texts: Did the two sides anathematize each other in the East–West Schism of 1054?

texts: In the East–West Schism, did the two sides anathematize each other, stop considering each other brothers in Christ and members of the Body of Christ?


texts: Martin Luther's take on Roman Catholic clergy individuals living (immediately) before him

texts: Is there any evidence that Martin Luther considered any of the Roman Catholic clergymen who lived in the centuries preceding his own lifetime (evidence related to those living in the centuries immediately preceding his own lifetime is preferred) a part of the Universal Church?


texts: What does the Bible say about this question- Why do Jesus and God have two seats in heaven when they are the same God?

texts: Please answer! I have been wondering for ages! I have tried google and all sorts, but can't find the answer.


texts: From reformed perspective, what does the oil in the foolish virgin's lamp represent?

texts:
This question is related to the question: How do "once saved always saved" advocates explain the parable of the wise virgins?

Many of the answers explain that the foolish virgins never had oil, however one answer pointed out that the difference is they did not take extra oil in a vessel. "But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps" (Mathew 25:4)

It does appear their lamps were burning since both "trimmed their lamps" (Matt 25:7) and the foolish said to the wise "our lamps are gone out" (Matt 25:8).

If this is the case, and the foolish virgins had oil in the lamp but it ran out, what does the oil signify?


texts: Who has the authority to change the wording of the Lord's Prayer in the Catholic Church in the United States?

texts:
A couple days ago the pope called for a change in wording of the Lord's Prayer (or Our Father)

The current wording that says "lead us not into temptation" is not a good translation because God does not lead humans to sin, he says.
His suggestion is to use "do not let us fall into temptation" instead, he told Italian TV on Wednesday night. (BBC)

According to the article, the Catholic Church in some countries has already changed the wording, such as in France, garnering the pope's approval, but it appears that other countries (like the US) continue to use the current version.
I would have thought that it was the pope's prerogative to make such changes, but maybe it is each country's church?  Or perhaps an international group is responsible for English?  More specifically, here's what I'm wondering:

Can the pope mandate such a change, worldwide?
Can the pope mandate a specific change in wording to all English versions, regardless of country?
Barring a direct mandate from the pope, who would take action to modify the wording for the United States?  A group within the US, or a broader group?


texts: Finding a mural of an unknown cathedral?

texts:
I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural.

What I know for sure is:

That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008.
It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country.
The original file name is "2B CS.jpg"

What I think I know is:

It was a city in Latin America.
The city is on or near the seashore.


texts: What were the Jehovah's Witness arguments against doing the Nazi salute?

texts:
For this question I am looking for answers from Jehovah's Witnesses, if possible.

In this YouTube video ("The Schoolgirl The Nazis and The Purple Triangles") this lady Simone Arnold talks about how she repeatedly got in trouble in Germany during WW2 because of her refusal to do the Hitler salute.

The video mentions Jehovah's Witnesses points of views about army service and the Hitler salute, but it does not provide much of any references to the Bible. The same thing is mentioned in this article from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum:

  While Witnesses contended that they were apolitical and that their
  actions were not anti-Nazi, their unwillingness to give the Nazi
  salute, to join party organizations or to let their children join the
  Hitler Youth, their refusal to participate in the so-called elections
  or plebiscites, and their unwillingness to adorn their homes with Nazi
  flags made them suspect.

The Wikipedia article on "Nazi salute" also states (last paragraph under "From 1933 to 1945"):

  Jehovah's Witnesses came into conflict with the Nazi regime because
  they refused to salute Adolf Hitler with the traditional "Heil Hitler"
  salute, believing that it conflicted with their worship of Jehovah.
  Because refusing to salute Hitler was considered a crime, Jehovah's
  Witnesses were arrested, and their children attending school were
  expelled, detained and separated from their families.

What I am curious about is the reasoning against these smaller acts of loyalty to the "state" or ruler, such as the Nazi salute. After all doing this salute did not seem to be a problem for most Germans, a vast majority of whom were baptized Protestant or Catholic.

So, assuming that the Jehovah's Witness reasoning comes from their interpretation of the Bible, I would like to ask:

What were (or are) the Jehovah's Witness arguments against doing the Nazi salute?


texts: What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Swedenborgian View)

texts:
As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ. I note that scripture addresses salvation, and that in Paul's letters being justified is proclaimed to be of importance. I have limited understanding (at best) of Swedenborgian theology, but learned in C.SE chat (here) that on this topic it would be significantly different from Protestant views, and Catholic views.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified? I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

This question is asking for the Swedenborgian view on the distinction.


texts:
What is the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by Christianity?

Obviously there are three entities involved: God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but is there more to the definition?


texts:
Much of the Bible is historical narrative. Other parts, such as many of Psalms, are poems - rife with figurative phrases (often surrounding a specific event or need or desire). Other parts are instructive (eg most of Paul's writings). Lastly there are prophetic segments - figurative language interwoven with historical narrative and directly-instructive passages.

How is the reader to determine which parts are figurative, which are historical fact, etc?


texts:
Some people say that the Bible is just a book, others say that its 100% accurate. The statistics might lie, so what I want to know is how the Bible compares to other books. Books like the encyclopedia, known historical writings and other books. The comparisons can definitely use statistics, but I definitely am looking for other books that the Bible does, or does not compare with.

edit: What I'm really curious about is if the premise: "The Bible is as accurate as an encyclopedia." is true, or if this premise could be true for any other history book.


texts:
Kind of weird and new agey, but I was looking on etsy.com for handmade rosaries and there are all kinds of ones that are apparently used for new age spiritual purposes.  They look just like regular rosaries (except for the steampunk one), but what is the connection to Catholicism to the sellers of these products.  Are they attempting to subvert devotion to Mary by injecting the powers of darkness or are they a splinter organization from the Catholic Church selling products to their own group members?

P.S. I think I'll be searching for "Catholic Rosary" from now on instead of just "Rosary"!


texts: Does Abraham's Bosom (Hades/Paradise) still exist?

texts:
My understanding is that Abraham's Bosom was the Saint's portion (Paradise) of Hades while on the other side of a great chasm (gulf) was a portion of Hades described as torment. Does this place known as Abraham's Bosom or Paradise still exist after Jesus's death and resurrection?

  Luke 16:19-31

  19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
  20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
  21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
  22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was
  buried;
  23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
  24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool
  my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
  25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now
  he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
  26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither
  can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
  27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
  28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
  29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
  30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
  31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

NOTE: Paradise is not mentioned in the above Luke 16.

Additional Information Provided by Thomas Shields


texts: Are there any denominations that reject Mary's virgin conception of Jesus?

texts:
Its hard to reconcile her virgin conception of Jesus with being a descendant of David since the genealogies in Matthew and Luke go through Joseph, who (according to the virgin conception theory) was not really Jesus' father.  Meaning, Jesus ends up with no genealogy at all, and since the Jews only accept genealogies through a father, literally he becomes genealogyless; and this has been the number one reason for Jews rejecting Jesus for as long as the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke have been in those gospels (I don't know how long that is).

Hence the question, Are there any denominations that reject her virgin conception?  Maybe some Messianic groups that believe they will be in a better position to reach the Jews by doing so?


texts: Why do (some) Anglican vicars use 'sing-songy' voices?

texts:
I'm confirmed into the Anglican Communion, though I haven't been a regular attender for about 10 years. Now 67 years old, I'm still interested in my Anglican heritage and what my Anglican infant baptism means. I worry that the Church of England is dying. It seems that the people in our church are quite out-of-touch with the local community and unable to be authentic in their relationships with non-churchgoers. It seems that the culture of the people is at odds with the people of the community.

The question I have may seem trivial, but I think it's symptomatic of this out-of-touch problem. On a visit to check-out the new priest I was not really surprised to hear his voice had that 'sing-songy' quality that most vicars had in my childhood. But what really shocked me was that in casual conversation after the service he spoke in the same way. It was rather like a caricature, and at times it was hard not to laugh at the stereotype that was conjured-up.

I think it might help me to attend an Anglican church again if I could at least understand if it is a prejudice in myself when I hear this anachronistic vocal style. Knowing why might promote tolerance. My question is about the origin on the phenomenon.  My guess is that it was taught and propagated after the Reformation, as RC priests seem to be immune. And why should it extend outside of church services into their everyday conversation?

I've come across quite a few embarrassing references to 'sing-songy' vicars on the Internet, so I guess that the behaviour is still fairly common in the C of E, e.g.  https://sites.google.com/site/singsongyvicars/
Has any research been done into the phenomenon? or would it be too embarrassing to mention?


texts:
One of the core beliefs of Judaism and Christianity is that God is
  omnipotent, able to do anything that is logically possible. But
  surprisingly, the Bible does not consistently support this idea ...
  there’s the following little-known Bible verse: “And the Lord was with
  Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not
  drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of
  iron.” — Judges 1:19 Source

I think the quotation is self-explanatory. How is this verse understood by Christian apologists?


texts: According to Catholicism, is marrying a divorced woman a sin of continual adultery?

texts:
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that marrying a divorced woman is a sin. Certainly having sex with a married woman is adultery, but Jesus also calls it adultery to marry a divorced woman.

However he says this in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard it said X, but I say to you Y” where Y seems to really redefine terms to be much more expansive and broad.

No one is really going around gouging their eyes out to prevent looking at married women lustfully.  And Jesus says “if your eye offends you” which implies the sin of adultery already took place. However, it ony took place in the heart.

Same with being angry with your brother. The sin of murder has taken only place in the heart.

But when it comes to divorce, Jesus seems to describe real adultery. It doesn’t make much sense to me when he is quoted as saying that te man commits adultery if he marries another woman. Adultery was ONLY defined as a man sleeping with a married WOMAN, in fact Jewish men had polygamy, and in fact it was commanded to marry your deceased brother’s wife even if you already were married, an example brought to Jesus by the Sadduccees.

So, according to Catholicism, how does the definition of adultery and the context of the Sermon on the Mount affect what we should do? No one is plucking their eyes out or cutting off their hands, so was it just meant to shock people? Mentioning adultery, I mean.


texts: Regarding the practice of "cast lots". Was this done by Jews only or did others practice it?

texts: Regarding the practice of 'cast lots' in the Old Testament. Was this used by Jews only or did others use this method?


texts: In RC doctrine, when is pop culture, like Bernstein's Mass, appropriate to tell sacred messages?

texts:
Background and lead up to question

Most people reading this weren't old enough when it was released, if they were around at all, to remember it, although it has been performed fairly frequently since its original release.

  MASS (formally, "MASS: A Theatre Piece for Singers, Players, and
  Dancers") is a musical theatre work composed by Leonard Bernstein with
  text by Bernstein and additional text and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz.
  Commissioned by Jacqueline Kennedy, it premiered on September 8, 1971,
  conducted by Maurice Peress. The performance was part of the opening
  of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington,
  D.C. . . .    Originally, Bernstein had intended to compose a
  traditional Mass, but instead decided on a more innovative form. The
  work is based on the Tridentine Mass of the Roman Catholic Church.
  Although the liturgical passages are sung in Latin, Mass also includes
  additional texts in English written by Bernstein, Broadway composer
  Stephen Schwartz, and Paul Simon (who wrote the first quatrain of the
  trope "Half of the People").

Bernstein's Mass, which was composed by a Jewish composer in honor of a Roman Catholic President, turned 45 years old last month. It is not a true liturgical piece, but not a secular musical theater piece either, received bad reviews as a piece of theater at the time it was released, and triggered a wide spectrum of reactions from Christians - not infrequently nearly opposite ones even from people who shared essentially identical religious beliefs.

Somewhat frantically, it hit a lot of doctrinal issues from how it is appropriate to respond to the promise of forgiveness of sins in your life, to the role of Christianity in the lives of troubled very masculine men, to the tension between showmanship and deeper meaning in worship, to doubts about one's own faith, to how to respond to undeniable miracles.

What is the import of the fact that this expressly Roman Catholic religious work is composed by a Jewish man? Does he pull it off well, or does his lack of insider perception lead him to present his subject matter in a way that seems off key?

Some people felt it mocked religion. The FBI feared that it advanced an anti-war agenda. Others felt it did a great service to Christianity by making it relatable and introducing them to the faith.

Is it a work that excites strong feelings among Christians today? If so, among whom and why? If not, why not?

Has it aged well? Or is it, like bell bottoms and disco, yet another embarrassment from an era not known for its good taste?

Question

I recognize that the questions above are too open ended a question as a whole although I left them in to capture the sense and sensibility with which I come at the final actual question, so while considering the lead in to this question as background, especially if you are not very familiar with this work, please focus on this actual question:

What does Roman Catholic doctrine have to say about how one should use popular culture to tell sacred messages, and how does Bernstein's Mass, in particular, comport with that guidance?


texts: Are there any Biblical passages that say that devil is able to make you doubt your faith?

texts:
Is the devil able to and make you doubt your faith?

Are there specific Biblical passages relating to this topic?

Sometimes I find myself doubting my faith when reading certain passages of the Bible, such as the beginning of Matthew (before Jesus gets his disciples) where Jesus seems more like a man than like God. A specific example is "What if Christianity is just a big hoax perpetrated by ancient people?"

I try to race these thoughts out of my mind and I try not to dwell on them, but is the devil able to give me such doubts or is he powerless to intervene in my relationship between me and God? The only other alternative seem to be that there are signs of my lack of faith, hinting that I am not truly saved.


texts: What are the biblical arguments against Arianism?

texts:
In the same spirit of the question: What are the Biblical arguments against modalism?

Arianism, the idea that the Son is inferior to the Father, is considered a heresy by most Christian denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against Arianism?


texts: Did the 19th Century Anglican Church have exorcism rituals or prayers?

texts:
Did the 19th Century Anglican Church have exorcism rituals? I can't see any in the Book of Common Prayer. Is there somewhere else they might be?

I heard somewhere that only bishops could perform exorcisms in that era, but I've seen no firm evidence of that and nor can I find the rituals or prayers they would have used.


texts:
Inspired by this question: How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems?

What is fundamentally unique about Christianity?  Obviously there are different stories, texts, and traditions associated with Christianity than with other religions.  But if we cut away all the fluff from all the world religions...  Is there anything that stands out as unique about the core of Christianity?

To clarify what I'm asking:

Many religions have prophets that claim to speak on behalf of god(s).
Many religions have scriptures, often claimed to be inspired by their god(s).
Many religions report miracles, or other supernatural phenomena.
Many religions claim to be the only "true" religion.
Many religions claim to offer forgiveness of sin.
Many religions claim to be historically based and accurate.
Many religions claim to improve society.

If Christianity just has a "better version" of all of these points, it sounds like Christianity is fundamentally the same as most/all other religions, it's just "more completely evolved."  So what I'm asking for is any characteristics of Christianity that are fundamentally unique and important, and not just improvements on existing ideas.


texts: What is the difference between Lust and Love in the heart?

texts:
How does one know the difference between Lust and Love?

For example (Hypothetically speaking, of course):•if someone has sex before marriage but they have true love only God knows if it's sin or not. •if someone has sex after marriage but they never loved the person just lusted the person it is a sin, because LUST is a sin.
•if someone has sex after marriage and they loved the person it is NOT a sin, because, even if there was minor lust (which of course, with hormones there always will be), Love covers a multitude of wrongs.

How does that "someone" know whether they have love or lust (in their heart)?

*Side-note: My main focus with this question is about the differences between lust and love, not the topic of premarital sex— that was just an example I used to help further get my point across! Thankyou!


texts: Why did God wrestle with Jacob and why did this appearance not become a "big deal"?

texts:
During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up:

If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob?  So that he could repent and be able to be blessed?
When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the "wrestling", asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go?
If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a "big deal" the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?


texts: Basis for belief that a person can be "possessed by" a demon?

texts:
I'm asking a rather technical question here. I'm wondering where the idea comes from that a person could be "possessed by" a demon; as in, the demon "possesses" / "owns" the person -- as opposed to the person simply "having" / "possessing" a demon which does things through and for the person.

I understand that there are examples in Scripture where demons give people supernatural abilities like special knowledge or unnatural strength. I also understand that there are examples in Scripture of demons doing things to people like speaking through them or throwing them around. However, my car does things to me that I don't want it to sometimes, but it doesn't "possess" me / "own" me. I own my car. It just doesn't always do what I want it to -- it could even cause me harm (if the brakes went out or something) -- but that has more to do with it not doing what I want it to than it "owning" me. Hopefully this distinction is making sense.

The reason I ask is that I looked up the Greek behind a couple of the instances of "demon possession" in Scripture (Luke 4:33; 8:27) and in both places it is translated to say that the person was possessed by a demon, but in both cases the Greek suggests that the person possessed the demon.

Is there anything explicit in Scripture which describes a person being "possessed by" a demon?  If not, what is the origin of this belief?


texts: Was Jesus Circumcised for the Romans to nail the plaque 'King of the Jews' above his head on the Cross?

texts: Historically, checking for circumcision was the surest way to determine who is a Jew or a Gentile. So does the plaque nailed to the cross by the Romans confirm that Jesus was circumcised?


texts: How to determine a genuine call from God?

texts:
Imagine one day a person hears voices like God speaking to him (or as how he would describe as God), with bright lights, angels, burning bushes, and all. It would seem so real for him but only he alone heard or experienced it. And the voice would tell him to sacrifice his son/daughter to God.

Is it moral for him sacrifice his child because of this experience? it might be a test and if he didn't then he would have failed for doubting God. What would a Christian do?


texts:
The question Was "love your enemies" ever included among the evangelical counsels? mentions evangelical counsels.  In the question James T mentions that they are something to be kept by monastics but not Christians in general.

What is the basis for evangelical counsels and what are some examples?


texts: What does the Catholic Church mean when it calls humans co-creators with God?

texts:
The Catholic Church says that human are co-creators with God.

  To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his
  providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing”
  the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be
  intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation,
  to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.
  Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also
  enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their
  prayers, and their sufferings. They then fully become “God’s fellow
  workers” and co-workers for his kingdom. (Catechism of the Catholic
  Church, paragraph
  307)

In what manner, capacity, and extent are we co-creators with God, according to the Catholic Church?


texts: If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity?

texts:
Note: This is in NO way a troll or a poke at any faith that believes in the doctrine of the Trinity but rather is simply a question for clarity.

There are several passages within the bible that refers to Jesus Christ as the "Son of God" or where He Himself refers to a "Father" who was in Heaven:

Luke 1:35 (Mary inquires of an angel how it's possible for her to ear a child while being a virgin)

  The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

Luke 2:49 (Joesph and Mary share their concern of Christ leaving them at the age of 12. This is His response)

  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Matthew 3:17 (The baptism of Christ)

  And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 26:39 (while suffering in the Garden of Gethsamane, Christ prays to the Father)

  and prayed saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

In these passages, and many others, it appears that God and Jesus Christ are separate being. My limited understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "One". How does this doctrine fit with these scriptures?


texts: What are the differences between the CRCNA position on infallibility and the ICBI position on inerrancy?

texts:
The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility. According to one member of the Council on Infallibility:

  The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word inerrant to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that infallible and trustworthy fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately.

The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.


texts: Remit of Defender of the Bond in Catholic declaration of nullity investigations

texts:
Is the main function, of Defender of the Bond (DOB), to offer "advice" to the tribunal Judge - or to (literally) defend the matrimonial bond?

Any answer presented should provide an explicit consideration of the following scenario.

In a case where the petitioner presents very weak grounds for advocating an annulment - can the DOB be asked (by the tribunal) to advise the Judges on how any evidence (affirming the annulment) may best be used? Is it his obligation, or right to do so?


texts: Where is the verse about people sinning because they know God will forgive them?

texts:
I've been trying to find a verse I read not too long ago for quite some time about sinning and knowing it's wrong, but sinning anyway because you know God will forgive you. I believe it also mentioned how people who do this are even lower than people who sin, then repent and attempt to stop doing it.

I know that verse-identification has had a lot of discussion on the meta as to whether it should be allowed, and it seems most people would only allow it under very strict circumstances. That said, I do agree with this opinion, but I also believe that this question meets those circumstances, so I will take the risk.

I have been trying to find this verse for quite some time, and I can't find it. I've searched Google, I've looked it up on quite a few websites, I've even asked other people if they had seen the verse. It's almost like it didn't exist, but I'm 100% certain that I saw it, but I can't find it.   Point is, I've searched all over the place to no avail, and I feel that this is the last place I can possibly turn.

If anyone has seen this verse I would very much appreciate it, but if you haven't seen this particular verse, I would rather you not answer with a verse that has a similar subject, but is different. Thanks.

Update:
I just asked a particular person who I hadn't asked before and they said they knew the verse I was talking about, but wasn't sure where it was. They hunted around for a while looking for it and found a few similar verses, but not the correct one. To make things easier, I will name a few verses it isn't, but it would be nigh impossible to track down every similar verse I've seen that isn't the one. I'll also include passages that have been put in answers that aren't it.

Many of the verses I have seen that aren't it are as follows:

Romans 6:15
Luke 13:3
1 John 5:18
Hebrews 10:26-31
2 Peter 2:20-21

There are other verses I have seen, but these verses were the closest ones I found.


texts:
Has the Catholic church ever acknowledged such a possibility as not contradicting the Bible? Or has it once said that the whole idea of aliens is absolutely non-Biblical as the humans are the center of God's creation or something like that?

So, once again: Has the Catholic church ever voiced its view on the possibility of aliens' existence?


texts: What is the basis for the belief that Christianity and Islam worship different gods?

texts:
Another question entitled "Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" requested the basis for the belief that Christians and Muslims do worship the same god.

In this question, I am requesting the basis for the belief that Christians and Muslims do not worship the same god, but worship different gods.

This question is specifically addressed to Christians who believe that Islam worships a distinctly different god, and that Judaism worships the same God as Christianity.


texts: What does it mean that the Believers Eastern Church (in Asia) is an "Ancient-Future Church"?

texts:
Recently I was asked a question about the Believers Eastern Church and have been doing some research to find out what they believe. Here is part of what I discovered:

The founder and current Metropolitan Bishop of this group is K.P.Yohannan, who started a chapter of Gospel for Asia in Kerala, India, in 1981 and in 1983 established the Indian headquarters in Tiruvalla.  Since August 2018 K.P. Yohannan is known as Moran Mor Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan in relation to church duties. Believers Eastern Church (previously Believers Church) is self-described as "evangelical in nature and outlook, oriental in worship, democratic in function and Protestant (Episcopal) in governance and character". The Believers Eastern Church is an "Ancient-Future Church" and as such, is considered by some to be heretical.  Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/K._P._Yohannan

The Nicene Creed is the official statement of faith for the Believers Eastern Church.  The Church is Trinitarian and accepts and confesses the historic Creed of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.  Source: https://www.bec.org/faith-and-beliefs/

I noted that although this church is "Protestant in governance and character" that does not mean to say it is Protestant in belief.  It also says it is "oriental in worship".

My main concern is with the claim (by some) that because it is an "Ancient-Future Church" it is heretical.

What does it mean to be an "Ancient-Future Church"?

Edit: I suspect there are several churches claiming to be "Ancient-Future" and insights into what "Ancient-Future" means is helpful.  However, my main question is about the Believers Eastern Church and because it is an "Ancient-Future Church" some people brand it as heretical. Theologicaly speaking, what would make an "Ancient-Future Church" heretical?


texts: What does 'first estate' mean in Jude 1:6 (KJV)?

texts:
Jude 1:6 (emphasis mine):

  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

This verse references a topics that are not thoroughly covered in the Bible (Enoch, Michael, etc). I haven't found the term 'first estate' in the Bible anywhere else, and other translations don't provide much clarity for me.

What are we to understand by the phrase, 'first estate', and who are those angels that did not keep it?

Note:

Just so there's no speculation, I come from an LDS background.  My motivation for asking this question is to know how those outside of my faith understand by this verse, but answers consistent with LDS theology are also welcome.


texts: Have any Christian thinkers expressed the idea that the Trinity can be proven independently from Scripture?

texts: It is widely understood among trinitarians that the doctrine of the trinity is best seen through special revelation, particularly the scriptural accounts of the incarnation of Christ. But have there been attempts by Christians to prove the trinity particularly through philosophy? In other words, have certain Christian thinkers ever held that the trinity can be arrived at logically, independent from divine revelation in Scripture?


texts: Looking for a good overview of atonement theory (book or other resource)

texts:
I am looking for a good overview/introduction to atonement theory that covers multiple points of view so that I can better understand the difference between the various different theories.  I am not looking for someone to outline them here, as I would like a more thorough answer than what would be reasonable in a SE answer.  I am also looking for something beyond what Wikipedia provides, as frankly it is not very helpful.

Perhaps a book that devotes a chapter or two to an academic presentation of several different views, but doesn't (strongly) argue for or against any of them, would be best.


texts: Is there any place in the Bible that Jesus Himself claims that all believers are members of His Body?

texts:
Is there any place in the Bible where Jesus Himself claims that all believers are members of His Body? Or is it something that we only know from His apostles?

I mean we can infer this thought from such words of Jesus like "I am the vine and you are the branches" or "if the grain of wheat dies, it will bring a of of fruit, however, Jesus also spoke about His body at the last supper, so He might have said something about His believers being members of His Body even prior to His crucifixion.


texts:
Seems every man and his dog is qualifying for sainthood these days. Pope John Paul II canonised 483 saints, more saints than in the last 500 years.

Is this because

modern science has advanced to the point it is easier to prove miracles
the Catholic Church has lowered the burden of proof required to class an event as a miracle
more people are performing miracles


texts:
In Matthew 11:29–30 (NIV), Jesus said:

  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

What is the yoke exactly? Is it the teaching? Why does Jesus say that it is easy?


texts: According to the LDS, do Michael and Gabriel have resurrected bodies?

texts:
According to Mormon doctrine, when Christ was resurrected, so were many of the saints that had died:

  "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
  arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
  into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:52–53)

  "Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite,
  that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the
  Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who
  should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should
  minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?" (3 Nephi
  23:13)

Is it safe to assume that all the prophets that died before Christ were resurrected at this time? And that Adam (Michael), and Noah (Gabriel), and John the Baptist, etc., all have resurrected bodies now?


texts: What kinds of supernatural beings are in the Bible?

texts:
The Bible mentions a number of supernatural beings, starting with the most commonly known ones - God, angels, spirits, but there are also ones that appear less often, like witches (Witch of Endor), or giants (Nephilim).

Is there a comprehensive list of supernatural beings that appear in the Bible along with descriptions of what they are?

EDIT:

As for defining supernatural, lets assume anything that is not part of the natural world, that is, grounded in reality outside of religion. Humans are natural, animals are natural, people worshipping other gods (like wiccans or baalists) are natural, people performing miracles (like Witch of Endor) are supernatural, just like angels, half angels, spirits, etc. In the end, anything not conforming to natural laws is supernatural.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses think there is an important difference between saying 'Jehovah' and 'Yahweh'?

texts: As the denomination's name implies, Jehovah's Witnesses place importance on the name Jehovah. Do they distinguish between Jehovah, Yahweh, the Tetragrammaton, and so on, or do they think these are all acceptable versions of God's name? Also, is there any emphasis placed on how to pronounce 'Jehovah', or is the pronunciation considered non-essential?


texts: Readable presentations on theodicy (problem of evil) theories?

texts: Are there any expositions of christian philosophical resolutions to the problem of evil that one can more easily follow, in any presentation (video / audio / book /coursera / whatever)? Being a progressive at heart, I tend to get turned off when a philosophical system seems to require unnecessary (and counter-productive) suffering, but still I would genuinely like to understand christian theodicy positions. As much as I like to ridicule the position that "evil exists because the evildoer along with the righteous must have free will", there is actually something beyond that.


texts: According to Trinitarian theology of Calvinism, was the Word (2nd person of the Trinity) missing from heaven when He (the Word) incarnated on Earth?

texts:
What I mean with "missing from heaven" is something like this :
A. Only the first and the third persons of the Trinity were in heaven because the second person was on Earth.

Example:
Q : Where is the second person of the Trinity from 1 AD to 33 AD ?
A : On Earth in the flesh.
Therefore there is no second person of the Trinity in heaven.

Not "missing from heaven" is then something like this:
B. The first, second and third persons of the Trinity are still in heaven although the second person is at the same time on Earth.

Example:
Q : Where is the second person of the Trinity from 1 AD to 33 AD ?
A : On Earth in the flesh and in heaven just in spirit.

So, according to Trinitarian theology of Calvinism, was the Word (2nd person of the Trinity) missing from heaven when He (the Word) incarnated on Earth (John 1:14) or was He in heaven at the same time as He was on Earth?

Thank you.


texts: Why does Catholicism believe in purgatory?

texts:
Why does Catholicism believe in purgatory if according to Hebrews we are faced with judgement after we die?

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


texts:
Did Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, only assume impersonal (anhypostatic) human nature (body and soul), during incarnation, in which he was born of Mary? Or, did he already have human soul beforehand (possibly since eternity or after creation), and only assume human body during incarnation?

I believe the former is the biblical position. However, recently I heard the latter idea discussed in my circle.

I would like some rebuttal/support from the perspective of Protestant theology or early church councils.


texts: Are there any laid down guidelines to enrich and strengthen Christian faith?

texts:
I was asked to devise a brief note on how to strengthen and enrich faith in Christianity.

Are there any laid down guidelines in Roman Catholicism as to how this is achieved? If any such documents exists in Protestantism would be also helpful if their basic beliefs are conforming to Nicene Creed.


texts: What is the Biblical basis against the omnipresence of Satan?

texts:
Many Christians pray and act as if Satan is right next to them all the time, tempting them to turn away from God, attacking them, etc., as though he were omnipresent...

What is the Biblical basis against Satan's omnipresence?


texts: How should Christians who work with fiction approach material which uses the Lord’s name in vain?

texts:
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20:7 (KJV)

As an example of a work of fiction pertaining to my question, I submit One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the 1975 film adapted from the novel of the same name by Ken Kesey. Specifically, the character of Randle McMurphy as portrayed by Jack Nicholson, who doesn’t seem to go a single scene in this movie without using “God” or our Lord Jesus Christ’s name as an expletive.
On the one hand, I cringe. On the other hand, I see the characterization of sinners as a useful tool in a Christian writer/performer/director’s creative arsenal. As an aspiring screenwriter, I’m especially pressed to find an answer to this question.


texts: Are there published testimonies from ex cessationists who became continuationists after personally witnessing or experiencing a sign gift?

texts:
Has ever a cessationist Christian become a continuationist for first-hand experiential reasons? Are there published testimonies from ex cessationists who became continuationists after they had a first-hand experience with a sign gift or witnessed someone else exercising a sign gift?
If possible, I'd be especially interested in reading testimonies published by reputable former cessationists, say, a renowned cessationist Baptist pastor who had an experience that turned him into a continuationist, etc.

The counterpart question to this one can be found here.


texts: Is it permissible for a Catholic to believe in Miaphysitism?

texts:
The Chalcedonean Definition is the official Christology of the Catholic Church. It states that Christ is a single person with two natures: human and divine. These two natures are neither divided nor mixed.
The Oriental Orthodox Christological position is Miaphysitism. This states that Christ has a single nature, but that nature is both fully human and fully divine, with the human and divine elements being neither mixed with nor divided from each other.
Historically the Catholics have misunderstood miaphysitism as a form of monophysitism (Christ has a single nature which is either human or divine but not both) and the Oriental Orthodox have misunderstood Chalcedonean definition as being a form of Nestorianism (Christ was two persons).
In my analysis, both sides are going to great pains to ensure that Christ is fully human and fully divine. They both go about it in different ways, but both succeed in the goal, and so both are acceptable formulations
Recently the two sides have cooled off and the accusations of heresy against each other are not so strong. There have been moves by some to say that the dispute is just one of terminology, not substance. This includes joint statements signed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, but despite this, the Catholic and Oriental orthodox Churches have not officially declared themselves in communion with each other, so I am not sure if Miaphysitism is considered an acceptable Christological position by the Catholic church.
Personally I find Miaphysitism to be more coherent and intuitive than the Chalcedonean 2 natures definition. As a Catholic, am I permitted to believe Miaphysitism so long as I don't simultaneously deny Chalcedon? And if it is permitted, then why aren't the Oriental Orthodox churches in full communion with the Catholic Churches as the Eastern Orthodox churches are?
Related question: is this what the Eastern Catholic churches that have an Oriental Orthodox background do? Ie. Accept that the Chalcedonean definition is Orthodox, but go ahead and teach Miaphysitism anyway? (I'm thinking of the Ethiopian, Eritrean and Coptic Catholic churches for example)
edit:
I note that the wikipedia article for Miaphysitism says the following:

Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in
general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation, but they have
nevertheless perceived the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox to be
a form of Monophysitism (single nature doctrine).

This seems to indicate that Chalcedonians are able to accept Miaphysitism, given an appropriate interpretation.


texts: Why does God often permit his children to suffer in this world more than the wicked?

texts:
Jesus said:

  Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:29-31, NIV)

If it is true that God even loves a sparrow and nothing can happen under his all powerful hand without his consent, why does God allow the great injustice of the wicked prospering while his dearly loved often suffer in this world?

How does the Christian view reconcile the sufferings of a Job with the gentle care of a sparrow?


texts: John Wesley's influence by ancient fathers

texts:
I have been told that John Wesley read the pre-Schism fathers a lot, and was influenced by them.

Is this so, and if so, to what extent and how was his doctrine influenced by them?


texts: Is rape condoned in the Bible? If so, why?

texts:
Rape is not a judgment that's commanded upon those that violate the law, whether in the new testament or the old. So why does God choose to use rape as a means of judgement?

In america we have a bill of rights that prevents cruelty to criminals. We feel that this is a moral thing to do, why does God not have moral standards that would prevent him from using rape as a means of judgement?

Why is rape condoned in the Bible?

  Isaiah 13:15-18 (NIV)

  15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;     all who are caught
  will fall by the sword.  16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces
  before their eyes;     their houses will be looted and their wives
  violated.

  17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,     who do not care
  for silver     and have no delight in gold.  18 Their bows will strike
  down the young men;     they will have no mercy on infants,     nor
  will they look with compassion on children.

  Zechariah 14:1-2

  1 A day of the LORD is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will
  be plundered and divided up within your very walls.  2 I will gather
  all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be
  captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city
  will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from
  the city.

  2 Samuel 12:11 (NIV)

  11 “This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going
  to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives
  and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your
  wives in broad daylight.

Please feel free to target any of the suggested rape events that are listed here. http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm


texts: Where in God's promises did it show that Abram needed to have a child through Sarai?

texts:
I've been studying Genesis 15-16 and I am wondering, why was it wrong for Abram to have a child through Hagar?

After all, it was a common practice in those times that if a woman were barren, she could have a child via a surrogate mother and it would be considered her child.  It was a completely normal cultural practice so it wouldn't have been unheard of for Sarai to suggest it and Abram to agree to it.

I was looking over God's promises to Abram and all God says is that he would have a promised heir from his own body and that his descendants would be numerous.  Nowhere does it specifically state that it had to be through Sarai physically (not via a surrogate).  So why do we view the Hagar/Ishmael deal as a big blunder in Abram's life?  Why wasn't God more specific?

Why couldn't the heir have been Ishmael?


texts: Didn't Jesus return to Earth after the resurrection when he appeared to Paul?

texts: Why has anyone not brought to light Jesus return to earth when he appeared to Paul while Paul was on the road to Damascus? Was this not a return of Christ when he called Paul into the ministry of faith?


texts: Questions about Eastern Orthodox infant baptism practices

texts:
Recently I saw this video in which infants have their head immersed in water, are flipped over and have their feet then  immersed. This cycle is repeated 3 times for a total of 6 immersions.

Is this something that is practiced only locally in Georgia (the country) or is this something which is done in all of Eastern Orthodoxy?

Why are both the head and feet immersed (as opposed to the whole
child, or just the head or just the feet) and
why is it repeated 3 times? (Is the 3 times to signify the 3 persons of the godhead?)


texts:
The Bible has been the subject of many numerological attempts at applying greater / different meaning. The Bible Code being a popular example resulting in a book and a movie (at least one movie). My step-mother (raised Catholic) was a big fan of The Bible Code, but I never knew how to take it.

This isn't a reference to the meaning or symbology of the number 7 in the Bible, but instead to the practice of decoding the Bible by applying number patterns to it.

I've always considered Numerology to be a practice like Astrology. Is the application of it to the Bible accepted by Christians as another way that God speaks to man, or just more pop-theology?


texts:
I’ve been asked to read psalm 23 at a funeral next week. The service is being led by our Church of England vicar. Does anyone know what is traditionally said at the beginning and end of the reading? I’ve never given a reading during any kind of service before and want to make sure I get it right.
Many thanks.


texts: How do Calvinists understand "anyone" in 2 Peter 3:9?

texts:
2 Peter 3:9

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand
  slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to
  perish, but everyone to come to repentance

From a similar question in Christianity SE

  It's true that some Calvinists take a different approach and suggest
  that "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers only to Christians

So.... God speaks to the people whom He knows that they are Jesus believers :
I am patient with you.
I don't want anyone from you to perish.
I want everyone from you to come to repentance.

My question is: How come God doesn't want Jesus believers to perish and God wants Jesus believers to come to repentance? Aren't Jesus believers already a repented people (because elected) then impossible to perish?


texts: Are there rules regarding the content of Roman Catholic artwork?

texts:
It stands to reason that one cannot display anything that one desires within a Roman Catholic place of worship.  In regards to paintings, statuary, stained glass, and iconography on display withing Roman Catholic facilities (churches, schools, monestaries, etc.), are there rules or guidelines regarding what may or may not be depicted?
For instance, one would never expect to see a statue of the Virgin Mary holding a second infant child.  Obviously this is because Roman Catholicism holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, but is the dogmatic content of the faith the only rule to follow?  Is the decision left to the individual parish/diocese or are there official rules or guidelines determined farther up the hierarchy?  Where might one find such guidelines?


texts:
Since Preterism teaches that the son of man has already come is it safe to infer that they also consider "the Lord's Supper" to be obsolete as well?:

  [1Co 11:26 CSB] 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


texts:
Jesus says quite a few times that if you have enough faith you can do anything.

Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

Luke 17:6
He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

He's talking to his apostles, but who is Jesus addressing when he says "you"?
Does Jesus suggest that we can do those miracles today,
was that something his apostles could do back in the times of Christ,
or is this a parable of the forgiveness of sins?


texts:
I'm talking about the 12 listed in Matthew 10: 1-4.

1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphæus, and Lebbæus, whose surname was Thaddæus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

So, what I expect as an answer would be any scriptures that provide evidence that any or all of the 12 were Jewish. Also any other good sources that address this topic would be appreciated.
Why do I care? Trying to shed more light on these verses in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14: 20-27. In those verses, it uses the phrase "the book proceeded out of the mouth of the Jew".


texts: Under Catholic dogma can someone publicly rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?

texts:
In Galatians chapter 2 Paul explains how he had to rebuke the Apostle Peter as he was acting hypocritically over a matter very serious and central to the meaning of the gospel:

  When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (NIV, Galatians 2:11)

The rebuke does not seem as some extremely reverential private matter but the rebuke was more stinging seemingly very public being said in front of 'them all':

  When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (NIV, Galatians 2:14)

I was just wondering if other church leaders within the Roman Catholic faith can correct the Pope in the same way or not?  I suspect 'No' but have no assurance of my suspicion.

Under Catholic dogma can someone rebuke the Pope like Paul rebuked Peter?


texts:
Why are mostly Western European style names like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John used for Middle Eastern people? I mean why are those names still spelled that way in the Bible when we could find all the originals (Barnabas, Saul, Yeshua, etc. )?

I know this looks like kind of a mundane question. But, as I have not found  similar questions under the language tag I hope it is acceptable to post it here.


texts: Question regarding different translations of the Bible into Japanese

texts:
I also posted this on the Japanese language site but I don’t feel like it fits very well in either category. If you can think of a better stack exchange site please let me know.
Some background:
My grandmother was born in Japan just before WWII but married an American sailor in her youth and moved to the US, where she has lived for the past 60 years or so. She is a devout Protestant Christian, but as far as I know she converted when she moved to the US or shortly before then (I have never asked) and has therefore never seen the Bible in her native language. I want to get her one for Christmas, as I think that would be very special for her but I don’t know anything about Japanese translations of the Bible.
The problem:
I’ve read that there are two main translations, the 新共同訳聖書 (NIT) and the 新改訳聖書 (NJB). The NJB is supposed to be more widely used among Protestants, but it’s also apparently a more literal translation and I don’t want to give her a Bible that’s clunky or obscures the meaning. I also don’t want to give her a Bible that is Protestant because of a bias in translation.  On the other hand, I like the idea of a the NIT because it is more ecumenical, but not if it was made that way by deliberately translating it more ambiguously. I also know that translating to Japanese always requires some interpretation, so I like the idea of a less literal translation, but I don’t want to give her one like the Message which is very heavily interpreted to the point where it is more of a commentary.
What translation do you recommend for my specific situation?
Thanks for your help.


texts: Jesus talks about his father a lot. Is it Yahweh? How do we know that when Jesus says, "My father" he means Yahweh from the Old Testament?


texts: Wedding after a death in the family in the Eastern Orthodox Church

texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church say anything on festivities after the death of a member of the family? Specifically weddings in the 40 days after the death when mourning is called for?


texts: Parallel German (Martin Luther's 1534) and English Bible in PDF format?

texts:
I've been looking specifically for a PDF version of the Martin Luther 1534 translation of the Bible with a Parallel English translation (preferably KJV, but any edition will do). I've been hitting a serious brick wall in finding any such composition. Does such a creature exist?

I have a Crossway hard copy edition, but the Martin Luther translation is a revised edition and of course it's physical - I need a PDF for portability and markup purposes (using Liquid Text for markup and note taking):


texts: Why is the funeral/burial several days after death?

texts:
I've noticed that Christian funerals and burials tend to come several days after the death, even in cases where the death was expected, there was no police involvement (so no need to wait on investigations), and nobody had to travel great distances.1  I've seen this for Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and some type of Lutheran (sorry, don't know which), so I'm assuming it's general, but if that assumption is mistaken please correct me.

Is there a theological reason to wait?  Maybe a wait of three days is religiously significant, or there is some belief that either the soul or the family needs the delay?  Is it a practical concern (that somehow doesn't apply to Jewish burials, which are usually within a day)?  Is it not seen as urgent and so it's easier to just always have a delay?

1 The case that reminded me to ask the question is a Monday-morning death, expected, and a Saturday funeral, where nobody has to fly in.


texts: Orthodox churches recognized by Catholic Church

texts:
Which Orthodox churches are recognized by the Catholic church? Are there any churches older than the split that are not recognized by the Catholic Church and that are still active?

Edit: "recognize" can be exemplified by that it is possible for an orthodox to receive a sacrament from a catholic priest.


texts: Would God allow all of humanity to be celibate?

texts:
God created the world with a process that involves sexuality to bring more people to existence to serve him. It doesn’t seem sustainable; if everyone achieved the degree of spirituality that the continent clergy has, then the population would decrease and no more people would serve God.

Why would God benefit from the prohibition of an act which gives existence to other humans that will potentially also serve Him?

I read the argument “better focus to serve God by ignoring sexual impulses and distractions,” but in that case having children while controlling sexual impulses and abstaining from time to time makes more sense.


texts: What is the status of Humbert's views on the efficacy of sacraments in Catholicism?

texts:
Humbert of Silva Candida was an important medieval theologian, best known for his involvement in the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.

He was also a vocal proponent of a number of views, such as papal authority and clerical celibacy.  On this latter point, Everett Ferguson writes that he "said that sacraments administered by married clerics were invalid," and then continues:

  Humbert's later work Against the Simoniacs in three books made a similar claim: Any cleric appointed to office by a layman, no matter how honestly, could not administer valid sacraments, a doctrine that revived the viewpoint of Donatism, which made the validity of sacraments depend on the status of the administrator. (Church History, I, 19.V.B)

This does sound like Donatism to me, but I don't see any indication on Wikipedia or elsewhere that Humbert's views actually violated Catholic dogma. In light of subsequent clarifications of the doctrines of the sacraments, are these views of Humbert's considered problematic in modern Catholicism?


texts: What are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible?

texts:
Red letter edition Bibles seem to be popular in the US. The difference to a plain Bible is that words of Jesus are printed in red. The first red-letter Bible was published in 1900, and the practice still seems mostly limited to the most major languages. I've only ever seen red letter editions in English.

I understand the benefits of a new Bible feature for the publisher, but I fail to see the benefits for the reader. It's usually very easy to find what is spoken by Christ and what by someone else, just by reading. The red letters do make it still a bit easier, but I don't understand why we would be optimizing for finding Jesus' words. Not all passages of Jesus' speech are very central to our faith. The important ones still aren't more important than some other passages in the New Testament, I think.

What then are the benefits of a red letter edition Bible supposed to be?


texts: Can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely?

texts: At any point, can the Holy Spirit take control of a person completely so that the person may act beyond his control? I am trying to understand the Biblical view on this. My understanding is that the Holy Spirit is a submissive spirit, but, I have heard people say such as "Holy Spirit was controlling me". Looking forward eagerly for the answers.


texts: Were the sins of the Israelites forgiven with the animal sacrifices or simply held in abeyance until Jesus death on the cross?

texts:
While studying Matthew; I came to:

Mat 27:52  And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

So that began a search for more definitive scriptures and only came up with these:

Deu_31:16  And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

2Sa_7:12  And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

1Ki_1:21  Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders.

Job_14:12  So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Dan_12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Joh_11:11  These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

Joh_11:13  Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.

Act_13:36  For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

Can anyone shed more light on the subject?


texts: Is there any historical evidence of Sabbath keeping by Gentiles during the first centuries of Christianity?

texts: Did Gentiles use to keep the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) during the first centuries of Christianity? How widespread was the practice in comparison with Sunday meetings? What does the historical evidence say about all this?


texts: Where can I find a simple but complete taxonomy of churches?

texts:
I'm looking for a simple but complete taxonomy of churches.

I'd like something that is more detailed than this one I found on Wikipedia (in particular showing the branches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy):

But less detailed/messy than this one, which goes into rather too much detail for the Protestant churches, while perhaps neglecting some of the other churches.


texts: Is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority?

texts:
Among the Protestant faith a believer is to submit to the government:

  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14, NIV)

I am unsure about medieval historical details but I had the impression that there were struggles between the Catholic church and  the state. I have the impression that the Pope tried to argue supremacy over the state in opposition to the words of Peter.

My main question is not, 'Did the Pope really try to do this?' My question is does the modern day Pope teach his duty to submit to secular authority?

According to catholic teaching is the Pope morally obliged to submit to every secular authority?


texts: Under what basis does the Catholic Church consider animals, in particular great apes, not to be persons?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that out of earthly beings, only humans, and not animals, are persons and therefore many rights, like the absolute right to live, are enjoyed only by humans.

As the CCC says,

  2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created
  in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food
  and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and
  leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a
  morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits
  and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

  2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die
  needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should
  as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals;
  one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

And notably, the above canons are placed in a chapter whose title is:

  II. Respect for Persons and Their Goods

If I’m not mistaken, this position stems from the definition of “person” proposed by Boethius, which is most commonly accepted among theologians:

  A person is an individual substance with a rational nature.

The problem is that some modern scientists claim that according to the new research we must consider some animals, in particular the great apes, as self-aware and intelligent, and therefore persons. They assert that these animals are also capable of self-control, planning, abstract thinking, mental time travel, comprehending past, present and future, empathy, establishing relationships, etc. They assert these animals are sentient.

Therefore these scientists claim these animals should be granted the right of bodily liberty, bodily integrity, and must not be considered properties of other people.

For sources, please see e.g. the following Wikipedia articles: Great ape personhood, Nonhuman Rights Project and Personhood § Non-human animals.

By such mentality denying animals human rights is an example of an unmadated supremacism, chauvinism and discrimination, similar in nature to the historical discrimination of people born as slaves and later of people of other races.

Yet under the Church’s teaching it would seem impossible to classify these animals as persons. Given these scientific claims, seemingly fulfilling Boethius’ definition of a person, how does the Catholic Church defend its teaching with regard to animals not being persons?


texts: What is meant by the "fullness of the Gentiles" or the "times of the Gentiles"?

texts:
In Luke 21:24, Jesus speaks of future events, including the destruction of Jerusalem and His return, saying:

  “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (ESV).

A similar phrase is found in Romans 11:25, which says,

  A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (ESV).

What did Jesus and Paul mean by the “times of the Gentiles” or the "fullness of Gentiles"?


texts: Why doesn’t the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod have bishops?

texts:
Most Lutheran synods in the United States, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), have bishops as part of their church hierarchy just like many other mainline Protestants.

Why does the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod not have bishops and instead have a “President” and similar leadership?


texts: Does the Book of Mormon (& LDS doctrine) pass the test found in 1 John 4:2 as the true spirit of God?

texts:
Do Mormons agree that part of their trust in the book of Mormon (and the LDS church doctrine) is that it agrees with the following scriptures as a kind of litmus test is discerning the truth from the false in this world?

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, (1 John 4:2)
If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:15)
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him. (1 John 5:1)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Does the LDS church “acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” and confess His name as the above scriptures suggest?


texts:
Exorcism is common in the New Testament, by both Jesus and the disciples.

But the main theme in the Old and New Testaments is to repent and change your ways; then God will heal you and bless you. And when Jesus kicked the demon out He said: Sin no more, so it won't get worse. So you can see that sin is in the picture here, and Jesus did teach the Jews to repent.

But I don't see anyone repenting before the exorcism; there is just a question of faith. Maybe one will see this answer if you study the Law or see the red line from the first book of the Bible until the last. But from just looking at the New Testament, I find it hard to understand.

Do you need to repent to get the demon out, or not?


texts: Did Early Church Fathers have a Talmud of their own?

texts: The Talmud(s) are compiled of about 2,711 pages. The Mishna, Midrash, and Gemara are many examples of Jewish literature that encompasses every-day life, from halacha (Jewish law) to marriage and worship. All in all, Rabbinic Judaism is an immense-sized religion. Other than the writings of the early Church fathers and the Bible, do Christians have similar sized-volumes of law codes and debates, or interpretations of laws codes and commentaries in Christianity?


texts: John 20:17 says that Jesus has a God. I have looked it up in every translation. it says "Jesus said to her "touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.                                                                         ...                                                                                As you know, this does not line up with the trinity as so many other scriptures. I found at least 40 references.As you know,most of the great minds in history that studied the scriptures such as Issac Newton, did not believe in the trinity, but took Jesus at his word.Why then does the conventional church this it?


texts: What does it mean by "Selling one’s soul to Devil"?

texts:
I became very interested (by it means, curious) about the selling soul to devil in past few weeks? You probably had heard the most popular example of this: Robert Johnson, Paganini etc.  I researched alot about this and someone tells the method to do,  someone said it can be done in pieces and one question I found on Stackexchange and answer says that it cannot be done at all as we are not owner of our soul but God himself.
So what's this actually means? And if somehow somebody able to did this,  what consequences he has to suffer? How could the myth of Robert Johnson or Paganini be explained? If selling the soul stuff is absurd then why does this concept even exists?
PS: I am not Christian (so sorry if I wrote something wrong)  but believe in God and the spiritual war with the Devil.


texts: What kind of star was shining when Jesus was born?

texts:
After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the
  star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child
  with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they
  opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold,
  frankincense and myrrh. (Matthew 2:9-11, NIV)

I have never seen a star the moves and that can stop above a particular place. In fact, when I travel at night in a bus or train, the faster I move, the faster the moon and stars appear to follow me. I can't comprehend how exactly a single star can show a particular location and appears to stop over a particular house. If you think that a particular star is exactly above you, just keep on moving and wherever you go it will follow you and it will always be right above you, no matter where you are.

The star that shined during the birth of Jesus didn't seem to be a normal star. It might not be a star at all! A star that moves and so strange that even the wise men from the east followed it because they believe that it was a sign of the birth of a new king.

What kind of star was shining at the birth of Jesus?

How have scholars explained this?


texts: Why does 1 John say Christians are unable to sin?

texts:
The verse in question, 1 John 3:4 (HCSB)

Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law. You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him. Everyone who remains in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him or known Him.
Little children, let no one deceive you! The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one who commits sin is of the Devil, for the Devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the Devil’s works. Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. This is how God’s children — and the Devil’s children — are made evident.

but earlier, in 1 John 1:10, he seemingly says the opposite

If we say, “We don’t have any sin,” we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

In many other places, it is made clear that Christians are not made righteous by their own works and that we are not without sin, rather we are forgiven of sin and are made righteous by God's grace and Jesus' salvation. Why does 1st John 3:4 say otherwise? Am I missing the point?


texts: What translations differ (and where) in regards to whether a text is a direct quotation of Jesus?

texts:
Previously: Controversy over which Gospel passages to color "red" in "red letter editions"?

Some editions of the Bible print the words of Jesus in red.  Some limit this to the words He spoke prior to His ascension, while others extend it to post-ascension sayings such as those in the book of Revelation.

What I am wondering is whether there are any significant disagreements over which passages in the Gospels to color red (in "red letter edition" Bibles)?

The manuscripts aren't color-coded and don't contain punctuation such as quotation marks, so I'm curious if there are any instances where some translators attribute a passage to Jesus while other translators consider it commentary from the author, for example.

To curb the hasty close-votes, I'm simply looking for a "yes or no" answer with some evidence to back it up.


texts: According to Protestants, must clergy be ordained by other ordained clergy?

texts:
Some of the initial leaders of the Reformation, who presumably ordained  later Protestant clergy, were ordained priests in the Catholic Church. But, in (denominational, rather than congregationalist) Protestant ecclesiology, is this necessary? If no ordained priests had joined the Reformation, would it still have been possible to ordain clergy?

Also, what exactly happened in the Reformation? Were all mainstream (ie non-Anabaptist) Protestant clergy ordained by clergy who had clerical ordinations? In other words, do present-day denominational Protestant clergy have a lineage of ordinations that extend back to the Catholic Church, and thus back to the Apostolic Church?

I recognize that the Catholic Church regards such ordinations by
excommunicated persons as null and void, and that many Protestants
regard Catholic ordinations, in turn, as either null and void, or
entirely irrelevant.
I'm more interested in what what the mainstream Reformers, especially
of the 16th century, believed on the topic.


texts: If you request and receive pastoral advice from a priest, are you culpable if the advice is wrong?

texts:
I believe I remember reading a portion of some important document that indicated that the laity incur no culpability for sins committed at the direction of a priest and which the laity in question sincerely believed not to be sinful, provided that the behavior is corrected as soon as so directed by the Church, but I can't seem to find it so maybe I made it up or something :/

What does the Church teach regarding culpability on the part of a member of the laity acting in good conscience for complying prayerfully with incorrect moral direction from a priest?

Has the person who took the priest's advice (if it's wrong and leads the person to sin) committed a sin for which he may suffer in the next life?.

I'm definitely talking about the situation where the person doing it has no reason to think that the priest is acting in error.  This isn't about when you go to ten priests until one of them tells you it's okay to kill your ex-wife when you threaten his life, this is about when you're unsure about something and you go talk it out with your priest and you guys figure out a position that entails you taking some actions, but then it turns out that the position/actions were wrong because your priest was wrong.  What the action is is immaterial to the question unless your answer points out otherwise.


texts:
So I'm trying to understand the Trinity.

I always thought of it like this: Jesus was 100% divine when he was with the Father. In other words, he was fully co-equal to the Father. Then, when he became a human being (on earth), he wasn't 100% divine, so he was not co-equal to the Father. In other words, he was part divine, part human (inferior to the father). And when he rose into the heavens (after the crucifixion and resurrection and everything), he became fully 100% divine again. So basically he's co-equal to the Father once again.

But that's how I always understood it. Does the Trinity support this view? According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? Even during his lifetime on earth?


texts: Did Emanuel Swedenborg posit a hard distinction between the head and heart?

texts:
I was reading the article Do Atheists Go to Heaven? by Swedenborgian minister and scholar Lee Woofenden, in which he says:

Psalm 14 and its variation in Psalm 53 start out:

Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."

Not "in their heads," but "in their hearts." Saying in your head that there is no God, as your average present-day atheist does, is very different from saying in your heart that there is no God.

This had me curious. "Head knowledge vs. heart knowledge" is a common distinction to make in modern theological discourse, but I figured it was mostly 1) colloquial, and 2) modern. But given the application that a Swedenborgian scholar gives to the concept, I wondered if Swedenborg himself wrote about the distinction. Did he?


texts: Why does a clever Satan fight with God even though he knows he will lose?

texts: There was war in heaven (oh yes there was) and Satan lost his place in heaven when he was defeated. What biblical reason is there to show Satan's reasoning behind fighting with God (despite the fact that he knows he will lose)?


texts: Matthew/Luke Generations missing between Rahab and David

texts:
While some people are interested in where the generations are different, my problem comes from where they are the same, to wit:

Boaz,
Obed,
Jesse,
David

Now Rahab is listed as the mother of Boaz. My understanding is that this is the same Rahab mentioned in the book of Joshua as the harlot of Jerico. If true, then both Matthew and Luke list only four generations covering the approximately 400 year period of the judges. There is no way (under normal circumstances) you get only four generations over that period of time unless you want to claim people were still regularly living 200-300 years during this time.

In fact, my NKJV claims there were 11 generations during this time. So my question is: why would both Matthew and Luke fail to mention the 6-8 missing generations that must have occurred during the period of the judges? Small thing I know, but it has bugged me for years and I have never seen it addressed anywhere. TIA


texts: What is the emotional appeal of the trinity?

texts:
I have spoken to many who believe in the Trinity. I many times try to present the view the Jesus is the second greatest being in the universe and that he was created by his father Jehovah God. I also say that we should have faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice. He deserves our love and utmost respect, but that we should only worship Jehovah the God that Jesus prayed to.

I understand why someone wouldn't believe this is true, but I am less sure why someone would get upset about it. I get the feeling people love the trinity. Is there something about the trinity that has an emotional appeal to it?

Sometimes I try to pose a hypothetical and say "Imagine it were true that the trinity is false." Even if they consider it as a hypothetical truth, they prefer the trinity over the alternative. It is this preference that I am interested in. Why the preference? For instance, some have the preference of believing in hellfire because they want there to be punishment for evil. So if they had a choice, in a hypothetical situation, to choose hell over no hell, they choose hell.

p.s. - I don't want to debate the trinity, I just want to understand more the emotion involved.


texts: What verses are commonly cited to support that unity, despite differences, is preferable to dividing the Church?

texts:
If you're involved in church leadership/management, then you are keenly aware of the real threat that differences in doctrine can pose to the unity of the church. If you know anything about the Reformation, then you know that differences in doctrine are pretty much the only reason churches have split in the past.

However, some denominations strongly stress unity over doctrine. Catholicism seems to be one. Anglican, Episcopal, and some Presbyterians seem to stress unity as well. Or, in other words, they allow members and even leadership to espouse dissenting doctrinal opinions, at least on minor issues, preferring to focus on what they do share, which is brotherhood in Christ.

My first thought is that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Powerful words, however, they seem to stress unity in purpose rather than doctrine. With a bit of thought, it's obvious that the Church body must at least be unified in purpose (presumably to glorify God in everything and show the world his light), but some argue there is plenty of room for differing opinions on some or even most doctrinal issues. What is the biblical basis for this opinion?


texts:
Proverbs 1:14 says

  Throw in your lot with us, we shall all have one purse

but John 13:29 says Judas had the common purse.  Surely Jesus would not have allowed a common purse among the disciples if Proverbs says not to!


texts: Six-hundred-sixty-six or six-six-six or six-one-six

texts:
Regarding the passage of Revelation 13:18, which is likely the most proper way to present the Beast's number?

600+60+6 (six hundred and sixty six)
6-6-6 (six six six)
600+10+6 (six hundred and sixteen)
6-1-6 (six one six)


texts: Into how many languages has the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants been translated?

texts:
The Bible is by far the most translated book in the world at over 470 languages.  Another question asks specifically about the Book of Mormon, which has apparently been translated into 82 languages.

The LDS Church recognizes the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants as Scripture as well.  In fact, they seem to contain the primary basis for many of the doctrines that are exclusive to the LDS.

So, what are the translation statistics for these works?


texts: What is the origin of the word "Nativity" as a title for Christ's Advent?

texts: I am interested in knowing when the term "Nativity" came into popular use for Christ's Advent and what are its origins.


texts: Why did Christianity not follow Philo of Alexandria's definition of logos?

texts:
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

So why did the Christian view not follow this definition and instead make the leap to describing logos as part of God?


texts: Besides Satan, was Jesus alone in the desert?

texts: If Jesus went to desert alone for forty days and forty nights, how could the apostles write about it?


texts: How can an all powerful supreme being be either good or evil?

texts: In order to be Omnipotent, or all knowing, as well as Omnipresent and all powerful wouldn't a supreme being have to be so far removed from concepts of "Good" and "Evil"?  Those are just terms and ideas that Man created, therefore how can something that is literally the sum total of everything be one or the other?


texts: If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?

texts: If the Sacrament of Confirmation gives all the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the gift of fortitude, why are we still afraid to do the right thing?


texts: What is an overview of beliefs on how one can lose salvation?

texts:
Some Christian traditions believe that one can lose his or her salvation, even after a genuine conversion experience and years of faithfulness.

For those who teach this doctrine, what is an overview of the following:

what specifically does one have to do (or not do) to go from having salvation to a state of not having salvation?
does it take just one sin, just one known sin, various degrees of sin or something else?
what is the biblical basis for these conclusions?
how are responses to the "unlosable" position countered?


texts: The order of Communion in Luke 22:17-20 versus Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29

texts:
In Matt. 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25, Jesus presents the bread before the wine in the performance of Communion.

Matt. 26:26-29

  26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:22-25

  22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

But, in Luke 22:17-20 the wine is presented prior to the bread.

Luke 22:17-20

  17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” **20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Can anyone explain this supposed discrepancy?


texts: What in Christian faith lies behind subject of science?

texts:
Specifically:

Some Christians say that their faith is the source of moral values, but this is a subject of ethics.
Some say it is personal relationship with God, but personal relationship is a subject of sociology.
Some say it is personal experience with God, but human mind is a subject of psychology.

Is there anything about faith that can not be subject of scientific research? I know there's a term theology, but it is not a science, there are violations against fundamental scientific approach:

it assumes God exists (and never question it)
it doesn't question it's source (the Bible)
no hypotheses, forecasts etc.

It could be subject of literature or history. I know there are religious studies but these are not about faith. So what in Christian faith lies behind subject of science?

A lot of Christians tend to respond it can not be compared, do not try to apply science on my faith, it is a mystery and other non-constructives. I hope to avoid this here, so any help to improve this question is also appreciated.


texts: What does the curse on the serpent mean?

texts:
When God cursed the Earth He also cursed the serpent.

  Genesis 3:14 NASB

  The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

Is the serpent specifically Satan? If not, is there a practical outworking of this curse seen in serpents today? We surely see the other curses of labor pains in childbirth and toilsome labor.


texts:
Gen. 10:25
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Through some simple math, we know that Peleg was born 101 years after the flood.
I had assumed that this verse meant a demographic division, but I don't think there could be that many people on the earth yet (assuming only 8 survived the flood). I got this idea from v. 32:

These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

I understand that the name Peleg has some relation to division, but I'm not too well-versed on the original Hebrew meaning.
Does this verse signify a physical division (like breakup of Pangaea), or something more like a demographic division?


texts:
Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin?  Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation?  Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this?

Psalm 51:3-5 ESV

  For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

  Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

  Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 51:3-5 CEV

  I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt.

  You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me.

  I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, is it a sin to marry your cousin?

texts:
According to the Catholic church, is it a sin to marry your distant cousin?

I am looking for two-three answers from someone who is knowledgeable in Catholic ecclesiastical laws:

(1) What degree of cousin marriages are allowed?

(2) How does the Catholic Church calculate the cousin's degree?

(3) What is the reason for the Catholic church changing its stances throughout its history? Is it merely political, or is there a moral reason also, in terms of distant (and not close) cousins?


texts: What is the policy for Latter-Day Saints' leaders (like bishops) being politically engaged?

texts:
Recently a bishop in the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said a politically tinted or motivated remark publicly. I don't mind lay members being involved like Harry Reed or Mitt Romney, but when I heard someone in an actual leadership position say something it really bothered me.

Isn't there something in their policy and from their leadership that says saying or doing anything that could be considered political is not permissible?

A friend told me that what he did was in very poor taste and should be reported to his stake president or a "general authority", but I just don't know what to do since I hate to stir pots.


texts: Is it orthodox to abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit?

texts:
Should I abandon the concept that God of the Bible is person, but say that He is spirit?

I would mean that God the Father, God the son and God the spirit are persons, but God means different qualities in the Bible that make it one essence. So God would not be person like eg. Son of God is, but rather a spirit being. God is of one essence, but exists in three "persons". That is what I meant when I asked that whether to interpret God as person or as a spirit. I meant that God the Father, Son of God, God the spirit are defined as persons, but God defined as spirit being rather than person. I mean by spirit that he is not literally made of matter, but is a spirit being like Holy Spirit is. So in this matter it seems that God of the Bible is of one essence of divinity; spirit being, and manifests in three persons, who yet are each God. So our God is of one essence, but of three persons.
I ask to answer my first question and maybe comment on the last phrase.

If I do, is this in keeping with the historical expressions of the faith?

My motive for this is to discern how the concept of God in Islam is different from the concept of God in the Bible. In other words I try to help myself to discern how the concept of God in the Bible is different from the God of Islam.


texts: Is Lutheran confession necessary for salvation?

texts:
From what I understand...

Although there are major differences, Lutheran confession and Catholic confession are similar.

Catholicism teaches that one must confess mortal sin in order to be restored to friendship with God (salvation).

Does Lutheranism teach that confession of mortal sin is necessary for salvation, and if so why?


texts: Assuming a belief in a literal eternal hell believed by traditional Christian beliefs, when is hell believed to have been created by God?  A good answer will include scriptural support for when Hell was created.