texts: Why Jesus taught differently on “sin and treating sinners” as compared to Old Testament?

texts:
In the book of Joshua, just before attack on Jericho, Joshua told his men not to take any riches for themselves which was meant for God. Joshua 6:18 . In spite of this Achan hides some of the riches for himself. On God’s directive Joshua orders his punishment by stoning him and all of his household to death Joshua 7:25

In similar manner in Old Testament we come across much harsher punishment for wrong doing than what it is now. We find that OT commanded death penalty for many acts: Murder (Ex, 21.12), kidnapping (Ex. 21.16), bestiality (Ex. 22.19), Adultery (Lev. 20.10), homosexuality (Lev. 20.13), Being false prophet (Deu. 13.5) Prostitution and rape (Deu. 22.24) etc.

In contrast to this, Jesus showed much greater mercy for breaking such commandments. On one hand we find that compared to Old law, Jesus fine tunes the interpretation of sin (Matt. 5:21-22, Matt. 5:27-28 etc) and yet when it comes to application of justice shows more mercy and love (Matt. 5:38-39, 5:43-44 so on).

If one takes an overview on “sin and treating sinners” in New Testament, we find that Jesus increases the measuring scale by which a person is judged guilty and yet by doing so, advocated more lenient justice system.

Why Jesus advocated this change from Old Testament?


texts: Is it possible to get a divorce (not an annulment) in the Catholic Church?

texts: There is a common misconception that an annulment is a Catholic version of a divorce (see this question). However, this has made me wonder: is it is possible to get a divorce within the Catholic church, rather than an annulment? To put it another way, is it possible for a marriage in the Catholic Church to end before death in a way other than annulment?


texts: In what year was the letter to the Galatians written?

texts:
I found conflicting sources on the internet:

The first source said the Letter to the Galatians was written between 52-55 AD.
The second source said it was written between 48-49 AD.

Just comparing the dates did not interest me.  When I see the relationship with the Jerusalem Council, it becomes more interesting.

The first source put the Jerusalem council before the writing of
the Galatian letter.
The second source put the writing of the Galatian letter before the
Jerusalem council. (To be honest, I myself prefer the second source for my own reason).

But since I'm not an expert, I wonder at the different timing between two source?

Which source is correct ?


texts: Is there a sound doctrine or biblical explanation why Satan is called "the ape of God"?

texts:
I encountered this word in the book entitled "The Devil", I forgot the name of the author. It was Tertullian who called Satan the "ape of God" but offered very little explanation.

We know from the bible references Satan was attributed to the serpent, roaring lion and ancient dragon.  This description is supported by biblical references in Genesis, Revelation and 1Peter 5:8.

But to call Satan "the ape of God" - is there a sound Catholic biblical perspective on this, or perhaps an early Church writing, explaining the soundness of this phrase?


texts: Is "Love and Respect" consistent with Eph 5:33

texts:
The title is a bit broader than what I really intend to ask. More precisely, I am interested in whether Dr. Eggerichs's understanding of the terms "love" and "respect" in "Love and Respect" is consistent with the verse from which he argues, Eph 5:33 (ESV)

  However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

More specifically still, Dr. Eggerichs seems to assume that "love" and "respect" are "felt love" and "felt respect"; that is, that this verse is fulfilled if and only if the woman feels loved and the man feels respected.

I'm not a scholar and don't have all of the knowledge of the various uses of these words throughout scripture, but from the knowledge that I do have, this strikes me as off. Then again, scripture often does challenge my assumptions, so I am willing to hear what scripture says on the subject.

So the question is, can anyone show whether this is or is not what Paul (and God!) has in mind in this verse?


texts:
Quoting from this site:

  Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious.

What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep?


texts: In Catholicism is salvation by grace alone or by following the ten commandments and confession?

texts:
I have many catholic friends, and lately I have been engaging them as to whether or not they believe that salvation is by grace alone. My one catholic friend, (who would label themselves as an  "Ecumenical charismatic Catholic" ) agrees with me completely that salvation is by grace alone. On the other hand, another catholic friend says that salvation is by following the ten commandments, and when asked what happens when we mess up, they responded, "That's what confession is for."

So my question is, is Catholicism really this broad, or is one of my catholic friends not really catholic?

Also, what does Catholicism actually say? Salvation by grace alone, or by works?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the replacement of God's law by the new covenant in Christ?

texts:
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus states that he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

However, much of the law written in Deuteronomy is not practiced by Christian churches today (Deut 22:11 is a good example, forbidding the wearing of garments that mix linen and wool).  I have heard this explained that the new covenant of Christ overrides the old covenant of law, but I can't find a clear scriptural basis for this idea.

Further, it would appear to me that in the cases where Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, such as in Matthew 12:10 in healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, he was not critical of the law of keeping the Sabbath holy, but the Pharisees' incorrect interpretation of that law.


texts: Under what circumstances may female Jehovah's Witnesses teach doctrine to men in an evangelistic setting?

texts:
I will apologize at the outset as this question stems more from anecdote than from research.
Anecdote 1 - Some years ago, while at the local dump, I was approached by a woman for help unloading the trunk of her car.  By way of thanks (after a brief conversation) she offered me some Jehovah's Witness material, notably a booklet called "What Does The Bible Really Teach?".  I gladly accepted and offered to read the book and then reunite with her to discuss the contents.  She declined and instead offered to have one of the deacons (male) from the local Kingdom Hall contact me if I was interested in studying the booklet together.  The reason she gave for declining my offer was that JW women were not allowed to instruct men.
Anecdote 2 - Much to my wife's chagrin I have always invited JW into my home to discuss the scriptures when they come knocking at the door.  My wife was homeschooling our children at the time and would send JW visitors away if I was off at work.  As these visits were concurrent with a year long bible study via telephone (the result of anecdote 1) I requested of the JW deacon with whom I was speaking that visits during my away hours cease.  What occurred is that male visits during my away hours ceased but small groups of females periodically stopped by (more spousal chagrin).  As my work schedule became apparent so did this pattern:  When I was known to be home it was men who came and never women.
I found some relevant information in Watchtower online which seems to indicate that women may witness to and teach men in an evangelistic setting but may not teach doctrine or preside over a congregation wherein there are baptized male believers.
My question is:  Was the woman from anecdote 1 just being extra cautious in declining to undertake bible study with me or was my it baptism in a Protestant denomination that was enough to disqualify her as my teacher?
A corollary question is:  How does this affect a JW woman's ability to answer questions on a site such as this Christianity Stack where an OP's gender is often unknown and an OP's baptism into Christianity is often unknown but is likely to have occurred?


texts: Does canonisation make one more meritorious before God?

texts:
To my understanding, Catholics pray to quite a few saints, and not just to any deceased laity, and all of which special saints doubtlessly are canonised.
Does canonisation make a saint meritorious before God?

I prefer a perspective from those that have this tradition in their faith toward God.


texts: Does Song of Solomon encourage pre-marital sex?

texts:
Someone raised the following argument, claiming that the Bible, in the Song of Solomon,  encourages pornography and premarital sex. He had me read some verses from the book, which I've listed below, and told me these verses are the main reason why the Song of Solomon is hardly ever preached in churches today, because of its explicit contents and descriptions.

"Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full— And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied" (Song of Solomon 8:10).
"If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me.  I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.  His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me" (Song of Songs 8:1-3).

He claims these two verses show that the woman being spoken of was not married.
Another example:

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine.   Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you!  Take me away with you let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love more than wine. How right they are to adore you!" (Song of Songs 1:2-4).

How should a Christian defend himself against this type of argument?  Is there another interpretation of the Song of Solomon which refutes the claim that the Bible is in favor of premarital sex and pornography? If so, what is it? or better still what do these verses really mean?


texts: Why does Intelligent Design reject evolution, even intelligently designed and executed evolution?

texts:
Intelligent Design is a current brand of natural philosophy that at its simplest holds that the Universe (ie, everything) has been designed intelligently. It opposes ideas like a spontaneous beginning or an eternal universe.

But the proponents of ID, eg Behe, Dembski, Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture.. all seem to be explicitly against any form of (macro) evolution, even if intelligently designed and executed. Why reject theistic evolution?


texts: Looking for a passage in the Old Testament

texts: There's this person who prays and begs God to kill him but instead an angel comes and gives him water or something like that. I think it's in one of the first readings from April to July 2015, but I couldn't find it.


texts: Are all humans in Heaven equal or is there also a kind of hierarchy? (Roman Catholic perspective)

texts:
If so what determines what their position is?

What is equal is that all human would see God from face to face. But Jesus made an implication that one could sit on either of his site. Are these place for special holy persons, like saints?
On the other hand some persons go straight to Heaven and others will first go to purify themselves in the purgatory. So from that site one perhaps can expect that after purification every one is equal.

So is there a kind of hierarchy in Heaven, if so what determines it?

This is according to RCC.


texts: What is the name of the theory or thesis that the brothers of Jesus came from a previous marriage of St. Joseph?

texts: An important Christian tradition is that the brothers of Jesus, mentioned in the gospels, were born to Joseph by a previous marriage. Is there a name given to this tradition?


texts: How does one become an Apostle in the LDS Church?

texts: With the recent passing of one of the Apostles in the LDS Church, how will the new  Apostle be chosen to fill the vacancy?


texts: According to Catholicism, how did Clement of Rome become a Pope?

texts: We know Clement from the New Testament scripture, but Clement has not written anything about him being a Pope. I have never heard of any other early church fathers who says he was. How does the Catholic Church make this claim?


texts: Jesus said that no prophet can die outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). Did any prophets die outside Jerusalem? If so, which ones?


texts: Is the term 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'?

texts:
I have noticed there are some that distinguish between the designation 'scripture' as only referring to the Old Testament and 'word of God' as some or all of the New Testament. This seems strange to me but in any case regardless of the possible distinctions between 'the word of God' and the designation 'scripture' is there any difference in the authority of each term?

I assume 'if they have equal authority' then any minor differences that may be implied in the 'terms' are inconsequential as they only denote aspects of the same thing. Here we find Paul taking about his message as 'the word of God':

  And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13, NIV)

Is the 'word of God' in the New Testament equal in authority to the designation 'scripture'?


texts: What are the general positions of different traditions on the question "did Jesus have to die?"

texts:
I wish to take a much closer look at the theology of the death of Jesus. I understand that the evangelical position is largely that he had to die to pay for our sins but I fully expect that there are other views within traditions I am much less familiar with but also what objections might be raised to these views.
What is an overview of how the different traditions answer "did Jesus have to die?"


texts: Why did Jesus physically throw out the money changers instead of winning the argument with reason?

texts:
When Jesus cleared the money changers from the Temple, he drove them out by overturning their tables and (in John) even using a whip. Why did he not try to remove them with persuasion, by making a reasoned argument? He was certainly capable of winning arguments (eg story culminating in Luke 13:17).

Bible references for the story:

Matthew 21:12-13
Mark 11:15-19
Luke 19:45–48
John 2:13–16 (possibly a separate occasion to the above Synoptics)


texts: What was the concept of heaven people had before the death of Jesus?

texts:
Catechism of the Catholic Church Para 1026 states : "By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven to us....."

At Luke 15:21 we see the repentant  prodigal son declaring :

‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

We also see Jesus saying at Luke 16:22 (KJV) :  ""So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom."

And,  at John 14:2 (NRSVCE) :

" In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?"

Clearly, the concept of heaven was there even before the death of Jesus at the Cross. My question is: What does the Catholic Church say about the concept of Heaven that the people had before the death of Jesus ?


texts: What is the will of the Father according to the LDS vewpoint?

texts:
True and False Disciples

  21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’   MATTHEW 7:21-23

Jesus is here stating that many will attempt to justify themselves according to what they have done (verse 22); but He clearly says it is only those who do His will who will be saved.

The Bible clearly says that the will of God is:

  John 6:38-40

  For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Therefore; what will the Mormon faithful say to Jesus when at the "pearly gates" so to speak...why should he let you in to the kingdom?


texts:
Are any Greek or Roman gods mentioned by name in the Bible?

Also, are any Greek or Roman mythological characters or creatures mentioned in the Bible?


texts: What problems, if any, do Mormons have with the Apostles' Creed?

texts:
As a follow-up to a previous question, I'd like to know: Does the LDS church disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'd like to know how the LDS church handles this – answers will ideally cite official LDS sources, or at least theologians who are recognized members of the LDS.

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and Swedenborgians.


texts: What does it mean to be clean in the context of the Old Law?

texts:
In a large number of places, the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention cleanliness, saying that certain persons or things are clean or unclean. I won't mention any particular passage because I would like a general explanation of the idea.

What does it mean to be clean or unclean in the context of the Old Law?

(An answer might talk about modern practices similar to this "clean/unclean" distinction, or Christian tradition in general.)


texts: Why didn't Jesus write books of his teachings but charge his apostles to spread the Gospel?

texts: I have studied for years, found new writings from discoveries of Archeologists, but not one writing or book or Idea written by Jesus himself. All is hearsay if taken to a court of law to confirm the sayings of Jesus. Why didn't Jesus write himself the Ideas preached by the Apostles? wouldn't that have resolved questions on authority , divinity, and Nature of God?


texts: What should a priest who commits a mortal sin just before Holy Mass do, if confession is not available?

texts:
Imagine following situation. There is a parish in a small village. There is only one priest in that parish (let's call him Fr. Nomen Nescio). It is Easter Sunday (or some important day on which laity expect mass and surely many of the faithful will come to the mass). Mass that will be celebrated on that day is the only one in that village and it will be celebrated in the evening (say 7:30 pm or 8:00 pm). Fr. N.N. prepares for the mass, there is 15 more minutes till mass begins and Church is already almost full. Now, God forbid this awful and monstrous situation; Fr. N.N. commits mortal sin just 5 minutes before mass. He is only priest in that parish (there is no other priest where he could go to confession). Because he is in a small village, the closest priest which could confess him is at least 1 hour of driving away. He  is very sorry for his sin that he just committed, however, he has only imperfect contrition; he is unable to move himself to perfect contrition.

What should Fr. N.N. do in that situation?

If he goes to celebrate mass then he is obliged to partake of Body and Blood of Christ, which would for Fr. N.N. be one of the worst mortal sins.

On the other hand, if he does not go to celebrate mass then there is a great evil, every faithful in that village will not get to go on mass on Easter Sunday and everyone already came to mass. If he does not go to celebrate mass, faithful will expect some good reason from Fr. N.N. why there will be no mass.

What course of action should Fr. N.N. take?

I am not sure (that is why I am asking this question) what should Fr. N.N. do, however it seems to me that there is no situation in which one should commit mortal sin; therefore it seems to me that Fr. N.N. should not celebrate mass.

Has the Church foreseen such awful situations and when these situations occur, is the priest somehow not obliged to partake of Body and Blood of Christ during Mass?


texts: What is the meaning of the phrase "Entertaining Angels"?

texts:
For inexplicable reasons I've been listening to a lot of Newsboys lately and also recently finished reading Dorothy Day's Auto-Biography.  What do these things have in common?  Well there's an intensely catchy Newsboys song called "Entertaining Angels" and the biopic of the life of Dorothy Day is also called the same thing.

Since I'd never heard the phrase before I figured I'd ask about it here so I could impress my wife later on. Is it an old-fashioned sort of saying or a Biblical allusion (Gen 18) or something else?  Does it mean Angels are laughing at us foolish mortals or we should treat everyone we meet as if they're angels in disguise?


texts: How does Catholicism interpret Deuteronomy 13:1-11

texts:
According to this answer provided by Geremia, Thomas Aquinas wrote:

...before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity

In Deuteronomy 13, Moses tells these simple people:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHVH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHVH your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after YHVH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from YHVH your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which YHVH thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from YHVH thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

How does Catholicism interpret the verses which say the simple Jewish people were to kill any prophet that enticed them to worship gods they have not known, since they never knew god the son who is the second person of a triune god?


texts: A older man and woman living under the same roof

texts: What is the position of the Catholic Church regarding an unmarried post menopausal woman living under the same roof (maintaining separate bedrooms) as an unmarried permanently impotent man? Are they living in sin if there is absolutely no form of intimacy whatsoever? (The man has mild autism and cannot abide any form of intimacy, either physical, not even an accidental touch of a shoulder in passing, or psychological. The woman is his care taker. There is no one else living in the home.)


texts: Does transubstantiation occur when the Eucharist is received by one barred from sacraments?

texts:
If someone is banned from receiving the sacraments through interdict or excommunication but does so anyway (perhaps they go to a different parish where their status is not known) does the sacrament still take effect?  Specifically, if someone is barred from receiving the Eucharist, does transubstantiation still occur?

It's my understanding (and agreed with in this question) that the transubstantiation occurs when the priest says the words of instantiation – that is, before they are received by the potential excommunicatee.


texts:
I was reading Angelic Doctor about religious vocation (= a invation from God to life as dioceasn priest or in some kind of religous order (like Dominicans, Franciscans...)) and it seems that he did not view the matter as most view today. Among the things Aquinas says (in On The Perfection of the Spiritual Life - it is on end of chapter 8) is:

  This solution of Augustine is in harmony with what was said above about poverty. For Abraham had so great spiritual perfection in virtue, that his spirit did not fall short of perfect love for God on account either of temporal possessions or of married life. But if another man who does not have the same spiritual virtues, strives to attain perfection, while retaining riches and entering into marriage, his error in presuming to treat Our Lord’s words as of small account will soon be demonstrated.

It would seem that according to Aquinas, one must, under the pain of sin of persumption, and if the one is able to (without any obvious impediments), pursue spiritual life of poverty and celibate. I am not sure that this is what Aquinas really wants to say, however, let me try to formalize possible argument (be it one from Aquinas or not) for a such position.

Let me organize the argument in six points (which I will justify in the edit if somone objects to some point in the comments). It goes something like this.

If one does not want to attain perfection, he sins mortaly.
Thefore if one wants to be saved, he must desire perfection.
Easier (more safe) path to perfection is via life of celibate and poverty.
Salvation is not easy to attain, therfore one must be at most careful to do anything that he can to attain it (or he commits a sin of persumption).
If one can chooses between more safe and less safe way to perfection he must take a more safe path, because if he choose less safe way he would not be at most careful to do anything to attain salvation.
Since more safe way is way of celibacy and poverty, and one must choose more safe way under pain of sin of persumption, it follows that one, if he is able to, must choose life of poverty and celibacy or else he sins.

If my argument does not work, I think that I may be failing to make some distinction, upon which one could desire the perfection and yet choose the less safe way without any sin. But how can one really desire perfection, if, when the better way is presented, he chooses the less safe way? Obviously if the better way is not presented one is excused. But what would be some examples that excuse somone that is not already married or suffers some serious impediment (like missing a hand,...)? Would that be having a passion and being good in some job (like a teacher or something) and long relationship with boyfreind or girlfreind? I take these two examples, because it seems to me, that youth today are most commonly thinking between those two and life of priest or life in some religous order. Would those two be reasnoble justfication for not following a better way, or are they obliged to leave everything for life as a priest or a life in some religous order? Do they sin if they do not leave everything (is it venial or mortal if it is even a sin)?

I am confused because this does not seem as common opinion of the Church, so any help would be great. Thanks.


texts: How man created by God gets along with anthropology?

texts:
For example even before homo sapiens existed neanderthals or homo heidelbergensis that used tools, had closes etc.
How christianity explain their existence? Is Adam was some kind of homo erectus that than evolved into homo sapiens? Or we had monkeys that almost evolved into humans and then God kill them all and created Adam and Eve?


texts: According to Catholic teaching, where does the disorder stem from?

texts:
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always
  declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law [cf. CCC 2357], and the inclination to homosexual tendencies is objectively disordered [cf. CCC 2358].

This disorder, as the Church terms it, is not limited only to homosexuality. For example, the disorder in man, that say, leads to discord to the marriage union.

One comment in this article said,

  My "natural action" has ALWAYS been homosexual [...]

Noting that to the online commenter, the inclination is "natural" to them, based on her faith, from where does the Church teach the disorder(s) in man comes from?

The answer will also define what "intrinsically disordered" means.

Related: Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? [closed] | C.SE.


texts: What is the Christian take on reincarnation?

texts:
What does the Bible say about reincarnation? (as in after making mistakes in this life you are given another chance in the next life).

As far as I know it is not a Biblical thing(since the dead are asleep until Christ will come again), but a co-worker strongly believes that Christianity supports it and I was looking for some resources that might help in this matter.

I'm mostly interested in the New Testament but Old Testament verses can help as well. Thanks


texts:
If one's entry into the church is solemnized by baptism, then how does one leave the church? What are the ways that one may leave the church?

apostasy
backsliding
heresy
blasphemy

Is there a way to leave the church with a good reputation? Committing apostasy, backsliding, heresy, and blasphemy all sound like bad things. For instance, if a person does not commit blasphemy, heresy, backsliding, and apostasy, but still leaves the church out of a personal disenchantment or disinterest of the visible church, then would that still be considered "leaving the church"?


texts: What is the LDS line of authority should a Bishop be unavailable?

texts:
I am seeking a complete and authoritative explanation of this issue.

Who presides at Sacrament meeting (common Sunday services) when the bishop of a ward (pastor of a local congregation) is unavailable?  There are several circumstances that should be considered when answering this question.  The best answer will cite both the handbook of instructions and scripture to justify the explanation.  Linking back to Church resources is appreciated.

When any higher authority is easily accessible and...

When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected.

When all higher authorities are also unavailable and...

When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected.

A bonus would be an explanation of what priesthood keys (or priesthood authority) is NOT available when any or all of these circumstances take place.  As an example (and as a hint), if the bishop and all higher authorities are unavailable, non-priesthood disciplinary councils cannot be convened.


texts: Why doesn't dispensationalism identify a dispensation focused on David?

texts:
Dispensationalism is a broad family of theories, and different proponents identify different dispensations, including a different number of dispensations. Here is a typical diagram:

Through all the different versions of dispensationalism, I have however never seen any that identify a dispensation for David or the Israelite monarchy. This seems to me to be a huge gap in the model!

David is the beginning of the unending monarchy, the beginning of the branch that leads to Jesus. The monarchy represents a major shift from a judge/prophet-led and distributed nation to a centralised king-led nation, and from the priests being the people's sole representatives before God to the king also being their represenative. David's covenant is one of the few Biblical covenants, the others (Noah, Abraham, Moses and Phinehas, the New) are associated with the beginning of dispensations. David is a big deal!

So why don't dispensationists identify a dispensation starting with David? From a Biblical/theological perspective isn't David far more significant than the two chapters of narrative between the Fall and the Flood (Gen 4 & 6) or between the Flood and Abraham (Gen 9 & 11)?


texts:
I am searching for a bible character whose name starts with the short u or /ʌ/ sound for my project. Can I use the name Uzziah? Or is there any other bible character whose name has the short u or /ʌ/ sound. Please advise.

I am so glad to have found this site.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that destroying a grave or body is an act of desecration?

texts:
I was reading an old article published in Christian Today on July 17, 2014, in which Brownie Marie reported that ISIS desecrated the tomb of Jonah, and were burning churches. The only thing I could find in the Bible related to desecrating a tomb or a body is Amos 2:1, which reads:

  Thus says the Lord:
      "For three transgressions of Moab, and for four,
      I will not turn away its punishment,
      Because he burned the bones of the King of Edom to lime.  [NKJV]

Is this the only example, Amos 2:1? What additional biblical basis is there for not desecrating a grave or a body?


texts: How is the apparition in Luke chapter one different from other apparitions, such as in Lourdes?

texts:
Many people, including me, are confused about apparitions. We read about the apparition of St Gabriel in Luke Chapter 1.
Luke 1:34:

"And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (Douay-Rheims).

It seems to me that she never questioned the apparition or that the Church ever had to investigate if this is a real apparition. I am not sure I have even heard about an Angel appearing to anyone after St Mary and St Joseph had their experiences.
How is the apparition in Luke chapter 1 different from other apparitions, such as the  one at Lourdes?


texts: Why is Jesus occasionally referred to as "The Christ"? Is there a different definition between the two?

texts: I've occasionally heard of Jesus Christ referred to as "The Christ" and the phrasing has always struck me.  What are the differences (if any) between referring to him as Jesus Christ versus "The Christ", and what is the origin of the title?


texts: What are Babylon The Great and the scarlet coloured beast according to Mormons?

texts:
Revelation 17:3-5 describes a "scarlet coloured beast" and a woman riding it.

The passage, according to King James Version, is as follows (from here):

  3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of
  blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.4 And the woman was
  arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and
  precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of
  abominations and filthiness of her fornication:5 And upon her
  forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of
  Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

What (or whom) does the beast and the woman symbolize according to Mormon doctrine?


texts: Right before his crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry his cross and to wear a crown of thorns.  Why was he made to wear the crown of thorns?


texts: What does one do when morality and honor conflicts with solidarity?

texts:
Ideally, one would both be able to be honorable (i.e. to do the right thing especially with regard to others) and be in solidarity with relatives and friends (i.e. to support them, especially when they come into conflict with others).

What Biblical advice—according to Protestant interpretations and accepted texts, and a modern translation like NIV or ESV, if there is not a common view on this matter—is there for situations when these two virtues are at odds: when someone with whom you would normally be in solidarity does something dishonorable?  Does it make a difference how serious the offense is (e.g. allegations of abuse vs. going back on the spirit of but not the exact letter of an agreement about some mundane matter)?


texts: At what age should Christians be confirmed according to St. Thomas Aquinas?

texts:
I've read this in Saint Thomas Aquinas' sermons on the Apostles' Creed (emphasis mine):

  “Confirmation.”—The second Sacrament is Confirmation. Just as they who
  are physically born need certain powers to act, so those who are
  reborn spiritually must have the strength of the Holy Spirit which is
  imparted to them in this Sacrament. In order that they might become
  strong, the Apostles received the Holy Spirit after the Ascension of
  Christ: “Stay you in the city till you be endowed with power from on
  high” [Lk 24:49]. This power is given in the Sacrament of
  Confirmation. They, therefore, who have the care of children should be
  very careful to see that they be confirmed, because great grace is
  conferred in Confirmation. He who is confirmed will, when he dies,
  enjoy greater glory than one not confirmed, because greater grace will
  be his.

Thomas speaks about "children" to be confirmed. The common practice today is to confirm young adults, to mark their maturity and mature acceptance of their faith. Thomas seems to advocate the other concept of the sacrament of confirmation: this sacrament should open the young boy or girl to the help of Holy Spirit to become a true adult Christian.

When should young Christian be confirmed according to st. Thomas? Or in other words: what were the common ages when people were confirmed in 13th century? Of these, it's easy to pick those that can be seen as "children".


texts: Are there any denominations that baptize ONLY in the Name of Jesus?

texts:
From this question, are there any Christian denominations that baptise ONLY in the Name of Jesus and not by the Trinitarian baptismal formula?

Would such a baptism be considered valid by those who use the Trinitarian baptismal formula? And if not valid, would Trinitarians consider those with such a baptism Christian?


texts: How do Protestants interpret "covers a multitude of sins" (James 5:19)?

texts:
In the New Testament, in James 5:19-20, we read:

  My brethren, if anyone one of you strays from the way of truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that whoever turns back a sinner from the error of his ways shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:7-8 contains the same phrase:

  Now the consummnation of all is here. Be of sound mind, then, and sober in prayers: before all, have a sincere love for other among yourselves: for  love covers a multitude of sins.

Question

According to Protestants, what does "cover a multitude of sins" mean?


texts:
Does anyone know if there are digital versions of these greek New Testament texts available? Not just online or pdf versions, but complete downloadable full Greek texts in unicode text format:

Textus Sinaiticus
Textus Vaticanus
Textus Receptus (Download)
Westcott and Hort (Download)
Ivan Panin Greek New Testament edition

And maybe if you know any other good options for comparative studies, I'd appreciate.

I will add hyperlinks to the titles, when I have found pleasing site for my purpose with your help.


texts: How to answer "Why do evil and suffering exist?"

texts:
I believe that evil exists because God gave us free will. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Because of this The Fall of man happened and drew us away from God. Suffering exists not only because God can exert justice on the evil of the earth but also because God can grow people and bring them to greater revelation through suffering.

Is this a correct argument? If so how do I expand and support it to make a good response to a non-Christian who says something like:

I can't believe in a good God when there is evil and suffering in the world.

*Note my argument assumes a non-Christian who knows some of the basics of Christianity. To be clear, I intend for my question to be broad in the sense that a non-Christian also includes those of various other faiths and those that might not believe God exists.


texts:
There are a couple references in the Gospels indicating what Jesus wore, but not many. His undergarment was 'seamless' according to John 19:23.  He also may have had the 'fringes' or 'tassels' of the garment that Jews wore, as we see a woman touching a 'fringe' of his outer garment in Mathew 9:20.  Many think this indicates that he followed this  Mosaic law with regard to dress:

  The Lord said to Moses,  “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. (Numbers 15:37-38, NIV)

However, if Jesus wore these tassels, they would not have been like those 'extra long ones' wore by the Pharisees, for Jesus said:

  “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long. (Matthew 23:5, NIV)

So, here are some references to lead to various sub-questions:

Did Jesus wear sandals? Would he have worn a Jewish turban outside?
Would anyone one notice that he was a teacher by his dress, or was he just a regular looking guy?
Or, is this all mere speculation and unanswerable?

The question is, if we were casting a Jesus movie, what clothes did Jesus most likely wear as a combined set? The question is not pointed at 'one' specific article, but the combination of articles and the impression, if any, that they would make on a stranger, whether Jew or Gentile.

Note: A related question about the phylacteries or tefillin can be found here.


texts: Catholicism: Memento Mori in Christianity?

texts:
In this video, the priest says that Memento Mori is an  integral part of Christianity. He says that priests and nuns used to place skulls on their desks to remind them of their impending death. I have few problems with that:

It doesn't seem a christian thing to do
It's creepy
Most importantly, you are stealing someone skull from the grave, according to Christianity, we should be buried, even if you take the skull of a none christian, it's disrespectful.

What does the Catholic Church has to say about that?


texts:
I'm looking to buy a copy of the Peshitta so that I can learn Syriac, but I understand that it has gradually changed throughout history. The antilogemmon were excluded for the first 500 years or so for example.

I'm wondering what it's current form is? What books are included in the Peshitta Old Testament and Peshitta New Testament today? I don't want to end up buying some protestantised edition which only included 66 books while the actual peshitta has 86 (for example).


texts: In Mark 10:17-31, what did the rich man lack?

texts:
I tried searching for this on Christianity.SE, but couldn't find anything. Google searches brought up a lot of opinions based on different theologies and opinions. I'm looking for an answer to this out of Scripture. The part I'm talking about is in Mark 10:21:

  And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Is the "one thing" simply the "treasure in heaven" Christ is referring to? Or is it something else?

While I'm more looking for a purely Scriptural answer, I'd be interested in getting the Catholic perspective on this.


texts: Who compared the Trinity to a triangle with three right angles?

texts:
Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), wrote in part 1, chapter 12 of his De docta ignorantia (1440):

  Others who are very talented compared, to the Super-blessed Trinity, a triangle consisting
  of three equal right angles. 1

  Alii peritissimi Trinitati superbenedictae triangulum trium aequalium et rectorum angulorum compararunt.

I think we are all aware of representations of the Trinity using an equilateral plane triangle. The triangle described by Nicholas is not possible in the plane, though it makes sense on the surface of a sphere, for example. He seems to imagine it (see ch. 19) as a planar figure having three infinite sides, and argues that the angles must necessarily be equal and as large as possible. 2

Setting aside any mathematical problems with his geometry, I'm curious about the origin of this image. It would seem to be related to other geometric metaphors for God, such as "an infinite line" or "a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". But I have not heard this one before.

Who came up with this idea and what did they mean by it?

(By the way, the "others" in the quotation above means "some people who are not Anselm" in context. I thought he might be talking about himself, but I don't know if there is another, earlier work of his which contains this triangle image. It seems to crop up in De venatione sapientiae chapter 26, but he says in its preface that he is 61 years old, which would make it later than De docta ignorantia. It's still possible that he's attributing his own belief to some deliberately-unnamed expert, but if so then I'd still like to find a definitive argument to that effect.)

1. Translation by Jasper Hopkins (1985) and appearing in his Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, Arthur J. Banning Press, 2001. Parallel texts from Cusanus-Portal.
2. It's not clear why he thinks they must be right angles. In some sense it would be more consistent with his reasoning for them all to be 180 degrees, which is one reason to believe that in this case, he's talking about someone else's idea.


texts:
Exodus 35:2 NIV

  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your
  holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on
  it is to be put to death.

I do not see anywhere in the New Testament that we can work on the sabbath day.  Therefore, when did this practice stop?


texts:
When did animals begin to die?
Did animals begin slowly dying at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve or had it happened earlier at the fall of Satan, which may be what Romans 8:20 is hinting at?

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by
reason of him who hath subjected it (Rom 8:20)

Were animals already dying when God gave humans to have dominion over them in Gen. 1:28?:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

Or were animals originally created by God as already dying?
What do the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the main-stream Protestants -- that is, those Protestants who pray to Jesus Christ in their prayers -- officially teach regarding this matter?
EDIT 4: Following one remark in comments (stating that senescence by definition is not only the process of aging, but also the process of maturing that precedes the process of aging) decided to switch to "dying" again;
EDIT 3: Following a suggestion in the comments, rephrased the question as "When did senescence enter the animal kingdom?"
EDIT 2: Originally I used the term "mortal" in my question, but since the word "mortal" may mean only "being able to be killed" (see sequoia trees example in the EDIT 1 or Adam before his fall), I decided to switch to "dying".
EDIT 1: By "dying" or "already dying" I mean the very state, in which all animals are now: each species is born, lives a certain number of years, gets old and then dies. This is different from being able to be killed, yet not having the process of dying taking place within (consider sequoia trees - some of them don't die by themselves, but can be killed by, say, fire or being cut)


texts: What is the purpose of other planets and solar system according to the bible?

texts: Are they just to light up the night? Does the bible even talk about other planets and other solar system with the capability of life or the people who wrote the bible does not know about these solar system because of lack of scientific advancement at that time?


texts: How does Catholic doctrine differ from LDS doctrine concerning God the Father?

texts:
In a related question, it was asked,

  How do Mormons explain the apparent contradiction to their belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones found in the paralleled scriptures below;

    John 4:24 God is a Spirit...

    Luke 24: ... a spirit does not have flesh and bones...

to which one inidividual answered,

  Good question.

  God is a spirit as we are spirits—each human has a spirit residing within a mortal body. Likewise, Mormons believe God is a spirit residing within a perfected, glorified, and immortal body.

  From lds.org:

    The Greek text of John 4:24 contains no article before the word spirit. Thus, the Greek phrase can also be understood to mean “God is spirit,” or “God is spiritual.” The Apostle John also wrote that “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but these statements do not mean that God is only light, or that God is love and nothing else. Neither do we understand the statement that “man is spirit” (D&C 93:33) to mean that man is only spirit and nothing else. In the same sense, John 4:24 does not mean that God is only spirit. From latter-day revelation, we know that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

    In the context of the Savior’s teachings about true worship, the statement in John 4:24 can be seen as commentary more about the nature of worship than the nature of God. Since God is a spiritual being, people must worship Him “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), not merely through outward rituals performed at certain locations (see John 4:20–21).
    Introduction and Timeline for John 2–4

Is Catholic doctrine in agreement with the individual’s answer (i.e., LDS doctrine)? If not, in what way does the aforementioned LDS doctrine (per LDS.org) differ from Catholic doctrine?


texts: Do Anglo-Catholics encourage closed Communion?

texts: Closed Communion seems to be commonly required in churches with more physical views of the Real Presence (excluding, of course, Reformed churches that hold to Calvin's "spiritual presence" view). The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and many Lutherans all practice closed Communion. Most Anglican churches, however, practice open Communion. Are there any Anglo-Catholic churches that have tried to restrict their Communion practice to church members, as do most churches with similar theology?


texts: What movement was Chesterson writing about in "Orthodoxy"

texts:
I just started reading G.K. Chesterson's Orthodoxy and came across this quote:

  In this remarkable situation it is plainly not now possible (with any
  hope of a universal appeal) to start, as our fathers did, with the
  fact of sin. This very fact which was to them (and is to me) as plain
  as a pikestaff, is the very fact that has been specially diluted or
  denied. But though moderns deny the existence of sin, I do not think
  that they have yet denied the existence of a lunatic asylum.

In context, he seems to be talking about a movement within Christianity, not an atheistic movement, that denies the very existence of sin.

Certainly I've heard atheists make the claim that sin is a man-made concept, and that it's "relative" - what one person considers sin may be perfectly OK for someone else, for example.  But within the bounds of official Christian doctrine and understanding, the concept seems incomprehensible to me.  Why would someone bother self-identifying as a Christian if they didn't need Christ's atonement for their sins?  What would be the point?

My own incredulity aside, there are enough beliefs within Christianity that it wouldn't surprise me to find teachings that deny the very existence of sin, but I've never really paid attention to such things, or bothered to learn about them.  Now my curiosity is piqued.

Was there such a movement at the time of the writing of the book, and how widespread was it?  And further, is there still such a belief within recognized traditions (even those considered cults by more orthodox Christianity) that are known for teaching the idea that sin doesn't exist?


texts:
When I was young I remember a list on the wall that stated 12 points. The ones I can remember are love, joy, peace, patience, gratitude.

I'm certain these are straight out of the Bible.

What are the rest, and which part of the Bible are they from?


texts: Can I say, "Bless You" to our Catholic priest?

texts: Our priest does such a great job at our church. I shook his hand after church and said "Bless you".  I meant to say "Bless you for all you do", but was it offensive to bless a priest?


texts:
What influence did Greek philosophy have on the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine?

Particularly, what Christian doctrines or paradigms of understanding God and reality can be traced to have been influenced by Greek thought?


texts: Does 'no more room in the Inn' mean spare room not big enough for a birth?

texts:
In this article, the author says that 'no more room at the Inn' from Luke doesn't imply a Stable.

The big idea is that "there was no more room at the inn" from Luke is misread, and instead of Mary giving birth in an animal shelter – the text means "there wasn't enough room for a birth in the spare room, so they took over the main room". The author suggests that the reading of an animal shelter perhaps is a gnostic gloss.

My question is Is the stable essential? (The implication being, that if he was born in a Stable, then he is born as one of the poor, and if he was born 'in the main room not the spare room (Inn)' then Jesus is born as one of the middle class).


texts:
What is the fewest number of cardinal electors are needed to validly elect a pope?

Pope St. John Paul II, in his Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis on the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election  of the Roman Pontiff has this to say on the electors of a papal election, but does not provide us with the minimum number of cardinal electors needed to validly choose a pope:

  The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded.

What happens if the conclave is to be held during a time of war or some other event and the possible number of cardinal elector at Rome dwindles to 1, 2, 3 or 4. Is there a minimum number of cardinals needed to produce a sovereign pontiff?

We know that conclave of 1277 had the fewest number of cardinals in a papal election:

  The papal election of 1277 (May 30 – November 25), convened in Viterbo after the death of Pope John XXI, was the smallest papal election since the expansion of suffrage to cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, with only seven cardinal electors (following the deaths of three popes who had not created cardinals).3 Because John XXI had revoked Ubi periculum, the papal bull of Pope Gregory X establishing the papal conclave, with his own bull Licet felicis recordationis, the cardinal electors were able to take their time. After six months of deliberation, the cardinals eventually elected their most senior member Giovanni Gaetano Orsini as Pope Nicholas III. From the end of the election until Nicholas III's first consistory on March 12, 1278, the number of living cardinals—seven—was the lowest in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. - Papal election, 1277

I have heard about the possibility that 4 cardinal electors would be allowed, but I can not find any documents to support such a number.


texts: Is there a scriptural example of a non-believer speaking on God's behalf?

texts:
EXAMPLE:

I recently read an article about Christian Mingle (CM), the most popular Christian Dating site in the world who carry the slogan "Find God's Match for You" and boldly splash Psalms 37:4 on their front page.

I wasn't all that surprised to find out that they are owned by a non-christian company, Spark*. Spark specializes in demographically geared dating sites--28 sites in all--and CM is their most popular. This is an openly non-Christian company boldly claiming to help in finding God's will for a person.

Is there a scriptural allowance for a non-christian (person or entity) to speak on behalf of God or claim to know His will?

Is there an example in scripture of a person who is clearly not a believer speaking on God's behalf? Are there scriptural teachings explicitly for or against this?

I am assuming, for the scope of this question, that the message and marketing of Christian Mingle is run and decided upon by non-Christians.

Facts and numbers are provided in the article link above.


texts:
Some Christians claim a non-denominational church is better. However, as a scientist I like to see all angles of the story:

I was under the impression that since all Christians don't belong to one church,
(They agree to disagree on Ephesians 4 and opt for the Nicene Creed) then
all Christians doctrines are denominations - there by:
1c penny doctrine,
5c nickel doctrine,
10c dime doctrine,
25c quarter doctrine,
50c half-dollar doctrine, etc
= 1.00 dollar Eph 4 Church - some claim all Christians are part of the universal church.

I like the idea that non-denominational churches reject the idea of a denominational
structure and opt for autonomous churches. This is similar to Paul when he opted not take
money from the Corinthians but still claimed to have authority over them.

Maybe that is what non-denominational is, that there is no central government and only Christ is the head or leader?

So if non-denominational or denominational has nothing to do with doctrine. That begs the question: What is the definition of the One Doctrine in Eph 4?

Or, simply explain: What is a non-denominational church?


texts: What is the difference between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution"?

texts: Ransom theory and penal substitution are two (of many) views about the exact nature of Jesus' atoning death on the cross.  Both suggest that Jesus in some way paid a price on the cross for the benefit of humanity.  The terminology of the two theories is quite different, but it is not clear to me how much real difference there is and how much is just semantics. So, what exactly are the core differences between the two theories?


texts:
This isn't so much a question about theology or denominational teachings as Church history.

In an answer to a question on another StackExchange site, someone posted this:

  I am an Art Historian, and I have recently made a research on the
  Unicorn symbology in the Middle Ages Art. The unicorn is an
  christological symbol. In the book physiologus (popular book in the
  middle ages about magical creatures and so on) the unicorn is
  described as hard to capture. Only a virgin could do this. This
  unicorn myth has been used as a symbol (incarnation) of Christ, who
  has been born by the virgin Mary.

That got my interest, so I searched, and there is some apparent truth to this, and some undocumented statements claim that some monks agreed with this.

For example, from: Christological Figure

  ...the unicorn in medieval bestiaries, which would lie down and place
  its phallic, ivory-horned meekly in a maiden's lap so that hunters
  might kill it--which medieval monks interpreted as an allegory of
  Christ allowing himself to enter the womb of the virgin Mary so that
  he might later be sacrificed.

So I'm curious to see if there is documented writings from the Church (I assume this refers to the Catholic Church, or possibly Orthodox or the Church of England, based on the time period) discussing this.  Is there history to back up these claims?


texts: Was it just Daniel who prayed toward Jerusalem or did all exiles do so?

texts:
While studying the book of Daniel I came across:

  Daniel 6:10  Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days.

and since it is necessary that Muslims face mecca when praying I wondered if that was some ritual that all exiles followed or if it was only a custom of Daniel.

I checked this question but it does not address my point, Why did Daniel feel the need to pray towards Jerusalem, even at the cost of his own life?

Does anyone know the answer to my question or where I might find some guidance on this?


texts: Is it really true that no matter what you do, you can still be saved, go to heaven, if you confess and repent? And, what if, due to crappy circumstances, you've become detached, and lost the ability (or maybe forgotten how) to believe/hope/have faith in things? Will He be understanding?


texts: Would frozen holy water still retain its blessing?

texts: Say that a person had a container with holy water and the water within it froze. Would that frozen holy water still retain its blessing and be efficacious in protecting against evil, be able to be used in baptism, etc?


texts: Can People Who Aren't Saved, Heal in Jesus’ Name?

texts:
For backstory, I've recently been looking for confirmation that I'm really saved. I've started to repent of all my sins (that I know of) about 1-2 weeks ago. I've pretty sure I've been saved since I was 8 years old, but I dedicated myself to God again, just to make sure.
So I've recently been listening to an audio teaching about prayer, and the last little bit of the teaching is about healing yourself and others in the name of Jesus. I was having a bit of a headache, so I decided to try it out on myself when I got home instead of just using painkillers.
I got home, and spoke to my body. I put my hand on my temple and said, "temple, you will stop hurting in the name of Jesus" or something along those lines. And it worked! That was the first time I've ever healed myself in Jesus name.
Does the fact that God was able to heal me through myself mean that I'm saved for sure? Or could someone who isn't saved do exactly what I did? This is assuming they have faith that God will heal them as well.


texts:
In the Matthew and Luke we can read the genealogy of Jesus. While in Matthew 1 it dates back to Abraham, in Luke 3 it goes back to Adam.

What's the significance of this difference?


texts: Do the Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites exist today?

texts:
I'm not sure if this is the right site for this type of question but I'm asking this because the Bible makes frequent references to these nations in prophecies, some of which pertain to the future, especially in the Old Testament.

Apparently Psalm 83 is alluding to a futuristic war involving the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites etc. attacking Israel, according to some commentators because no such war described in Psalm 83 has occurred in history yet.


texts: When and where does the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" first appear?

texts:
The statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" does not appear in the Bible.

When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it?

Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document.

If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.

Please note:

This question is specifically about the statement that Christ paid
the penalty for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid
the price for our sins" or "Jesus paid the penalty for our sins,"
are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered
for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are
off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ paying the
penalty, or paying the price, for our sins.
"Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also
off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin.
I am not looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking
for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking
for the earliest explicit statements of the idea itself.
For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution.
Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article,
which seems rather murky and disorganized.

Edit in response to comments:

My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question.

However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example:

"Christ died for our sins." If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not paid the penalty for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment.
"Christ suffered for our sins." If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not paid the penalty for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment.
"Christ was punished for our sins." If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have still not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail with the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins.  S/he would still remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment.

The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they do mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.)

That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ paid the penalty for our sins.

Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from somewhere. I want to know where it came from.

I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine.

If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer:

Where did the precise phrase "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" come from?


texts:
I was reading Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed and in the first verse, two angels are greeted by Lot as they arrive at the gates of Sodom. But instead of the "do not be afraid" speech that angels typically say, Lot offers to wash their feet and insists they spend the night at his house. What is going on here? I can't find a verse that specifically states the angels were disguised as men, but in verse 5, the people of Sodom say, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

This would be really weird if the angels weren't disguised (actually it's weird either way) so I'm going to go ahead and say that they were disguised as men. Are there other biblical references where angels are disguised as humans?


texts: How do Catholics and Eastern Orthodox justify their clergy praying with those big hats on their heads?

texts:
How do Catholics and Eastern Orthodox justify their clergy praying with those big hats on their heads in the face of this scripture?

  1 Cor 11:3-4 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

The head of man is Christ, and every man who prays with his head covered dishonors his head (Christ).  So how can wearing big hats while praying be justified?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the personhood of the Holy Spirit? Is it a new revelation?

texts:
I worship in a Pentecostal Church, where the Holy Spirit is endorsed. Whenever I hear gospels about the Holy Spirit I always hear the following that the Spirit is a Person.
Is there biblical excerpts or theological backgrounds to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person or was it revealed by personal revelation of Prophets in the 20th/21th Century, which is possible as the Holy Spirit reveals to men of God but also children of GOD?


texts: Why is the Bible said to be twisted like a wax nose?

texts:
The unusual image of a "wax nose" has been used in a few different ways,
to describe some sort of "twisting" of the meaning of Scripture. It appears
to have been used by both Protestants and Catholics, with different intent.
For example, John Calvin attributes the phrase to (unnamed) Catholics
apparently describing their own method of exegesis,

  Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall: Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. 1

Was this really a common saying? What did they mean by it - and is it the
same as what Calvin wants them to mean?

1. John Calvin. Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto (Geneva, 1547). Antidote to the fourth session.
"Adversus contrarios rationes hic oppositus erit muris aheneus: Tu quis es, qui ecclesiae
interpretationi obstrepis? Hoc scilicet est, quod vulgari proverbio inter se praedicant:
Scripturam esse nasum caereum; quia converti possit in omnes formas." English translation
by Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851).


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians and all who deny that Jesus is the Almighty God, how can He be in you and live in you?

texts:
Colossians 1:26-27: "the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints. To who God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."

How can you fellowship with someone who is NOT with (or in) you, and how can he be with (or in) you if he is not God? Jeremiah 17:10, "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind. Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.
The Apostle John at Revelation 2:23 excerpts the words from Jeremiah 17:10 and attributes them to the Lord Jesus Christ when He says, "I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give each one of you according to your deeds."
John 14:23 says God the Father and Jesus Christ will make their ABODE with him." Romans 5:5 says of the Holy Spirit, "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out WITHIN OUR HEARTS through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
So in summary, if Jesus Christ is not God how is it He can fellowship with billions of other peoples scattered throughout time and space?


texts: How is 1 Timothy 2:5 interpreted relative to the Mediatrix concept?

texts:
The concept of Mediatrix has Virgin Mary in a role of a mediator in the salvation process—at least that's what Wikipedia says:

  Mediatrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvation process.

From my admittedly biased point of view, this seems to clash with Paul's writing about Jesus being the only mediator between man and God.

  1 Timothy 2:5-6 (ESV)
   5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6  who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

What is the Catholic teaching about the Mediatrix concept? How is this passage interpreted? Do all Mariologists take this passage into account?


texts: Should Christians uphold unjust laws that are not overtly immoral?

texts:
Inspired by this question, I'm left wondering how Christians ought to respond to laws that are unjust, but not overtly immoral.

I think most of us will agree that Christians ought to disregard laws that mandate immorality, or that prohibit morality.  The cliche examples of the first would be laws requiring turning over Jews to the Nazis to be murdered, or turning over protestants to Catholics to be burned as heretics, etc.  And examples of the latter would be laws prohibiting Christian worship.

But what about laws that are viewed as clearly unjust, but don't overtly require immorality or prohibit morality?

Laws such as the one mentioned here that forbade blacks in Pennsylvania from marrying from 1870 until 1973 when the law was changed.  Or racial segregation laws like those challenged by Rosa Parks.  For a Christian, is civil disobedience an appropriate response to these types of laws?

EDIT

To be clear, I am asking about laws that neither mandate immoral behavior, nor prohibit behavior required by the Bible.  In my two examples:  A black person remaining single (and celibate) is not immoral, nor does the Bible require anyone (black or otherwise) to marry.  Also, it is not immoral for a black person to sit in the back of a bus, nor does the Bible require anyone (black or otherwise) to sit in the front of a bus.  So it is quite possible to adhere by both of these laws without violating any Christian principle--and indeed many Christians to this day do live in (unwitting) compliance with both of these laws.  Many black Christians in Pennsylvania never marry, and many black Christians ride in the backs of buses.

My phrasing in the title is not intended to imply that I think "unjust" laws are "moral."

A law that prohibits Christianity does not fall into the scope of this question, since the Bible requires that of us.  Nor would a law that requires someone to kill or torture another person, since that is prohibited by the Bible.


texts: What is the purpose of marriage in light of 1 Cor 7?

texts:
Or more specifically, what verses have been used to build a case that its primary purpose is for children/procreation, and how have these treatments dealt with 1 Corinthians 7:1-9? As I read this passage, especially verses 8&9, the biblical purposeS of marriage would include responsible release of sexual tension:

  8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I'm not seeking to debate the state handing out gay marriage licenses, but my hypothesis is that the "for children" argument neglects this purpose. I've seen treatments of "procreation" arguments that explicitly condemn the sterile from marrying.


texts: Is there an equivalent to cantillation or tajweed in Christianity?

texts:
In both Islam and Hebrew, the respective holy books have rules for pronunciation and recitation so that they can be sung.

  Cantillation is the ritual chanting of readings from the Hebrew Bible in synagogue services. The chants are written and notated in accordance with the special signs or marks printed in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) to complement the letters and vowel points.

  These marks are known in English as accents, notes or trope symbols, and in Hebrew as טעמי המקרא taamei ha-mikra or just טעמים teamim. Some of these signs were also sometimes used in medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah. The musical motifs associated with the signs are known in Hebrew as niggun or neginot (not to be confused with Hasidic nigun) and in Yiddish as טראָפ trop: the word trope is sometimes used in English with the same meaning. Cantillation (Wikipedia)

  Tajweed sometimes rendered as tajwid, refers to the rules governing pronunciation during recitation of the Quran. The term is derived from the triliteral root j-w-d meaning "to make well, make better, improve". Tajweed is a mustahab (preferred, but not an obligation) when reciting the Quran to the best of one's ability. Tajwid (Wikipedia)

Examples of cantillation:

  Haftorah Audio - B'reisheet

  Torah Lessons (2015)

Examples of tawjeed (al-Fatihah):

  Al-Fatihah (TvQuran)

Has there been any attempt to do so with any Christian Bible?


texts:
Exodus 20:1-15 ESV

  And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who
  brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
  “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for
  yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
  above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
  the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the
  Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
  on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who
  hate me, ...

and

  Leviticus 26:1 ESV

  “You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,
  and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to
  it, for I am the Lord your God.

How is this different than a Cross in a church?

I don't see how this cross
 is different than this idol .


texts: Was Adam anatomically God's image, as Michelangelo's painting seems to indicate?

texts:
Under the patronage of Pope Julius circa 1512, Michelangelo painted The Creation of Adam, seen below, in the Sistine Chapel. The painting shows both God and Adam as adult men with navels, and the complementary poses of the two figures allude to the verse, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him" (Gen 1:27)

Does the Catholic Church endorse this painting as an accurate representation of Adam's creation? How is the presence of navels consistent with neither Adam nor God being born of a woman? Was Adam created in the anatomical image of God?


texts:
I'm wondering about the roots of the New Testament.
What are the name(s) of the archaeological artifact(s)/scroll(s) where the New Testament was based?


texts: What are the Christian doctrines denied by the Igreja Maná (Mana Church), if any?

texts:
In the city where I live there's a church called Mana Church.

I know they venerate (not to the level of God) the founder, Jorge Tadeu.

This gives me chills because of Luke 4:8 [KJV]

  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for
  it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
  thou serve.

In fact, they call this person Apostle. Without providing clarity, this term is misleading people into believing Jorge Tadeu is at the same level of authority as "the twelve" (Matthew 26:14; John 6:67, 20:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5) and we know

  a true apostle in the New
  Testament style is no longer possible because it would require that
  the person had been with Christ and/or have seen the risen Lord.

Can't stop thinking if there are any christian doctrines they deny? If yes, which ones? (Psalms 11:3)

  If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?


texts: What is Heaven like according to Catholics?

texts:
What does a person experience who is saved, after their death?

Are they going to have a bodily resurrection in the New Jerusalem, in the real world, or is it a spiritual existence? If in the real world, will their body have any relation to the body they had, including things like age, conditions like dwarfism or siamese twins etc? Will every day have a good temperature, the sun won't eventually engulf the earth, etc?

What sources do we have on what actually happens for all eternity?


texts: Why did ancient catechumens delay baptism as long as possible?

texts:
The Wikipedia articles on affusion and catechesis contain the following (unsourced) claims:

The most common use [of affusion], however, was for ill or dying people who could not rise from their beds. It was consequently known as "baptism of the sick". Receiving this baptism was regarded as a bar to Holy Orders, but this sprang from the person's having put off baptism until the last moment—a practice that in the fourth century became common, with people enrolling as catechumens but not being baptized for years or decades. While the practice was decried at the time, the intent of the criticism was not to encourage baptism by immersion, but to refrain from delaying baptism.

In the fourth century, a widespread practice arose of enrolling as a catechumen and deferring baptism for years, often until shortly before death, and when so ill that the normal practice of immersion was impossible, so that aspersion or affusion—the baptism of the sick—was necessary.

I find myself at a loss to come up with a motivation or explanation for this alleged behaviour.  From a post here by James T I understand early Christian communities may have imposed fairly lengthy periods of instruction for catechumens—even a period of three years would be "nothing particularly special", according to James.  The intent, on the part of the receiving church members, was to ensure the converts' beliefs were both sincere and orthodox.  However, this doesn't explain why the converts themselves would want to defer their baptism for so long after the mandatory period of instruction.  Even presuming that someone sought a Christian affiliation only to improve their social status, as Augustine of Hippo condemned, what advantage was there for them in remaining unbaptised?  And if such a person was insincere in their beliefs, why bother with a deathbed baptism at all?
So in summary, my questions are as follows:

Is it true, as the articles above state, that it was common in the distant past for converts themselves (i.e., not the church) to delay baptism for decades, or even until shortly before death?

If so, what were their reasons for doing so?


texts: What was the point of the third article of Remonstrance?

texts:
The other four points of the Remonstrants seem to articulate significant departures from Calvin's soteriology, but not this one:

  THIRD ARTICLE.
  Saving Faith.—Man in his fallen state is unable to accomplish any thing really and truly good, and therefore also unable to attain to saving faith, unless he be regenerated and renewed by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit (John xv. 5).

Was it merely an attempt to lay a more secure foundation for:

  FOURTH ARTICLE.
  Resistible Grace.—Grace is the beginning, continuation, and end of our spiritual life, so that man can neither think nor do any good or resist sin without prevening, co-operating, and assisting grace. But as for the manner of co-operation, this grace is not irresistible, for many resist the Holy Ghost (Acts vii.)

Or is there a substantive difference between the Calvinist and Remonstrant positions on total depravity that I'm missing?

This question is highly related to this one (but I just can't seem to puzzle out a specific answer to my question from it), and somewhat related to this.


texts: What were the doctrinal differences behind the Great Schism of 1054?

texts: What were the doctrinal differences that caused the split of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054?


texts: Why are many protestants hesitant of the reappropriation of symbols?

texts:
There are many symbols in Christianity that were, well, borrowed from paganism. Over the last 200 years the history is rich with the reappropriation of pagan symbols to have Christian meanings and purposes. The most obvious are the various Saints of the Catholic church. Whether intentional or not it is clear that quite a few saints have gained the duties of and fully replaced the pagan counterparts. Mary, for example, being a virgin in Christian theology, easily inherited the symbolism that was once Aphrodite's, Isis's and quite a few others. Consequently, she readily acquired then pagan followers too.

There is also the issue of more relevant symbolism, like the cross. Whether Jesus hung on a cross or something else, it is no secret that the cross becoming the symbol of Christianity helped poach many pagan followers from their pagan gods.

All of these symbols being reappropriated has led to many (probably millions) turning to Christianity. And now, more than ever, these symbols are Christian/Catholic through and through. Their pagan counterparts have been all but blotted from the history books.

So in light of the good that it has done, and also in light of the fact that these symbols are a far cry from paganism today, why are so many protestants hesitant of just accepting the now complete reappropriation of these symbols? Is there a somewhat universal Protestant doctrine that sheds light on this? Are there verses that are commonly quoted concerning this issue?

This question was inspired by the attitude that JW's have concerning the symbol of the Cross that is illustrated well here.


texts:
1 Samuel 16:13 states that:

  So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his
  brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully
  upon David.

and in 14:

  Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul

Is this a description of the holy spirit?

Thanks.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, why did Jesus walk on water?

texts:
Why did Jesus walk on water?

In the gospel of Mark we see Jesus  walking on water, but why?

Is He fulfilling the law? He could have been walking on clouds or flying like an angel around them or any other miracle if it was to show the power of the Messiah.


texts: Did Jesus and his disciples have an occasional “hiding place”?

texts:
We see at Jn 11:6, the immediate response of Jesus to the news that Lazarus was seriously ill:

... after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days
longer in the place where he was.

Going back to Jn 10:39-40,  we see where Jesus was at that time:

Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been
baptizing earlier, and he remained there.

It is traditionally believed that the location of the Al-Maghtas ruins on the eastern side of the Jordan River was where Jesus was baptized and where John the Baptist ministered.
Jesus says elsewhere:

Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place
to lay his head.” (Lk 9:58).

That remark perhaps alludes to the itinerant nature of his public life, though he had his mother and a house in which she lived.
Now, Jesus was widely believed to be preparing for the establishment of an earthly kingdom. Naturally, he and his disciples were in the watch-list of the Roman authorities, with some Jews more than eager to betray the group. It was therefore only natural for Jesus and his disciples to stay out of public gaze, at least on certain occasions, such as the time of Lazarus's illness.
The Ruins across Jordan appear to be qualifying for such a hiding place. Of course, the Gospels do not explicitly name any place where Jesus and his disciples spent time away from public view.
My question therefore is: Did Jesus and his disciples have an occasional 'hiding place'? Views of any denomination are welcome.


texts:
I know of the angel guarding over the entrance gate of the Eden preventing man from entering. Also, the devil, an angel, deceives the woman. It seems to me angels preceded man but I'm not so sure.

  "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26).

Was He talking to angels?
At the point of making man, had God made angels already?
Any other biblical references?


texts: Was the virgin conception of Jesus known to the people at the time?

texts:
In the Bible, it seems that Mary consulted with Elizabeth after the Annunciation but from the people's reaction to Jesus at ministry, it occurs to me that they are not aware of the surrounding story about the birth of Jesus at all.

  Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [Matthew 13:55, NIV]

So, is it that Elizabeth (maybe Zacharias as well), Mary, Joseph concealed the Annunciation to protect Jesus until the Passion?

Is there any biblical lines that indicate any of Apostles or Disciples or people aware of the Annunciation or Virgin Conception of Jesus before the Scripture telling so?


texts: What kind of ecclesiastical structure did Ignatius of Antioch discuss in his epistles?

texts: There are approximately seven "genuine" epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. I'm curious to know what kind of ecclesiastical structure he mentions in his epistles. If he discussed it, in what ways was it similar to and different from the ecclesiastical structure of today's Roman Catholic Church?


texts: How are the teachings in the Book of James consistent with Salvation by Grace alone?

texts:
I was reading through James today and I understand his point was to convey to the Jews that only having faith - but not showing your gratitude for the grace they've received - is not good. He does get pretty close though to saying that without works your are not saved. Especially when he mentions that by leading others back to Christ covers sins:

  19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. -James 5:19-20

And also:

  17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. -James 2:17

If faith without works is dead, how can we have salvation by grace through faith ALONE?

I came from a Baptist background to a Reformed theology because I didn't agree with their emphasis on works and not Grace, but the book of James (which was used as a defence for this ideology) is really confusing on this.

Can you comment on how some of these statements are compatible with the Grace by Faith Alone doctrine? I don't read Greek so I'm wondering if something was lost in translation or maybe I don't know enough of the context about this book.


texts: Who holds the keys to the Kindgom of Heaven?

texts:
Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 16:18,19:

  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Catholic believes the "keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" were first held by Peter and then every Pope thereafter through Apostolic Succession. It seems Protestants picked their own personal set of keys up and assumed personal responsibility for their administration when they departed the doors of the Catholic Church.

How does a Protestant Church justify the corporate administration that the keys afford without supplanting the Church "that the gates of Hell will not prevail against"?


texts: From a Catholic viewpoint, why will there be a particular judgement and a general judgment?

texts: If we are judged by God at the moment of death, why is Jesus, at his Second Coming going to judge the living and the dead at the Last Judgment?


texts: Where in the Bible does the greeting ("Dominus Vobiscum") used at Mass come from?

texts: Is the phrase "The Lord Be With You"  and the response "And with your spirit" directly pulled from the Bible or where did that come from?


texts: Did the original Greek scriptures use upper and lower case letters, in particular for "Holy Ghost"?

texts:
Most English translations captialize "Holy Ghost".

Which is true:

The original Greek capitalized it too.
The original Greek capitalized proper nouns, but not these.
The original Greek didn't capitalize proper nouns.

The last two would imply that the English capitalization is due to the Trinitarian beliefs of the translators.

Added clarification: By "capitalization" I don't necessarily mean literal capital letters, but any equivalent textual convention that identifies proper nouns (e.g. "John Baker's father was a baker." would be ambiguous without the B/b distinction).


texts:
Is believing in the sovereignty of God the same as fatalism?

Fatalism teaches that fate will arrive no matter what you do. And Christians believe that God is in Heaven and does what he wants. Are the two different? How?


texts: Are there physical or psychological conditions that are a barrier to ordination to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church?

texts:
It is my understanding that priests in the Old Testament, sons of Aaron, were to be without blemish. [cf. Lev 21:16-24 (RSVCE)].

In the history of Church to the present day, have there been and are there now, any comparable physical or psychological conditions that are considered a barrier to ordination to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church?


texts: Does The Book of Mormon contain Jewish literary techniques?

texts:
According to Latter-day Saints, The Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets who originated from Jerusalem (contemporaries with Jeremiah, in fact), then later traveled to the Americas.

As far as we have it today, the Bible is replete with Jewish (and Greek) characteristics directly in its language and writing. It contains poetry/songs, chiastic structure, acrostics, etc.

Does The Book of Mormon similarly contain literary styles and techniques common among Jews? Are there complex lingual devices in The Book of Mormon?


texts:
Someone purchased a copy of "The Christmas Cat" by MaryAnn MacDonald for my children. At the end of this fictional book depicting a cat which soothes a colicky baby Jesus and helps Jesus (and his family) escape to Egypt without being detected by Herod's guards by keeping him calm, the author claims in the author's note that this story has a basis in legend. The author writes,

  Leonardo da Vinci loved to draw La Madonna del Gatto, or the Madonna of the Cat. He made many drawings of her in 1480 and 1481. In the drawings, the chubby child Jesus is depicted holding, stroking, and playing with a cat.

  Legend tells about a cat living in the stable in Bethlehem who purred Jesus to sleep the night he was born.

Included with this author's note is the following drawing by Da Vinci

What is the origin of this uncited legend? What is the earliest literary or pictographic representation of Jesus with a cat in Bethlehem?


texts: Is there any Catholic lay movement centered on building Intentional Communities?

texts:
An Intentional Communities is

a planned residential community designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. The members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political, religious, or spiritual vision and often follow an alternative lifestyle. They typically share responsibilities and resources. (Wikipedia)

Catholic monasteries are examples of such communities, as well as Christian denominations like the Anabaptists (with the Amish being perhaps the most well-known example). A Jewish example are the kibbutzim.
My question is about lay Catholic intentional communities organised systematically (perhaps with some form of Rule). All I can find are individual self-organised communities (for instance, here and here). Anyone aware of more formal groups around this?


texts:
Cessationism is the belief held by some protestants that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, do not occur in present day.  The general thinking is that these gifts "ceased" at the completion of the canon, closing any new revelation.

What is the basis for this belief?  I'm interested in Biblical, logical, empirical and historical arguments.


texts: What does it mean that Jesus was the "second Adam"?

texts:
I often hear Jesus referred to as the "second Adam" or sometimes as the "last Adam". What meaning does this title carry? Does it mean that things didn't work out so well for Adam and so God had to try again?

I can't find a verse that uses "second Adam", but this verse mentions the "last Adam":

  1 Corinthians 15:45 (ESV)
  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Is this talking about Adam? Where else is this address used and why is it important?