the Sabbath day, nobody would have moved the stone  in order to anoint the  body of Jesus.
My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church narrate the seal which was put on the tomb of Jesus ?


texts: How does "believe that you have received it" practice in the Christian life?

texts:
in Mark 11:24

  24 Therefore I tell you, whatever
  you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will
  be yours.

What is the catholic interpretation of the verse? The reason I'm asking because I wonder if this is the same or similar interpretation as the New Age movements offers?

  You’ve probably heard how visualization is a key part of Law of
  Attraction success.

  “You have to visualize your desire to attract your desire.”

Do we need to go around and visualize or even act like we have already received whatever we asked for in a prayer? How does "believe that you have received it" manifests/practice in the Christian life?  How does it differ from the New Age understanding?


texts:
According to LDS teaching, who goes to hell, and why?

I've heard that only really bad people and ex-Mormons will go to hell.  Is this true?


texts: How does the LDS Church decide what is included in their scriptural canon?

texts:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has four "Standard Works" that are considered canonical:

The Bible (Old and New Testaments)
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

The Bible and the Book of Mormon are pretty much set in stone as to what they contain, but the other two standard works have changed over time as new revelations have been added over the past couple hundred years.

Two widely-cited official declarations from the past 20 years are "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and "The Living Christ," but neither has been added to the standard works, despite a new edition of the standard works being published by the Church in 2013. Also, leaders address the Church every six months at General Conference – and while their addresses are universally regarded within the LDS Church as authoritative, they haven't been canonized.

Given that the LDS Church believes in living prophets, continuing revelation, and an open canon, how do they decide what becomes part of the canon?


texts: What did Jesus mean when He said “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”

texts:
Please note, I am not asking about the meaning of “I will draw all men to myself”.  This has been answered in another question here: What is the Catholic interpretation of John 12:32?

The New International Version renders it as, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself.”  Then, in verse 33 it says this was to show what kind of death He was going to die.  Does Jesus mean when he is lifted up to heaven after his resurrection?  And what does it have to do with the manner of Jesus’ death?

What is the meaning, significance and relevance behind Jesus being “lifted up from the earth”?

I seek answers from Trinitarian Protestants.


texts: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is much in the way of Biblical or early-church precedence for praying silently.  It seems like prayers were generally spoken aloud.  In modern times, especially in evangelical circles, it seems that silent prayer is widely accepted and commonplace.  So my question is, when did it become a normal thing?  Was there some specific person or writing which significantly swayed popular opinion, or did it just happen organically over time?


texts: Why does the angel of the Lord call out from heaven to Abraham at Genesis 22?

texts:
At Genesis 22:1, "Now it came about after these things that "GOD" tested Abraham. At verse 2, "And He/God said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
Verse 9, Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood." Verse 10, "And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son."
Verse 11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am. Verse 12, "And he said/the angel of the Lord, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." At verses 13-14 the Lord provides a ram for Abraham to sacrifice.
Verse 15, "Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, vs16, and said, (the angel of the Lord is speaking), By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, vs17, "indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."
Verse 18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed MY VOICE." The following is a list of verses where God Himself calls out from heaven. Genesis 21:17, Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36, Nehemiah 9:13, Daniel 4:31 and other in the Old Testament.
Here are some in the New Testament. Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, John 12:28, 2 Peter 1:18, Revelation 14:2 and Revelation 12:10. There are also others in the NT. Since God had no problem speaking from heaven numerous times, why does the angel of the Lord call out to Abraham from heaven two times at Genesis 22:11, and at Genesis 22:15 claiming to be God?
This is confirmed by the writer of the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 6:13-14, "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, HE SWORE BY HIMSELF, vs14, saying, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you."


texts: Is there any significance to naming Lazarus in this parable?

texts:
The parable I'm referring to is 'The Rich Man and Lazarus':

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.
20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:19–31 (NIV)

It seems, unless I'm mistaken, that in every other parable that Jesus taught the characters or actors were always just a generic description of the person (the widow, the land owner, the manager, the rich man, etc...)  In this parable, however, Jesus does actually refer to the beggar as Lazarus.  Is there any significance behind this?


texts: Why is the term "hymn" used so frequently to refer to "old-church-hymns?"

texts:
A hymn is any song giving praise or adoration to a deity, so why is it that the term "hymn" is so popular to the traditional songs of Protestants and Catholics, such as Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing or Ave Maria?

This is a separate topic, but I mention to give a better idea of why I am asking this, but I have seen it many times where people say "rock music is evil," go back to the Hymns, but you have it where the fact is, so long as it is made to praise God or any god (regardless of if you know) it is indeed a hymn, regardless of taste, or place of Origin.


texts: What does it mean to say an original Greek manuscript did not survive?

texts: What does it mean when they say Greek manuscripts, written by the original authors, did not survive? I don't Understand this statement.


texts: Are there any declarations of canonisation (Saints) reversed in history in the RCC?

texts: Is it possible to annihilate or reverse a sacrificing of 'holy' person by another Pope and is this ever been done?


texts: Are all the elect raptured before the Tribulation, according to Calvinists?

texts:
From this link:

It seems inconsistent for God to promise believers that they will not
suffer wrath and then leave them on the earth to suffer through the
wrath of the tribulation.
If the Bible is interpreted literally and consistently, the
pre-tribulational position is the most biblically-based
interpretation.

And this link:

At that moment, the world will have no born-again believers anywhere.

Does it mean there will be no more of God's elect?
I mean something like this :
Before the creation, God has 100 elects, humans who will be in heaven.
Not one of the 100 elects will taste the tribulation.

Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet
call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end
of heaven to the other

80 elects already died before the Rapture. The rest, 20 elects are raptured.
No more the elect, no more believer to the rest of the future after the Rapture, before the Millennial Kingdom.


texts: What are the similarities and differences between the LDS and RLDS D&C?

texts:
The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), has more sections to their Doctrine and Covenants –163 sections. This is 25 more than what's in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants.

I notice also that many of the scriptures from sections written by Joseph Smith have been omitted by the Community of Christ.

Without creating a long list answer, can someone explain what's in the RLDS D&C that isn't in the LDS D&C? And what the RLDS have removed or changed from the D&C that Joseph Smith wrote?


texts: Creation, Fall, Redemption (Restoration/New Creation): Who said it first?

texts: Who is the author who first described the biblical metanarrative of scripture as Creation, Fall, Redemption -- and some include Restoration or New Creation?


texts: Is Christianity functionally polytheistic?

texts:
In principle, Christianity is monotheistic.  It posits that one god exists.  However, as a result of the 300k+ christian sects, there exists more than one definition of the "Christian God".

With the existence of multiple definitions of a "Christian God" amongst different sects and doctrines this creates a plurality of practices - each aimed at their respective notion of the "Christian God".

In other words, since these multiple definitions lead to a pluralism of practices, does this mean Christianity functions as a polytheistic faith?

If not, this would require that all 300k sects agree that they worship the same "God".


texts: What did Jesus mean by 'take up your cross and follow me'?

texts:
What exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23).

Does it mean we should carry our burdens in life, or what?


texts: Scripture reference on quoting scripture in a hurtful manner

texts: I've heard a few times that there is some verse in the bible that instructs people to be hesitant to quote scripture when wanting to "help" those that are hurt, guilty of an offense, looking just to be heard, etc. Clearly, Job's friends are an example of why sometimes "helping" can be hurtful.... But is there explicit text that discourages quoting scripture or "righteously correcting" people when the time is inappropriate? [more explicit than Ecclesiastes 3, for example]


texts: Are the five propositions condemned by Cum occasione in the Augustinus?

texts:
This simple question was the center of the quarrel around Port-Royal and the efficacious grace in the 17th century in France. In fact, the defenders of Cornelius Jansen’s Augustinus argued that they agreed to state that those five propositions were heretical. However they didn’t recognize that they were in the posthume book of the bishop of Ypres.

In one word, I’m searching for an answer to the famous question de fait (question of fact) stated in the first Provinciale:

  Celle de fait consiste à savoir si M. Arnauld est téméraire pour avoir dit dans sa Seconde Lettre : Qu’il a lu exactement le livre de Jansénius, et qu’il n’y a point trouvé les propositions condamnées par le feu Pape ; et néanmoins que, comme il condamne ces propositions en quelque lieu qu’elles se rencontrent, il les condamne dans Jansénius, si elles y sont.

Translation:

  The question of fact consisted in ascertaining whether M. Arnauld was guilty of presumption, for having asserted in his second letter that he had carefully perused the book of Jansenius, and that he had not discovered the propositions condemned by the late pope; but that, nevertheless, as he condemned these propositions wherever they might occur, he condemned them in Jansenius, if they were really contained in that work.

Was Arnauld right not to find the propositions?

So, in short, my question is:

Are the propositions in Jansen's book?
If yes, where exactly in the book? A page and/or quotation (even not translated) would be great.

Many thanks for your answers!

Reminder: the five propositions condemned are:

Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have; the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting to them.
In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace.
In order to merit or demerit, in the state of fallen nature, we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity.
The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it.
It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men.


texts: Why is Jesus often depicted with long hair if 1 Corinthians 11:14 says it is disgraceful?

texts:
According to 1 Corinthians 11:14, it is disgraceful for men to have long hair:

  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a
  disgrace for him?

Why, then, is Jesus often depicted with long hair?


texts: Where did the priests who served the Lord in Shiloh live?

texts:
I am currently editing a children's book of biblical stories. In the story of Samuel, the book says that Samuel went to live with Eli in the house of the Lord.

1 Samuel 3: 1-4 (NIV):

  1 The boy Samuel ministered before the Lord under Eli. In those days the word of the Lord was rare; there were not many visions. 2 One night Eli, whose eyes were becoming so weak that he could barely see, was lying down in his usual place. 3 The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the house of the Lord, where the ark of God was. 4 Then the Lord called Samuel.

At the time, the house of the Lord was the tabernacle in Shiloh. So did the priests, like Eli, live in the tabernacle itself? But there were many priests, where did they live?


texts:
What are the actual words used for Isaiah 44:28 to describe his anointed? Why do most Bible translation translate that as shepherd? I've heard the Masoretic Text uses "messiah" and the Septuagint uses "Christ".  The English translation uses the word "shepherd," which seems like lying or filtering.  Why the discrepancy?

I stumbled upon some atheist sites and found this. Translating a word like Christ into shepherd seems very misleading.

I also came across this discussion about this on the web.


texts:
Several times in the New Testament, we are told not to make oaths but to make simple statements of affirmation or denial. For example...

  Matthew 5:33-37 (NIV)

      33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

  James 5:12 (NIV)

   12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

However, near the beginning of Paul's letter to the Galatians, he seems to make an oath himself.

  Galatians 1:20 (NLT)

  20 I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.

Sadly, no reference to a cake, but anyway, it seems like Paul is making an oath based on God Himself. How can these passages be reconciled?


texts: Do the ancient churches built by the Portuguese have a statue of mermaid on the façade?

texts: My parish church (St Mary's Forane Church, Muttom, Cherthala, Kerala ) in southern India, believed to have been built by the Portuguese  in the 16th Century has, among other images,  two built-in statues of  mermaids on the façade. Though the church is just a few miles away from the sea, mermaids have not been a subject of our folklore. Presumably, the designer of the church followed some tradition of his homeland. I wish to know if the ancient churches in Portugal have similar statues of mermaid on their façade. If  they do, what is the origin of such an artwork?


texts: What role did the Donation of Constantine have on the development of the doctrine of Papal supremacy?

texts:
In the late Middle Ages, two documents arose which, together, are called the The Donation of Constantine. They made a large number of statements which would have had the effect of making the Pope the "Emperor of Christianity."

Considering that they were discredited by the end of the 16th century, what effect did these documents have on the development and legitimacy of the Papal claims at primacy?


texts: What do Evangelicals who speak negatively of "religion" mean by that?

texts:
I've been hearing some tributes to Rev. Billy Graham today and one of the things that people were praising him was that he "emphasized people over religion".  Now I'm guessing that is not necessarily the Catholic definition of religion which is "the virtue of reconnecting with God".

So, it seems to me, based mainly off of my interactions with Evangelicals here and listening to Christian Radio that religion is either bad or a necessary evil.  But is this what Evangelicals truly believe?  Are they always talking about organized religious ceremonies when they say "religion"?  Is there a concrete definition of what religion is, according to Evangelicals?


texts: How can anointing the sick confer forgiveness of sins in Catholicism?

texts:
In Catholicism, there are 7 sacraments. One of these is anointing of the sick or extreme unction. It is meant to provide comfort to the sick, peace and courage. In the event that the individual cannot make confession it is also said to be able to confer the forgiveness of sins.

How can this last point be the case? Why is confession not required for absolution?


texts: What does it mean that the "The Evil One snatches away what was sown in them."

texts:
I have always been confused about what this means.

  Those who hear the message about the Kingdom but do not understand it are like the seeds that fell along the path.  The Evil One comes and snatches away what was sown in them.
  - Matthew 13:19

What does it mean that the Evil One snatches away what was sown in them?  It sounds like a violation of free will to me.


texts:
To my understanding, Mormons are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I believe that they are Christians, but I'm not sure if they are Protestant or not.

Are Mormons Protestants, or are they just "Latter Day Saints"?


texts: In Catholicism, why should Jesus have been murdered on the Cross instead of just dying of old age?

texts:
Imagine that Jesus wasn't murdered but just died of old age. Would there be a difference in redemption for those who believed in Him? If so, why did he need to be killed?

To be clear, I'm specifically asking about the difference between Christ being violently murdered and simply dying of old age. What is important about his violent murder that is different than a peaceful death?

I would like answers based on Catholic teaching and doctrine.


texts:
We are having a lovely discussion in chat about the purpose and efficacy of prayer.

I am of the opinion that God has a plan and the future is completely set. However I also believe that you should pray for what you need and that God will answer your prayer.

What scripture forms the basis for our prayers and how do we rationalize praying when the outcome is set?


texts: Did the gospels really copy from each other?

texts:
In school, I learned that the different gospels did copy a lot from each other. This was the explanation for why there are so many overlapping events between the gospels.

Is there substantial evidence to support this besides the bible?


texts: To JWs, how is Jesus Christ "the same yesterday and today, and forever"?

texts:
I'm referring, of course, to Hebrews 13:8. The Jehovah's Witnesses' preferred translation, the New World Translation, translates it in basically the same way as all other translations:

  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever.

Many trinitarians see this verse as a reference to immutability, which is unquestionably an attribute of God and not of creatures. What do JWs see this verse as referring to? How can Jesus be "the same yesterday and today, and forever" if he is a creature?


texts: Are any writings of the Apostles non-Canonical?

texts: Do we have any writings that are reasonably likely to be written by Apostles, but are not included in the Bible?


texts: What churches identify themselves as being Modalist?

texts:
There are a number of denominations that are labeled as being Modalist, such as the United Pentecostals, and others associated with Oneness Pentecostalism whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness. However, although some Oneness theologians indicate that the doctrine of Oneness and Modalistic Monarchianism are essentially the same, and that Sabellius–from whom the concept of modalism originates–was basically correct, I've yet to discover any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist by definition.

Are there any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist? Or is it a term used only by Trinitarians to label Oneness denominations as heretical?


texts: Why would people make themselves eunuchs "for the Kingdom of heavens sake"?

texts:
The text I'm drawing from is Matthew 19:1-12. Here is my main text:

  "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
  12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (my emphasis added)
  Matt 19:11-12 (KJV)

It would do anyone who answers well to read all of Mathew 19:1-12.

Would someone please both answer the above question, and explain verses 10 and 11 in a more basic form? thanks!


texts:
How long has Christianity been around? Not how or why -- just when did it start:

As a religion?
As a name?


texts: Is there no Heaven, Hell, or Satan in the Old Testament?

texts:
In the book Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, the author claims that Heaven and Hell are concepts not mentioned in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
From Sapiens:

Belief in heaven (the realm of the good god) and hell (the realm of the evil god) was also dualist in origin. There is no trace of this belief in the Old Testament, which also never claims that the souls of people continue to live after the death of the body.

References
Harari, Y.N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. (p. 248)


texts:
In Isaiah chapter 66: 3-4, God had this to say.

  3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
      is like one who kills a person,
  and whoever offers a lamb
      is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
  whoever makes a grain offering
      is like one who presents pig’s blood,
  and whoever burns memorial incense
      is like one who worships an idol.
  They have chosen their own ways,
      and they delight in their abominations;
  4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
      and will bring on them what they dread.
  For when I called, no one answered,
      when I spoke, no one listened.
  They did evil in my sight
      and chose what displeases me.”

But did not God tell Israelites to sacrifice animals to cleanse their sins? Wasn't the sacrifice of animals unnecessary? Why does God tell them this now?


texts:
Muscular Christianity is a movement, originating in nineteenth-century Britain, associated with promoting physical health, athleticism, and active evangelism.  Many critics say that C. S. Lewis, particularly in his fiction, drew from this tradition:

... Lewis's creed of clean-living, muscular Christianity, pipe-smoking, misogyny, racism, and the most vulgar snobbery. (Philip Hensher, The Independent column of 4 December 1998)
Not surprisingly, some readers embrace Narnia's pagan flavor in preference to its muscular Christianity. (Naomi Wood, God in the Details, in Revisiting Narnia, ed. Shanna Caughey, 2005)
... his polemical, somewhat muscular, orthodox Anglican Christianity ... (Terence Brown, C. S. Lewis: Irishman?, chapter in Ireland's literature, 1988)

Did Lewis have anything to say about "muscular Christianity" as an idea, and did he associate himself with the concept? I would certainly count him as a forceful defender of Christian ideas, but not as someone particularly interested in physical fitness.


texts:
There has been a lot of discussion in the news lately about the passage in Ephesians 5:22 instructing wives to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. But no one ever seems to bring Ephesians 5:21 into the discussion which tells us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

How do we reconcile the two? Doesn't Ephesians 5:21 apply to husbands and wives?


texts: Is the main battle of the enemy for the mind?

texts:
Pastor stressed in the last sermon, the main battle between us and the enemy (Satan), is for the mind.

If it is, what hope is there for people with severe mental illness like schizophrenia, bi-polar, etc.

It would appear that the battle is completely lost in these cases vs. other cases where we can use our free will to turn against the enemy.

So how does this battle for the mind work and are some born into a losing hand to the enemy, as described above?

EDIT
This is a different question than the posted possible duplicate and here's why:

That question focus on "will they still be saved?"

While that is important, this question focus on hope while alive here on earth, not the entrance into the next life.

If such a person has that type of illness, it is as if they are stuck to live in darkness. It would seem that the enemy wins over that person.

In addition, that person can bring even more darkness to family members - and in extreme cases to many others (i.e. - random school shootings and guns in America).

Where is the hope for these people, while here on earth, to live in the light of the Lord?


texts: Is Thomas of Aquinas's idea of 'beatification' still held?

texts:
If so, how can we agree that man will only reach the end he was meant to enjoy by achieving the highest happiness, where there is nothing left to want or can be had...if we assume we shall remain finite and therefore only recieve finite pleasures?

I guess another way of asking 'how can we enoy the infinite Lord (as Thomas suggested) if we can only bear witness in a finite fashion? If our joy is 'less' how can it be that nothing is left to desire?


texts: How much of the deuterocanonical books are true?

texts: I found this book on Christian Doctrine in my class (I go to a private Christian school) and you could clearly tell it was of protestant bias. It stated that the deuterocanonical books contradict what the books in the protestant Bible say and also aren't in the Jewish canon. As someone who is looking to convert from protestant to Catholic, what is the view of the deuterocanonical books from Catholic/Orthodox teaching. How can we know if we are true and God's word? Please link the question if this has already been answered.


texts: Eastern Orthodoxy: what is the difference in character between each of the 8 modes?

texts:
What are each of the 8 modes/tones in the Eastern Orthodox traditions (especially the Byzantine Chant and Russian Chant traditions) meant to convey in terms of spiritual posture, attitude, character, and even theme and dogma?

I know there's a lot to say about each musical tradition, so I want this question's focus to be distinctly, what are the distinguishing features of each mode or tone that set it apart from the others in terms of the spiritual attitude and lessons it is trying to convey (I'm not asking here about the musical theory and rules behind the modes themselves, although I would like to hear explanations of musical rules in terms of how they are used to convey spiritual attitudes and truths).


texts: What are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups supposed to be?

texts: Are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups the same thing St. Luke calls Presbyters in Acts 11:30, which seems to be more like a congregation of elders or what St. Peter calls a Presbyter in 1 Peter 5, which I think is more like a priest?


texts: Why did Jesus question God on the cross?

texts:
Jesus was sent to earth to die for our sins. He knew it when the time came but from this verse:

  "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,
  Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
  forsaken me? " (Matthew 27:46).

He seemed to be saying "Hey Dad, why are you leaving me, this wasn't part of the plan."

With such a loud cry, this must have been an emotional pain he went through aside the physicaly pain on the cross. Why did he have to ask his Father that question?


texts: What is the basis for penance (satisfaction) in sacramental confession?

texts:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Sacrament of Penance (Confession):

  As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who
  confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt
  and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). There remains, however,
  some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or
  hereafter. In order to have it cancelled here, the
  penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his
  "penance", usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say,
  or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a
  church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms deeds, fasting, and
  prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential
  works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is
  determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins
  revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to
  relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the
  penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it
  may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is
  prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the
  penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion)
  immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the
  state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the
  performance of his penance until it is completed.

It would seem that, given a sincerely contrite disposition, the eternal debt debt is satisfied with no further action.

On what basis (preferably with scriptural founding) does the Catholic Church teach that an act of penance can satisfy the temporal debt of sin?


texts: What scriptural support do Latter-day Saints find for their moral agency doctrine?

texts:
My understanding is Mormons hold to something similar to libertarian free will, the belief that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

Since I don’t understand the position very well, perhaps a brief explanation of the view would be helpful to me, but primarily this question is concerned with what case can be made for the LDS view from Scripture (whether the Bible or other LDS Scriptures).


texts:
So I'm a little confused. While going through my daily reading, I came across this verse in 1 Peter 2:16:

  Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God's slaves.

So we are God's slaves? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean anything derogatory but an image of a slave in my head isn't necessary a good one... Also in 1 Corinthians 7:22 it says:

  For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave.

So I hope someone can clear this up for me because it's making me feel a little uneasy.


texts: What does Eastern-Orthodoxy teach about the Law and Gospel division?

texts:
In Lutheranism, there is the concept that the whole of Scripture is divided into Law and Gospel. The Law shows us our sins and how we ought to live. In essence, all that is required or that condemns us is law (including verses like "love your God with all your [...]" Luke 10:27).

The Gospel is God's grace and mercy bestowed on us (including verses like "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29).

What does the Orthodox Church teach about this concept?


texts: LDS Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 when they supported polygamy

texts:
I have a question regarding what the LDS Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 was during the times when they supported polygamy.

Background information for my question:

One of the earliest formal statements about polygamy by the Mormon church was the 1943 revelation by the founder of the church, Joseph Smith. This revelation was codified in the 1870s in the church's Doctrine and Covenants section 132.

Paragraphs 61-63 of this section is quoted below.

  61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man
  espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give
  her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and
  have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit
  adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery
  with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

  62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot
  commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him;
  therefore is he justified.

  63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused,
  shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be
  destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the
  earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which
  was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for
  their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls
  of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be
  glorified.

The LDS Church did eventually stop promoting polygamy however. The final nail to its coffin seems to have been the Second Manifesto of 1904 by then President of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith.

Still the article "After the Manifesto: Mormon Polygamy 1890-1906" makes claims that indicate support for polygamy high in the Church hierarchy as late as 1898. The article says on pp. 28-29:

  Among the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency between 1890
  and 1898, at least 58 percent of the members took an active part in
  post-Manifesto polygamy. If Matthias Cowley and Owen Woodruff are
  included, the proportion is 70 percent.[17] Historical records
  indicate that only two men seem to have had qualms about the
  continuation of polygamy during President Woodruff’s lifetime: Francis
  M. Lyman and Lorenzo Snow.[18]

Qualifications for bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy chapter 3:

1 Timothy chapter 3 lists the qualifications expected from those assigned to the positions of deacons and bishops in the first century congregations.

1 Timothy 3:2 lists some of the qualifications for bishops:

  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,
  vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to
  teach;

And 1 Timothy 3:12 includes similar requirements for deacons:

  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
  and their own houses well.

Questions:

Considering the paragraphs quoted from Doctrine and Covenants section 132, and the overall support for polygamy in the Church hierarchy until late 1800's, it seems that at that time a church member could be in good standing with more than one wife.

This seems different from the expectations listed in 1 Timothy ch. 3.

What would have been the LDS Church view of these requirements in 1 Timothy ch. 3 during the time they supported polygamy?


texts: What is closest thing Baptists have to a catechism?

texts:
I teach Sunday School at an evangelical congregation that is essentially nondenominational, but has various, historical ties to the Church of the Brethren and or one of the smaller Baptist denominations.  The pastor has generally given me free reign to come up with my own material: I send him my slides after the fact as a courtesy and to allow him to offer any correction or guidance.

I have learned in this forum that not all Christian groups have a catechism in the same way that Lutherans do.  My question is, do the Southern Baptists, American Baptist Association, or any other Baptist association have a common book that is relied on for instruction of youth in a similar way that Lutherans would have Luther's Small Catechism?  If no, is there any standard of doctrine-- even a book of systematic theology, or works of a theological hero like Charles Spurgeon-- that is trusted for doctrinal clarification beyond the bible?  If such a thing exists for "nondenominational evangelicals" and not Baptists, that's even better.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel?

texts:
I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "exactly 144,000 faithful Christians go to heaven to rule with Christ in the kingdom of God."

However, in Revelation the 144 000 are from Israel Revelation 7:4:

  Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Indeed, the next four verses detail the tribes from which they came.

So do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel? If not, how do they explain this text?

Should go without saying, but just for clarity: I'm curious, not trying to start an argument!


texts: Are questions that begin "Is it ok to ___" of primary theological importance?

texts: Questions that begin "Is it ok to _" are often asked and I believe it is helpful to ask "how now shall we live?".  However, from a theological standpoint are these questions of primary importance when considering the whole of and heart of Christian doctrine?


texts: Does infant baptism determine the child's afterlife, according to practitioners?

texts:
Among those denominations who practice infant baptism, does baptizing the baby have anything to do with the destination of the infant's soul?

Which denominations, if any, believe that Infant Baptism is a means of securing the afterlife of the baby? Do they believe that they are actually sending the infants to heaven by baptizing them? And if the child dies before knowing good and evil, does the baptized infant go to heaven?


texts: Do Evangelical Christians interpret James 1:2 and Romans 5:3 to mean that we should enjoy our problems?

texts:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,

  James 1:2 (NIV)

  We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for
  we know that they help us develop endurance.

  Romans 5:3 (NLT)

Does these verses tell us that we should enjoy our problems?

How do Evangelical Christians interpret these passages?


texts: Do Mormons actually believe in any sort of supreme being/ultimate reality/"Absolute"?

texts:
From what I've heard about the Mormon God, he doesn't actually seem to fit the description of "supreme being" and rather seems more like a polytheistic Greek or Hindu God.

The following may be misconceptions, so I'm open to correction:

The Mormon God didn't create matter. The matter was pre-existing and he just shaped it into being. This would seem to indicate that matter is as fundamental and eternal as God himself, potentially even more so.
Mormons seem to literally be polytheists: as I understand it they believe that the father, the son and the spirit are three separate Gods. However if that's true then neither the son, the spirit, or the father could be a "supreme being" because a supreme being can have no equal by definition. It's impossible to have more than one supreme being. If there was more then one then they wouldn't be "supreme". Mormonism complicates things further by the doctrine of exaltation, which I understand to mean that we can leave behind our human natures and literally become Gods. Sounds like strict polytheism.
The Mormon God doesn't act as the ground and source of all existence, like the Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish) God does. He doesn't seem to be sustaining all of reality in existence from moment to moment by his creative energies, like the God of classical theism. Instead he seems to be hanging out in creation using his omnipotence like a really powerful human being would as if he were Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty. Again, more like a Greek or Hindu God, who have very human/"created being" personalities. I might be totally wrong about that though.

Most religions that I've investigated seem to have some concept of a supreme being/ultimate reality. For example in Hinduism you have the idea of Brahman, which is a Pantheistic Supreme being/Ultimate reality (the line gets a bit blurry in Hinduism) - all things have their source in Brahman. In Taoism you have the Tao, which is kind of like a force which permeates all creation and reality - all things have their source in the Tao. In the Classical Theism religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) you have the idea of God, who created all of reality and holds it in existence by his creative will from moment to moment - all things have their source in God.

Whereas the pattern breaks when you look at Mormonism. "All things have their source in the Mormon God" doesn't seem to hold true. In this sense the Mormon God honestly seems like an inferior being to the usual conception of God in Christianity. (I don't mean that as an insult, I'm just describing the situation as it presents itself to me)

So for my actual question: Is there something I'm missing? Perhaps Mormonism DOES have some fundamental "ultimate reality" concept and I just haven't come across it during my research. Perhaps Mormon philosophers and scholars have thought about the issue and devised some "ultimate reality" concept but it hasn't been spoken about publicly much if at all.

For an alternate wording: Is there something which is "above" God in Mormonism? or is the Mormon God as supreme as it's going to get?


texts: Is there a doctrine or Biblical justification that explains why God chose the number 7 to be so significant?

texts:
Do any major traditions in Christianity hold any sort of formulated doctrine or is there some Biblical justification tossed around that explains God's a priori reason for choosing 7 to be significant was?

I'm specifically curious about the source of 7's significance, not the how (in other words, I'm not looking for examples of significant 7s (covered in Why is the number seven special? and on Judaism.SE here) or for how these play out, but for why God picked the number in the first place.)

As I understand it, the significance of the numbers 1 and 3 can both be derived from the Trinity. One God, three Persons. But what is the source of 7? Why God chose seven instead of, say, nine. Or five or eleven, which are also primes (in the mathematical system we use). God seems to have chosen 7 to be significant before Creation. He chose 7 to be the number of days in a week. This means that any significant 7 post-creation (including the length of a week) is a significant 7 for the same reason. Before God created the universe, He picked out 7 to be one of His significant numbers.

To clarify a bit further, if God decided that 9 was the number of perfection for whatever reason, then we probably would have had an 8-day work week and the 9th day would be the Sabbath. The number of the beast would probably have been 888 instead of 666. Pentecost probably would have come 82 days after Passover (50 = 7*7+1, 82=9*9+1).

If there is truly no source for this and no Christian tradition has forwarded any explanation, the answer may very well be "none". However if more than one doctrine exists, please explain what the different suggestions are and how they end up on different tracks.


texts: Different types of Cross shapes significance?

texts: What is signified by different kinds of crosses? For example some graves have club(cards game) leaves type edges crosses, some graves have simple crosses?


texts: How do cessationists interpret James 5:13-18?

texts:
Is the practice of confession, prayer, and anointing oil for healing with the elders of the church meant to be an ongoing practice of the church, or was that something left to the apostolic age where the charismatic gifts were in effect for the church? The practice is described in James 5:13-18 (ESV):

  The Prayer of Faith

  Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let
  him sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders
  of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in
  the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is
  sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he
  will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray
  for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous
  person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man with a
  nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and
  for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he
  prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.


texts: Why do some Christians think it's not a sin to charge interest?

texts:
This article presents the view that Christians should not charge interest on loans. As evidence, it cites Nehemiah 5:9-10:

9 Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?
10 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.

In light of this, why do many Christians think it is not a sin to charge interest?


texts: Did arians have any kind of scriptural basis?

texts: Did arians have any kind of scriptural basis for their teachings? If yes, what is it? What I am interested in here is the christology. Christ as created being.


texts: How was 'years' defined in the book of Genesis?

texts:
Genesis 5 clearly shows the number of years people lived from Adam to Noah. In the modern world, we know that 1 year equals to the number of days the earth revolves around the sun, but this knowledge was just claimed in the 17th century by Galileo while the book of Genesis should have been written much earlier.

As another point of view, the calendar system that most parts of the world use today dated back to 45 BC through the introduction of Julian calendar. This may be the first time a wide group of society agreed on how long 1 year is.

How did the author of Genesis define how long 1 year was?

EDIT:

While Why did people live so long before the Flood concerned about the ages (specific to Genesis 5), my question wonders more on the way a year was defined in general, possibly valid across the Pentateuch, by giving Genesis 5 as one example. It does not ask why men lived with such long ages, which had answers such as: bodily well-being was enhanced; a greater degree of nourishment; water before the flood protected human ages; etc. These answers in that discussion did not address my question.

Hence my question could have been, "How did Moses define 1 year in Pentateuch?" The problem with this phrase is that it could mistakenly viewed as a duplicate with other discussions, such as who wrote the Pentateuch, or whether the Pentateuch was written by the same author.

In contrast, my question emphasizes the definition of a "year" written across the Pentateuch. To avoid conflicting discussions, herewith I specify one example by pointing to Genesis 5. An example of satisfying explanation is from one comment below, that one didn't need a calendar to know the years, but used winter and summer.


texts: How have Calvinist theologians dealt with statements about God repenting?

texts:
There are a number of OT passages that seem to show God changing his mind.1 Perhaps most well-known is his approach to Nineveh in the book of Jonah (summarized in 3:10). An example from Jeremiah also exemplifies this possibility (quoting ESV):

  Jer 26:2
  Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD wall the words that I command you to speak to them; do not hold back a word.
  Jer 26:3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may relent of the disaster that I intend to do to them because of their evil deeds.

Verse 3 appears to indicate that God has an intention which he considers “change-able” contingent upon the actions of men. The term translated “it may be that” (ʾûlay, alternatively, “perhaps”) generally carries an element of uncertainty, and the one translated “relent” (nḥm, alternatively “repent”) indicates regret.2

I’m guessing that Calvin himself wrote about this, which would be interesting. I’m also interested in more recent theologians. I would especially like to see Jeremiah 26:3 addressed directly.

1. In addition to those cited in the question, see Exodus 32:14; 1 Sam 15:11,35; 2 Sam 24:16; Amos 7:3,7; Jer 18:8; Joel 2:13; etc., all using the same verb.

2. That’s the basic meaning anyway. In the context of potentialities (here, an “intention”), you can’t “regret” something not yet done in English, so we translate using other 6-letter re***t words.


texts: Is praying the rosary, heard when our attention is difficult to maintain?

texts: If someone is 90 years of age and believes that they have an Attention Deficit issue, is their prayers heard?


texts: What, specifically, if anything, is heterodox about LDS eschatology?

texts:
I know the Christology and soteriology of Mormonism is heterodox.  But would Mormons disagree with any of the following:

the inspiration of scripture (Book of Mormon notwithstanding)
the substitutionary atonement of Christ (his divinity notwithstanding)
the literal bodily return of Christ
the literal resurrection of all men
the future judgment of all men
eternal existence in heaven and hell

I am aware of the purgatory-like doctrine of hell which is not eternal and of the "lake of fire" where Satan et al (but not humans) will go, but this seems the only point on which the LDS doctrine doesn't conform with traditional pre- or post-mil eschatology (even if it does mix it all up).


texts: What happens if one wishes to go through the RCIA process but lacks a sponsor?

texts:
I've seen many explanations of the RCIA process, but all of them I've found make reference to a sponsor of sorts.

A local parish's website explains:

  A sponsor accompanies any candidate seeking admission as a catechumen.
  Sponsors are persons who have known and assisted the candidates and
  stand as witnesses to the candidates' moral character, faith, and
  intention (see Godparents Role In Baptism.)

Another question indicates that the sponsors/godparents must meet certain requirements.

Here's the problem:

Were I to go through this, I would be the only Catholic in my family that I know of. Supposedly I have an aunt in the faith, but she lives both a great distance away, and we're really not all that familiar. (In other words, it sounds like she wouldn't meet the requirements.)

What would I do in this case? Can one be initiated without a godparent or sponsor?


texts: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?

texts:
The title says it all, really.

What did the ECF believe and teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?

Did they generally subscribe to it or deny it?

Related: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation?


texts: Did Satan unwittingly create his eternal punishment by instigating the fall of man?

texts:
God is omniscient and therefore nothing that happens takes him by surprise, and so that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must have been something that God expected. And for that matter ordained.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation:

Everything I have learned about God from my study of the Bible, tells me that evil has no part in God, and therefore when God created His Kingdom, there would have been no evil. As far as I can determine Evil came into being with Lucifer's rebellion.

Up until the fall there was no such thing as death, and we are told that Satan and his minions were expelled from Heaven, not that they were sentenced eternity in the lake of fire.

  Revelation 12:7 through 9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

God being the loving God that he is had only expelled Satan and the fallen Angels to the Earth, which seems a mild punishment for starting a war in Heaven.

Since there was no death there was also no second death:

  Revelation 20:14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Since the second death is being cast into the lake of fire, it seems that Satan by enticing man to sin thereby providing his own eternal punishment.


texts: Traditionally, Catholics used language of "state of perfection" (as we can for example read in Aquinas). Why did not Vatican II use this term? What is the history of the term "state of perfection" before, during, and after Vatican II?


texts: Referencing a Biblical narrative for a piece fiction I am writing?

texts: I have a fiction where I need to reference why the great flood in Noah's day and when man turned back to evil after the flood. Is it legal to reference a Bible story?


texts: What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant?

texts:
The Anglican Covenant is a proposal for governing how the member churches of the Anglican Communion should relate to one another. Paul Avis writes (Ecclesiology 7.3, 2011):

  The Anglican Communion is under stress because of
  disagreements about Christian morals and about what kind of
  mutual obligation is involved in membership of the Communion.
  The Windsor Report (2004) tackled the problems raised by the
  consecration of a bishop in a same-gender partnership in The
  Episcopal Church in the USA, the liturgical blessing of same-gender partnerships in a diocese of the Anglican Church of
  Canada, and the cross-jurisdiction interventions by Anglican
  churches from the Global South in response to this situation.

  The single most significant proposal made by The Windsor Report
  (2004) was for a Covenant between the churches of the Anglican
  Communion. It proposed that they would covenant together to
  commit themselves to exercise restraint in contentious areas, to
  consult carefully about potential developments and to strengthen
  processes of mutual accountability. The Covenant has since gone
  through various drafts and the final "Ridley" draft is now being
  considered by the member churches of the Anglican Communion.

What arguments do Anglicans use, for and against adoption of the Covenant?


texts: Biblical basis for God's egalitarian love

texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that God loves everyone equally? Equally meaning he doesn't love someone more or less than anyone else?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that people do not go to heaven or hell immediately when they die?

texts:
Touch poignantly stated in a now closed question,

But if people are already in heaven this means that there really isn't much reason for Jesus Christ to return, because all those that believe in Him are already in heaven.
If Jesus Christ will return and all those that have faith in Him will be raised and be priests with Him for a thousand years, why make it seem as if the deceased are already in heaven? If someone dies and goes to heaven before the Last Judgement, what need is there for him to be judged at the final judgement? Hasn't he already been judged righteous if he is in heaven?

In The Bible and the Future, Anthony Hoekema states that since Augustine, Christians have believed that the souls of those who die either rest peacefully, in the case of Christians, or are afflicted, in the case of the damned, after death until the resurrection. However, in my experience, it is nearly universally held among Protestants and Evangelicals that upon death, the soul ascends to Heaven in the case of the believer, or descends to Hell in the case of the unsaved. Hoekama also asserts that both Calvin and Luther believed in an intermediate state between death and resurrection, with Luther holding to a doctrine that the soul "sleeps", and Calvin positing that the believer experiences an "incomplete" bliss.
While I am aware that views on the exact characteristics vary among those who admit an intermediate state, I am interested in how arguments that people do not immediately "go to Heaven" or "go to Hell" are framed in a biblical context, especially those that claim that existence in Heaven or Hell commences only after the bodily resurrection and the great "White Throne" judgement.
What are the biblical bases given for belief that people do not go to Heaven or Hell immediately after death?


texts: Why did Daniel feel the need to pray towards Jerusalem, even at the cost of his own life?

texts:
After Darius signed a decree which said that anyone praying to any god but Darius should be thrown into the Lion's den, Daniel goes and prays anyway.

  Daniel 6:10-11 ESV When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God.

The author seems to go to great effort to show that Daniel didn't care about being caught, and that he may have even been encouraging it. Why else would the author state that Daniel knew the decree had been signed and that he went to a room that had windows opened towards Jerusalem, apparently to pray towards it.

What was the big deal about praying towards Jerusalem, and why was it so important that Daniel would be willing to die for it?

He could have prayed silently, or towards Jerusalem with the windows closed, or any other combination of non-law breaking things.

Daniel had been a fantastic rule follower up until that point, and he had proved himself to be smart to enough to work his way around the rules, and he certainly had the power and authority to do what he wanted. He seems to draw some sort of line here and state "I would rather die than pray in any way other than towards Jerusalem with the window open." Why?

To prevent this question from being opinion based I want to know what popular Christendom has had to say about this. Sole biblical basis is preferred.


texts: Why appoint Matthias to replace Judas only to later appoint Paul as a thirteenth Apostle?

texts:
It seems that twelve is a number with a lot of meaning in the Bible, and thirteen not so much.  So why not make Paul the twelfth Apostle and just skip Matthias?

Later in Revelation the church seems to be still presented as based on twelve as a complete number:

  And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14, ESV)

So why thirteen? Or why are there twelve Apostles to Israel and only one to the rest of the world?

Note: I am not doubting that Matthias was an Apostle. This question assumes he was. I am also assuming the restricted sense of Apostle as not just 'bearers of the NT message' or 'commissioned representative of a congregation' but those inner circle of Apostles whose offices were directly appointed by Christ in the flesh, Matthias being a replacement of one of those. Therefore, I am excluding Barnabas, James, etc. from the question.

Please see also the related (but not duplicate) question Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthais or Paul? That question asked if Paul replaced Matthias, or not. This question assumes he did NOT and then asks 'What is the meaning of twelve Apostles to Israel and one to the Gentiles?' What is the meaning of 12 + 1?


texts: Does the Bible give any reason as to why its content is sometimes difficult to interpret?

texts:
As evidenced by this site, and the divisions between various Christian denominations, there seems to be a lot of different ways some passages in the bible can be interpreted.

One example is Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth!  The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." For hundreds of years (and still some today) some Christians interpreted this to mean the earth is the center universe and does not move.

So is there anything in the Bible that clearly states why some passages are written in such a way as to potentiate interpretation?

If not, is there anything in the Bible that may even suggest or hint at why this is, or perhaps a story alluding to this like someone navigating a task though directed by unclear instructions?


texts:
I read this horrifying article that sounds like victim blaming. I think this is like how rape victims are told they got raped because of they way they dressed, of where or when they went or, like Lot, they had too much to drink.

The article says

  Why did Lot have sex with his own daughters? He got drunk. Yes, his daughters conspired to get him drunk, but Lot willingly drank and, when he was drunk, he lost what little control and common sense he had.

I really don't see how this is different from telling rape victims, "Hey it's your fault you drank too much." Sure drinking too much isn't an excuse for DUIs, but drinking too much is definitely not a reason for getting raped and definitely a reason that you did not (consent to) have sex.

Of course I'm assuming that they indeed raped him, but my assumption is based on their talking to each other and not Lot about the, well, transaction.

  Let’s get our father to drink wine.

and not

  Let’s ask our father about having incestuous sex.

An NCBI abstract seems to say that the Bible (Hebrew or Christian or both, not sure) implies that this is the case but excuses the daughters. I believe their intent was clear: They intended to do this without consulting Lot. I wouldn't say this is textbook manipulation, whether or not it is actually manipulation, but the intent is to do something without consulting the other person: I would say that's textbook malice or at least interventionism or something. What's more horrifying is that it's the elder sister who corrupts the younger sister into doing such. Anyway, on Wikipedia it says

  A number of commentators describe the actions of Lot's daughters as rape. Esther Fuchs suggests that the text presents Lot's daughters as the "initiators and perpetrators of the incestuous 'rape'."

I'm surprised this is only a number of commentators and not the entire Judeo-Christian theological community. Then again I suppose consensuses are difficult to reach outside natural and formal science. Still, I hope at least one denomination (Orthodox, Catholicism, etc) of at least one religion (Judaism, Christianity, not sure Islam has Lot's daughters, etc) has some consensus.

The question: What is the Christian theological community's official opinion on whether or not Lot was raped by his daughters? In case I need to specify a denomination, I pick Catholicism. If allowed for the site for this question, then I prefer to not choose a denomination.


texts: When did the Holy Family actually settle down at Nazareth?

texts:
We see at Luke 2: 22- 39   the presentation of Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem and the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth :

" When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ...........When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth "

Matt 2:21-23 narrates the settling of Holy Family at Nazareth in a different context, that is,  after the visit of the Magi, the Holy Family's escape to  Egypt and its return from that place :

" Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel.   But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.   There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”

Jesus was dedicated in the Temple when He was just 40 days old,  as was required by Leviticus 12:1-4  . On the other hand, the visit of Magi is believed to have taken place when Jesus was older , say two years (given by the massacre of children upto the age of two by Herod ) . Apparently, the return of Holy Family to Nazareth as mentioned at Luke 2:39 took place after a considerable gap of time .My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the gap between the time of Jesus' presentation at the Temple and that of His Family's return to Nazareth ?


texts: How do NON soul sleep adherents interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18?

texts:
How do non soul sleep adherents interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18:

  But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
  14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
  15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
  16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
  17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
  18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, KJV)


texts:
While poking around the internets for this question in SciFi&Fantasy, I was reminded of one of my curiosities that had come about from watching the same film.  After watching Kevin Smith's Dogma, my cousin mentioned something along the lines of Loki being actual Catholic dogma according to a friend of his.

I can't find any sources on the internet to confirm this.  In fact CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA lists him in a paragraph describing the beliefs of 'Teutons and Celts' confusing me more, since I'm quite sure Celts had nothing to do with Loki.  Wikipedia describes the blending of Christian and Norse belief systems in a short paragraph without giving any easy references to go off of.

I find it difficult to drop the idea because I find it a lovely example of Christian syncretism.  I ask in the hopes that some of you may have had interesting discussions in catechism that would have covered this, or perhaps you know where to look better than I do, and can confirm or reject this.

Was the Norse mythological being Loki incorporated into the Catholic belief system, and if so, in what way?


texts: Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit still speaks specific messages or instructions to Christians today?

texts:
The book of Acts includes several examples:

Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” Acts 8:29

While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” Acts 10:19-20

The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. Acts 11:12

While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Acts 13:2

Do Cessationists believe that this is still happening today?
(*) Notice that the messages need not be communicated via mechanical sound waves travelling through the air necessarily, they could be communicated telepathically, or by impressing the sounds directly into the disciple's mind (aka "hearing a voice in one's head"), etc. Whatever the means, the point is that the Holy Spirit was clearly giving specific messages or instructions to the disciples in the book of Acts. Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit is still doing that today?


texts: What is the basis for faith not being an emotion or feeling?

texts:
What does Protestantism say? I have heard don't make your bible decisions on your feelings, use your brain, have faith. Am I to understand faith is not a feeling nor an emotion?

I looked here and here and nothing. I found love and hope but not faith.

It's kinda like a follow up question to Which scriptures (if any) are cited by proponents of the 'don't go on feelings' teaching?


texts: What are the most striking disagreements between Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus?

texts:
What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between  Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus?

The unanimity of the early Church Fathers is something that is often presented as an indisputable fact. However, while they were all in agreement about some major points of faith, there might have been some disagreements on some minor things. So, the question is about that.