texts: Married man becoming Latin Rite Catholic priest if giving up sex?

texts:
This article (A Brief History of Celibacy in the Catholic Church) states:

  "In the Latin Church, one may be a married priest if one is a life-long Catholic but promises never again to have sexual relations with ones wife."

Is that statement true? A married catholic man can become priest if he promises to no longer have sex with his wife? Are there any documents saying that?


texts: Are there historical accounts of the character of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah?

texts:
Are there any historical accounts, biblical or otherwise, that shed light on what types of people lived in Sodom and Gomorrah? I'm especially curious about any extra-biblical accounts of these two places.

Such accounts might shed some light on whether God's treatment of these two cities was justified.


texts: Trinity (Christians) = Trimurti (Hindus)?

texts: I have heard about the concept ot Trimurti in Hinduism Wiki. One for construction (Brahma), one for protection (Vishnu) and one for destruction (Shiva). And somehow I feel it is related to Trinity in Christianity. Are there any relations?


texts: In the Catholic Church, is there a punishment for "heresy"?

texts:
Things are often referred to as "heretical" in Catholic literature and doctrine. As a lifelong Protestant (Pentecostal), I am very very inexperienced with the way the Catholic Church is run.

The only knowledge that I have of the proceedings with someone who commits heresy is of things like what took place during the Inquisition, and torture chambers and devices used by the Catholics in the Dark Ages.

My question is, What happens to a Catholic who commits heresy in modern times?


texts: According to Catholicism, is there a place of reverence for Hagar in Christianity?

texts:
Genesis Chapters 16 and 21 give an account of Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid who was given in marriage to Abraham, bore him a son, Ishmael, and  was later turned away so as not to stake claim of inheritance.  Gen 16:8 and 21:7 show that God was in touch with Hagar  through his angel, and had compassion for her.
Some Jewish writings claim that the woman named Keturah whom Abraham married at the age of 100 plus after the death of Sarai, was in fact Hagar with a new name.
At Galatians 4:22-25, St. Paul also mentions the name of Hagar, albeit  in an allegory.
In retrospect, one feels that Hagar (who,  judging by modern standards,  could have won a legal suit against Abraham) did not get what was due to her  and was made to suffer for no fault of hers. She in deed deserves some reverence for her meek suffering.   My question therefore is: Is there a place of reverence for Hagar in Christianity? Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the meekness of  Hagar as something worth emulating?


texts: How possible is it that the Septuagint / LXX wasn't specifically quoted in the NT?

texts:
Couldn't it be possible that the NT writers quoted from a Hebrew or Aramaic Old Testament, and that the Septuagint was transliterated afterwards, or that the NT was later translated to match the Septuagint?

The reason why I ask this is because I can't really seem to find much proof of the age of the Septuagint. The two arguments for the authenticity of the Septuagint seem to be "the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint" and the anecdote of a Jew named Aristobulus, who mentioned that the Law had been translated into Greek under the reign of Ptolemy. Don't Jews refer specifically to the books of Moses as the Law? And wouldn't it be a big stretch to assume that he is truly speaking about the Septuagint being translated during the reign of Ptolemy? Yet this is what many advocate to be true.


texts: Seeming paradox arising from idea of eternal life

texts:
Here is one of the things about the idea of eternal life that I don't understand and that seems paradox to me:

If a human has no existence before having been begot by his parents, yet if a human has then potentially infinitely long existence in eternal life, not bringing each extra potential human life into existence would seem to amount to an infinitely large loss. It's quite a tall order.

Why could we justify not making children all (and I mean all) the time? How could we bear each moment when it brings yet another responsibility of potentially infinite consequence: should one (or does one have to) launch yet another human life into  eternal being? If so, even having dozens of children would not seem to be good enough. And what then about related moral issues such as rape, etc.?

What does theology have to say about this on a fundamental level and how does it solve the seeming dilemma around this?


texts: What is the meaning when Jesus said "I commend my spirit" in Luke 23:46?

texts:
Then Jesus called out in a loud voice, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” And when He had said this, He breathed His last.(Luke 23:46)

The Catholic Church teaches the Jesus Christ was True God and True Man and was given like the rest of mankind a "rational soul and human will".

This can be seen in the Agony in the Garden when Jesus said in Luke gospel,

  “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”(Luke 22:42)

My simple question is from Catholic teaching and biblical explanation what is the spirit that Jesus commended?

Is it his human soul or the Spirit of Christ?


texts: What were the views of the Church Fathers on Jews and Judaism during the Patristic Era?

texts:
I am currently learning about the holocaust in History class right now. It was mentioned that during the Middle Ages, some Christians were anti-semitic. I wondered how the Early Church (Pre-Schism) and the Church Fathers viewed Jews and Judaism. I've looked at a few sources and see that some were against the Jewish religion because it wasn't Christianity. It hasn't mentioned anything about the Jewish ethnic group but I guess it's possible that it means both. I still am unsure on what is true so my question is what was the early church and church father's views on Jews and Judaism?
Addendum: After a suggestion, I would like to rephrase the question and only ask: What was the Church Father's views on Jews and Judaism during the Patristic Era?


texts: If God "shows no partiality," how do Calvinists defend predestination?

texts:
There are a number of verses in the Bible that say that God is "not partial" (Deuteronomy 10:17) or that he "shows no partiality" (Romans 2:11, ESV).  How do Calvinists square such verses with their doctrine of predestination, in which God specifically chooses some people to be saved but not others?

Related question, but not specific to challenges based on these passages: According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others?


texts: Trinity, is the son of GOD, GOD himself/itself?

texts:
I understand that Jesus is son of GOD. The scripture is clear on that one. Jesus did lots of things that only GOD can do. We revered Jesus as God (not all caps).
But is he also GOD, the father (all caps)?


texts: Genesis 9:7 fruitful and increase in number

texts:
Genesis 9:7 NIV

  As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth
  and increase upon it

Today we struggle with food shortages, problems with clean water, and climate concerns.  Is there a Christian denomination who suggests that we should NOT be as fruitful as we can be?  If so, does that contradict the Bible and is it acceptable for orthodox Christians?


texts:
This question talks about how in John 7:52, the Pharisees claimed that "no prophet comes out of Galilee." The accepted answer discusses how commentators often point out the Pharisees' mistake, and N.T. Wright points out that "both the prophets Jonah and Hosea came from Galilee." In addition, I found this link, which says that 5 prophets came from Galilee:  Jonah, Nahum, Hosea, Elijah, and Elisha. BibleStudyTools.org has an article with a discussion about how Micah, Elijah, and Jonah being from Galilee, and how Nahum and Hosea could possibly have come from Galilee.

Which prophets are from Galilee, and how do we know? An associated question, what is the source of the uncertainty surrounding this question? Perhaps I could word the question, what is the (Biblical and archeological) basis for saying that these 5 prophets are from Galilee?

Jonah from Gath-hepher

  2 Kings 14:25 "He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher."

Wikipedia on Gath-hepher says it is in modern-day Galilee (maybe that's what it is saying?). Joshua 29:13 describes more where this place is.

Micah from Moresheth

  Micah 1:1 The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah—the vision he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.

BibleAtlas.org doesn't mention Galilee at all in the article on Moresheth, nor does Wikipedia in their article on Moresheth-Gath. Wikipedia says Moresheth = Moresheth-Gath.

Elijah from Gilead

  1 Kings 17:1 "Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, 'As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.'"

2 Kings 15:29 actually seems to differentiate between Gilead and Galilee, which suggests that Gilead is not contained within Galilee.

Wikipedia on Gilead makes no mention of Galilee, and the Bible Atlas also seems to differentiate Gilead from Galilee by saying that in Gilead there is "the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same as that found in Samaria and Lower Galilee."

Elisha

(I don't know the basis).

Hosea

(I don't know the basis).

I would like to see the basis for 4 and 5 (Elisha and Hosea) being from Galilee, and I would like to see how we can know 1-3 are actually from Galilee. I would also be interested if there are any other claims that additional prophets are from Galilee. My questions stems from the fact that none the verses say explicitly from Galilee, and I have seen almost nothing supporting the connection between the city mentioned and Galilee. Pardon my lack of knowledge in biblical geography. Perhaps it is obvious that these cities are contained in the region that is Galilee. There may also be a notable difference between the geographical boundaries in Galilee between the Old and New Testament timeframes or even within the Old Testament timeframe, which contains several thousand years of history on its own.

I don't see how any denominational restriction will affect the answers, so I don't propose any.


texts:
I noticed with surprise the following in a previous question :

  Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion,

I was baptised (in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) at the age of five (I can vividly remember it to this day, sixty-three years later) by a Presbyterian minister of the Church of Scotland.

At the age of fifteen I left the C of S and, for only a short time, joined with the Scottish Baptist movement and was baptised as an adult.

I subsequently was dissatisfied with the state of religion in Scotland and I moved to England, at the age of eighteen, to be under the ministry and guidance of someone I perceived as a genuine Minister of Jesus Christ and I continued with him for twenty five years. He did not think it necessary to baptise me again and he accepted my baptism and received me into fellowship with his congregation.

I was married, now I am celibate. I no longer drink alcohol and I don't do drugs. I earn a living and I do not steal. I last told a lie (that I can remember) in 2011, of which I am ashamed, although it was not a matter of criminality. The last time I remember taking the name of God or the Lord in vain (as a curse or as an expletive) was when I was fourteen years old.

So, am I accepted as Catholic or would I have to do anything further to be accepted as a Christian among Catholic persons ?


texts: Why don't Presbyterians have altars in their churches or in their homes? Who administers the sacraments, especially communion, then without an altar? Do children help out at all? In other churches, children can be selected as 'altar-servers'.


texts: Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties?

texts:
I seem to recall learning at some point during an Old Testament study that they did, and that the belief explained things like the significance of the blood that was part of the animal offerings required in the Pentateuch.

We're trying, in this question, to track down the significance behind an apparent New Testament dietary prohibition against the consumption of animal blood, as given in Acts 15:10.


texts: Is murder allowed if God tells you to do it?

texts:
The Bible pretty clearly says not to murder (Exodus 20:13).

But if we examine Numbers 25 or 1Kings 18:40, we see God (or more accurately, his prophets) telling us to kill people.  Indeed, entire groups of people were murdered because of their mistaken beliefs.

So, is it alright to murder if God or one of his prophets tells you to?

I would think that this concept against murdering would be against all Christian doctrine.  However, how does the mainstream Protestant groups (Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) reconcile these two concepts?


texts: What reason is there to believe that 1st C Jews thought that being the Son of God = God?

texts: One poster ask me the above question. Does anyone have a scriptural answer? I have one and will post it soon.


texts: What is the eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of mortal and venial sin?

texts:
In western Catholicism, there is an idea that if you commit a grave sin with full consent and full knowledge that it is grave, it becomes a mortal sin. You loose your state of grace and are set on a trajectory for Hell. You are forbidden to receive the Eucharist unless you go to confession.

I'm wondering what the eastern Christian understanding is, particularly eastern Catholic, because they are bound to accept the mortal/venial sin distinction but I understand they don't emphasize it in the same way as western Catholics do. What is the eastern understanding of mortal sin?


texts: What is the importance of God informing that Jesus Christ is the only begotten?

texts: Exactly what God wants to teach us, in describing that Jesus is the only begotten son (only begotten - monogenes), because we see a parallel in generating Eve from Adam's ribs.


texts: How to reconcile the Didache's instruction with Apostolic succession?

texts:
As it pertains primarily to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other large denominations that not only lay claim to an unbroken successive line, but who also put significant emphasis on it:

The Didache instructs congregations to "elect" Bishops and Deacons "for themselves."

  Chap. XV.

  Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and
  approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets
  and Teachers.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/didache.htm

My initial understanding of this would be that these communities are in charge of [democratically?] naming their own clergy. That in itself isn't terribly contradictory sounding, but there's no mention of any formal process or Church approval -- let alone a consecration of the "elected" by the Church. The omission of such formality in what appears to be a very formal and detailed early "Church Handbook" seems to call into question the notion that a strict Apostolic Succession was present in the early Church.

In the very least, one might wonder whether some congregations in the early Church did elect their own Bishops, without pre-approval or education by the Church, blurring the line of succession.

How do we adequately square the Didache's instruction with Apostolic Succession?


texts: What is the modern LDS view towards multiple Heavenly Mothers/wives of members of the Godhead?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on 'Heavenly Mother' notes that:

Brigham Young taught that God the Father was polygamous, although teachings on Heavenly Mothers were never as popular and disappeared from official rhetoric after the end of LDS polygamy in 1904 (although existing polygynous marriages lasted into the 1950s). Top leaders used the examples of the polygamy of God the Father in defense of the practice and this teaching was widely accepted by the late-1850s. Apostle Orson Pratt taught in an official church periodical that "We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives," and that after her death, Mary (the mother of Jesus) may have become another eternal polygamous wife of God. One scholar interpreted a 1976 LDS manual as alluding to this teaching. Author Carol Lynn Pearson stated that a seminary teacher from her youth fervently taught that there were multiple Heavenly Mothers.

My understanding is that the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints unambiguously bans plural marriage in this lifetime, but allows one person to be sealed to multiple people in the celestial realm (eg, a widower who remarries after his wife's death and has two wives in heaven).  Given this, what is the modern teaching of the Church with regards to the idea that members of the Godhead have multiple wives? More specifically, if this teaching has not been repudiated, are all the wives collectively 'Heavenly Mothers', or is one particular wife have a special position as the Heavenly Mother?
(I apologize for using the now disapproved abbreviation 'LDS' in the title—unfortunately, the full name of the Church wouldn't fit well into a short title)


texts: A "version" of the bible with sentence structure written in English but retaining most of the original untranslated "nouns/verbs/adjectives"?

texts:
Is there a "version" of the bible that has it's sentence structure written in English, yet retaining most of the original untranslated "nouns/verbs/adjectives" ?
Ok this is quite hard to explain, I'm not sure if anyone knows what I'm trying to say, but for example:

John 1:19 (NIV)
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
[c]: The Greek term traditionally translated the Jews (hoi Ioudaioi) refers here and elsewhere in John’s Gospel to those Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus
John 1:51 (NIV)
He then added, “Very truly I tell you,[i] you[j] will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”
[i]: The Greek is plural.
[j]: The Greek is plural.
Luke 11:34 (NIV)
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy,[g] your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy,[h] your body also is full of darkness.
[g]: The Greek for healthy here implies generous.
[h]: The Greek for unhealthy here implies stingy.

It is somewhat like the information in [c], [i], and [j]. But now only certain words are annotated. I believe this information is useful for in-dept Bible studying and I was wondering if there is a resource which shows more of these information.
In fact, if "hard-core" makes sense, I would like a "hard-core" resource.
++ Update: ++
To add to the answers, I've found a pretty good interlinear at http://www.phpbible.org/


texts:
I started to have the feelings that the seriousness of the sins are changing in today's age compared to the past.

My question is: Does it also change in the God's eyes?
-or-
My Question is: Does the seriousness of sin change based on the age we live in?

I noticed that some of the sins are much easier to commit in our times then it was in the past. Does this make them less serious in the eyes of God. Do they have less affect to damage our spiritual life compared to people in the past?

For example pornography, in the past a person had to make a significant effort in order to get a material like we can find today on the internet. In that time you would consider such a person a deviant, pervert and actually he would only commit probably 1/8 of what you can get today. Even Christians from time to time take a peek because of their weakness. Does it make them the same sinners as the people famous of this behavior couple hundred years ago? Or because it's just a click away it makes them more vulnerable and because of this less responsible for the sins?

Another examples could be alcoholism, gluttony, materialism and so on...
Just because now we have easier access to it, we become more likely to commit these sins, does it also makes us bigger sinners in comparisons with people from the past?

I would prefer catholic answer of understanding sins, please.


texts: Why was Peter Fishing Naked (John 21:7)?

texts:
John 21: 7

  7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the
  Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his
  fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into
  the sea.

Was he REALLY naked or just embarrassed? The Holy Bible seems to correlate nakedness with shamefulness.


texts: At what point did the Roman See start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?

texts:
The Great (East-West) Schism was a massive trainwreck centuries in the making and centuries in its outworking. At what point in the process did the Roman see start identifying itself as the Catholic Church in exclusion to the Eastern Churches?

I'm not interested in what event caused this to theoretically happen, but when the Roman Church started using this particular terminology to refer exclusively to itself.

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism?
What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?
At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?


texts:
It is very frequent to see idols of Jesus or any biblical entities in  a Church , So is such idolatry allowed by  the bible,considering the following verses?

  "You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea".
  Exodus 20:4

History tells us that:

  sometimes objects that God instructed to be made were turned into
  idols by the Israelites. The Book of Numbers contains a narrative in
  which God instructed Moses to make a bronze snake as part of
  addressing a plague of venomous snakes that had broken out among the
  Israelites as a punishment for sin. The bronze snake is mentioned
  again in 2 Kings 18; however, rather than remaining a memorial of
  God's providence, it became an idol that the people named and
  worshiped. Thus the bronze snake was destroyed in King Hezekiah's
  reforms.

More specifically in India I see Christians carry idols of Jesus and other biblical  entities with them kiss them and revere them too. Infact they allow the Hindus in the Church and let them perform worship in their way(Like putting incense sticks, offering flowers , foodstuff to the Idol of Jesus etc) as shown below a very common view in India. I studied in a Christian school for 10 years and i am yet to see Christians not doing these things.

I have seen the same on TV and in videos of people venerating the Idol of biblical entities.


texts: Do Anglicans use Latin anymore? If so, how much and for what?

texts: Hi so I'm a Latin student and I was just wondering.


texts: Why do most translations say "Servant of Christ" rather than "Slave of Christ"?

texts:
Context

I'm currently watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d94tbcidq74&feature=g-high-rec

The argument here is that, with regard to the word "doulas"

in the original Greek, our relationship to Christ is described as "slave to Christ" rather than "servant to Christ."
reading the Bible with "servant" replaced by "slave" provides a different feel
most English Bible translations use "servant" rather than "slave"

Question:

How did this happen?


texts: Were the scriptural readings at Mass ever other than Vulgate read at mass pre-Vatican II?

texts:
Vatican II allowed vernacular languages for rites. However, the official document about it (Sacrosantum Concilium) doesn't mention anything about Bible readings. Where readings already allowed to be based in vernacular translations of the Bible? There are many Catholic translations of the Bible pre-Vatican II, some quite authoritative (e.g. Douay-Rheims, English, made in 17th century), which could have been used in mass (and were certainly used for personal study or prayer). (However, the real surge of translation is around and after Vatican II; see  here).

So, were non-Vulgate bibles used at mass pre-Vatican II?
Or were all Bible readings in pre-Vatican II masses also in Latin?


texts: What test is used to determine communicability of an attribute of God

texts:
I understand that some attributes of God are said to be communicable, meaning that they can, in some measure, be attributes of men as well. For example, God's holiness is said to be communicable because our holiness is derived from his, as in Lev 11:45 "Be holy, for I am holy." (ESV). God's aseity, on the other hand, could not be attributed to humans, as we are created by him.

Many other attributes, however, seem to be more of a gray area for me. For example, one might mark "knowledge" as communicable, or perhaps omniscience as incommunicable. How does one determine whether an attribute of God is communicable or incommunicable?


texts:
According to dictionary.com, the origin of the term triune was between:

  1595–1605; tri- + -une < Latin ūnus one

What are some of the earliest uses of the English triune, as well as it's Latin and Greek (if such exist) equivalents?


texts: Why doesn't the Orthodox church consider Saint Augustine Doctor and Father?

texts:
Saint Augustine (Doctor Gratiae) is considered by Catholic and Anglican churches as:

  one of the most important Church Fathers in Western Christianity for
  his writings in the Patristic Era. (source)

I read Confession and City of God and frankly his writings are very lighting.

Why doesn't the Orthodox church recognize him by these titles?


texts: Why do some Advent calendars have days in random order?

texts: Some advent calendars, such as those made by LEGO are made with calendar days shown in a random order. Why is this?


texts: Did 17th century Reformed Christians reject textual criticism?

texts:
The Westminster Confession says the following:

  WCF 1.8: The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;

Robert Estienne's Editio Regia, the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus, had been published almost a century before the Westminster Assembly. By that time it would have been well known across Europe that there were substantial variants in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

What did the Westminster divines (ie, theologians attending the assembly) mean by saying that the New Testament has been "kept pure" by God? Does this phrase express a rejection of the task of textual criticism? If so, what was the text that they considered to have been "kept pure", and what did they make of all the variants?


texts: Why did Adam claim he was "naked" before God when he and Eve had clothed themselves with fig leaves?

texts:
After sinning, Adam and Eve "sewed fig leaves together" and made clothing for themselves.  However, when God comes into the garden and calls to Adam, Adam responds by claiming that he was afraid and that his fear came from his own nakedness.

  Genesis 3:7-10 (ESV)
  7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were
  naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves
  loincloths. 8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the
  garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid
  themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the
  garden. 9But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where
  are you?" 10And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden,
  and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."

Why does Adam claim he is still naked, even after clothing himself with the fig leaves?


texts: How does transubstantiation account for the amount of Christ's body eaten over the last 2000 years?

texts:
If whenever communion occurs the bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood then how is there enough of Christ's body to last for undoubtedly thousands of communion events every day for the past 2000 years? That would be millions of pounds of bread and wine over time.

How is this explained in the transubstantiation belief system? I assume somebody has had to have wondered this before. Is it explained away by saying that the bread isn't really the body, but it really is? Does God just perform a miracle and allow Christ's body to become theoretically infinite in mass?


texts: How to conduct missionary work through literature

texts:
It seems utterly superficial, but one of the most frequent methods of promulgating information about Christianity for fallen away folks or getting the word out to people who are teetering on the edge of this or that near occasion of sin is to give them a book.

Sometimes when I read a book, I have no trouble thinking of some poor sinner in my life who could benefit from it the same way this poor sinner did.  But when I hear that as advice on, say, a call in radio show,  I think it's a little lacking and doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem at hand.

How do you bridge the gap between giving a person a book and letting them make the most of it and giving a person a book with the expectation that it will do some good?

I'm seeking an answer akin to what one might be taught in a class on evangelization at a seminary, not just friendly advice.


texts:
What's the first recorded case of the Church's persecuting heretics?

By persecution I mean not only the act of stopping fellowship with a heretic, but also something more than that - things like, for example, taking away all his books that he wrote or, perhaps, stripping him off of some social rights - that is when the Church already had such power.


texts: Spiritual gifts and their exercise within today's Catholic Church

texts:
Regarding the apostle Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (τὰ πνευματικὰ χαρίσματα) in 1 Corinthians 12-14, he uses the words ".....when you come together" (1 Cor. 14:26). Is he referring to the exercise and manifestation of spiritual gifts within the celebration of the Eucharist during his time? If so, should these gifts be exercised in today's Eucharistic celebrations, and if so, how? Perhaps the apostle is citing the exercise of these gifts within a different context (e.g., the Agape which preceded the Eucharist - more akin to a "charismatic prayer group" outside the Mass).

What does the Catholic Church teach on this matter? Have these gifts (prophecy, tongues, interpretation, etc.) ceased, or are they still of great value today within the Church?


texts: Recommendations for Ancient Greek NT "versions"

texts: What are some methods I can use to look for and find an Ancient Greek Bible that I can buy and use? My goal is to find one that would be as accurate as possible to the manuscripts. If my use of "manuscripts" is vague (b/c not all manuscripts were EXACTLY the same) or represents a naiveté of the subject, please correct me. And if so, perhaps this next question can be answered: Is there a version of an Ancient Greek Bible that is generally held to be the most reliable? That would probably be the one I want to get my hands on.


texts: According to Mormons, Jesus is Jehovah in OT. Therefore do they view all the occurrences of the Tetragrammaton as referring to Jesus?

texts:
Lesson 5 in the "Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel Teacher Manual" (link) has the title Jesus Christ Was Jehovah of the Old Testament.

In the introduction this lesson says that:

  In testifying of the Savior Jesus Christ, modern prophets have
  declared: “He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament” (“The Living
  Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles,” Ensign or Liahona, Apr. 2000,
  2). Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, established Heavenly Father’s
  everlasting gospel on the earth in every dispensation of time in order
  to gather in every one of God’s children who were lost.

According to the LDS are all occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in Old Testament then references to Jesus?


texts: How are Christians expected to live up to the standards of following Christ?

texts:
Just re-read the New Testament and this question has been at the front of my mind. These are just a few of similar quotes that are in question:

  Matthew 16:24: "Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come
  after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

  for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by
  the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will
  live." (Romans 8:12-14, NASB)

  "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live,
  but Christ lives in me..." (from Galatians 2:20, NASB)

  In Matthew 7: 16-27, he makes the point:
  Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as the Lord will be saved, but those who do the will of God.

Mother Theresa and Orthodox Monks at Mount Athos are some of the very few people I can think of when I read The New Testament and actually doing what Jesus asked of His disciples.

Personally, after reading the New Testament I see that I am a good person but not worthy of Jesus.

How can anyone call themselves a Christian if they do not give up their life (similar Mother Theresa or the Monks)? It seems pretty clear to me what he is asking of us(meaning no room for interpretation), so any clarification would be very helpful.

The question is:

What is the rationale, bible passages, word of God, tradition (or anything else) that allows someone to feel confident calling themselves a Christian?

Thank You.


texts: Verse that says we should spend much or most of our money on food?

texts: I remember reading a verse that said something to the effect of it being good to spend much or most of our money on food. What is that verse?


texts: Who wrote the book of Hebrews and is the book complete?

texts:
I was recently reading in the book of Hebrews when I realized that I didn't know who was speaking, and I haven't been able to figure it out.

I was just reading a commentary that stated it was James, the brother of Jesus.  And another commentary that thought it was Paul, but, I've noticed that Paul always seems to introduce himself.  Which made me wonder something else - is the first page missing?  Because it seems as if the chapter starts in the middle of a conversation.  Have there been any studies on this?

What is an overview of scholarly research on authorship of Hebrews?


texts: Historically, how did Protestantism first arrive at a consensus?

texts:
Paul urges the Corinthian church :

  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. I Corinthians 1:10 KJV.

In order for Protestantism to exist at all, initially, there had to be a consensus among some regarding the Reformation, and, particularly, regarding doctrine.

How was that consensus arrived at, historically, and what lessons does this have for the present situation of Protestantism being divided into contradictory denominations?

How did the original Reformers arrive at agreements of doctrine and how could this be reiterated now, or in the near future?


texts: What is the distinction between ordinance types in the LDS church?

texts:
I recently listened to a discussion between a couple of LDS leaders in which there was a clear distinction drawn between "priesthood ordinances" and "temple ordinances". Baptism, at least, seemed to be of the former sort, but it wasn't clear what the other ordinances were or why there were two types.

What is the difference between these two types of ordinances and where did the distinction originate?


texts:
I've heard before that Jesus was recorded on the census that is mentioned in Luke 2:1, and that his name was the last name recorded.  I've also heard that Herod would then use this census when he ordered the killing of the children (Mat 2:16.)

Is there any proof that has survived on this, and if it did, are we able to see his name still recorded on the census?


texts: Are there any Christian denominations that deny the existence of an afterlife?

texts:
The Sadducees in ancient Israel rejected the very idea of there being an afterlife. They claimed that the punishment and curses as well as the blessings and rewards described throughout the Bible are earthly.

Many Jewish held beliefs carry over into Christianity, but are there any Christian denominations that believe this?


texts: Jehovah's Witnesses claim Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. What is the evidence?

texts:
The usual date given for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in academic and Christian publications is either 587 BCE or 586 BCE. The Watchtower claims it was destroyed in 607 BCE.
This date is critically important to them, because on it Charles Taze Russell calculated the year 1914 (2520 years later).
What do Jehovah's Witnesses think is the evidence for 607 BCE as the year of the destruction of Jerusalem?  Please note, there are two kinds of evidence I consider acceptable: Biblical evidence and extra-Biblical evidence.  It is really fine if only Biblical evidence is offered, but in such a case please indicate why you think the JW interpretation is correct.


texts: Jesus rejects equality with God - How does this statement reconcile with traditional teachings?

texts:
What does this mean Jesus rejects equality with God? I was always taught Jesus and the Father where separate but equal?  Did they mean to say separate but both God but not equal?
Well I know of at least two places in the scripture where Jesus rejects equality with God.

John 14:28 "The Father is Greater then I"
Philippians 2:6 (NAS) "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Granted the second verse is translated with much liberty in many version that if you where to compare them they all seem to be saying different things. So I chose to stick to a good word for word translation.
But those two verses are not the only proof about who is greater.

Hebrews 7:7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

Did God not bless Jesus, Did he not give him answers to his prayers. Did not God put all things in subjection to Jesus?

Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus"
John 3:34 "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God" [ referring to Jesus ]

Jesus is clearly God's servant and was sent by God.

John 13:16 "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave (or servant) is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

The Question behind the question is:
How does Trinitarian Christianity reconcile Jesus "lesser" status with the claim that he is God?


texts: What is a "just cause" in the context of Code of Canon Law, Canon 308?

texts:
I want to leave a confraternity but I want to do everything according to law. I wonder what the knowledgeable people say about canon 308 and the "just cause", especially if just asking is a sufficient cause or not.

If this canon had a correspondent canon in the older laws, then I would really like to know how it was commented anciently.

Why am I asking? I'm not knowledgeable about legal jargon, but I would suspect that the intention of the law in regards to that point would be that leaving a confraternity is more of a punishment rather than a request of the confraternitee, and maybe that language implies that the possibility of an associate leaving by his own initiative wasn't even taken in account. I can't tell that if that is the case though, because I'm ignorant. My grounds for suspecting this is that it only talks about being dismissed for just cause, and not dismissing oneself.


texts: Clarifications on "Temporal Predestination"

texts:
I was just perusing the wikipedia article on predestination, and came across an interesting blip on "Temporal Predestination":

  Temporal predestination is the view that God only determines temporal matters, and not eternal ones. This Christian view is analogous to the traditional Jewish view, which distinguishes between preordination and predestination. Temporal matters are pre-ordained by God, but eternal matters, being supra-temporal, are subject to absolute freedom of choice.

Can someone knowledgeable elaborate on this view for me?

Would a scholar from this camp reject the idea of God preparing a place for the elect in Heaven, or would they just say that while God does know those who will end up in Heaven, and does prepare a place for them, ultimately it is their choice?
Are there any major Christian denominations or scholars who hold this view?
EXTRA CREDIT: If this was the traditional Jewish view, why was it abandoned by Christians?


texts: What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about Original Sin?

texts:
I've read from this link as followed :

  In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first”
  sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the
  “consequences” of sin, the chief of which is death

From the quote above, my own illustration is something like this:

There is a couple of husband and wife (no children yet) who has a television.
One day the husband do something which cause the couple don't have that TV anymore forever. They are unable to enjoy a TV program anymore forever.

Even before the couple has any descendant, (imho) the consequence can be concluded like this : all their next generation will be unable to enjoy a TV program, because the couple don't have a TV forever, because the husband do something which cause the TV is no more forever.

From the illustration above, to me, the conclusion of the consequence above is not a possibility.

The illustration provided by the link is different :

  Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass
  murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found
  guilty—and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly.

  You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the
  consequences of his action—people may shy away from you or say, “Watch
  out for him—he comes from a family of mass murderers.” Your name may
  be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a
  consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally
  guilty of his or her sin.

From the illustration above, to me, the conclusion of the consequence above is a possibility.

So, my question is :
What does the Orthodox Church actually teach about Original Sin ?
The consequence is possibly exist ? or the consequence is certainly exist ?


texts: How do Catholics explain 1 Corinthians 11:21 in light of Transubstantiation?

texts:
Catholicism interprets 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 in light of the dogma of transubstantiation ( = the miracle of bread changing into Jesus' real flesh and wine changing into Jesus' real blood performed by a Catholic priest in the person of Jesus Christ). (source)

  "For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is
  hungry and another is drunk."

  1 Corinthians 11:21 (Douay-Rheims)

Does this show that in Catholicism, it is possible to get drunk with the real blood of Jesus Christ, to be intoxicated with him?


texts: Is it ok to pray different prayers in conjunction to one another?

texts:
I would like to know if it's appropriate to pray different prayers in conjunction with another?

For Example:

The Litany of Humility
Rosary
Prayer to a specific Saint
bedtime prayer


texts: Who is Sheshbazzar? Is he the same person as Zerubabbel?

texts:
The Bible says:

  KJV Ezra 1:8 Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.

But in the following chapters that name scarcely turns up. Instead Zerubabbel is portrayed as the prince of Judah in the place of Sheshbazzar.

Are they the same people with two names? I would like an answer from biblical and historical sources.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for a resistable enabling (prevenient) grace?

texts:
I see a few different uses of the term prevenient grace in questions here, so I will define what I meant first: a belief held by traditional Baptists and other non-reformed evangelicals, that though we are all totally depraved and unwilling to come to Christ on our own free will, God gives us a enabling grace that allows us to come to regeneration and faith. But this grace can be resisted and ignored.

What is the Biblical basis for this type of grace?


texts: Where was Jesus before the events of the New Testament?

texts:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son..

I only thought about this when recently explaining the difference between Old and New Testament to somebody.

Did the Son of God appear in the OT? Was his name Jesus?
Was Jesus present in Heaven (or at God's side) before he appeared on earth? Did God "send" his son to earth or was Jesus "created" on earth for the first time?

I can list many more, but limiting it to these two, I hope my question is clear.


texts:
In "Protestant" Christian sermons, I very often notice that preachers say "we are no longer under the law but under the grace now". I don't understand the logic of these statements since the Mosaic Law was given to Moses and Jewish people and not to the Gentiles.

With this in mind, I ask in what manner gentiles were under the law and are now under grace?


texts: Does transubstantiation apply to the Last Supper, which occurred prior to the crucifixion?

texts:
The Roman Catholic church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation--that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus.  It seems that the sacrament of taking the body and blood gives the partaker a special grace.

Jesus introduced this by saying, "This is my body which is broken for you" and "This is my blood which is shed for you" prior to His crucifixion.

So, my question is this.  Does the Catholic Church teach that the bread and wine taken by the disciples prior to the Crucifixion was all the literal body and blood of Jesus?  If so, did they also receive the grace of the sacrament at that time as well?


texts: Why did the disciples cast lots when the Holy Spirit was promised

texts:
In the book of Acts Chapter 1:v 4-5 regarding an earlier speech of Jesus, it is written

  On one occasion,while he was eating with them he gave them this command:Do not leave Jerusalem,but wait for the gift my father promised,which you have heard me speak about.
  5:For John baptised with water but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy spirit.

When the disciples were choosing one of their own to replace Judas,it is written Acts 1:v23-26

  So they proposed two men:Joseph called Barsabass (also known as Justus) and Matthias.
  24:Then they prayed,"Lord,you know everyone's heart.Show us which of these two men you have chosen 25: to take over this apostolic ministry,which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26:Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias;so he was added to the eleven apostles.

If they were to baptised by the Holy Spirit in a few days time,then why did they use a form of divination by casting lots to discover who to choose?


texts: On what grounds does the Catholic church reject sacraments of protestant denominations?

texts:
While there is a wide range of opinion among adult-baptism protestants as to whether a Catholic (or other infant) baptism is or can be considered valid, there seems to be (at least in my experience) a general attitude that Catholic communion and marriage are considered valid by protestants.  That is to say, if a protestant were to visit a Catholic church and participate in the Eucharist (communion), most protestants would not have a problem with this (whether the Catholic church would allow this is another question). And certainly if a couple got married in the Catholic church, and later became protestant, no protestant church (that I'm aware of) would require a re-marriage (then again, if a couple gets married before they are Christian at all, I've never heard of any protestant churches requiring a re-marriage in this case, either).

However, if a protestant couple gets married, then later becomes Catholic, they must be re-married in the Catholic church (or at least this is my understanding!).  And Catholics are not permitted (by the Catholic church) to participate in a non-Catholic communion (with a few possible exceptions?). I don't know if Catholics recognize a protestant baptism, or require re-baptism when a protestant becomes a Catholic. (Related question here)

So my question is:  On what grounds does the Catholic church reject communion, marriage, and (possibly) baptism of protestants?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by the phrase "in the age to come"?

texts:
We read at Matthew 12:31-32 (RSVCE):

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Here,  Jesus does not appear to be referring to the generation of His time and the generation(s) to come. Prima facie, He is referring to one's present life and the life after one's death. Since there are different schools of thought in relation to a phase of purification after one's death, I would like to know how exactly the saying of Jesus is interpreted by the Catholic Church.


texts:
Most churches and many Christians I know are strongly against gambling, but I can't recall any passage in the Bible that declares that we shouldn't gamble. Does such a passage exist?

To clarify I'm not asking about whether it's wise to gamble, but whether it's a sin to gamble according to the Bible.


texts: According to proponents of transubstantiation, in what sense is Jesus present "where two or three are gathered"?

texts:
Matthew 18:20 is commonly referenced to refer to Christ's presence among his people:

  For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

For advocates of the "spiritual presence" view of communion, this verse is commonly understood as referring to the presence of the Spirit of Jesus, that is, the Holy Spirit.  For example, John Wesley:

  That is, to worship me. I am in the midst of them - By my Spirit, to quicken their prayers, guide their counsels, and answer their petitions.

However, I'd like to know if those who believe in transubstantiation – Catholics and Eastern Orthodox – take a similar approach to this passage.  According to that doctrine, if I understand correctly, the "substance" or "essence" of Christ's body is present in the Eucharist.

Based on this I see three ways that proponents of transubstantiation could interpret this passage:

Christ is "among them" through his Spirit (agreeing with the spiritual presence view)
Christ is "among them" physically, with the necessary implication that the "two or three" have celebrated the Lord's supper
Christ is "among them" physically, without any celebration of the Lord's supper.

This would imply that the "substance" of Christ can exist in more than just his heavenly body and the communion elements.

Of course, my rudimentary understanding of Catholic/Orthodox doctrine on this point is probably confusing the issue, and may be preventing me from seeing a fourth option here.  Basically, my question boils down to: in what way is Christ present where two or three are gathered – physically or through his Spirit?


texts: What is the origin of the Covenant of Grace?

texts:
In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Grace refers to an overarching theological covenant which God made on the basis of grace. The various Biblical covenants such as Abraham's, the Mosaic/Deuteronomic, and David's are considered to be expressions, administrations, or even (ironically) dispensations of the single original Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is timeless, an eternal agreement that God will graciously save his people, on the basis of which God made other specific covenants like Abraham's etc.

Who first developed this concept of the Covenant of Grace?
Were the other two metacovenants of Covenant Theology, the Covenants of Redemption and Works, developed at the same time?
Are there any substantial differences from how the Covenant of Grace was first conceptualised compared to how it is understood now?


texts: Do any Christian traditions claim to be antinomian?

texts:
According to this Wikipedia article on antinomianism, some Christian traditions have been charged with antinomianism, but are there any that actually claim to be antinomian?

Definition:

an·ti·no·mi·an  [an-ti-noh-mee-uhn]
noun
a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.


texts: What is the difference between a church and a social club?

texts:
There is a popular line that exists in sermons (heck, I've even preached it myself!) that says something to the effect of "a church is not a social club."  A church is not the local Kiwanis, it is not the local Boy Scouts, and it sure as heck isn't supposed to just be another "community center."

But how?

In what concrete ways is a church different than any other faternal or social organization?


texts: What is the purpose of attending the mass and going to Confession?

texts:
(My curiosity is going to cost me my reputation again. Anyway, here it goes...)

In Catholicism, how important is attending the mass, going to Confession and other liturgical rituals?

Do these activities have anything to do with getting to Heaven or Salvation?

Why do they have to participate in these activities?

Are they doing these things because

They are saved?
They want to be saved and they want go to Heaven?
They are pious?
They want to preserve the tradition?
They do it because others are doing it?


texts: Why did Jesus say the dead girl was "not dead but asleep"?

texts:
Luke and Matthew tell of when Jesus brought a young girl back to life. Before he did it however, Jesus says to the people that the girl is only sleeping:

Luke 8:52
Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."
Matthew 9:24
he said, "Go away. The girl is not dead but asleep." But they laughed at him.

Why did he tell the people that she was only asleep when she was clearly not?
A few things come to my mind:

It was a parable
He wanted to hide his power from the people, as he did at other times. The problem here is that that would've been a lie.

So, what reason was there to tell the people that she was sleeping, rather than that she was dead and he raised her from the dead?


texts: What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death?

texts:
Acts 5:1-11 (NIV)

  1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.  3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

  5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

  7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

  “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

  9Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

  10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

This is the only passage that I know of in the New Testament that tells us of Christians being put to death. As far as I understand, it was God that put them to death for lying to the Holy Spirit.

My question is what might have happened to them after their sudden death. Did they go directly to hell, or did they go to heaven? Was their death a kind of instant judgement that sent them away from God and directly to hell?


texts: What type of church or Christian would a Rob Bell follower be or attend?

texts:
I am a Rob Bell follower in the sense that I believe his teaching brings value and are intellectual, and his way of looking at the faith and the Bible make the most sense without just using "that is the way it is" as a scapegoat.

Now I am churchless and having a hard time finding a church.  I think it is because I do follow so closely to the teachings of Rob Bell.  Even the churches that try to be modern and different are just your same old bible thumpers; they just wear jeans and have a coffee shop in the church.

So what types of churches or Christians would Rob Bell followers be today?


texts: Who was the first person on record who was killed by a Christian or group of Christians for religious disagreements?

texts: I am trying to learn when did things start to go wrong in Christianity and when did it start to change from a peaceful, loving religious group into a movement that engaged in war and physical repression, including executions, in the Middle Ages. Therefore I was wondering who was the first person killed by a Christian, two Christians or a group of Christians due to religious disagreements.


texts: Is the idea that the pleasures we experience now are mild foretastes of Heaven Biblical?

texts:
Several authors1 have suggested that the pleasures we can experience in our lives are but a small foretaste of the pleasure we could experience in Heaven.

"It is a sudden and miraculous grace that is in fact evangelism, giving a fleeting of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief . . ." (JRR Tolkien)
"Furthermore, when you understand that earthly pleasures are meant only as a foretaste of the indescribable pleasures that await us, your compulsion to overindulge is tempered by the realisation that no particular pleasure can ultimately satisfy." (Ted Dekker)

I prefer the seemingly widespread notion that the happiness of Heaven is immeasurably greater than even the greatest happiness here. But WHERE is there anything suggestive of this in the Bible itself?
1 Writer Randy Alcorn suggests we CAN imagine Heaven. In fairness to his viewpoint the 'Eye hath not seen nor ears heard..." quote from Corintheans (if fully read through) does NOT mean we cannot contemplate the afterlife.


texts: What do Bible lexicons, like Strong's, mean when they use the phrase, "by extension"?

texts:
What does the phrase "by extension" mean, when a lexicon, like Strong's, uses that phrase, and then, gives a definition or a meaning?

For example, Strong's states that the word, "hated" in Romans 9:13, "Jacob i have loved, and, Esau, i have hated", means "by extension" to ("love less"); but, other lexicons say the word "hated" in the original Greek language means "to detest", and, literally, to simply, "hate"! The latter definitions seem more true and accurate than Strong's "by extension" definition of "love less". Also, Strong's placed "love less" in parentheses, and that is not normally done by Strong's when providing a definition, even when providing an "extension" meaning.

Could you tell me what the parentheses indicate and mean?

Also, "detest" and simply, "hate" seem like the more likely meaning in Romans 9:13, and not "love less" when comparing it with many other Scriptures in the Bible using the word, "hate","hated", or, "abhor", "abhorred",(etc.), particularly, when describing God's attitude toward "evildoers", or, "wicked" individuals, in the Bible.

Would you please give me a detailed meaning for when Strong's or any other lexicon might use the phrase, "by extension"? Is it the editor's opinion, only, particularly, if surrounded by parentheses? Or, is it something else? What are we extending? Or, is the rendered lexicon definition grounded in fact regarding the original autographs of Sacred Scripture for this or any particular Bible verse under study? Thanks!


texts: What is the original explanation Christian Scholars gave for Jewish prophecies not being fulfilled?

texts:
What is the original explanation Christian Scholars gave for these Jewish prophecies not being fulfilled?

  A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

  B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

  C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression,
  suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword
  against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

  D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite
  humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on
  that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). cite


texts: What is Wesley's concept of Entire Sanctification?

texts:
John Wesley believed and taught the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, the idea that it is possible for a believer to achieve perfection in this life, based on Bible verses like:

  Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. — 1 John 3:9

and Jesus' command:

  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matthew 5:48

Can someone explain what Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification means?


texts: Was each "Book" of the Old Testament on a separate scroll prior to the second century A.D.?

texts:
In this passage of Luke, it seems like the Book of Isaiah was on its own individual scroll. Do we have historical evidence or references that show whether this was always the case, or if some Books of the Old Testament were combined prior to the second century A.D.?

  Luke 4:17  "the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He
  unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written"

I have been to a Jewish synagogue service before and the Torah scroll they brought out for the Torah reading was huge, but also contained the entire Pentateuch on a single scroll. I'm not sure if that is just a modern practice, or occurred historically as well.


texts:
Is the phrase, "Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God" an orthodox viewpoint?

By orthodox I mean orthodox with a lower case o, not an upper case O, as in Orthodox.

I used this idea when responding to another question regarding exclusion from heaven here:
Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven?.

More to the point, does this phrase describe the primary characteristics of both places, and what verses support/refute this idea?


texts: How is it just that Jesus, an innocent, would be punished for our sins?

texts:
From the perspective that Jesus' suffering on the cross was in fact a punishment for our sins, how is punishing an innocent (Jesus) for the sinners justified?

Jesus was innocent but the people were sinners. A person must be punished for his own crime, but punishing an innocent is wrong. How do adherents of this doctrine explain this problem?

This doctrine is called penal substitutionary atonement and is one of several theologies that explain why Jesus had to die and how that benefited humanity.


texts: Where did the Roman Catholic denomination in India originate, and why are there differences amongst Indian Christians?

texts: I would like to know from where Roman Catholic denomination originated. Why does we have many groups like CSI, Jacobites, Orthodox, Evangelist, etc? Is it because of the believes people divide among themselves?


texts: Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation?

texts:
The Deuterocanonical books were included in the Septuagint, but not the Hebrew Bible. They are mostly included in the Catholic Old Testament, but not in the Protestant one.

I understand the choice was made by Luther, who called the deuterocanonical books

  Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read

Why weren't the deuterocanonical books considered equal to the Holy Scriptures?


texts: What are legitimate reasons for a Catholic priest to take a sabbatical?

texts:
Some of the priests I know were recently given a sabbatical year (in both cases it wasn't for the sake of study - the priests ended their parish assignments lasting for many years and had time to think over whether to take another parish, enter a monastery or leave priesthood completely). When looking for details how sabbatical works for Catholic priests, I found a document concerning archdiocese of Seattle - this seems to expect the priest on a sabbatical to study some special program.

So here are my questions:

1) What does Canon law say about sabbaticals (link to particular canons + brief summary should be OK)?

2) What is up to the Ordinary? How usual is the linked policy, and how different is practice in other dioceses? What reasons for sabbatical are accepted (provided that other requirements have been met) in most dioceses, what in some and what almost never?

I'm interrested especially in situations like that of the two priests I mentioned, but any other information about priests' sabbaticals is welcome.


texts: Do proponents of Federal Vision believe that there is no hope of salvation without baptism?

texts:
According to my reading of this article written by an opponent of Federal Vision, physical water baptism is required for salvation according to those who advocate the framework:

  Some would insist in all this that they do not deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but say that faith and salvation are both conferred through the sacrament of baptism. What this does, of course, is to make everyone in the church a believer, whether or not he really is a believer, and it also gets rid of the need for conversion since everybody is a Christian from the moment the water of baptism is sprinkled upon him.

(my emphasis)

Is this an accurate characterization of this theology or is it a caricature?


texts:
Assuming that Adam was placed on Earth as an infant...

  Who nurtured Adam when he was an infant?


texts:
John the Baptist was someone whose job was to prepare the way from Christ. When Jesus makes his appearance, John introduces him to the people.

John 1:29-34, New Living Translation (NLT)

Jesus, the Lamb of God

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
  He is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’
  I did not recognize him as the Messiah, but I have been baptizing with water so that he might be revealed to Israel.”
  Then John testified, “I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him.
  I didn't know he was the one, but when God sent me to baptize with water, he told me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
  I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.”

John 3:31-36, New Living Translation (NLT)

  “He has come from above and is greater than anyone else. We are of the earth, and we speak of earthly things, but he has come from heaven and is greater than anyone else.
  He testifies about what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what he tells them!
  Anyone who accepts his testimony can affirm that God is true.
  For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit.
  The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands.
  And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.”

Mark 1:9-14, New Living Translation (NLT)

The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus

  One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River.
  As Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Holy Spirit descending on him like a dove.
  And a voice from heaven said, “You are my dearly loved Son, and you bring me great joy.”
  The Spirit then compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness,
  where he was tempted by Satan for forty days. He was out among the wild animals, and angels took care of him.
  Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News.

So the basic timeline is: Jesus enters the scene. --> John proclaims that he is the Messiah. --> John Baptizes. --> John is put in prison.

So, how should I understand this:

Matthew 11:2-3, New Living Translation (NLT)

  John the Baptist, who was in prison, heard about all the things the Messiah was doing. So he sent his disciples to ask Jesus,
  “Are you the Messiah we've been expecting,[a] or should we keep looking for someone else?”

Well, this is confusing, since that way John has been talking it is implying that he knew who was Messiah or not. As far as I know he was executed in prison, so the timeline cannot be backwards.

Answers?


texts: Can a Catholic priest excommunicate someone for premarital sex?

texts:
I was a Catholic. I did my sacraments according to the Catholic lifestyle. When I was born, I was baptized. Around age of 8 years, I got my First Holy Communion, and around 14 years of age, I went to confirmation classes and got confirmed.

I got pregnant at age 17 and married outside the church, since my parents didn't approve of my condition or choice of the baby's father. Sex was preached as a mortal sin, and without confession, I would go to straight to Hell if I died.

My parents disowned me and so did the Catholic Church, the priest told me I would be excommunicated. I don't know that any form was filed, and my parents apologized for doing me wrong many years later, instead of having the baby and having him adopted.

Am I excommunicated or is all I need to do to go to confession to return to good standing in the Church?


texts: If rules in the Bible can change, shouldn't Bibles be arranged chronologically so we know which one is right?

texts:
If there is a contradiction in the bible, you should listen to the newest rule (where I'm coming from is here).  Wouldn't it make more sense for orthodox Christianity that the books of the bible be put in chronological order?  Would the order be as they were written or when the events take place?

The question:
Is there a version of the bible which is in chronological order - if so, which chronological order?


texts: Jewish Festival of Lights and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception?

texts:
While I was doing some reading on how Catholics celebrate various feasts and festivals from around the world, I noticed that the city of Lyons, France celebrates the Festival of Lights on December 8th each year which is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

The Jewish community celebrate the Festival of Hanukkah on the 25th of  Kislev.

  Hanukkah is observed for eight nights and days, starting on the 25th day of Kislev according to the Hebrew calendar, which may occur at any time from late November to late December in the Gregorian calendar. It is also known as the Festival of Lights and the Feast of Dedication.

While reading this question, I became intrigued  as to know if the building of the Temple of Herod which is believed have to commenced in or around the year 20 BC and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary could have happened about the same time.

If Our Lord was born between the years 6 BC and 4 BC and Mary was possibly married to St Joseph between the ages of 14 - 16 years old, could not the Immaculate Conception and the commencement of the building of the Temple of Herod not have coincided in the same year?

My question is this: Has any Church Father or Church writer ever addressed the possibility of the Virgin Mary's Immaculate  Conception and the commencement of the building of the Temple of Herod as happening in the same year?


texts: Can other "scripture" (such as the Quran) be used as ultimate authority in presuppositional apologetics?

texts:
I've been impressed lately with the presuppositional apologetic work of Sye Ten Bruggencate and how his arguments seem to be irrefutable by those he debates.

The only problem I have is that he claims the Bible is the only ultimate authority that can be used in this argument. (See Bruggencate's site, question 4)

Other religions have their own scripture which are held in the same regard as the Bible (for example the Quran in Islam, the Book of Mormon for Mormons, the Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible). These other scriptures, though they may be dismissed by non-believers, seem to be of equal value in the presuppositional apologetic argument.

Can anyone explain why the Bible is seen to be the only "scripture" that holds true in the presuppositional apologetic argument?


texts: Popes Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times?

texts:
Has Pope Benedict XVI or Pope St. John Paul II written anything extensively (or even informally supported any author) on the subject of the Antichrist and the end times?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the faithful about the Church's final combat:

  675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

  676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.

  677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.


texts: I'm just wanting to clarify the rule about eating fish on Good Friday: Is the intention to add fish to the diet or to remove all other meats from the diet?


texts:
Luke 22:3 (NIV) Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Does this verse imply that

Judas had no more control over his own actions as he was possessed by the devil.
Judas yielded himself to the temptation of 30 pieces of silver offered by the priests for betraying Jesus.

The first option would mean that Judas was possessed and hence had no control over his own will whereas the second option would mean that the betrayal was a self-willed one.


texts: Tackling Catholic philosophy and theology

texts:
I'd like to read and understand Catholic theology, philosophy and Tradition as best as I can.

I'm a biologist and not a philosopher/theologian -- and as such, I cannot (and thus far have not) dedicated massive amounts of time to reading/understanding explicitly the texts and concepts of specific philosophers/theologians in their entirety. I'm not opposed to reading the many influential authors, but given my lack of time to dedicate fully to this endeavor, I'd like to go about reading these authors in the most efficient way, if you will.

My question then: which major texts/authors should I prioritize reading (and in what order) to better grasp the current theology/philosophy of the Catholic faith?

My impression is, that I would benefit greatly reading the following (with supposed additions added in parentheses) in the presented order (first to last):

(Plato) > Aristotle > Irenaeus > Augustine > Aquinas > Ratzinger

Does this seem sensible? Are each of these authors necessary (as I suppose) to truly understand the other? Or can I read Aquinas or Ratzinger (for example) and get a good enough grasp of prior thought/philosophers? Are there other authors that are hugely important that I skipped (e.g., Descartes?)?

Is there a textbook perhaps that anyone can recommend that introduces me to a sensible and necessary reading list or conceptual walkthrough?

(I guess I'm ultimately looking for an "official" list (perhaps from a well-respected textbook, theologian, or the Church itself) vs anecdotal commentary. )


texts: Why do biblical names vary in different languages?

texts:
In my regional language (Tamil) biblical names vary from the actual names. I'm sure this is not only in my regional language only but also in other languages too. For instance Jesus' name is Yesu and John's name is Yovan and so on. But in my regional language it doesn't mean anything; rather it's confusing.

In our prayers also we used the regional names and I think, would we mean Jesus' name or something else?

I can understand it'd be necessary to translate the Bible as it'd help the people to understand the Bible better. But what was the reason to change the names?


texts: What is the origin and basis of the idea of spending an hour each day in prayer?

texts:
In my society there is this odd thing being discussed or requested of people to pray i.e to spend one hour a day praying.
I do not understand why one needs to pray for one hour.  The closest is the time Jesus asked if his disciples can not stay watch for one hour but this does not translate to one hour pray.
Can any one explain the notion of one hour prayer and where in the Bible does it teach us how long to pray?


texts: Did original Christian theology that predated the birth of Jesus teach anything similar to the doctrine of the Trinity?

texts: Since Christianity stems from Judaism did the Jews believe that their Messiah and their God would be the same person as described in the Trinity?


texts: What is the origin of the "Fire Tunnel" ritual at Bethel Church?

texts:
According to Wikipedia:

Bethel Church is an American non-denominational hyper-charismatic megachurch in Redding, California with over 11,000 members. The church was established in 1952 and is currently led by Bill Johnson. Bethel has its own music labels and Bethel Music and Jesus Culture ministries, which have gained large popularity within contemporary worship music. The church runs the Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry with over 2,000 students annually. Senior church leaders have been supporters of conservative politics.

At Bethel Church, they have a very peculiar ritual known as "Fire Tunnel" or "Tunnel of Fire" (you may come across either wording). In a nutshell, people who are deemed more mature in the faith form two lines (a human tunnel) that novices are made to go through so that those forming the tunnel may lay hands on them and transfer into them the same "anointing" that they supposedly carry. It's very common to see people display strange physical manifestations during these events, which may include appearing drunk, laughing hysterically, being "slain in the spirit", jerking or shaking, etc.
Here are a few videos illustrating the ritual: video 1, video 2, video 3, video 4, video 5. (You may find many more by using your favorite search engine.)
Question: What is the origin of the practice? When was the first time that a "Fire Tunnel" was ever practiced in the history of the Church? Did Bethel Church originally come up with the idea of the ritual or did they borrow it / take inspiration from a prior source?


texts: We have archaeological evidence that dinosaurs existed and walked upon the earth once upon a time in the history of the earth. Their fossils are dated some million years back. Where do these creatures fit in ?


texts: Why are people traditionally buried facing east?

texts:
During a burial today, I noticed the coffin was buried facing east.

Where does this Christian tradition come from?


texts: Could Jesus understand (and read) Latin?

texts:
I read that Jesus probably spoke Arameic and Hebrew. And that a Bible verse indicated that he could read.
Jesus lived in the Roman empire, so Latin was known by at least some people in the region.
Is there any indication in scripture that Jesus could understand a little Latin?
If not, is it reasonable to believe that a typical man born in the same region in the same year was able to understand/read at least some basic Latin words?


texts: Why does Christianity have Satan as well as God?

texts:
Just as a little background:

I study religions as a hobby but I don't really worship them, although they do dramatically affect how I perceive the world. I like to read scriptures. I have read the 5 vedas, Mahabharata, Tuttvartha Sutra, parts of the Tripitaka, The Dhammapada, The Egyptian Amduat, The 12 Gates, The Zend Avista etc etc. Religions interest me, I find them absolutely fascinating to read, and to reflect on. I don't see scriptures as being "right" or "wrong" or "true" or "false" for me they seek to encapsulate a certain amount of wisdom that we can all learn and benefit from so for me, i have no personal conflict between religions, nor do i get offended by strong religious opinions, nor do i feel prolonged loyalty to any particular religion or scripture; although I would be lying if i said I didn't have favourites!

Currently, I am taking a break from Egyptology to try and understand the Bible, which I did partially read as a child as I was brought up Roman Catholic, but I didn't very well understand it, but I'd like to, and there are things that confuse me.

One thing that I am particularly struggling with is that in Christianity, we have the concepts of God as well as Satan. This for me is tricky for me to get my head around, because in many other religions - particularly polytheistic religions God(s) are not necessarily good, nor bad they can be either, or neither depending entirely on perspective. For example: the Hindu God Shiva is depicted as a destroyer, but also as a creative force that clears away the old to make way for the new. Or, if you look at Jainism, "God" is pantheist and above reproach because "The absolute is impersonal", so in that context, it's irrelevant to question whether God can be good or bad, since the Jains see the construct of God as literally being the world around us - the very laws of nature.

The question:

So what I am trying to understand is, as Christianity is monotheistic, why Satan features in the bible at all. There must be a reason for it, and I've no doubt it's a good reason. And my concern is that by not understanding this reason, something fundamental to Christianity is missing from my understanding.

Did the Old Testament always have a concept of Satan or was it added
later?
If so, why was it added? (For example some of the scriptures in the Bible that were present in Coptic scrolls in the Nag Hamadi library e.g. the "Exegesis of the Soul" were destroyed due to a clearout of suspected heretical material in the Bible that may have crept in over the centuries and so do not feature in the 1611 KJV many centuries later.)
Was it added because devout people were afraid to depict actions of God as being negative and they were scared of being seen to blaspheme?
If Satan is there to carry the burden of all evil within the world, are actions such as the anger of God in the old testiment, good or bad, or neither?
Is there any clue in the Bible that gives indication as to why God's anger is not the responsibility of Satan?
Is there an official stance on this, and is it based on the scriptures, or by a figurehead, such as say a saint or a pope?

Essentially the thing I am confused about is the partition or the line between the actions of God and the actions of Satan. Can God do evil, or is it only Satan?

Apologies, I am really trying to make these questions as historically based or scripturally based as possible, and I trying as much as possible to avoid asking an opinion based question, but in religions there is an awful lot of opinion in interpreting scriptures and the history of such things can be clouded over long periods of time by wars, cultural changes and the loss of material.


texts: According to Catholicism, who is the leader of devils?

texts:
We come across many verses in  the Bible - both Old Testament and New Testament, where the name of devil is mentioned. For instance:

Is 14: 12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Lk 10:18 : And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven
Mat 4:10 : Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Lk 11: 15: But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.

Satan appears to be a generic name in that Jesus himself reprimands Peter:

"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Mtt 16:23)

My question, therefore is: Who, according to Catholic Church, is the leader of all devils?


texts: Is the Eastern Orthodox Church independent from regional governments?

texts:
I have heard that interference from Moscow has been the cause of some dissent and even a schism within the Russian Orthodox Church in America. I think the very existence of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church of America is proof positive that at the least there was once an issue with control from the state.

Are the various branches of Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g. Greek, Russian, etc) independent today or are there are still ties to the respective states?


texts: According to Catholic doctrine, do our fallen, finite nature and our relationship with God set us up for abusive relationships in this life?

texts:
We are created in the image and likeness of God, and are therefore acting in accordance with our true nature when we strive for self-emptying love, as we imitate God and Christ in so striving.

However, because we are finite and fallen, and subject to original sin, it is impossible for us to love in the way that God, who is infinite, loves. We suffer terribly because of this inadequacy.

According to Catholic doctrine, does our continuing to try to give in this way predispose us to abuse by others in this life because we give too much of ourselves, even when our intention is to give to God by giving to others? Abused partners caught in abusive relationships have a quality of never turning from the abuser, despite all of the pain given by the abuser to the abused. There is a great danger of seeing an abusive relationship as a sort of martyrdom.

What is the Catholic Church's position on abusive relationships? Does the Catholic Church teach that partners should stay in abusive relationships and continue to love the abuser because we are called to find God (the Other) in the other, and as a martyrdom in the footsteps of Christ? Or are abusive relationships manifestations of our trying to love another person as though that person were God, which is some form of idolatry?

I would appreciate an insightful answer on this topic, to see if Catholic doctrine can clarify things.


texts: How did Catholic Church adapt after the Black Plague in Europe if at all any adaptation occurred?

texts: Correct me if I am wrong here. There were various reformations in the Catholic Church for example the reformation led by St. Catherine of Cienna, the reformation led by St. Theresa of Avila, Second Vatican Council led by Pope John the XXIII, etc. So just wondering after the Black Plague was there any adaptation that had to be undertaken in the Catholic Church?


texts: Does the Catholic church teach that my life in heaven will always be "perfect", that is, I will want nothing more than what I have in my heavenly life because I will always be completely happy and completely satisfied with absolutely everything in my personal heavenly life?


texts: What is the difference between Irresistible Grace and the Immaculate Conception?

texts:
So, there's a Calvinist dogma called "Irresistible grace" which I take to mean that some people are unable to resist the call of God and will do the "Godly thing" against their freewill (or instead of their freewill).

And then there is The Immaculate Conception, which is the Doctrine that The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin, thus giving her the power to follow her freewill perfectly and not the normal corrupt passions that drag the rest of us down.

So, according to the Catholic Church, why do we say she had freewill instead of saying she submitted to irresistible grace?

Also, is there a sense that some of the Apostles and/or Patriarchs got to a point where they acted as if they were following their conscience perfectly, the way Our Lady did?


texts: What is God's good news before Jesus's death and resurrection?

texts:
In Mark 1, we learn about both John's baptism of repentance and Jesus's proclamation that "the time has come.  Repent and believe in the good news!"

John's baptism

  And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a
  baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean
  countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.
  Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Jesus's Proclamation

  14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming
  the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of
  God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

How would Jews have understood this at the time before Jesus's death?  It seems like the common understanding is that before His death and resurrection, the only sanctification for sin was through particular forms of sacrifice, based on this passage in Hebrews (NIV):

  22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with
  blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

So - other than that God being with us and loving us is clearly excellent news - how would this have been understood in Jesus's time before his death and resurrection?


texts: What is the significance of Bethlehem as the place of Jesus birth?

texts:
The New Testament records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea.  In fact, this was a fulfillment of prophecy, as Matthew records:

  Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
  Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2
  saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw
  his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the
  king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and
  assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he
  inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In
  Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

  6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”  Matthew 2:1-6 ESV

So, what is the significance of Bethlehem and why did God choose this city, and not any of the other cities in Israel, for the birthplace of the Messiah?  It seems that it should be something more than just a random selection.


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain Paul's apparent equating of Yahweh and Jesus in Ephesians 4?

texts:
Recently I was listening to a lecture by Reformed theologian Robert Cara, in which he mentioned how frequently NT writers connect and apply OT Yahweh references to Jesus.  A number of examples could be given, but one of the stronger ones is Ephesians 4:7–10, which reads:

  7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. 8 Therefore it says,

      “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
            and he gave gifts to men.”

  9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) [ESV]

Paul seems to be clearly talking about Jesus here, talking about his descent to the earth and his subsequent ascent into heaven, paralleling the quoted OT passage.  That passage is Psalm 68:18, which reads:

  You ascended on high,
     leading a host of captives in your train
      and receiving gifts among men,
  even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there. [ESV]

From context, the "You" of Psalm 68:18 seems to be Yahweh – the entire chapter interchangeably uses God, Lord, and LORD, and verses 22–26 seem to describe God/Yahweh "leading a host of captives" in more detail.

Thus, the argument goes, Paul is clearly applying an OT description of Yahweh to Jesus, indicating that he believes Jesus is truly the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh).

How do Jehovah's Witness's explain this?  Do they interpret Ephesians 4 differently, or Psalm 68 differently, or have some other explanation?

Lecture 06 Acts 1–2, starting 39:20


texts: John 15:4 has the phrase "Live in me, and I will live in you." What does it mean to live in someone or to live in God?


texts: What is the Book of Mormon equivalent of John 3:16?

texts:
Christians technically aren't supposed to have a "Canon within the canon" (i.e. a subset of Scripture that is somehow "more scriptural" then everything else) but in practical effect, we do.  If someone is interested in learning the Christian faith, nine times out of ten, someone will say, "Read the Book of John," if not actually just whip out John 3:16 and start quoting. (Very few, for example, would say 'start with Leviticus'. The truly erudite would say, "Read the Book of Romans," but I digress...)

So, I've read through Mormon exhibits that tell me about the journey of Lehi & Nephi, of the battle that Helaman fought, and of the final burial of the Scriptures by Moroni - but what I want to know is this - what is the "core teaching" of the Book of Mormon that would be the most fair for me to evaluate? Not to discount the remainder of the LDS scriptures, but is there a "go-to text" that should be looked at first?

In other words, what is the abridged "canon within the canon" of the Book of Mormon?  Where do I begin when the guys in the white shirts say, "read this?"


texts: Does the Bible allow us to protect our selves

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?

I am referring to turning the other cheek. With all the violence going on I am wondering if we can protect our selves or does the turn the other cheek mean we should just let someone harm us?


texts:
I think most (if not all) Christians would agree that there will be no sin in heaven. However, we often make mistakes that aren't sinful: accidentally spilling a glass of milk isn't a sin. We don't know everything, we aren't all virtuosos, nor are we all Olympic athletes, but ignorance and a lack of skill and athleticism aren't sins either.

So: will we be perfect in Heaven, mentally and physically?


texts:
There are many passages in bible about this question. But the thing that confuses me is this:
If resurrection is "at the last day" or "at the end of the world" (according to John 6, John 11:24, 1 Corinthians 15:52, Matthew 13:36-43 and other verses), then how should the the parable of beggar Lazarus and the rich man be interpreted?

For if heaven or hell start at the last day, then how does Abraham say to rich man that his brothers have scriptures with themselves to hear them lest they also come to hell?   If they aren't yet in heaven nor in hell and the rich man, does that mean that afterlife starts for dead immediately.  And if at the last day, why would Abraham lie to him in saying that they "still have a chance" if resurrection is passed?

Someone may say that this parable should not be interpreted literally but this parable isn't the only place where immediate afterlife is mentioned (see Luke 23:43).

  Luk 23:42 — Luk 23:43
  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.