texts: According to reformed theology, how does the fall glorify God?

texts:
What this question is not about:

This question is NOT about:

Is God omniscient (all knowing?), omnipotent (all powerful?) and benevolent? Then if God foresaw the first sin, and had the power to stop it, why did he not?

This question is also not about:

Did God predestine Satan revolt? Did God predestine Adam/Eve to fall?

What this question is about:

In my understanding, Reformed Theology views everything in terms of the glory of God. Thus, original sin -- Satan's revolt and the fall of men -- exists to glory some aspect of God (either his righteousness, his mercy, his grace, his love, or ...)

Aside:  Erwin Lutzer's "The Serpent of Paradise" somewhat gets into this: namely, the interaction of Satan and God reveals certain attributes of God.

What are the main arguments that Reformed Theologists use for how Sin + the fall Glorifies God?

Please cite references (As great as a 5-6 paragraph essay can be, certain subtleties can only be captured in a 100 page or so book.)

Hints

(none of these are required for a correct answer; they're mainly incomplete thoughts /intuition on my part)

For example, arguments expanding on thought along "Redemptive history is about the Glory of God in predestinating a group of people to be saved to showcase his grace" ... would be very helpful.

Clarifications:

I think it's agreed that Sin + Satan somehow glorifies God. But I think the interesting question is the mechanics of how it Glorifies God. In a similar manner, the old testament faithful knew that God was somehow going to redeem humanity, but he fascinating part was how God was going to do it (Christ dying o the cross); similarly, we know that Christ will establish a kingdom, but the fascinating part is how Christ establishes his kingdom (book of Revelations, not as how worldly empires do). Similarly, the fascinating issue here is how does Sin / Satan exist to glorify God?


texts: Why is Jesus at the center of everything

texts:
If you look through the Bible we know that Jesus is at the center of everything both in the old and new testament.

I have some clues like him being beloved or as a reward of what he suffered.

  John 3:35

  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into
  his hand

and

  Philippians 2:8-9

  8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

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

I feel my clues are not concrete or complete so I would like a broader view or complements.


texts: Is there biblical evidence of seraphims being angels?

texts:
I have heard angels and seraphim being used interchangeably. is there any biblical evidence that they are different or the same? The only verse I know off the top of my head is Isaiah 6:2

  Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. (KJV)

My question is whether angels and seraphim are the same thing or not, and why.


texts: Jehovah's Witness view on a potential member marrying a non-Witness

texts:
What is the official Jehovah's Witness position regarding a woman who is studying with the Witnesses and who wants to marry a worldly man (a man who is not a Jehovah's Witness)?

We want to get married at a court house but she wants to make sure it’s ok from her elders.

Note that Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to marry outside the faith? is asking about members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, while this question asks about potential members.


texts: Why did the Apostles not go with the rest of the believers outside of Jerusalem?

texts:
I noticed that the Apostles stayed in Jerusalem for a long time while others sort of acted like missionaries as a result of being scattered... except the Apostles.

  And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (ESV Acts 8:1)

This seems extra strange being that Jesus said:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (ESV Matthew 28:19-20)

I am not so much interested in traditions that give reason for their staying in Jerusalem. Rather, are there any scriptures that would explain this unexpected behavior?


texts: St. Augustine's views on salvation through coercion

texts:
This question goes out to any denomination.

Why was St. Augustine okay with using force to convert unbelievers to the faith, which also resulted in the eventual Roman Catholic Church's inspiration for the Crusades?

As mentioned by Bruce Shelley in his book "Church History in Plain Language":

  For Urban and the popes who followed him the Crusades were a new type
  of war, a Holy War. Augustine had laid down the principles of a “just
  war”: It was conducted by the state; its purpose was the vindication
  of justice, meaning the defense of life and property; and its code
  called for respect for noncombatants, hostages, and prisoners. All
  these evaporated in the heat of the holy cause. Urban appealed for
  crusaders in the name of the church; the purpose of the Crusades was
  the conquest of the infidels in the Holy Land; and this high calling
  excused somehow the total disregard for noncombatants and prisoners.

Also per this link:

  Urban pulled ideas from St. Augustine to justify the calling of a holy
  war to get rid of enemies of Christianity, and Urban had Pope Gregory
  VII to thank for already having a group loyal to the papacy so Urban’s
  work on power was already partially done (Asbridge, 25-28). Asbridge
  points out that “A central feature of Urban’s doctrine was the
  denigration and dehumanisation of Islam (33).”

As a follow up what caused him to be for that strategy when it came to conversion?


texts: What is the source of this quote from St. Augustine?

texts:
In a sermon many years ago a priest (now dead) quoted a phrase from St Augustine :

  God was drawn down from heaven by the weight of his love.

I realise that this is a translation from Latin & translations vary, but Augustine's Latin corpus presents an enormous task to check. I have searched in translations of The City of God, the Confessions, the Enchiridion and other works but have never come across anything resembling this phrase. Does anyone know where it is to be, or might be, found ?


texts: Does modern protestantism have any deviations from sola fide?

texts: I have read that modern protestantism on one hand, and catholicism on the other, tended to abridge their historical differences. Are there any cases in modern protestantism where justification can come other than from faith?


texts: Why do Solemnities have different readings for the vigil masses?

texts:
If Solemnities (like today August 15th) are kind of like extra Sundays, why do the vigil masses have different readings and why don't Saturday evenings have a different set of readings from the Sunday readings?  And is there anything notable between the kinds of readings that are in the Vigil Mass vs Mass during the day?

I noticed today, for the Assumption, that the Gospel during the day was the whole Visitation, and the Vigil Mass Gospel  was almost exactly the opposite (depending on ones reading of the Bible). So they seem to have something to do with each other, but I'd like to know more about the way the readings are chosen for solemnities.


texts: Is there acceptable pride based on Galatians 6:4 and if so how is it different than regular pride?

texts:
Galatians 6:4 NIV says "Each one should test their own actions.  Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else,"

What is the nature of this pride he speaks of or is the use of the word pride a loose translation of another concept?

My understanding is that pride is not spiritual and I can't really think of how to mold this statement into my current understanding of spirituality vs the flesh and selfishness.


texts: When in the development of trinitarian doctrine was the word "persons" first applied to God?

texts:
In the Bible, the word "persons" is not used in reference to God, nor are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit called "persons."

When, in early Christian writings and creeds, was the word "persons" (plural) first used in reference to God as part of the developing doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in God?

My hypothesis is that it doesn't occur before Tertullian in the early third century. Tertullian uses the Latin word personae ("persons") in his formulation of a Trinity in God. In the pre-Nicene Greek Fathers, the word to look for would be prosopon in a plural form, applied to God or to the Father, Son/Word, and Spirit/Holy Spirit collectively.


texts: What are Mormons allowed to discuss about the temple, when not inside the temple?

texts: What are we allowed to discuss or ask questions about outside of the temple?  What things exactly are too sacred to discuss outside the temple, and which things can we talk fairly openly about?


texts: What traditions believe that a woman's relationship with God must go through some man and how do they support it from the Bible?

texts: As the question's title states, some traditions believe that there must be some man between every woman and God, be it her husband or a priest or whoever. What is the Biblical support for this view, and are there any major Protestant denominations that hold this view?


texts: Any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism?

texts:
Jesus was already thirty years old when He said to St. John the Baptist that it is the Will of the Father that He received baptism thru his anointed hands.

St. John was baptizing Jews before Jesus came in the Jordan River. The Blessed Virgin Mary on the other hand possibly knew what was St.John the Baptist was doing, it seems the bible was silent that Mary ever approaches St.John the Baptist.

Jesus Christ fully God and fully man is willed by God to seek St.John the Baptist. How come the Blessed Virgin Mary who is a creature although Catholicism teaches she does not need to be baptize by virtue of immaculate conception. However, if Jesus who is a God-Man had to seek St. John why would Mary be exempt?

Is there a passages or teachings that Mary receive baptism or a similar ordination, so that like Jesus although not needed but it is still the Will of Father.

St. Peter teaches the importance of baptism as it will make a believer heir in the priestly office of Jesus Christ. And this will make a believer able to perform the priestly role of offering a sacrifice.

  "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1Peter2:9)

And St.Paul teaches that every believer or baptized person as member of the body of Christ the Church can offer their sacrifices united to Christ;

  "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church." (Collosians1:24)

If Mary did not receive baptism or some ordination from St. John the Baptist, it would mean She did not receive an anointing like what happen to Jesus Christ.

In the Old Testament only a priest can offer a sacrifice to God, if Mary did not receive baptism or ordination how can Her offering of fiat or her "body & blood" be acceptable God?

The only close passages is before Mary can utter Her Fiat, She must already receive a baptism or ordination in order for Her Fiat, like the priest in the old testament be acceptable God.

Is there any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism?


texts: What do protestants who believe our old bodies will be resurrected think that will look like?

texts:
Some Protestants believe that in the "resurrection" we will receive new bodies.

Other Protestants believe that in the resurrection, our old bodies will literally rise up out of the ground for us to live in once more. The basis seems to be that Jesus rose from the dead and retained His crucifixion wounds, and then ate fish, as He normally would have before His death. Also, I am told that the word "resurrection" in Greek literally means "to rise up out of the grave." Then there are those who came out of the tombs immediately following the crucifixion. My question is for those Protestants that hold this view.

Basically, what I'm wondering is, what exactly do you believe is being "raised up," and in what condition?

Do 3-year-olds still appear to be 3 years old and 115-year-olds 115 years old?
Do we also retain our wounds? What about an amputee, or a toothless bald person?
What would happen to someone who was blown up in a bomb explosion, or cremated?

To clarify, I am not looking for answers that discredit this view. I am looking for an explanation from the perspective that rather than receiving new bodies, our old bodies are literally raised from the grave.


texts: Do prayers offered to anyone but God the Father go unheard?

texts: What is the opinion of the LDS Church concerning prayers offered to Saints, Mary, and Jesus Christ? Are they simply vain words? Are they in anyway acknowledged? Is it considered unrighteous to pray to anyone but God the Father?


texts: "Actor's idolatry" problem - is it a sin?

texts:
Let's imagine an actor, a good Christian. As a part of his role of some pagan, he prays to Zeus or other ancient deity on stage. He just plays the role and there is no inclination to Zeus behind his words and gestures (he may even pray to the true God in heart while playing the scene), but the words and gestures are the same as used by real pagans many centuries ago.
That's what I call "actor's idolatry" - the action as seen from outside and without knowledge of context seems to be idolatry, but there's no intention to sin.

I know some would say it is idolatry, some not, and it depends on circumstances too. Biblical reasons why this should be seen as a case of idolatry are quite frequent in Old Testament (for example Ex 23:13). But what are reasons from Bible (or tradition) that "actor's idolatry" isn't real idolatry?


texts: How do spiritual fathers of Catholic Church explain a sudden urge to pray?

texts:
I'd like to know how Catholic spiritual masters explain the urge to pray. Is it considered inspired by the Holy Spirit? Should we surrender to that urge?
I was doing some research on that topic, but I didn’t find any reference from a Catholic perspective.


texts: Where can I find sources showing ecclesiastical vestments of the 1200s?

texts:
In 1215 at Runneymeade, barons and clerics gathered to get King John to set his seal to the Barons' Charter. According to Roger of Wendover, among them were the pope's representative, Master (bishop) Pandulph, 2 archbishops, 10 bishops and 20 abbots.

What colours would the different ranks of clerics mentioned have worn at this period?

If anyone could point me to a reliable source on historical vestment colours according to rank, rather than seasonal liturgical use, I'd be most grateful.

ADDITION

I'm grateful for the responses, and have meanwhile followed a hunch on sumptuary law. According to Wikipedia,

  The earliest sumptuary regulations in Christian Europe were church regulations of clergy, distinguishing what ranks could wear which items of vestments or (to a lesser extent) normal clothes on particular occasions; these were already very detailed by 1200, in early recensions of canon law. Next followed regulations, again flowing from the church (by far the largest bureaucracy in Medieval Europe), attempting to enforce the wearing of distinctive clothing or badges so that members of various groups could be readily identified, as branded criminals already could be.[citation needed]

This seems a possible source, but I don't read Latin fluently. I found it via this link.

If anyone can help further, I'd be grateful.


texts: Trying to find information on a crucifix found whilst metal detecting

texts:
I am trying to find the age of a silver cross that I have found on a site that had a benedictine priory on it from 1149 to 1540.

I believe that clues to its age are the use of a two bar Patriarchal Cross with "IHC" on the top bar.

Jesus' head is bowed

No wound mark in the abdomen, although wound marks on the hands and feet.

I would appreciate any advice as to age that you could provide.

Thanks
Kev Johnstone


texts: I understand "knowing Jesus" as understanding Jesus who accepts the Cross, ie reasons why He did it and the suffering He took upon himself. And when I accept Him, I accept that suffering, ie I accept the possibility of the same burden to receive salvation. I can't comprehend letting someone suffer for me. I feel evil accepting His suffering for mine. I don't know if that is wrong since protestants claim I should accept (legally) his sacrifice or I go the hell. That is my core belief. Maybe it's the God complex or my ego. But I really want to understand this. Simply, my intuition prevents me from blindly believing that I have to just accept His sacrifice and be happy that he is suffering for me and not me. How can I stand in front of Him without shame after that?


texts: Why do Protestant Presbyterians no longer use a congregational Psalter?

texts:
Growing up in Protestant Presbyterianism, the two great literature influences in my life were the Authorised Version and the Scottish Psalter.

I have visited many Protestant Presbyterian congregations over the last few years and I have seen not a Psalter among them.

Paul encourages the singing of Psalms to the Corinthians, (I Corinthians 14:26) to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:19) and to the Colossians (Colossians 3:16).

Indeed, to this day, I sing through the 150 Psalms in order on a daily basis, but I now use the Metcalfe trilogy as I find it to be a more accurate rendering of the text.

What is the reason for Protestant Presbyterians no longer using a Psalter ?


texts: What are the foundational texts on biblical interpretation?

texts:
I've recently become interested in learning more about the process through which Christian scholars interpret the Bible. Recognizing that the question about biblical intrepretation and its limits itself is far too long for this forum, what are the foundational or otherwise notable resources on the process of discerning truth in the Bible?

Specifically, anything that talks about:

The degree to which cultural context can override clear statements.
How hidden truths can be differentiated from preferential interpretations.

Would be great!

Edit: Thanks for the feedback on the broadness of the question. I'm actually satisfied with Dick Hardfield's answer as it gives me a great starting point.


texts: Orthodoxy's "ancestral sin" versus Calvinism's "total depravity"

texts:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, one of the major differences between Eastern Orthodox and Protestant theology is "ancestral sin."

Note:

Although Roman Catholicism's definition of original sin and Orthodoxy's view of ancestral sin are very similar, they do have subtly important differences.

These differences stem from the translation of the New Testament Greek text into Latin.

The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race. This is elucidated by St Paul: 'Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned' (Rom.5:12). This text, which formed the Church's basis of her teaching on 'original sin', may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef' ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as 'because all men sinned' (Greek translation), but also 'in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned' (Latin Translation). Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what 'original sin' means.

If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam's sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins. Adam's sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.

However, if we read the text to mean 'in whom all have sinned', this can be understood as the passing on of Adam's sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal.

St. Augustine obviously took the Latin road in interpreting this verse, and consequently developed and elaborated on the nature of original sin. All of the Protestant Reformer's theology concerning the fall of man was rooted in the Augustinian school of thought, and consequently is slightly more similar to Catholicism than Orthodoxy.

What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is how this difference in interpretation reciprocally translates to rebirth in Christ.

The hinge-verse for me is:

  ...As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s
  act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as
  by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s
  obedience many will be made righteous...so that, as sin reigned in
  death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life
  through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom.5:18-21)

Orthodoxy teaches that through birth we inherit Adam's fallen nature, but not his personal guilt. Likewise, in rebirth (baptism) we inherit Christ's redeemed nature.

Calvinism adheres to the doctrine of total depravity, leaning heavily on Augustine's view of original sin. According to this belief, man inherits not only a fallen nature, but Adam's personal guilt as well.

What are the doctrinal consequences of these differences in light of Romans 5:18-21?

This question is intended to specifically focus on how the Orthodox definition of "ancestral" sin differs from the John Calvin's Augustinian (Catholic) view of the fall of man.


texts: What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about evolution?

texts:
From Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe in Creationism? on jw.org:

No. Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that God created everything. But we do not agree with creationism. Why not? Because a number of creationist ideas actually conflict with the Bible. Consider the following two examples:

Length of the six days of creation...the word “day” in the Bible can refer to a considerable length of time...
Age of the earth...Jehovah’s Witnesses have no objection to credible scientific research that indicates the earth may be billions of years old.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible.

Any mention of evolution is absent (which IMO is a bit surprising, considering the FAQ being answered).
Similar to Earth's age, would Jehovah's Witnesses also have no objection to "credible scientific research that indicates" life, including humans, evolved from simpler forms?
Or do they have a different belief?


texts: According to Catholicism, what is meant by the Church being indefectible?

texts: One of the properties of the Church according to Catholicism is indefectibility. What does this mean and where does this doctrine originate?


texts: In which language did Pontius Pilate communicate with Jesus?

texts:
According to this post:

  Both Aramaic and Hebrew were in use in the Land at the time of Jesus. However, while we cannot say one predominated, we can say that Mishnaic Hebrew was very much a living language used by people of all walks of life in Judea and Galilee.

So, maybe we are safe to assume that Jesus spoke these languages.

Yet, Pontius Pilate was a Roman, who would have spoken Latin. Would he have been able to speak Hebrew? And as such, in the Gospels' account of Pilate's encounter with Jesus, did they speak in Hebrew? Is there any evidence, or perhaps tradition on this?


texts: When did the church in the city of Rome first try to impose a tradition on other churches?

texts:
Just wondering in what year the first historical record of the Church in Rome, against the wishes of other churches, that she should impose her tradition on them?

Note: I am simply looked for the first factual recorded date in history. I am not making an inquiry into whether the church in Rome had a right, or not, to do so.


texts: When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Christians?

texts:
Today, many Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the Middle East use Arabic as the language of the Divine Liturgy, often mingled with Greek. When did this practice begin?

I assume that at the time of the Muslim invasions the only liturgical languages in use were Greek and Syriac, and I can't imagine that the Orthodox Christians at that time were too keen on immediately adopting the language of the conquerors. Nonetheless, this clearly happened eventually. How and when did this shift occur?


texts: How do Trinitarians explain the Athanasian Creed saying that the "one God" is the Trinity rather than the Father as in the Nicene Creed?

texts:
In Scripture and the early Creeds, "one God" is used primarily to refer to God the Father:

1 Cor 8:6 (NIV): yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

But the Athanasian Creed differs by using the phrase "one God" to refer to the whole of the godhead or Trinity:

And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; ... The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. They are not three Gods but one God.

What explains this shift from thinking first of the Father as God and then to the Son and Spirit as co-equal with the Father, to describing the Trinity as the first and main way we should understand "one God"?


texts: What are indulgences and when and why were they used?

texts:
I seem to recall that indulgences had something to do with Roman Catholics doing something to receive forgiveness of sins prior to committing the sins.

So, is that what indulgences were?  When did these begin and are they still practiced?  If not, when did they end and why?


texts: According to Trinitarians, if Jesus was saying things that clearly made Him out to be God, why didn't Caiaphas mention it at Jesus' trial?

texts:
Jesus claiming to be God would have been a clear case of blasphemy (unless, of course, he actually was God).
Yet before his trial, according to Matthew 26

"Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrini were seeking false
testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death. 60 But they did
not find any, though many false witnesses came forward."

Given Trinitarians claim there is clear evidence of Jesus claiming to be God (such as 'Before Abraham was, I am' and 'I and the Father are one') and that the statements were made publicly in front of a hostile group of scribes and Pharisees, why couldn't Caiaphas find any witnesses to attest to these statements, and instead had to seek false testimony in order to put Him to death?


texts: What is an overview of early church opposition to authorities?

texts:
What is an overview of early church father expressions of opposition against authorities?  I'm looking for things like:

Protests against state-/government-sponsored injustice
Arguments against the legitimacy of a particular government or ruler
Support for actions that disrupt or circumvent a particular government or ruler

I don't expect to find any calls for violence, of course, given the typical understanding of Romans 13 and similar passages.  Instead, example statements that interest me include:

"The Emperor is a cruel, illegitimate ruler, but we must still obey"
"Blessed are those who hide Christians from their persecutors"
"If you have the opportunity, flee from authorities who seek to capture you"
"Disabling a government chariot may not be sinful" (a la The Sound of Music)

I'm interested in an overview of statements that are contained in the extant writings of fathers from the 2nd century through Augustine.


texts: How do Trinitarians understand Peter's response to Jesus at Matthew 16:16?

texts:
At Matthew 16:15-17, Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, and Peter responds.

"“Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but
by My Father in heaven."

Peter answers by saying Jesus is the Christ and Son of God - not God the Son. For biblical unitarians, this response makes complete sense, because those are the relevant aspects of Jesus' identity for salvation (compare John 20:31).
How do trinitarians understand this response - why was Jesus pleased even though Peter understates Jesus' identity, and why did God the Father not reveal to Peter that Jesus was not just the Christ and Son of God, but also God the Son?


texts: How do classic Trinitarians answer the implications of Revelation 1:1?

texts:
Revelation 1:1 (NIV) reads:

  The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

So this is the image I get: Sometime before an angel sent by Jesus gave John the revelation, Jesus was given the revelation from God. I first wonder when Jesus was given the revelation: before his birth (assuming the validity of the Trinity doctrine), during his life, after his death but before his resurrection, after his resurrection but before his ascension, after his ascension. Then I obviously wonder how Jesus, being God fully, would not know the nature of the things spelled out in Revelation.

So, how do classic Trinitarians answer this question? Why does it appear that Jesus at some time did not know what God knew concerning the little details of the last days?


texts: What specific foods and drinks are forbidden by the LDS (Mormon) Church?

texts:
I understand that members of the LDS (Mormon) Church are prohibited from drinking coffee and perhaps some other drinks and possibly food, much like the Jewish people in the Old Testament were forbidden from eating pork and other foods.

What are the specific drinks that are forbidden by the LDS Church today?  Also, are there any specific foods that are forbidden as well?  What is the basis for these teachings in the Bible and other sources?


texts: Why are the bread and wine mixed together in the Holy Eucharist during an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy?

texts: When and why was the practice of commixture started? What is the theological significance of mixing the two together?


texts: Can I have my marriage blessed in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
I married a Catholic divorcee in a non-Catholic church.

Can I have my marriage blessed in the Catholic Church?


texts:
Colossians 2:16-17, 20-21 says,

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”

The New King James Version. (1982). (Col 2:20–21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
That entire portion of the end of Colossians 2 talks about the danger of legalism and seems to discourage keeping things such as the Sabbath (at least keeping them legalistically).  How do Seventh-Day Adventists and other denominations that keep the Sabbath interpret this passage?


texts: What is the biblical basis for saying that Middle East Region will not have peace?

texts:
I am not sure if am just imagining this, but I can remember hearing from my Sunday School teacher that "the Middle East  will not have peace, according to some Bible verse ... that dooms the region from ever having peace"

Where Middle East in my faint recollection can be any of the major cities or countries in that region.

Especially during the time the Kingdoms of Israel were split.
If such a verse(s) exist please let me know.
Plus an explanation/opinion on the verse would be nice too.

My denominations is Protestant: Pentecostal and attend a new life church. I am looking for a Protestant perspective.


texts: I saw a similar question But the answers wasn't clear to me. Simply how did Cain and Abel have children?


texts:
In pre-search-engine days, I once found a volume in the library that documented the outcomes of many church councils.  At the time, I was particularly interested in the doctrine of the soul, and I seem to recall finding several relevant pronouncements, e.g., one that said that if anyone says that the soul has parts, or is divisible, let him be anathema.

Unfortunately, I do not recall which book it was where I read this, and Googling around has proved frustratingly ineffective.  Does anyone recognize what I'm talking about?  Where can I find a list of official or semi-official documents pertaining to the doctrine of the soul?


texts: Are love and hate in a harmonious balance within God?

texts:
I am referring to this fascinating (and accepted) answer of Jonathon Byrd where he proves by the Bible that God is also the God of hate:

Psalm 5:5 (NKJV)
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.
Psalm 7:11 (NKJV)
God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.
Psalm 11:5 (NKJV)
The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Psalm 15:4 (NKJV)
In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those who fear the LORD; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;

My question:
Is this hate in a harmonious balance with love comparable to Eastern religions, e.g. Taoism with their concept of Yin and Yang? Or how do both interrelate? Could this hate of God even be the explanation for the problem of evil in the world and why God gives Satan free rein?


texts: What is the relation between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church?

texts:
In my neighborhood there has been a Baptist Church for a while. I'm moderately aware of the history of Baptist Church in general.

Very recently a temple of The First Baptist Church has been built. I´m wondering about two things: first, what is the history of the First Baptist Church? Second, what are the main differences between the First Baptist Church and the Baptist Church?


texts: Holy Spirit Presence, Metaphor, Gender; how does gender apply to the Holy Spirit?

texts:
I was reading through this page about the "Gender of the Holy spirit" in Wikipedia.

  "The Holy Spirit was furthermore equated with the (grammatically feminine) Wisdom of God by two early Church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 180) and by Irenaeus (d. 202/3). However, the majority of theologians have, historically, identified Wisdom with Christ the Logos.

  Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century wrote that terms like "Father" and "Son" in reference to the persons of the Trinity are not to be understood as expressing essences or energies of God but are to be understood as metaphors. The same position is still held in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church..

Very interestingly, I was reading Edward Byles Cowell's translation of the Maitri Upanishad published first in 1870 (pg. 259) as to what Oriental religions consider as Holy Spirit.  The sacred sound OM, is also masculine, feminine and of Gender neuter form.

To reduce clarity even more, when I was watching "Who is the Holy Spirit?" by Sinclair Ferguson episodes in Prime Video, "The Holy Spirit" was referred to as a man! He was referring to the following
Psalm 139:7,9 -10, and Psalm 104:29-30...unveiling the face of God, and also Ezekiel 39:329 where the pouring out of Holy spirit and Psalm 51. I think they are from Old testament

Be that as it may, I would like to find out what main stream Christians "believe" today?  Is the Holy Spirit Presence real, a Person, Ghost/Spirit or is the Spirit poured out like Wine?


texts:
Acts 2:34 NKJV:

  “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘ The
  LORD said to my Lord,“ Sit at My right

Why didn't David ascend to heaven? Is this past tense? Is David in heaven now, or has he just never ascended into heaven all at?


texts: Identifying General and Universal Magisterium

texts:
So, this is a question I have been struggling with for a while now. I understand easily enough the concept of Extraordinary Magisterium, that exercised by the Church through the Council of Bishops together with the Pope, or the Pope just by himself, producing infallible statements. Identifying instances of this is of course easy.

There is also General, or Universal, Magisterium, which is the non-ceremonial, produced in a general context, infallible authority of the Church. The problem here is, I have not been able to research any credible means of identifying which statements are given under such authority, and which are simply the opinions of priests, Bishops, etc.

Both as an educated and practicing Catholic, this is a serious matter to attend to: it is too easy to abuse what the Church teaches utilizing this (currently to me) nebulous concept. The best resource I have found is this article, but besides its complexity, it still does not adequately answer the question of identifying general infallible Magisterium.

So what do you guys think? Do any of you have insight into this issue? All answers will be appreciated.


texts: What is the reason for the absence of the Cross as a symbol in the LDS Church?

texts:
As I was looking at some references for this question dealing with the usage of the inverted pentagram in the LDS Church and particularly on the Temple in Salt Lack City, I came across an article that indicated that in the LDS Church (and its Temples) the symbol of the Cross is completely absent.

The Cross has been a prominent symbol in Christianity for much of its history.  So, my question is this:

For what reason is the usage of the Cross as a symbol excluded by the LDS church?


texts: How many Gods are in John 1-2 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning." ?


texts: "Let this cup pass from me" - What is the cup?

texts:
Matthew 26:39 (KJV)
  And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

What did Christ mean by "the cup"? Was it

Death on the cross
The intense suffering He endured
God's wrath
His taking the sins of the world upon Himself
All of these, the whole process
Something else?


texts: How sound is the doctrine in Dante's Inferno?

texts:
I have read Dante's Inferno and was wondering how Theologically sound some of the points-of-view really are?
Now I know Dante's Inferno was not written by a priest or anyone really involved in any sort of real church. So it could be that it was never really meant to be considered as anything but a flight-of-fancy,but still the religious imagery is so vivid and profound that I cannot seem to shake the idea that these where the cherished beliefs of the writer.
What shook me is the idea that the well-meaning pagan would go to hell. This struck me as an odd belief when the Bible mentions that those who don't have the law are still governed by it, their conscience bearing witness.
This seems to me to be at odds with what the Bible teaches. I guess Dante did not believe in the salvation of infants either.
The second issue that struck me is how bad the sin of suicide is considered in this book.  Now we know suicide is often a result of very real mental disease.
The idea that these people would be denied entry into heaven as a matter of principle over a disease they may not have any control over, does not strike me as the actions of an all-good and loving God.
Now again this work may very well not be endorsed by any church, but still the theological implications may be worth discussing as there exist the real chance that some may people reading may consider it doctrine.


texts: When did satan (SH7835) obtain the second meaning of superhuman adversary?

texts:
For Strong's Hebrew number 7854 (Satan) the Brown-Driver-Briggs' notes give these meanings:

(1) adversary, one who withstands
(1a) adversary (in general — personal or national)
(2) superhuman adversary
(2a) Satan (as noun proper)

And Strong gives us:

From H7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan,
the arch enemy of good: - adversary, Satan, withstand.

Whereas SH7834 has:

A primitive root; to attack, (figuratively) accuse: - (be an)
adversary, resist.

The first meaning of SH7835 seems to agree with the root form. The second sticks out as quite a bit different.
Can anyone explain where this second meaning (superhuman adversary & proper noun) comes from (ideally with sources I can go and look at) and from what point in time this second meaning might have been contemporarily understood?


texts: Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John write anything other than the Gospels?

texts:
Currently I'm studying Youth Ministry and have a New Testament class that has been challenging. One of the tips for understanding an author better is to read everything they've written.

Have these four written anything else that we know of other than the Gospels? Or were they only inspired to write the Gospels?


texts: How have US Christian churches handled discrimination and segregation in the past?

texts: How did Christian Churches deal with segregation laws in the United States and are there any Bible passages that deals with discrimination and segregation? What were typical responses from Churches that were within that sub-culture? Were there Churches on both sides of the issue?


texts: How do Biblical Unitarians interpret 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 with regard to God and the Spirit of God?

texts:
1 Corinthians 2:10-14 (ESV):

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

I've tried to look at this passage with a Biblical Unitarian lens but I'm having a hard time trying to make sense of it. I already asked a related question about how Biblical Unitarians deal in general with passages that give the impression that God and the Holy Spirit are different entities, but here I want to dig deeper into this particular passage that I find problematic.
If I understand correctly, Biblical Unitarians would apply the "God's nature" interpretation of the Holy Spirit to 1 Cor 2:10-14, which according to this source indicates a supernatural gift that God gives to His servants to empower them. However, I find issues with this view. First of all, I don't understand what they mean by "gift of God's nature". Do they mean like some sort of "unconscious spiritual substance" that empowers people somehow? Then how come that this unconscious substance searches everything, even the depths of God (verse 10) and comprehends the thoughts of God (verse 11)? Furthermore, verse 11 gives the impression that the Spirit of God is an intrinsic part of God, just like the spirit of a person is an intrinsic part of a person. In other words, the Spirit of God is a single Spirit that knows everything about God and is an intimate part of Him, not multiple unconscious fragmented parts of "God's nature" distributed among different individuals.
That said, I'm afraid that I'm probably misinterpreting the Biblical Unitarian view (or misinterpreting the passage, or both), so I would rather appreciate it if adherents of this doctrinal position would shed some light on how they make sense of this passage.


texts:
My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died in order that his death might effect atonement for their sins.

Over the years, there's been a lot of assigning blame for his death. Why has there been such focus on the bad[1] intent of the killers, considering that the end result was completely good[1]?

[1] in Christian belief


texts: How are the soul and the body related to each other according to the RCC?

texts: Humans have a mind (or soul) and body, but they are not separately divided substances (as Descartes would suggest). So one could say we have a soul and body. But according to the Roman Catholic Church, how are they constructed/connected philosophically together to get one person. Is it allowed to say that the soul is in the body?


texts: What is the biblical basis for lifetime 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 life?

This is a follow on to my question about term eldership.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

texts:
The Catholic Church, possibly the Orthodox Churches, and even some Protestant churches practice Infant Baptism.  However, I understand that Catholicism teaches that infant baptism cleanses the infant from original sin, but I am unaware of where this doctrine draws its biblical foundation.  So, that is my question:

What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?


texts: Are there any active Christian ministries that preach from the Jefferson Bible?

texts: I've recently read the Jefferson Bible and I am actively considering making it my primary Bible.  Are there any current ministries that use this bible, and/or are there any active ministries that use this as their primary bible?


texts: How do Protestants answer the Catholic accusation of historicity?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church has a claim of apostolic succession, from St. Peter transited by the laying on of hands.
Most Protestants reject this understanding of apostolic succession, and instead teach that apostolic succession simply means where "the Word and the Sacraments are purely administered and taught."
However, the Catholic accusation of historicity still stands.
So how do Protestants explain/justify the fact that their understanding of Christianity only started in the XVI century? Was the whole Church corrupt or in error till then? If not, how come, since there was only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches (+ others but not Protestants)?


texts:
So, my dad is a baptized Catholic, but was raised Presbyterian. When he was in his twenties he married a woman in the Catholic Church who left him within a year (and got married to his best man... sad but true). There has never been effort to annul this union (it is moot now, she is dead).

Several years later he met an married my mom (another relationship which did not last). According to the Catholic Church this can't be a valid marriage because my dad's first wife was still alive. I was told that I was considered legitimate by the Church but shouldn't I be considered illegitimate?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that the Bible cannot be understood without aid from God?

texts:
I have heard this claim often in discussions and also read it several times on this site:

  The Bible cannot be properly understood without God's help.

Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

Thank you


texts: How is the command to "Take it to the Church" interpreted in light of Protestant Ecclesiology?

texts:
Matthew 18:15-18 (DRB) But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

According to the understanding of ecclesiology among those Protestants who don't admit of any kind of 'Magisterium' with excommunicatory power or authority over a persons's belonging in the Body, how does 'two or three witnesses' from the church in fact differ from 'the church?'


texts: When did Mary and Joseph learn that they were never supposed to have marital relations, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

texts:
Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even after marrying Joseph.  It would seem that Joseph and Mary, at their betrothal, had likely expected to have, and anticipated having marital relations with each other in marriage.

So, according to Roman Catholic teaching, when and how did Mary and Joseph learn that marital relations would be denied them?  Did they just never desire that, or did they specifically have to battle the temptation?  It admittedly seems strange to me that this would be withheld from them.

Is it even right to say they were not supposed to have marital relations?  Or should it be said that they never even desired that?


texts: If God is going to fix our "nature" why didn't He do it from the beginning?

texts:
I've never been one to read a book without peeking at the end early so I sort of peeked at Revelations and this caught my eye:

  Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell
  with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them
  and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will
  be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of
  things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am
  making everything new!' (Revelation 21:3-5)

So, my question is this: If the old order of things is going to pass and God is going to make everything new (Human Nature?), then why didn't he do this from the beginning? If he wasn't talking about human nature, then what is to stop us from rebelling against him as Adam and Eve did?

I realize no one can know God's thoughts, but is there anything in the Bible that gives us insight? As always, thanks for taking the time to respond, it's appreciated!


texts: Does the Catholic Church believe prostitution should be legalized?

texts:
Aquinas and Augustine seem to put prostitution in the same category as fornication or pre-marital sex:

  the state should allow fornication and prostitution to exist for the
  sake of the common good. Relying on the well-known passage from
  Augustine's De ordine, Aquinas advocates tolerance of prostitution by
  noting: "Accordingly in human government also, those who are in
  authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost,
  or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: If
  you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.'"51
  If these social practices were to be suppressed, the public reaction
  might be such as to threaten the peace of society. (Aquinas on the
  Practice of Prostitution, by Vincent M. Dever)

I think this may extend to pornography.

Does the Catholic Church believe that states should permit prostitution or pornography?

I suspect this may not be the case as either may become a harmful industry in the way some drugs are.

If yes, what does the Church consider the responsibilities of the state in such matters (eg sex education or something)?

If no, to what extent does the Church expect states to handle prostitution or pornography?


texts: Aside from St. Vincent Ferrer, are there any other saints said to have had the "gift of tongues"?

texts:
What I am not asking about: Glossolalia, as practiced by Charismatics in the modern day.

What I am asking about: St. Vincent Ferrer was born in Spain and travelled as far north as Germany and Scotland, preaching wherever he went. He was understood wherever he went, in spite of never having learned anything but his native Valencian.

Eastern sources have likewise refuted the Charismatic claim that glossolalia is the miraculous gift of tongues by  pointing out that they have always had saints who spoke in languages they hadn't learned, in addition to performing other, less controversial miracles.

My question: Who are these saints, either Western or Eastern?


texts: What does "saving grace" mean in Christianity?

texts: I am not talking about "salvation" or "grace". I am talking about "saving grace". I tried looking up on Google, and the Free Dictionary explained that in Christian theology, it meant a state of being sanctified. I looked at sanctification, and I got "made holy". Okay. So, it means something along the lines of being made holy or righteous with God or following God. Basically, what do American Christians mean when they use the term? A related question: how would people attain saving grace? What is the origin or etymology of this term, "saving grace"? These questions are closely related to each other. First, I would like to see an introduction to the etymology of this term. Second, I would like to see how this term is used in modern-day America. Third, I would like to see how this term plays a role in theology, or in other words, how people put this concept into practice.


texts: At Genesis 17;1-2 God Almighty appears to Abraham and says He will multiply him exceedingly. How did God appear, in a dream, vision or physically?

texts: Perhaps someone knows of another way of God appearing to Abraham and that's fine. Whatever answer you give please back it up by Scripture. I will do the same by answering my own question.


texts: Why is the Roman Catholic infant baptism called "christening"?

texts:
In popular culture, particularly in stories and fairy tales, infants are christened. The story of Sleeping Beauty begins with the christening of the princess, and at her christening ceremony, there are the three fairies that bestow the princess blessings or gifts.

In the English language, the verb to christen is (1) to baptize an infant or (2) name someone or something.

How did naming connotation arise? What really occurs during the christening ceremony in the Roman Catholic Church? Are babies christened or named by the priests in the sense that the priests assign a fitting Christian name for the child? Is the naming connotation only a European Catholic thing?


texts: Does the Bible say when the day of the Lord (as described in 2 Peter 3:10) will occur, and does it go into more detail about this particular event?

texts:
I have been reading about the Bible and saw this passage:

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
  night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the
  elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works
  that are in it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

But I cannot find when this is supposed to happen. I am assuming that this is referring to some kind of a war. Does the Bible say when this event will occur, or even hint at a period of time when it may occur?

But something tells me that this may not be about war, or at least not about any of our own wars. "But the day of the Lord..." - that makes me think that this is referring to something like Judgement day?


texts: Why was the Angel Michael fighting the Devil for Moses' body?

texts:
I get this from the book of Jude. I know the meaning of the chapter as a whole it's just that this verse stuck out. Does anyone have a clue on this event? Here is the verse for reference.

  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. [Jde 1:9 KJV]


texts: What questions raised by ancient Greek philosophy were answered by Christianity?

texts:
I have heard several Christian philosophers (Robert Koons, Dallas Willard, for example) say that Christianity emphatically answered a lot of questions posed by ancient Greek philosophy. For example, there is the case of the Logos, which according to Greek philosophy was that hypothetical principle which if honored would allow you to fulfill your true purpose. Christianity says that the Logos exists but is not a principle, but a person.

What other questions of the ancient Greeks were answered by Christianity?


texts:
There is a very good-hearted aunt, she is a Chinese and also a Christian, who is constantly persuading me to start following Feng-Shui (a Chinese system of geomancy). The time has come for my family to buy a new house - now she is trying to persuade me to follow this system of Feng-Shui even more in order to choose the most "fortunate" house. She even stared visiting some specialists of Feng-Shui (which to me are really not a far cry from fortune tellers) who consult her (of course not free of charge) on the matter as to where I should buy this new house.

The other day she really got me and I had a conflict with her. I told her, "Are you really a Christian? Don't you know that this is in fact a kind of abomination before the Lord?"

She confronted me with her kind of logical argument: "This system has already helped a lot of people. If it's good why should we not make use of something which is good? Don't you make use of visiting your dentist every half a year? Don't you make use of doing physical exercises every morning? So why not make use of something good here? And how can you be sure that this system is not from  God either? How can you be sure that this system is not allowed by God to exist and help humans?"

Today she even came up with some examples from the New Testament. First she cited the fact that the Apostles in the book of Acts used a technique in choosing Matthias which is very similar to that used in Feng-Shui (in fact it's a kind of divining using some objects like coins, turtle shells, etc.) She also  said that those magi that came to see baby Jesus were following the star, which is also very similar to Feng-Shui. She even said that since I exercise every morning, while Paul said that physical exercises is not so useful (1 Tim 1:8), which means that I am not really faithful toward the Bible in this regard, why not try something that proved to be good long before even the NT was written?

She kind of surprised me with these argument. I think some of those Feng-Shui experts gave her them, because I know that she hasn't yet completed reading the New Testament.

So, what places from the NT can I quote to her?


texts: Do exorcisms need to be performed in a particular language?

texts: In Catholicism, does an exorcism need to be performed in a certain language, such as Latin? Or can it be performed in a language of the priest’s choice? Does it need to be one that the demon-possessed person understands?


texts:
I don't understand quite well Galatians 6:17.  What are Jesus marks on Paul's body?   Does he want to talk about his strips after being beaten up for the gospel or spiritual marks?  Do we believers also bear the same marks and what are they exactly?

  From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. (Galatians 6:17)


texts: What is the Catholic Church's position on the relationship between science and religion?

texts:
Hugh Ross in his book Navigating Genesis states that the "non-overlapping magesteria" model for the relationship between science and religion (of whom Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent) is endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church.

He refers to Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis (1950) as evidence.

Is the Catholic position indeed a separatist model?
What is the current Catholic understanding of the relationship between science and religion?

References to the Catechism of the Catholic church would be of valuable import, as well as any other official documents.


texts: Verse on evangelizing those in the Church first?

texts: What New Testament verse (I think it was St. Paul) says that we must first evangelize those who are already in the Church first before making converts of others outside the Church?


texts: Why were some words omitted in Luke 18: 24 in Catholic editions of NT?

texts:
We see different kinds of presentation of Luke 18: 23-24 concerning the rich man wanting to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For instance we read ....

"  But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich.  Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (NRSVCE)

"  When he heard this he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich. When Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" ( Modern English Version)

I wish to know what the content of Verse 24  available in the original was, and why the words 'when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful' were omitted in the NRSVCE .


texts: What is the Jehovah's Witnesses response to mixed marriage with a Christian of another denomination?

texts: What are the consequences in the Jehovah's Witnesses church, when a member marries a non-JW Christian?


texts: Can someone explain the argument that Jesus believed in Adam and Eve?

texts:
It has been said that Matthew 19:4-6 indicates Jesus believed in an original Adam and Eve. I don't reach this conclusion at all. Can somebody help explain why people read it this way?

Matthew 19:4-6

  Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."


texts: What is the origin and meaning of this symbol?

texts:
The symbol in the attached photo is on the side of a 1940s motorcycle purchased from a police vehicle auction. The symbol in question is mounted on the frame near the rear axle. Can anyone shed light on what this symbol may mean?

This was originally a Harley Davidson police motorcycle. The symbol was on the motorcycle when purchased at an auction of used police vehicles. I am not sure it is Christian, but I see a cross with a shield behind it and a banner hanging below the shield. I am guessing it is a symbol used by a fraternal Christian org, maybe a policeman's org. I have added an enlarges image.


texts: What guidelines or rules should be used when interpreting the Bible?

texts: It seems that a lot of misunderstanding of the Bible comes from scripture being taken out of context. What are some other rules or guidelines for taking a literal  or first interpretation (like 'Jesus wept'), or figurative or second interpretation (like most of Revelations)?


texts: What are the differences between demoninations regarding baptism/confirmation?

texts:
Specifically, which churches practice child-baptism but not confirmation?

A Brazilian friend recently shocked me by saying that her church does not practice confirmations. The wiki page for Baptism has an extensive comparison of baptism rites, however it does not go into detail about confirmation.

As I understand it the following is standard in the major denominations. Perhaps it would be useful to explain the differences relative to this.

  Baptism is an induction into the Christian faith which necessarily
  involves a public declaration of faith and
  wetting/immersion/submersion with water. If the baptism is performed
  before the person has 'come of age' (usually coincides with puberty
  and reaching the age of 13 years), then the parents and godparents
  make the declaration on behalf of the child.

  Once a baptised child has 'come of age' (as described earlier) they
  may choose to undergo confirmation, which is a public declaration of
  faith and does not necessarily involve water.

  A person can only take part in communion if they have undergone an
  adult baptism or confirmation.


texts: Why are the other names of God not used in Christianity?

texts:
The Bible has lots of names and titles for God: the Tetragrammaton ("YHWH"), Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Yah, Adonai, HaShem, Adoshem, YHWH Tzevaot, as well as Adonai, Baali, El, Elah, Eloah, Elohim, El Roi, El Shaddai, Elyon, The Eternal One, Shalom, Shekhinah, HaMakom.

But it seems to me that orthodox Christians only call him God, and when they read the Bible pronounce Lord, LORD, and lord the same even though they're distinct in Hebrew.

So why aren't the other terms used in Christianity?

I understand that some people perceive the names as titles and not names, however that's not how they were understood in Judaism.  Also, I don't believe this is a hermeneutics excursion as it's more of a "why did Christianity do that?" instead of "how is this translated / transliterated?"


texts: Nature of salvation in the Old Testament

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Who saved people before ~33AD?

(This question I address to those Christians who believe that salvation once acquired cannot be lost. I am specifically after the answer to the following question from that perspective)

I have always thought of salvation in the New Testament as of having the eternal life. In the New Testament we are told by John that we can get this eternal life by means of believing into the Only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
  life. (John 3:16)

  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the
  Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye
  may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1st John 5:13)

However, when I am trying to look at the nature of the concept of salvation in the Old Testament, I get a bit confused about the concept of salvation that had place at those times.

First of all, the Old Testament people, of course, didn't have any knowledge of the existence of the Only-begotten Son of God and almost all of them died before this knowledge of Him was given to the human kind. However, it seems that some of them still were saved even though they died before Jesus' first coming:

  There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see
  Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of
  God (Luke 13:28)

From this verse we can say that at least Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets were saved even before Christ's crucifixion (I take it as an axiom that anyone who has the right to be in the kingdom of God is a saved person).

Now the question is at what point of their life were they acquiring that salvation? It seems that in the New Testament this point of time in people's lives is kind of more spelled out - the moment when people turn to Christ in their hearts while hearing the Gospel and pray to Him for the first time, but what about the Old Testament? At what moment of their life it was clear that they were also among those who would enter in the future into the kingdom of God (which means they were also among those who are saved)?


texts: Do Calvinists Disbelieve the Doctrine of Eternal Generation as a 'Begetting'?

texts:
I read this on a Calvinist website (emphasis mine):

  Monogenes – This fallacy has existed for years and caused much confusion and damage. It is thought by many to be derived from monos (only) and gennao (to beget), hence “only-begotten”, however this is untrue. The word is found in John 1:14, 18: 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; and 1 John 4:9. The KJV is famous for using the wording “only begotten”, though it did not originate there. This mis-translation of the Greek word has existed for centuries, and can be found even in some of the best early church creeds, such as the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed. The best translation would probably be something like unique, special, well-beloved son, as the two Greek words which it is comprised of properly suggest: monos (only) and genos (type, class).

Do Calvinists reject that the Son was eternally "begotten of the Father before all ages" (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων)? Or is this just an argument about the meaning of the word μονογενής as a standalone adjective?

Thanks in advance.


texts:
Acts 13:9 (NIV) Then Saul, who was also called Paul, .....

This verse does not explain much how Saul became Paul. Who changed his name? Why was it changed?


texts: What would be the best version of the bible for me?

texts:
I came across this forum while doing a little bit of research. I just want to say first I do not consider myself Christian. I was raised Christian but always felt it forced on me. I have not been to a church service for 10 years and have no interest in going right now.

That being said, I want to get a bible and read it so I can make an informed decision on what I should believe.

I am looking At purchasing a bible but don’t know what version would be best for me. I want a version that is easy to read but at the same time not an interpretation and as close to a original translation as possible.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Side note: I went to a Lutheran church for the majority of my childhood. My mother still goes to the same church. My dad is a Christian but goes to a different denomination of church. I don’t know what kind.


texts: What is the difference between the doctrines of "Perseverance of the Saints" and "Eternal Security?"

texts: The terms "Perseverance of the Saints," "Eternal Security," and the phrase "once saved, always saved" are a bit fuzzy in my head.  I understand the general concept behind them, but what are the differences between these various views or doctrines?


texts: What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law but did not abolish it?

texts:
We hear that we are no longer under the law.  It even says so in Galatians:

  Galatians 3:23-25
  Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

It seems 1 Corinthians 10:23 also supports this.

But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law:

  Matthew 5:17-18
  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he did abolish the law.


texts: How do the merits of the Saints in Heaven operate?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that saints in Heaven can no longer merit.

So I was wondering if their merits run out at some point and how that works out for them. Related to this question, I want to know if the saints in Heaven are elevated to higher levels of intercession(power and frequency) based on how often or how fervently they are invoked to help the saints on Earth, this would be some kind of alternative to the system of merits when their merits would theoretically run out if they do.


texts: Who might replace Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury?

texts:
With the recent announcement that the archbishop of Canterbury will resign, there is bound to at least be a presumed set of replacements, each with a particular vision of the future.

At the most basic level, it would be nice to know who is eligible (Is the Queens list restricted to the English?) and what the procedure for appointing a replacement is.

An amazing answer would call out a few likely candidates and what a future Anglican Communion would look like as a result?


texts: Veracity of Carte Blanche in The Three Muskateers

texts:
In the book The Three Muskateers a character is given a note from the Cardinal Duke saying that

  By My word and for the good of the state, The bearer has done what has been done.

Was the Cardinal who did exist able to do this as the Highest religious official in the country, or as a person in great power during a time of war?

Or is this just a total fabrication of Dumas, with respect to princes secular or religious?

If not, this doesn't also qualify as absolution does it?


texts: Hippolytus’ difference between hearing the Word and hearing the Gospel?

texts:
In Apostolic Traditions, Hippolytus (starting at section 15 through section 20 (it is too much to copy and paste)) lines out the qualifications that a catechumen must meet for acceptance as such and a 3 year period that accepted catechumens must undergo prior to being baptized.

Accepted catechumens will hear the word for 3 years so long as they faithfully retain accepted catechumen behavior.

  Catechumens will hear the word for three years. Yet if someone is
  earnest and perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is
  judged, but the conduct.

Having successfully completed the catechism and been presented as baptism candidates they are allowed to hear the Gospel.

  When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be
  examined, whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether
  they honored the widows, whether they visited the sick, and whether
  they have done every good work. If those who bring them forward bear
  witness for them that they have done so, then let them hear the
  Gospel.

Paul seems to have presented the Gospel to Corinth as of primary importance.

Hippolytus relates catechumens in 3rd Century Rome being required to "live right' and then, if it was proved that they have for three years, they could then hear the Gospel.

My question is: Why would the methodology of presenting the Gospel have changed  from Paul's 'presenting it as of primary importance' (see also Phillip and the Eunuch) to that of 'prove you are worthy for 3 years' and then you can hear it?

(A related question is: How could a 3 year instruction in the word be such that the Gospel is not yet heard?  I understand this is probably unanswerable but I can't avoid it.  Say the word and I will edit this out.)


texts: How do Christians who reject pre-fall death reconcile their views with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (66 million years ago)?

texts:
Many Christians believe that creation was cursed because of Adam & Eve's fall into sin, and that death entered creation because of the fall but not before. In other words, the idea of pre-fall death is rejected. I personally believe that this is a very reasonable position to hold from a Scriptural standpoint and that compelling Scriptural arguments can be made in its favor. However, matters get complicated when secular scientific theories are brought into the picture. In particular, a mass extinction event known as the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (which is commonly believed to be the responsible for the mass extinction of dinosaurs about 66 million years ago) might become a non-trivial complication for the "no pre-fall death" view. Below a few quotes from the Wikipedia article:

The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event[a] (also known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) extinction)[b] was a sudden mass extinction of three-quarters of the plant and animal species on Earth, approximately 66 million years ago. With the exception of some ectothermic species such as the sea turtles and crocodilians, no tetrapods weighing more than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) survived. It marked the end of the Cretaceous period, and with it the end of the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era that continues today.

As originally proposed in 1980 by a team of scientists led by Luis Alvarez and his son Walter, it is now generally thought that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the impact of a massive comet or asteroid 10 to 15 km (6 to 9 mi) wide, 66 million years ago, which devastated the global environment, mainly through a lingering impact winter which halted photosynthesis in plants and plankton. The impact hypothesis, also known as the Alvarez hypothesis, was bolstered by the discovery of the 180 km (112 mi) Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula in the early 1990s, which provided conclusive evidence that the K–Pg boundary clay represented debris from an asteroid impact.The fact that the extinctions occurred simultaneously provides strong evidence that they were caused by the asteroid.

A wide range of species perished in the K–Pg extinction, the best-known being the non-avian dinosaurs. It also destroyed myriad other terrestrial organisms, including some mammals, birds, lizards, insects, plants, and all the pterosaurs.

If we assume that 1) those who reject pre-fall death are right and 2) the scientists advancing the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event are also right, then it would logically follow that Adam and Eve had to have existed millions of years ago prior to the extinction of dinosaurs -- an idea that I would find hard to reconcile with the genealogies connecting Adam to Jesus in the Bible.
Question: How do Christians who reject pre-fall death reconcile their views with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that is believed to have caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs and other species about 66 million years ago, according to scientific sources?


texts:
I have stumbled on this essay (The Genesis Gap) on the site ichthys from which I am quoting a passage:

  ....5. The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be
  mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for
  placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap
  (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of
  the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no
  other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels
  sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's
  restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan
  follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant
  time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic
  kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

  III. Creation and Re-Creation:  Before all else, God created the
  heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

  Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the
  earth.

The author , who seems extremely competent and well-informed, holds up the idea that  there have been 2 separate creation of the world, the original one of Eden, followed by the revolt of the angel(s) which caused the revolt of man , and a second, the actual earth and universe, after the first had been destroyed

  .....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis
  1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative
  construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time from
  the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side
  of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it
  existed before God re-created the earth:

  But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the
  face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its
  waters. Genesis 1:2

  Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into
  darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to
  make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical
  bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's
  pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study),
  a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the
  account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the
  heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven
  days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God
  accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed
  to make life supportable for this His second category of creature
  possessing free will:

  The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

the essay consists of four extended articles which make an easy and interesting reading. I have never heard of this hypothesis, and ask you expert to give an assessment of the reliability of the quotations but most of all ond the validity of the theory.

It makes a lot of sense, and surely solves a lot of problems arising from the usual interpretation of the Bible description, in which the presence of satan in the garden is inexplicable, unjustifiable, unbelievably illogical and totally absurd.

But the main problem is that a second re-creation is absolutely necessary because it is literally impossible that this material world with decaying matter and inert mass etc, can possibly have been the location of Eden.
Has this idea ever gained currency? what are its weak points ?


texts: Does Eucharistic Adoration fulfill the Obligation of Penance required of all Catholics on Fridays throughout the year?

texts:
While giving a presentation on the Blessed Sacrament, I was informed that Eucharistic Adoration does not fulfill our requirement to do penance on Fridays during the year.

After a brief disagreement with the objection to my insistence that it did fulfill the requirement. I humbled myself and let the person objection stand.

Determined to find the answer, I can find no indication that Eucharistic Adoration cannot be a form of Penance satisfying the Catholics obligation to unite themselves to Christ Passion.

The Penance that a Catholic should perform on Fridays can come in many forms, including Prayer, Attending mass and acts of Piety.

It is my opinion that Eucharistic adoration is an act fo Piety.

I am looking for a source that indicates that Eucharistic Adoration satisfies the Friday obligation to do Penance.  Knowing full well that the preferred method is fasting, especially with abstinence from Meat.

This question I believe would be for Catholics under the authority of Catholic Bishops, and may not be uniform outside the USA.


texts: Which regional rules of lent fasting or holy days of obligation should a Catholic follow?

texts:
If I'm Catholic Argentinian by birth and citizenship and reside in Argentina, then the only thing to check is if I'm Eastern Catholic or Roman Catholic.
If I'm

Roman Catholic,

French in nationality and citizenship by birth,

but I recently renounced my French citizenship temporarily

to apply to some other citizenship say of Country X

and have yet to reapply for French citizenship because I don't yet have time

but I intend to reapply for French citizenship

and I reside in Germany, then

Which set of holy days of obligation will I follow? (France, Germany, Country X, a certain intersection, a certain union)
Which lent fasting rules will I follow? (France, Germany, Country X, a certain intersection, a certain union)
How do the answers above change if I reacquire my French citizenship?

Of course I'm not asking specifically about France, Germany and Roman Catholicism (This question extends to Eastern Catholicism and whatever is full communion with Roman Catholicism). I'm asking in general:

Which diocese/region/country/whatever do Catholics (I'm asking for roman catholicism, but you can answer eastern or other full communion's if you want) fall under for purposes of holy days of obligation or lent, do when they have dual or renounced citizenships or when they reside in a country that is not of their citizenship?

Related:
Are Filipino Roman Catholics required to not have meat on all Fridays of Lent?
Google calendar for catholic holdiays/holy days of obligation?


texts: In which writings does Tertullian apply the concept of satisfaction to salvation?

texts:
Everett Ferguson, in Church History, I.21.IV, cites Tertullian (d. ~240) as a proto-satisfaction theory of atonement thinker:

  The sacrificial or satisfaction theory had an initial statement by Tertullian, but found its classic formulation in Anselm.

Where in Tertullian's writings does he make this "initial statement"?  Which of his writings indicate an early form of satisfaction theory, as opposed to other theories of atonement?


texts: If Jesus was born at a certain date in history, do trinitarian Christians believe that the Trinity did not exist before that date? Alternatively, is some sort of incorporeal Jesus believed to have been in existence despite not yet having been born?


texts: Is Matthew 28 saying something about Baptism?

texts:
On our sister site I asked a question about what the correct grammatical interpretation of Matthew 28:19 is with relation to baptism.

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

My question here is, is the Great Commission trying to make a doctrinal point about baptism? On Biblical Hermeneutics I asked if baptizing really came after "making disciples" in the Greek. Turns out it does, but it's not really supposed to be read as subsequent.

Is there anything being said about baptism, particularly infant baptism? Does the Great Commission support Believer's Baptism since "making disciples" comes first?

What are the doctrinal implications here, if any?


texts:
We read at 1 Kings 11:1-13 how King Solomon fell into disgrace and was punished by the Lord :

King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh.....and his wives turned away his heart.   For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.  .... So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not completely follow the Lord, as his father David had done. ...
Then the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this matter, that he should not follow other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of your father David I will not do it in your lifetime; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. I will not, however, tear away the entire kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.

We see God giving an earthly punishment to Solomon for his infidelity. Verses 41-43 which narrate his death do not say whether he died repentant, or not. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, did King Solomon find grace with God after his death?


texts: When was the first occurrence of Jesus being used as a name?

texts: I would suspect that Jesus himself was the first to have the name "Jesus", but was there anyone before him with the same name? In other words, was the name completely unique when the Angel Gabriel told Mary to name her son "Jesus" or had the name been bestowed to someone else before? Today, the name is not rare (especially in some cultures), but was it so back then also?


texts: Whose morals are being referenced by NT authors in the expression "sexual immorality"?

texts:
When the expression "Sexual Immorality" appears in bible translations (Namely, when Paul uses that word/phrase 1 Corinthians) — to whose morals is it referring?

The morals of the body of the church (or community)?
The morals of the society (Your nations/generation's beliefs)?
Your own personal morals?

What is the actual word in Greek that is being translated? What is an in depth definition of that word?


texts: Who were the "scribes" whom Jesus often disputes against in the canonical gospels?

texts:
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at
  his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and
  not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:28-29 ESV)

There are numerous references to the scribes in the gospels and they are usually unsympathetic portrayals. Nonetheless, Jesus appears to have a very high view of what is now called the Old Testament scriptures. Presumably, these documents would be copied and maintained by scribes. Who are these scribes in question? Are they the same people who maintained the Old Testament, and if so why would they be unsympathetic characters?

If scope of the question should need to be narrowed, this is in reference to the historical identity of this group whom the canonical author places in disputation with Jesus from those who are involved in academic religious history.


texts: I have heard many arguments and debates on the authenticity of bible. But everyone involved was just putting forward his or her own opinions/suggestions. I would like to know a little more about this topic. Could anyone provide me with valid historical, doctrinal... evidences on the same (Bible as a stack of say, 66 books)?


texts: What Scriptures did Arius use to support teaching that Jesus was created?

texts:
Arius probably quoted the following:

Revelation 3:14: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.
Psalm 8:5–6: thou madest Him
Proverbs 8:22–25: the LORD possessed [H7069 strongs, get, acquire, create] me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old... when there were no depths I was brought forth.

What other scriptures did Arius use to support his teaching that Jesus was created?


texts: Are gluten free diets in violation of the word of wisdom?

texts:
Aside from celiacs and others with medical disorders which prevent them from eating certain grains, is there an official LDS church stance in relation to people who optionally choose to live a gluten free lifestyle, based on these verses in the word of wisdom:

  14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, [...]

  16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—

  17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain. (D&C 89:14,16-17)


texts: What is the Calvinist perspective on regeneration?

texts:
When do Calvinists consider an elect person to be regenerate?

If it is at birth, then is it odd that someone who is "regenerate" is living in sin, up until the point of faith in Christ?

And if it is at a later time, such as at faith in Christ, then how is that faith in Christ prompted in an unregenerate person?

I may not fully understand the definition of "regenerate" (and particularly its distinction from "salvation"), so answerers would be kind to also explain that definition from a Calvinist perspective.

Note: This question arose out of comments made in this answer.


texts: What is the Christian definition of "The Messiah"?

texts:
Christianity is the religion of people who consider Jesus to be "The Messiah".

But what is the Christian definition of "The Messiah"?

Since Christian theology is based on the notion of "The Messiah's" first coming, what are the criteria that one has to fulfill during their "first coming" in order to be regarded as "The Messiah"?


texts: Reconcile God's sovereignty with Satan being the god of this world

texts:
In Matthew 4:8-9 we read about the temptation of Christ by Satan:

  Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and
  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said
  to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and
  worship me.”

In Christ's response, he did not challenge Satan's authority to make such a claim.

Taken together with 2 Cor 4:4 where Satan is described as "the god of this world" it seems we can conclude that Satan is the ruler of the world.

How can we reconcile this with God's sovereignty?


texts: What is an example of a deductive argument that Biblical Unitarians would present to prove that Jesus is not God?

texts: I'm interested in learning about how Biblical Unitarians arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is not God from a deductive reasoning standpoint (for examples of deductive arguments, see this question). I'm particularly interested in the validity and soundness of their arguments. Is the argument valid? Is the argument sound? Are the premises of the argument properly justified? Is the argument rigorous in its use of words or is it taking advantage of the ambiguity in certain definitions?


texts:
I was watching an Evangelical thriller movie the other night (Jerusalem Countdown) which was an apocalyptic film that centered around the Ezekiel War Theory.

What is this theory exactly? From what I gathered it mentioned something about Russian and Iran nuking Israel? But where in Ezekiel do they support this?

Is this theory regularly taught in some congregations?


texts: Why was eating meat on Fridays forbidden in the Catholic Church for so many years?

texts:
I understand that the Catholic Church forbade people from eating meat on Fridays for many years.  It seems that it is no longer every Friday, but just during Lent.  Also, it is not all meat, but all meat that isn't fish (from what I understand).

How did this become considered a sin?  Why meat?  Why Fridays?  Why did it end?


texts: Did Paul/Saul teach Christianity with Jewish traditions to Gentiles like what we see in Messianic Judaism today?

texts:
As the question clearly describes.

Did Paul/Saul, during his era, teach Christianity with Jewish traditions to Gentiles like what we see in Messianic Judaism today?

Some background for this question:

I am (or maybe was) a Catholic, but I used to come to Protestant church with my friends. One day, I wondered why there was a lot denomination in Christianity.

So I took a step back, I forgot all about denomination for a moment (Catholic, Protestant, etc). I just believed that Jesus Christ is my Messiah.
I read the bible from Genesis until Revelation and I realized that:

Jesus is Jewish
He practiced all of the Jewish traditions, including Chanukah
He is the Living Torah.

And then I was looking for a denomination that still follows what Jesus did during His era. I think the the answer is Messianic Judaism.

This is one of a lot of my questions about my struggle to find about Christianity. But at first, I want to look back about the history how Paul/Saul taught about Jesus and Christianity to Jewish people and Gentiles during his era.

For now I am practicing Messianic Judaism even though I am a Gentile. I hope someone can answer the question so I can decide if I was in the right path for my beliefs or not.


texts:
From the Fatima prayer we read where Mary says:

  I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one
  of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my
  Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all
  souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need.

Now that part in Rosary has changed to:

  O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead
  all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.
  Amen.

What is the history of the added: of thy mercy. This was also added in other languages not just English.


texts: In Mormonism, how is the doctrine of Adam & Eve inability to have children prior to the Fall explained?

texts:
Inspired by this answer to a previous question, in which the answerer stated:

"For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall."

Supported by quoting from 2 Nephi 2:22-23:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created...
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

This leads me to ask how could this be true, given that God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." {Genesis 1:28}
It would seem that this is a clear contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
How does the LDS church address this apparently-blatant contradiction?


texts: Does the Catholic Church officially claim that the Bible is insufficient without tradition?

texts:
I read this quote at the Christian Research Institute's site:

  One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the
  aid of tradition.

Does the Catholic Church officially claim anywhere that the Bible is insufficient without tradition?


texts: Are there other denominations that believe in pre-human existence?

texts:
I was wondering whether the pre-human existence of a believer was accepted among any christian groups/denominations other than Mormons, or are Mormons the only group that believe in a pre-human existence.

I noticed a few Mormons quoting Jeremiah 1:5 as support for their belief in the pre-human existence of a child of God.

  “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5 KJV)

I feel that this verse is more about God's omniscience rather than our pre-human existence.

So are the Mormons alone in this belief, or are there Christian denominations that also believe in a pre-human existence?