texts: According to Emanuel Swedenborg, why are there different types of angels?

texts:
Based on various passages in the Bible, Christian tradition holds that there are many types of angels.

According to Emanuel Swedenborg, if God did not create angels as a separate race, and humans become angels after they die,

Why are there different types of angels?
What kind of person becomes the highest ranking angel?
Does God decide who should become a seraph, cherub, and so on? How does God make the decision?

For instance, Revelation 10 mentions a giant angel. I wonder who was this angel when he was a human.

  Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed
  in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun,
  and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little
  scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the
  sea and his left foot on the land, and he gave a loud shout like the
  roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders
  spoke. (Revelation 10:1-3, NIV. emphasis added)


texts:
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Matthew 4:1-3

Do Catholics believe that Jesus' time in the wilderness was meant as an allegory? Or did this story actually happen?

And if it happened, did the Apostles witness it? Or did Jesus retell this story to Matthew, who then later retold it in his Gospel?


texts:
The answers to What is the biblical evidence for an old Earth? say that biblical arguments for old Earth creationism are based on the ambiguous words used for describing lengths of time in Genesis.

Is there any record of biblical scholars addressing these ambiguities before modern science first began questioning the age of the Earth a few centuries ago, or did old Earth creationism appear later in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with the more recent scientific discoveries?

In other words, were these ambiguities unnoticed or ignored for over two thousand years?


texts:
I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat "unclean meat" or unclean meat is now clean meat.

Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to "eat unclean meat" however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles:

  Acts 10:

  (17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men
  sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the
  gate.  (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was
  staying there.

  (22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is
  a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish
  people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that
  he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men
  into the house to be his guests.

Other verses in the bible tells "all foods are clean" however we should take note that it says nothing about "all meats are clean", food is totally different word from meat.

Was the vision literal or not? If its literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?

UPDATE:

And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states:

  Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the
  gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the
  abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV)

Which by deduction swine flesh as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these Shall be consumed together which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat  shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question:

"It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end" -- a questionable argument.


texts: Sisters giving the concluding talk in a sacrament meeting, where did my source go?

texts:
Broad context: I have seen at least one question on this site asking about the customs in LDS meetings regarding women, and this question sometimes comes up offline as well. I think I remember, not too long ago (2013 or 2014), I read or heard official communication reminding/ stating that there is no objection to women giving concluding talks in a sacrament meeting (I am certain the notion that priesthood holders should have "the last word" in a meeting didn't just creep in in my ward).

But when looking for that communication on lds.org, I didn't find it. I thought it was a letter from the First Presidency, but I think I would have found that. I didn't find it in the handbook either. Did something like this get mentioned in a world-wide leadership training or the General Conference? Does anyone know what I am looking for, or does my memory fail me here?


texts: To understand the "The Bible is the Word of God"

texts:
According to the Trinity.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")1 defines God as three consubstantial persons,2 expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9]

Here is the question. In the article by John Frame, the Bible is the Word of God.

I believe that the God exists in three persons. But by the definition of John Frame, could we conclude that the God exists four persons, Father, Son, Spirit and the last one "Bible".

Am I misunderstanding John Frame's idea? Please read his paper first.


texts: Is it immoral to allow children to believe in Santa Claus?

texts:
St. Nicholas, who is one of my favorite saints, is well known for his charitable witness to the Gospel.  His legendary reputation, along with his feast days, have carried his spiritual presence down through the centuries to our present day.

I'm fully knowledgeable of the origin and evolution of Santa Claus.  In the last 100 years or so the "Santa Claus" recognized on the Coca Cola can has been heavily commercialized. The majority of children in America spend the first years of their lives believing that he is as real as the UPS man.

From what I've noticed, the common characteristics of "Santa" are:

Lives in the North Pole
Employs elf labor
Travels in a sleigh pulled by 8 magically propelled flying reindeer
Successfully delivers billions of toys to billions of children in an 8 hr period
Enters into houses via chimney
Eats cookies

None of these characteristics are true realities.

I assume that its a universally accepted Christian truth that anything purported to be true but is not is a lie.

I also assume that its a universally accepted Christian truth that anyone who knowingly and willing purports a lie is committing a sin.

Is causing or allowing children to systematically/wholeheartedly buy into the commercialized element of Santa Claus within the context of the birth of Christ a sin? Even if its a little "white" lie, is it a sin?

What I mean by "causing" or "allowing" are things like taking children to "mall Santa" and confessing their desires.

I know that by this point I might be sounding like Ebenezer Scrooge, but I'm approaching this from an absolutely moral angle that is free from nostalgia.

Is it a lie or not?

Could it be argued that by conditioning a child's intellect into believing in a false invisible person - this could later undermine the child's faith in a real invisible person like Jesus Christ (or St. Nicholas).

P. S. Christmas is my favorite time of the year and I can't wait until Midnight Mass!


texts: According to the Calvinist, why "believe" if something is known absolutely true?

texts:
From this link:

  Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have
  believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring and thus contains no
  errors

The above sentences maybe to everyone else is easy to be understood by the Calvinist, but not for me (especially I'm not a Christian).

To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed. It's just like there is an ice cube in the fridge, then it doesn't make sense if I say "I believe that ice cube is cold".

To me, the chronological order is like this :
Christians have believed that "X" writing is God's Words.
So, Christians believe that "X" writing is Scripture.
Since God's Words is infallible, then Christians believe that "X" writing is infallible.

So to me, the "believe" is not on the God's Words, but that "X" writing which is believed God's Words. The chronological order is : IF there is a writing which is believed God's Words THEN that writing is infallible. Later on : Because this writing is believed God's Words then this writing is infallible

Another quote from the same link:

  If God never lies, His Word never lies either. We can therefore trust
  it to be free from all error

The same, it's confusing to me as the IF is on "God never lies", while my own chronological order the IF is on "the writing" ---> IF this X writing is God's Words THEN there is no lie in this X writing. (Why the "THEN" is like that ? because God never lies).

Because to me the IF is : IF the writing is believed God's Words then the writing does not endorse anything untrue in the point of view whoever believe that writing is God's Words then it raise a question: *how "God never lies" is the IF ?*

  "The Christians have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring"

So my question is:
how "God's Words is incapable of erring" is a believe ?

Please ignore the question if the sentence in the quote is just a circular sentence like this :
1. Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that Scripture is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors
2. If Scripture never lies, Scripture never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error


texts: Does the Catholic church consider Mark 16:9-20 to be biblical canon?

texts:
Many (but not all) scholars assert that Mark 16:9-20 was not present in the earliest manuscripts, and that instead it was added by later copyists. Does the Catholic Church consider these verses to be biblical canon?

Furthermore, is this a closed issue? If we happened to somehow find the very first copy of the gospel of Mark, and it either included or excluded these verses, would the Catholic Church be open to changing their stance?


texts: Google calendar for catholic holdiays/holy days of obligation?

texts:
The one I've been subscribing to for almost 2 years is this one

en-gb.christian#holiday@group.v.calendar.google.com

This can be accessed here or here I guess (re region: I have not seen any differences between these 2 for Nov2020-Dec2021).
I can no longer recall where I found this. When I look this up, I don't see, on the 1st page of my google search results, any official site. I notice it

is missing: 'Christ the King' (but it's always on Sunday, so ok fine) and

is missing: New year's, which I mistaken in thinking it wasn't a holy day of obligation in certain countries because apparently new year is precisely the day Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God is celebrated in Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church)

is missing: Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God on new year or any other day of the calendar

contains: Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

Questions:

Of what denomination/s and region/s is this above calendar?

I'm realising just now that the 'gb' is possibly (some subset of) the UK.

(According to Wiki: The UK doesn't have uniform holy days of obligation. See Scotland vs England and Wales. Also, each contains neither 'Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God' nor 'Feast of the Immaculate Conception'.)

Not sure it's (UK or whatever) Catholic.

Is there some kind of catholic google calendar that covers all regions? Or at least a list of google calendar links for each region (eg the philippines, hong kong, united states, argentina, etc) ? Hopefully, it includes all the holy days of obligation for all regions.

I'm talking about Roman Catholic, but if there's a calendar that contains both Roman and Eastern Catholic (This question extends to Eastern Catholicism and whatever is full communion with Roman Catholicism), then fine.


texts: If loves/desires 'point' to something beyond our imagination...what of enjoyment for fictional villians?

texts:
In The Great Divorce, The Weight of Glory and Surprised By Joy, C. S. Lewis explained the concept sehnsucht, this mysterious desire for something we-know-not-what, something beyond this world. As it pointed us towards heaven, he reasoned, it must be of God. He felt it rarely but sometimes before a great landscape or reading a book.

How can we work out what enjoyable pleasures might either be remade in Heaven or have an even more pleasurable version there(To follow Plato's idea of the Forms)? I adore the cybermen in Doctor Who: can they be considered a foretaste if we experience a feeling of sehnsucht via them? Do we ever know for sure what echoes eternity and what doesn't? Certainly it's hard to imagine the fulfilment of desires for fictional villains (though I would love this) alongside cherubs and angels! But what a shame if the only people who's loves are completed are the ones who enjoyed scenic walks, flowers etc. I would really like strong evidence or reason to back up what I believe to be true, here. Thanks.


texts: How is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary celebrated within the domestic church, that is, within the Catholic family?

texts:
I've heard that in Columbia there is a rich tradition around celebrating the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary.  It's a very important feast in the Catholic Church, but it's usually not observed within the domestic church: that is, observed by the family considered as a specifically Catholic community.

So, what is it that spurred certain Catholic groups into having traditions around the feast and how do Catholic families celebrate it as a feast unique from other Marian feasts?


texts: Was Jesus a political revolutionary? A violent one?

texts:
From a non-Christian and purely historical perspective, is there clear evidence on whether the historical Jesus was a political revolutionary? A violent political revolutionary?
For example, this review of a book by Reza Aslan complains:

[...] why credit and emphasize violent passages in the Gospels while discrediting and deemphasizing peaceful ones? Why believe that Jesus really told his disciples, “If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36)? Why the skepticism when it comes to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44)?
And what about the obvious problems with the argument that Jesus was not just a political revolutionary — as biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan and others have argued — but a violent one?

If one simply takes the gospels at face value, then:

There is overwhelming emphasis on his teaching of nonviolence and forgiveness.

He's clearly talking about the end of the world, not a secular revolution.

His crucifixion was not the failure of a revolution but the success of a preordained plan that he predicted in advance to his followers.

But what if, as Aslan does, one dismisses nearly all of the content of the gospels as a description of historical fact, and relies only on criteria that would be considered more reliable by non-Christians, such as non-Christian records, the criterion of embarrassment, etc.?


texts:
I quote the verse:

  He [The Lord] shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

The chapter this verse comes from seems to describe an earthly reign of God, in contradiction with the Catholic doctrine.

Any idea how the verse could be interpreted?


texts: How does Catholic Church differentiate between the presence of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit on the earth?

texts:
We see Jesus telling His disciples at John 14:15-16 (NRSVCE):

  If you love me, you will keep my commandments.  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever

In the first appearance, Jesus is promising the Holy Spirit to the disciples as a replacement for His physical presence with them. But, we also see Him telling the disciples at Matt 28:19-20 (NRSVCE):

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,   and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

My question therefore is: How does the catholic Church differentiate between the presence of the Holy Spirit on the earth as promised by Jesus at John 14:16 vis-a-vis His own presence as mentioned at Mtt 28:20?


texts: Is the nature of God the father like that of Abraham the father of Isaac?

texts:
Abraham sacrificed his child Isaac not himself because he loved God so much.

Similarly God the father loved his creation so much that he sacrificed his son instead of himself.

Does that mean they are of similar nature?

Was Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac a precursor to God's sacrifice of Jesus Christ?


texts: In pre-tribulation pre-millennialism, will those who have died before the millennium return to earth?

texts:
Let's just say God raptures his church in the next few years and we are alive to experience it. We survive the 7 remaining years. Then the "Glorious Appearance" happens and God sets up his 1000 year reign on Earth.

Will our loved ones come down from Heaven to live on Earth with us? Or will we have to live 1000 years with God on Earth before returning to Heaven to see our loved ones? How does that work? Will Heaven on Earth and Heaven become one so that way we will all be able to live together? Or will (Heaven on Earth) and (Heaven) still be two separate places until God takes us up to heaven after his 1000 year reign?


texts:
At the Lord’s command Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor, where he died on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. (Numbers 33:38, NIV)
The Israelites traveled from the wells of Bene Jaakan to Moserah. There Aaron died and was buried, and Eleazar his son succeeded him as priest. (Deuteronomy 10:6, NIV)

These passages seem to say that Aaron died in different places. How can they be reconciled?


texts: Is it known when and why Christians began to sign themselves and impart blessings with the Cross?

texts:
Among the Christians who make the sign of the cross [cf. this @fredsbend's answer], is it known when and why Christians began to sign themselves with the Cross?

The best answer will also include when imparting a blessing by tracing the sign of the cross also began and why.

My thinking: Blessing and crossing oneself are two different things. Example: say in an audience with the Pope there are many journalists attending of varied beliefs or of no belief at all. When the Pope imparts his blessing by tracing the sign of the cross, only those who cross themselves and who want to cross themselves will cross themselves. Meaning you can have one and not necessarily the other. My good guess perhaps it goes back to Christ himself or at least the Apostles.

And also there can be a blessing without tracing the sign of the cross.


texts:
2 Kings 3:27 says:

  Then the king of Moab took his oldest son, who would have been the next king, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. So there was great anger against Israel, and the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land.

My question is did God honour this sacrifice or there is another principle at work?


texts: According to Reformed theology, how should Christians react when a non-believer dies?

texts:
Several of the Scriptures seem to indicate that God's judgement is righteous, wonderful, and something to long for. Here are a few examples:

"Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O YHVH, have we waited for thee; the desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee.
With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." Isaiah 26:8-9

Also:

"The fear of YHVH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHVH are true and righteous altogether." Psalm 19:9

And:

"Zion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of thy judgments, O YHVH." Psalm 97:8

According to the Reformed church, how should Christians (of any sort) react when an unbeliever (specifically those that have outright denied Christianity: ex. Atheist, Muslims, Hindu, non-Trinitarians) dies and God subjects their flesh to be burned forever and ever in agonizing pain?
This is similar to Do Calvinists rejoice in the destruction of sinners?, except that question is based on a faulty interpretation of Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. My question involves Scripture that explicitly says we should desire, be glad, and rejoice because of God's judgment; and how we can reconcile this with non-believers having their flesh burned forever and ever.


texts: Someone  told me that Luther had a teaching about the true invisible Church that was a far cry from what could be seen as the Church at his time. Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God?


texts: Purgatory for those who are saved outside the Church?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that some might be saved outside the Catholic Church.
This question relates to those, for example a non-denominational Christian that lives his life ignorantly but faithfully to what he believes is the Truth. Such a person dies, without the Graces of the Sacraments, but by God's grace alone is seen to be one of his children and graced with eternal Salvation.  According to Catholicism, would that soul be responsible to pay the punishments for sin, which where not expiated during this life?


texts: What is the reason that nuns always cover their hair?

texts:
I've always been curious to know what's the reason that nuns, usually used to cover their hair and not show it out, while monks head is usually uncovered? What's the religious explanation for that thing?

N.b. What's the reason that sometimes monks or pastors covered their head?

See the pictures below:

The pictures were taken from these sites:

1) http://www.farnboroughabbey.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1780121_245834752276028_1793833854_o.jpg

2) https://www.winebusiness.com/content/image/wv/wv-2013-11-14_monks.jpg

3) http://sainthermanmonastery.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/31-Monastery-brotherhood-with-Bishop-Maxim-Abbot-Metodije-Monk-Damaskin.jpg


texts: Are there Christian equivalents for the four sublime attitudes or brahmaviharas of Buddhism (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha)?

texts:
The brahmaviharas are four sublime mental states recognized by Buddhism and for which there exist different meditative practices designed to cultivate them. Concretely, the brahmaviharas are:

Metta (loving kindness): wishing the happiness / well-being of all conscious beings.
Karuna (compassion): wishing the end of suffering for all conscious beings.
Mudita (sympathetic joy): rejoicing when a conscious being (oneself or other) is experiencing well-being (the opposite of envy).
Upekkha (equanimity):  "To practice upekkha is to be unwavering or to stay neutral in the face of the eight vicissitudes of life—which are otherwise known as the eight worldly winds or eight worldly conditions: loss and gain, good-repute and ill-repute, praise and censure, and sorrow and happiness". I understand that it is also associated with the ability to stay in the present moment, in a state of serene mindfulness.

Question: Are there equivalent concepts in Christianity for the four brahmaviharas?
For example, my own educated guess would be that metta and karuna have probably a lot of overlap with the concept of love in Christianity, but I'm not sure if it's a perfect equivalence. And I'm not so sure if perfectly equivalent concepts can be found for mudita and upekkha either. Of course joy is definitely a thing in Christianity, as it's part of the fruit of the Holy Spirit, but what about sympathetic joy? Perhaps praising God is a form of sympathetic joy, because you feel sympathetically happy about God's good qualities? And what about the sublime state of equanimity, and all this present moment awareness and mindfulness that comes with it?


texts: What is the case against seeing the Medieval Catholic Church as oppressive?

texts:
I have a professor who keeps mentioning a false claim regarding the Catholic Church during the Medieval Times that I know is historically untrue but I do not know how to give a concise counter-argument regarding these views.

My professor basically is stating the following thing that I need help answering and correcting:

  The Catholic Church in the Medieval Times was oppressive and monopolized knowledge because she wanted to suppress the common man from knowing what was going on.

Basically he states that the Church in the Medieval Ages prior to the printing press and the development of concepts such as Democracy wanted to keep people ignorant.

How can I show him that this is not true as evidenced by the various creations of universities during the Middle Ages and the monasteries which helped preserve education and manuscripts?


texts: Why did God spare Abraham's child but not Jephthah's?

texts:
I am confused why God stopped Abraham from murdering his son in Genesis 22 but not Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 - 12.

I also find it especially weird because in the KJV, Jephthah made the vow while under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord in verse 29 to 30 (I assume it is the Holy Spirit?).

Why would Jephthah be allowed to sacrifice his child when human sacrifices were banned ever since Leviticus?


texts: What do Southern Baptists believe about Predestination?

texts:
It seems that some doctrines and beliefs are not taught openly.  I was curious, what is the Southern Baptist doctrine regarding predestination?

Do they believe in unconditional election or complete lack of free will?


texts: Is Belief in the Historical Accuracy of Gospels a prerequisite to Christianity?

texts: Is it a requirement of the faith that all adherents must believe in the literal flow of events as conveyed by the Bible surrounding the life of Jesus Christ?  Is it possible for someone to accept his teachings as presented, while still doubting or even disbelieving entirely some or all of the events presented therein?  Is it necessary to be fully convinced in the events of the Passion, the betrayal of Judas, and all of the events contained therein to be a Christian?  If not, were is the line drawn?  Is it necessary to believe that Jesus actually walked on water, or can that tale be accepted as a morality tale without accepting that it literally happened?


texts: Marriages that are blessed (convalidated) and Holy Communion

texts:
I married a confirmed Church of England man in a UK registry office.  I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic.

We had our marriage blessed (convalidated) one year later by a Roman Catholic priest  in a Roman Catholic Church; during the private ceremony we both were allowed to take holy communion.  Am I permitted to continue to take holy communion in the Catholic Church?


texts:
Christians believe Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. (Isaiah 7:14)

Furthermore Christians believe that the only Son of God is Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Apostles Creed)

And since Christ = Messiah and Lord = Elohim, Christians believe the Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity with two natures, fully man and fully divine.

Did the Jews, who are still in expectation of a Messiah, expect that when He came that the Messiah would also be God, or were they expecting someone less magnificent?


texts: Why did Clement of Alexandria say that the name of Jesus, Iesous, has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one?

texts:
Did Clement of Alexandria actually believe that Jesus was called Iesous in Greek and that it wasn't a translation of the Hebrew?

Wikipedia cites the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ:

  [Cyril of Jerusalem], however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (The Pedagogue III.12)

But this doesn't seem to be addressed in that section of The Pedagogue.


texts: Why do some people get healed, and others don't?

texts: Most of the Christian friends I have had (and family) have all believed in healing. Especially my grandmother, before she passed away.  Why is it that (if it does work that way) God sometimes heals certain people, but not others.  I have talked to certain pastors that believe in it thoroughly. They say that they have had MANY situations where they have seen healing, or prayed for healing and have had it happen in front of them. Some of them I know personally, and the last thing I would consider them are liars. One of them told me his Daughter had a skin condition, and God healed it right in front of him.  So I am wondering how all of this works.


texts: Converting from Russian Orthodox to Roman Catholic in 1820

texts:
José Bolcof, a Russian man baptized in the Orthodox church, arrived in Spanish California and wished to adopt the Catholic faith. Mariano Payeras O.F.M., father-president of the Franciscan missionaries in Alta California, debated Bolcof's conversion with his colleagues. They were willing to baptize him, but as he had already undergone some kind of baptism, reluctant to risk doing so a second time.  After the priests' discussion an unknown resolution was reached. No record of a baptism is in evidence but Bolcof was able to receive other sacraments later.

In the Jus Novissimum era of Catholic canon law, what rites or acts were technically required for a Russian Orthodox person to become a Catholic?


texts: The ramifications of the severing of ties between the Eucumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Church

texts:
This may be highly politically charged right now, however can anyone please explain what previously intercommuning churches will be directly impacted by the severing of ties between the Eucumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church (other than the obvious schism between Constantiople and Russia)?

Moscow breaks communion with Constantinople

Will other churches lose communion with Russia? With Constantinople?

Are there other effects that we can expect to see?


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, are the "overlapping generations" only the Witnesses or are they all the people of the current/last days?

texts: As I understand Jehovah's Witnesses' eschatology, the "generation" Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:34 and parallels in Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 refers to all of the generations that saw the "tipping" of the New Jerusalem in Heaven in the direction of the planet (1914) and forward until "Armageddon occurs". Does that mean that "this generation" refers to all men living since 1914 until the end of the world or only the Jehovah's Witnesses? IE: Am I a part of the Jehovah's Witnesses' "overlapping generations" that will not pass from the scene until all the things in Matthew 24 take place, even though I'm not a Jehovah's Witness?


texts: How does intercession of saints and Exodus 20:3 not clash?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Praying to people outside the Trinity

There are several denominations and traditions that believe in the doctrine of intercession of the saints.

  Exodus 20:3 (NIV)
  You shall have no other gods before me.

What is the doctrine regarding praying to Saints and how does this relate to praying to God?
If there is only one God and prayer is petitioning him, how does praying to people other than God not run afoul of the commandment to have no other Gods?


texts: What place do ontological arguments for God have in Christianity?

texts:
As I understand it, the ontological argument that is sometimes applied to the existence of God goes something like this:

  God by definition is perfect. Non-existence would be an imperfection, therefore God exists.

However it seems to me there is something a bit off with the argument. For example, one could say,

  I define a monster to be the scariest possible being. A monster would be scarier if it exists and is about to attack me. Therefore, I am about to be attacked by a terrifying monster.

Yet this version seems clearly false.

First of all, are these arguments actually equivalent or is there something fundamentally different between them that I missed?
Secondly, is this the same argument used by Christians or is there another variant? If it is/was used, who was it used by and how widely accepted is it? Do any major theological traditions raise any significant objections to this argument?


texts: Who is the Spirit hearing from in John 16:13?

texts:
I'm wondering who the Spirit is hearing from in this verse:

  John 16:13 (ESV) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Particularly the line "...for he will not speak on his own authority, whatever he hears he will speak". My assumption is that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, and the coming referred to here is both Pentecost and the indwelling that happens upon salvation after Pentecost.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit is God and that the Spirit is the one that speaks truth. It seems weird to me that the Spirit would be listening to someone. The Father? The son? Could this allude to something else? Not sure.


texts: According to Catholicism, did Jesus whip the people selling cattle in the Temple?

texts:
We read at Jn 2:13-15 (KJV)

And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables

But in some other versions we find a slightly different translation, e.g. in NRSVCE:

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.   In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.   Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

While KJV states that Jesus directed his whip on people and cattle alike, NRSVCE, for instance, gives the impression that he used the whip to drive the cattle out.  And nobody  questioned Jesus' authority to use force in the Temple,  implying that in case he had whipped the people, they would have definitely revolted. But, many
pictures depicting the event show Jesus directing his whip on the sellers of cattle rather than on the cattle.My question therefore is: Did Jesus in fact whip the people selling cattle in the Temple? How  do the teachings of Catholic Church explain the event?


texts: How does the New Testament define a Christian and a non-Christian, a brother in Christ and not a brother in Christ?

texts:
How does the New Testament define a brother in Christ? According to the New Testament, what makes a human a brother in Christ? And also, according to the New Testament, which people are definitely not Christians, definitely not brothers in Christ?

I would want to have a set of key critical conditions-prerequisites (elicited from the New Testament) that would be necessary conditions for a person to be considered a Christian or a brother in Christ (I mean, if a person lacks at least one of those conditions, he is definitely not a Christian and definitely not a brother in Christ)

(I am not requesting here others' personal views. I really want to know how this very important matter is presented in the New Testament.
This matter is in fact a fundamental matter pertaining to Christian faith. It's not like "Is smoking cigarettes good or bad according to the New Testament?" While smoking may not be an important issue in Christianity, the matter that I am concerned about here definitely is)


texts:
(I apologize in advance if this question isn't appropriate for Christianity S.E. .... this seems to be a trending problem.  With that said, I believe the ideas of the question are appropriate and I invite anyone that thinks this question is inappropriate to edit it so it's rephrased more appropriately).

From my experience, many visitors at churches feel that they need to give money and most churches (not all) do this by passing a collection plate of some sort, this method seems to even embarrass or coerce visitors into donating to the church.  I feel that the people that should give their money are regular visitors that genuinely want to help the church (regardless if they are believers or not) and members. The reason I think this post is important is because I kind of find it strange when attendance balloons two days out of the year, as does the collection; plus, I think it is discouraging for the average new visitor.  Specifically, I am looking for scripture that will support or refute the claim that the method by which most churches collect money is un-Biblical at worst and awkward at best.


texts: How do soul sleep adherents explain 1 Peter 3:18-20?

texts:
1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water,

This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.


texts:
We all know that Mark was the first gospel ever written. Why then is it that when the New Testament was compiled, Mark was not listed as the first book in the New Testament? What are the reasons that the Early Fathers put Matthew first?

If the Early Fathers didn't know Mark was the earliest gospel when they compiled New Testament, surely they could reverse their decision if they knew, couldn't they?


texts: What were people supposed to do with an incomplete or nonexistent Bible?

texts:
If god wants everybody to be Christian and the Bible is the central text of Christianity, what were people supposed to do before it was completed, much less started?

Also, is there anything on record speaking to reasons why the particular era that the Bible was written was chosen (specifically OT)? It was a gradual roll-out, so were there parts that weren't needed until they came up, or did they perhaps correlate to certain events?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is the specific meaning of “die” in Genesis 2?

In the book of Genesis, God said they would die if they eat from a certain tree

  Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
  shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
  shalt surely die.

From this verse, it seems to me that man was immortal before they ate the fruit. And after they ate the fruit, God said they should not be allowed to eat from the fruit of life

  Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one
  of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and
  take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Did it mean that man would not die or be killed (even by God) if they ate from the tree. Why was God worried they would live forever?
If man was immortal before the fall, the presence of the tree of life had no meaning to them?


texts: What if Jesus choose not to be crucified?

texts:
Matthew 26:53

Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my
disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

John 10:18

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have
authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This
command I received from my Father."

Jesus said he had to die in order to fulfill the scripture. But, what if he actually did what he said in Matthew 26:53 and John 10:18?
Wouldn't it mean that he could actually sin even though he is a God who is supposed to be incapable of sin?
Or, is this the same question as "Can God create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it?"


texts: Why a soul needs to be in a state of grace when receiving the Eucharist?

texts:
What is the reasoning behind the Catholic Church teaching that only people in the state of grace should be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist?

Lately, I heard a statement:

  The Eucharist: A prize for the just or medicine for sinners?

  The Eucharist is no gold star on the forehead of “good” Christians,
  but an undeserved gift to strengthen pilgrims who stumble along
  through life with their gaze fixed on heaven.

What is this teaching based on that one needs to be in the state of grace and why?


texts: Where in the Bible does it mention that every person has a guardian angel?

texts: The Bible talks about various angels such as Saint Gabriel and Saint Michael.  Where in the Bible does it mention that every person has his/her own guardian angel?


texts: Are there any Christians who only accept the gospels?

texts:
Have there ever been historically, or now, Christians who have only accepted either the Gospels, just one of them, or a synthesis/redaction of the four Gospels as being truly inspired or in some other way most basic to being a Christian?

If so, what were their most salient arguments?


texts: What is the LDS Law of Common Consent and why is it important?

texts:
The LDS Church is perhaps unique in the idea that instruction and change within the Church isn't simply automatic — that Church leaders can't simply do what they want.  This doctrine is embodied in the LDS Church's Law of Common Consent.

What is the Law of Common Consent, including scriptural basis and official Church teachings, and why is it important?


texts: How do creationists explain the geologic column?

texts: The geologic column and fossil record contained within has been used to support the theory of evolution. How do creationists explain it instead?


texts: Can Mass be celebrated at any hour of the day?

texts:
In the Eucharistic Prayer III, we read:

  You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

I believe the above is somehow linked to the Jewish practices of sacrifices, which seem to have taken place between the morning and the evening. For instance, in Exodus 29:38-39 we read:

  This is what you are to offer regularly on the altar, each day: two lambs that are a year old. In the morning offer one lamb, and at twilight offer the other.

Is the above implying some restriction regarding the times in which Mass can be celebrated? Mass can be normally celebrated as early as 6am, and throughout the day. The latest mass I'm aware of is celebrated at midnight - the Midnight Mass, in Christmas. Is is possible for a Mass to be validly celebrated at, say, 3:00 am?


texts: Is a belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three persons, but one, Modalism?

texts: If I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, but not as three persons but as one, do I believe in Modalism?


texts: How many witnesses are there who physically saw and/or touched the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was reportedly translated?

texts:
I understand the Book of Mormon has a list of witnesses.  However, I have heard that these witnesses may not have actually ever seen the gold plates that contained the original manuscripts for the Book of Mormon, but were witnesses in a different sort of way.

So, just how many people physically saw and/or touched the gold plates from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon?

Note: Martin Harris, one of the witnesses, later explicitly denied seeing the plates with his physical eyes.
See article..


texts: I read a tag line advocating Lutheran Theologian Dr. Jack Kilcrease offering a class on "Protestant Scholasticism", which I had never heard of before. This seems odd to me because of Luther's rejection of the Aristotelian scholastics. So what is Protestant Scholasticism?


texts: How should a Christian respond to "Does this dress me look fat?"?

texts: If your wife asks, "Does this dress make me look fat?" And you think it does, but you tell her, "Of course not, honey!" Is that a sin?


texts:
From this verse in Matthew 19, it may appear that the Savior approved of celibacy or self-mutilation:

  "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s
  womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
  there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
  of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
  (Matthew 19:12)

However, modern apostles and prophets have clarified “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. … God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that anciently some people held the false belief that a life of celibacy was to be sought after: “Apparently those who made themselves eunuchs were men who in false pagan worship had deliberately mutilated themselves in the apostate notion that such would further their salvation. It is clear that such was not a true gospel requirement of any sort. There is no such thing in the gospel as wilful emasculation; such a notion violates every true principle of procreation and celestial marriage” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:549).

What did Christ mean when he said, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."?


texts: According to Catholicism, does the Old Law justify? Or is Christ, faith, and the New Law necessary to justify even those who lived before Christ?


texts: What is the official Roman Catholic opinion on Swedenborg?

texts: What is the official opinion of the Catholic Church on works of Emanuel Swedenborg, especially Heaven and Hell?


texts: When were the "three times a year" when one was supposed to receive communion?

texts:
In E.M. Forster's novel Maurice, the character Durham remarks that he had a row with his mother and explains:

  Why? On account of Christmas. I didn't want to communicate. You're supposed to receive it three times a year —

When were these "three times a year"? Obviously, based on the discussion in the novel, one of them is Christmas, and from the setting, this is an issue of Anglican practice. Unfortunately, the only useful result I have gotten from my Google-fu is a book on Early Modern England, in which there is also a reference to a triannual celebration of the Eucharist.

Have there perhaps been any changes since then in how often the Eucharist is celebrated?


texts: Why are Protestants from the Church of England allowed to divorce?

texts: Since Paul said that divorce is forbidden, and Paul's letters are to be taken as word of God, why do some Protestant churches (Church of England for example) permit divorce?


texts: Why is the Jewish Passover on 28 March 2021 but Good Friday is on 2 April 2021?

texts:
I've just noticed that the Jewish Festival of Passover falls on Sunday 28th March (2021), the night of the full moon, but the Christian Church is celebrating "Good Friday" on Friday 2 April (2021).
So the Christian celebration of Easter 2021 is a week late?  Why?


texts: Do Calvinists rejoice in the destruction of sinners?

texts:
I recently re-read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and I was struck by the pleasure Jonathan Edwards seemed to have taken in describing the imminent destruction of sinners:

  The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

One can almost see Edwards "rubbing his hands together gleefully and cackling a little" over the plight of unbelievers.  Is this attitude toward the damned common among Calvinists?  Is it a necessary conclusion from their particular set of assumptions?


texts: Apart from any claim related to antiquity, does the modern Roman Catholic Church claim to be ‘The Body of Christ'?

texts:
An argument to be the Universal Church (made by any organisation) might be the argument of continuity and antiquity, that an organisation can trace its existence back to antiquity such that it can trace a continuous presence in the world back to the time of the Apostles.

Laying that argument aside, does the present day Church of Rome have any claim or argument to make that it can be genuinely called 'The Body of Christ'?


texts: What is old earth creationism? What support does it have from the Bible? What mainstream denominations or groups, if any, support it?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for the conditionalist doctrine of hell?

texts: By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.


texts: Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of this belief?

texts:
I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred.

What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?


texts: What do Evangelical Protestants say about sanctification?

texts:
What do Evangelical Protestant confessions and/or statements of faith say about sanctification (if anything). If they say nothing, that's helpful to know too. There is no need to be exhaustive. Just pick a representative statement that fairly represents current Evangelical thinking.

Please note that I'm asking about sanctification, the process of "perfecting the saints" Eph 4:12, not justification or salvation as Protestants typically use the term. Sanctification is the process of making a person better (have better behavior, make more holy).


texts: Are there designated circumstances for making prayer to Jesus and making prayer to God?

texts:
The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is God, however, they are also mysteriously separate beings, yet the same as well (the Trinity). It is acceptable to those same Christians to pray to Jesus, praising Him as God and also asking Him to fulfill their needs.

Is there a designated time when prayers should be said to Jesus and other prayers should be said to God?

It seems obvious that the Lord's Prayer (Our Father who is in heaven ...) is meant to be said to God. He is the Father. Are there prayers specifically for Jesus in the Bible? I am even willing to see a Tradition citing this practice. Are there any theological arguments that say when it is appropriate to pray to Jesus and when it is appropriate to pray to God? Perhaps this is another question, but why is the Holy Spirit left out?

Some personal back story:

I fully believe Jesus is God and I fully believe in the Trinity. I fully believe the Jesus is worthy of all our praise and worship. However, I always feel awkward praying to Jesus. Worshiping with song I am usually fine with, but it is prayer that I reserve for God the Father. There is a duality within me saying that prayer is for God, but Jesus is worthy, too. Therefore, you are missing something in your spiritual life.


texts: What is the basis of Christian belief that criminals should be punished on Earth?

texts:
Do Christians believe that criminals should be punished on Earth by state authorities?

If so, why are they not satisfied with the promised divine punishment in afterlife?


texts: Eschatology, views and best commentaries. Best scriptures for each view

texts: I am a Historical premillenial who sometimes believes amillenial as well. I have studied the main four views and I am settled here. But I do waiver constantly between a literal millennium where resurrected people live among normal people. So my question is what verses in the bible speak of a literal millennial kingdom?


texts:
Could Jesus save Satan?

Some biblical reference with explanation, would be helpful.


texts: According to Catholicism, what does the Bible teach about sins of omission?


texts: Who are innocent people according to Bible?

texts:
My question stemmed from this wiki article under the heading "Views and Marches" where I was bit puzzled on the definition of innocent people as given by this personality in UK.

How does Christianity define the innocence of people? Or who according to Bible can be termed as innocent people on this earth? Is there any broad measure by which we can say that so and so people are innocent?


texts: Did Abraham have faith in the future coming of Christ?

texts:
R.C. Sproul's book on Romans, Chapter 10, page 106.

  "When Paul speaks of Abraham's justification as being by faith, that is shorthand for saying that Abraham was justified by the righteousness of Christ.  The only difference between our justification and Abraham's is that Abraham looked forward to the promised one."

Is there biblical evidence that Abraham looked forward to Christ.  I know that it's felt that a view of Christ in the future is given in Genesis 3:

  "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise Him on the heel.”

However it is believed that this was written by Moses, long after Abraham.  Assuming that Genesis was written by Moses, was it from oral tradition that Abraham would have known, or was it direct revelation from God to Moses?  Is there some other way we can assume that Abraham and other patriarchs had knowledge of the coming of Christ?


texts: What is the difference between "called" and "chosen"?

texts:
Matthew 22:14:

  For many are called, but few are chosen. [ESV]

What is the difference between “called” and “chosen” here?  Though I believe in predestination, I struggle to see how this verse deals here with irresistible grace.


texts: What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Reformed point of view)

texts:
As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ.  I note that scripture addresses salvation from a variety of perspectives and analogies, but also I find that in Paul's letters being justified is proclaimed to be of importance.

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 Reformed view on the distinction.  Having read some treatment of the topic, I am reaching the point of confusion.

  "Justification by faith was Paul's answer to the question: How is it
  that Gentiles can be equally acceptable to God as Jews?" ~ James D. G.
  Dunn, The nzeology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William B.
  Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 340. (Cited by Stephen Westerholm in
  his article: Justification by Faith is the Answer: What is the
  Question?)


texts: According to the Protestant faith, was God grieved when He cast Satan out of Heaven?

texts:
Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 both describe Satan's rebellion and being "cast out" of heaven.
This question here on this site has plenty of references about the actual "events":
When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come?
And this site discusses Satan's fall as well: How did Lucifer fall and become Satan?
However, what I was curious about was whether there was any belief or discussion in Christianity about how God "felt" about Satan's rebellion?  Seeing as how the Bible describes Lucifer as the "Morning Star" and head of the angels, was God grieved that his #1 angel rebelled?
I'm asking from a Protestant faith standpoint, but would be curious if Orthodox or Catholic faiths present a viewpoint on this issue as well.
While I can find specific scriptures such as Gen 6:6 and Eph 4:30 that discuss how God can be "grieved", I couldn't find specific scriptures that showed God's specific emotions regarding Satan's fall.


texts: If God is all knowing then why didn't he prevent Adam and Eve from sinning?

texts:
God in the Christian faith is said to be the all knowing, everlasting God. But if God is all knowing then why didn't he prevent Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of Good and Evil, or perhaps just not put it in the garden? I mean, God knew that they would disobey him, so why give Adam and Eve access to the tree?

Later on in the book of Genesis it is said that God regrets ever have making humans and floods the earth to get rid of them. Well, didn't God know that humans were going to turn out this way?


texts: Which Catholic theologians say that Purgatory is a "fiery moment"?

texts:
I was watching a video interview of NT Wright about life after death, in which he makes a statement that:

  Some Roman Catholic theologians now say that that's actually what Purgatory is actually about. That fiery moment when everything we've done which is not of God and which is not Kingdom Building is just going to be burned up. And they will say that's in a flash. It isn't years and years which you can quantify and get time off for good behavior or whatever. Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright) -- 22:30

To which Catholic theologians is he referring, whom hold a view, or express the possibility, that purgatory is instantaneous/momentous, as opposed to a long "process"? Where can I read more about this concept?


texts: How did the Christian movement distinguish itself from Judaism?

texts: Can anyone explain to me how Christianity distanced itself from Judaism and set itself apart?


texts: How can Jesus be both root and offspring of David if he was only a man and did not pre-exist his incarnation?

texts:
There is a related question here:  hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/…
We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:  And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8

And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12

Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David:

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5

And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16

This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45).
For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?


texts: Did God really "regret" making man? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
On the cusp of the flood and God's covenant with Noah, "who found favor with the Lord," Genesis 6:6 [New American Bible] states

[T]he Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.

And in verse 7, God says, "I regret that I made them".

This seems to go against the idea that God doesn't make mistakes. Engaging in a mass slaughter doesn't necessarily seem, for lack of a better expression, out of character, e.g., the Amorites. And making a covenant with a single man, Noah, seems quite reasonable.

But why regret the creation of man (and animals)? God certainly knew of the wickedness of man. It just seems an odd sentiment at an odd time..

Edit: With the possibility that "regret" is not the correct translation, I went to the Hebrew which suggests second thoughts might be an alternative explanation, but not sorrow. [Chabad.org] 6.ווַיִּנָּ֣חֶם יְהֹוָ֔ה   And the Lord regretted   (Further explained:) For example: (Num. 23:19): “Nor the son of man that He should change His mind (וְיִתְנֶחָם)”; (Deut. 32:36): “And concerning His servants He will change His mind (יִתְנֶחָם)”; (Exod. 32:14): “And the Lord changed His intent concerning the evil (וַיִּנָּחֶם)”; (I Sam. 15:11): “I regret (נִחַמְתִּי) that I made [Saul] king.” These are all an expression of having second thoughts


texts:
Question:

Reading Genesis, there seem to be quite a few references to some 'other' humans. How do scholars interpret those passages (and more importantly, why do they interpret them a certain way)? Are Biblical scholars sure Adam and Eve were the first humans?

Details:

In Genesis 1:26-29 it is first described how God created man and woman, without giving specific details: no mention of them being named Adam or Eve, for example, or if there were only two humans that he created.
Genesis 2 starts by describing the seventh day, which suggests the events are a continuation of those in Genesis 1. However, Genesis 2:4-7 describes how the plants were not growing because there was no man to work the ground, which suggests that Genesis 2 is a retelling in greater detail of the events in Genesis 1.However, that to me is unclear if it's a right interpretation since the events are described in a different order.
In Genesis 4:14, Cain fears that if he leaves the presence of God, "whoever" finds him will kill him. Who?
Genesis 4:17-18 lists descendants of Cain. Now, Cain might have had kids with his own mother, but it's interesting to note that all named descendants are male. In Genesis 4:19, Lameh (the last descendant of Cain) is said to marry two wives: Ada and Zillah. Where did these come from? Are the the descendants of Cain as well? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis 4:17-18, then?
And one last interesting bit, Genesis 6:2 mentions how the "sons of God" found the "daughters of humans" attractive. Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of humans? Why the distinction? My own uneducated interpretation would be that the 'sons of God' are the descendants of Adam and Eve, while the 'humans' are the others.


texts: What is the evidence that the New Testament authors believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record?

texts:
The term "canon" is used to describe the collection of books that are considered by Christians to be divinely inspired, and therefore to belong in the Bible. (See: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?)

The Muratorian fragment, a 7th century Latin manuscript copy of a text dated as early as A.D. 170 or as late as the 4th century, is one of the oldest known listings of a New Testament canon.

What evidence is there in the New Testament itself, or based on other ancient texts, that the authors of the various New Testament books believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record?

What analyses and arguments have been made by scholars to demonstrate that the authors of the various New Testament books either believed, or did not believe, that they were writing an inspired record?


texts: How should a Christian look at the Crusaders?

texts:
I studied in Methodist school from kindergarten to high school, but I never heard of Crusaders until I went to college - and people at church don't talk about it either.

As far as I know, Crusaders have a very bad reputation (at least in the movies.)  But what does it really mean for the modern Christian?


texts: What explanation did the Catholic Church give regarding the incorruptible bodies?

texts:
We all have heard about the incorruptible bodies within the Catholic Church tradition.

Was there any scientific explanation given to the Roman Catholic Church or did the Church give a scientific explanation for why we have found incorruptible bodies of some saints or people?
How was it classified by the Church? Was it classified miraculous and if yes why the Catholic Church doesn't use this to prove the authenticity of faith in God and doesn't challenge the scientific community?


texts: What is Timothy's role in the early church?

texts: It's pretty obvious to me that Paul was mentoring Timothy in the new testament, but what was Timothy's role within the church?  Was he an assistant to Paul, Paul's representative, or was he actually a young church leader such as a pastor?


texts: Does believing in Jesus Christ save me, or do I have to do something more?

texts: James 2:17 says that faith is not enough. Does that apply to salvation? Is belief (or faith) in Jesus Christ enough to be saved, or is one expected to act on that faith? If works are required for salvation, what is the threshold of that action. Does this threshold vary by denomination?


texts: Which denominations follow prosperity theology?

texts:
In the comments of an answer to another question, the topic of prosperity theology was raised, and someone stated that a large portion of Christianity is in some way supportive of prosperity theology. I am defining prosperity theology as the following:

  Financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that earthly prosperity is a reward for those who follow God.

I personally don't know of any mainstream denominations that espouse prosperity theology (most that I've heard of are non-denominational or independent churches - e.g. Joel Osteen's congregation). I'm not asking if prosperity theology is Biblical or not, I'm asking are there any mainstream denominations that espouse prosperity theology?


texts: Is it known who first associated the Beast of Revelation with the Antichrist, and when?

texts:
I am NOT asking the similar question "Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist?" Rather, my question is specifically, when was the first connection made between the two--equating one of the beasts in Revelation with THE Antichrist--and if known, who made the connection?

I am looking for a firm connection here. For example, Justin Martyr spoke of "the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High". This is a clear reference to Revelation 13, but he never uses the title "Antichrist".

Does Irenaeus, writing between about 175 and 185 AD make the connection? If so, was there someone before him?


texts: Which denominations follow "queer theology"?

texts:
According to this page, it briefly describes this:

  Queer theology begins with an assumption that gender non-conformity and homosexual desire have always been present in human history, and are present in the Bible. It is a way of unraveling structures and stories that have been oppressive. It is also a way of understanding the Bible as a source of stories about radical love.

It seems to me that this type of theology is strictly limited to academia; however, I may be wrong. Are there any denominations that follow "queer theology", and who are they? I know denominations that are open to LGBT Christians, but they do not seem to be focused on this style of interpretation of the Bible.


texts: According to LCMC Lutheranism, why is human imagination considered evil, when unsaved people do some amazingly good things?

texts:
According to Genesis 6:5 (NIV)

  every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

According to Genesis 8:21 states similarly

  ... every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.

According to Jeremiah 17:9

  The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

According to Proverbs 15:26

  Evil plans [imagination] are an abomination to the LORD, But pleasant words are pure.

According to Matthew 15:19

  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

Similarly according to Mark 7:21

  For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries...

According to Romans 8:7

  [Bad thoughts or pictures can come from our sinful carnal minds.] Because the carnal mind is enmity [hostile] against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Yet the EXACT same human mind is capable of solving problems, finding cures to diseases, rescuing abused animals, housing the homeless, feeding the needy, digging wells and performing needed surgeries in 3rd world countries – all of which are done by those without God/Christ in their lives, and if asked those so involved many times they will simply say that they are doing so because they saw the need and were moved to do something about it.

If man's literal every inclination is evil without Christ, then from a Lutheran (more specifically the LCMC synod) perspective, how can anything even remotely good come out an unsaved person's actions?


texts: Why did God instruct the Israelites to perform so many different types of sacrificial offerings?

texts:
In the Bible, there are many different sacrificial offerings (Leviticus 1-5) which were to be performed in the Tabernacle/Temple.

Burnt Offering
Sin Offering
Meat offering or Drink Offering
Trespass offering.
Peace Offering.

I know that all of the sacrifices prescribed by the Mosaic Law were all pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, but why were there so many different kinds of offerings and different steps for the priests to perform in each service?

For example, in burnt offerings, the blood was not to be taken inside the sanctuary.  Conversely, in sin offerings, the blood was to taken inside.

Is there anywhere in the Bible where it explains the meaning behind each of the sacrifices and the symbolism behind the ways in which they were to be performed? Short of Biblical evidence, are there any historical, or even modern-day explanations for these various rituals? Is there any kind of scholarly consensus about what the rituals meant, especially in the light of Christ's final sacrifice?


texts: Is there an English Bible translation that includes all of these books?

texts:
Apostolic Constitutions Bk. 8. XLVII

Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses— Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon— Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. But our sacred books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles. (Apostolic Canons 85.)

An Early Biblical Canon


texts: Looking for a website providing HTML formatted works of Joseph Pohle's 12 volume Dogmatic Theology

texts:
There are plenty of websites presenting multi-volume works of St. Thomas Aquinas in HTML formatted chunks such as New Advent's Summa Theologiae.

I'm looking for a website containing similarly HTML formatted chunks preferably with table of contents for the 12 volume set Dogmatic Theology by Joseph Pohle, S.J..  All I can find is a PDF version of the books from archive.org, a result of Google digitizing project.  Logos has it, but it's not free.

It looks like only one of the 12 volumes has been converted, courtesy of  Suzanne Lybarger, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreaders Team, and hosted in the Project Gutenberg website: Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise.

In lieu of HTML formatted website, clean digital files (PDF, EPUB, etc.) with table of contents are also acceptable.


texts: Why is "Your will be done" not redundant?

texts: The question is about the words "Your will be done" (γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, Matthew 6.10)  in the Lord's prayer. I do not understand the meaning of it. My faith tells me that everything happens according to the Lord's will anyway, so why pray asking for this to happen if I believe that this is the only thing that can ever happen in any circumstances anyway?


texts: Protestant Interpretation of John 20:23 in Light of Matthew 9:8?

texts:
How is:

John 20:21-23
Εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ Πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησεν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Λάβετε Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται
Jesus said again to them therefore, Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you. And having said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, Recieve ye the Holy Ghost: if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you hold bound the sins of any, they are held bound.

In light of:

Matthew 9:2,6,8
καὶ ἰδοὺ προσέφερον αὐτῷ παραλυτικὸν ἐπὶ κλίνης βεβλημένον καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν εἶπεν τῷ παραλυτικῷ Θάρσει, τέκνον ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ... ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ... Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν Θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις
And behold, they brought out to him one paralyzed, lying on a bed. And Jesus, having seen their faith, said to the paralytic, Take courage, son;  thy sins have been forgiven! ... But so that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. ... And the crowds seeing [this] marveled, and glorified God, Who gave such authority to men.

Not proof that Jesus really did give men (priests) this power to forgive sins with the power and authority of the Holy Ghost, which He expressly imparts to them for this ministry?

Specifically, how isn't an interpretation other than this ridiculous? Seeing as it would either seem to imply there are such things as 'divinely-approved' grudges (John 20:23b), rather than a priest withholding absolution from an unrepentant.. penitent; or a redundant 'when you forgive someone, you have forgiven them,' whereas this seems to clearly bestowing upon them the "authority" to "forgive sins" by the power of the "Holy Ghost", at least in the Catholic view—that when they forgiven the sins of any God has forgiven them?
Thank you in advance!


texts: How would a Catholic explain the absence of the mass in the Epistle to the Hebrews?

texts:
I noticed Hebrews is really the place where the Priesthood is discussed as how the priestly ceremonies are related to the Christian faith. It seem rather complete and in depth. Hebrews says a whole lot about the priesthood and even goes into ‘great depth’ explaining things ‘difficult to understand’. It covers many great mysteries fulfilled in Christ through the priesthood.

As far as I know, Catholics view the mass as kind of mystical repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Not that Christ is sacrificed again but that his one and only past sacrifice is somehow 'redone' by himself in an unexplainable way. Catholic priests officiate in the mass so that Christ, as the high priest ‘sacrifices himself’ in the present tense. This is done in order to further sanctify those who partake of the ceremony.  If this were true, I can’t fathom why the author of the Hebrews would not somewhere indicate recognition of the existence of this practice. Would he not link it into his teaching of the priesthood and the high priest? If believers were regularly partaking in a ‘mass’ with an understanding that Christ was sacrificed over and over, why does the Epistle to the Hebrews not seem to be aware of such an important aspect of the priesthood while it explains the meaning of the priesthood?


texts: Why did Jesus refer to Gentiles as dogs?

texts:
The passage below raises two questions in my mind but I suspect they both have the same answer. My questions are:

Why did Jesus at first refuse to speak to the Canaanite woman? We know He had no problem crossing gender and racial barriers, as seen e.g. in The Woman at the Well (John 4:1-42).
Why did He refer to her (and presumably all Canaanites and probably all Gentiles) as "dogs"? I say that He was referring to all Gentiles because He contrasted helping her with Israel, when He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 15:21-28
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

(This story is also related in Mark 7:24-30.)


texts: Why doesn't the Roman Catholic church defrock Richard Rohr?

texts:
Richard Rohr is a popular author and retreat leader. His philosophy combines Christianity, Jungian psychology, and a variety of insights gained from eastern religions. He quotes often from the early church fathers and Thomas Merton, but also the Dalai Lama, Islamic Sufi writers, and Hindus. His books are often blurbed by popular TV personalities like Dr. Oz.

Now I don't have a problem with any of this. If Rohr wants to make his way as a spiritual self-help writer and speaker, that's fine. What bothers me is that he frequently touts his credentials as an legitimate Roman Catholic priest and member of the Society of St. Francis. It's always the first thing listed in biographical paragraphs and on the dust jackets of his books.

This question is not to discuss whether Rohr is sufficiently orthodox or not. I realize he has many fans. However, in most of the protestant denominations I am familiar with, he would have been formally defrocked ages ago for his public teaching. Why does nobody in authority in the RC seem to care? Does he slip through the cracks due to his status as a Franciscan friar rather than a parish priest? Does he perhaps have powerful friends or defenders among the leaders of the order? Is there some other kind of internal organizational dysfunction to explain this?

Any light that could be shed on this (or similar situations) from someone familiar with RC procedure would be helpful.


texts:
There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around.

Here is an example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council.

So, the question is: How can common believers in the Eastern Orthodox Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?


texts: What is the origin among the Church of England of the Paschal Greeting?

texts: He is Risen!  So the Eastern Churches practice the paschal greeting as an Easter thing and I've picked up that tradition as a Roman Catholic because I think it's awesome.  One of my close friends who is a protestant just greeted me with it, which I thought was super cool, and it turns out she picked it up from an Anglican friend at a christian college she went to.  Sure enough, a wikipedia search turns the Church of England up as practicing this tradition, but since most Catholics don't I was wondering where the Church of England picked it up from.


texts: What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation?

texts:
I understand that some people believe that Jesus actually had the capacity to sin, that is, to give in to the temptations that He suffered.  This seems to suggest that God has the power to sin.

In a sense, then, the redemption of mankind hung in the balance, so to speak, during the temptations of Christ.

What are the theological arguments in support of this position?


texts: When and why did Protestantism begin moving away from liturgy?

texts:
I have been to some Protestant churches that have a liturgy on Sunday mornings (Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc) but most of the churches I've attended do not (Baptist, Assembly of God, etc). By liturgy, I mean specific readings, usually chosen according to a church calendar, from a pool of shared, historical literature compiled by the church over time.

When and why did Protestants who follow the 'sing a few songs and then listen to the Pastor give a sermon' tradition abandon the liturgy in favor of worship music followed by a sermon? I am not asking about praying the hours throughout the day but rather about the church service.


texts: According to Catholicism, why do we need a resurrection if we have an immortal soul?

texts:
Here's this other question that asks the question "According to Roman Catholicism, how old will our resurrection bodies be?"

The answers to the question talk along the line of that a persons physical body is resurrected. One of the answers includes this segment from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the
  Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on
  after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life
  again.

(emphasis added by me)

My understanding about Catholic beliefs, and about Christian beliefs in general, is that inside ourselves we have an immortal soul that continues living after the body is dead. Answers that talk about the Catholic view of this can be found for example here and here.

Question:

According to Catholicism, what do we need a resurrection for since we have an immortal soul that survives the death of the body?


texts: What is the signficance of the Prince of Persia delaying the Archangel Michael coming to Daniels aid?

texts: A writer on Rumor mill news .com recently posted the idea that the Prince of Persia is a substitute (Satanic) god that some Christians worship as God and become deluded in the process.  I cannot at this stage see any way to support this reasoning so I ask:  who exactly does the Prince of Persia represent in a spiritual sense today?  Is it a reference to a historical individual powerful enough to prevent the ongoing work of an archangel in history only, or is there a contemporary meaning also?


texts: What is the meaning of 'scandalous' associated with the crucifixion of Jesus?

texts: There is a song, "Beautiful Scandalous Night." Also, I have heard this term used with regards to the crucifixion. I assume this does not have the colloquial meaning. What does it mean?


texts: Do mainstream believers believe there was a large interval of time that elapsed between the fall of angels and God speaking creating the universe?

texts:
Lucifer willed to become "like the most high." Do mainstream believers agree that there was an invisible war in the spiritual realm that was an interval of time before God spoke creating our known universe?

I read the book The Invisible War which supports this theory, however I also heard Hank (the bible answer man) say he didnt support this.


texts: Who would Cain be worried about slaying him in Gen 4:14? Up till this point, all that are mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel

texts: Were there other people outside of Eden before Adam and Eve had to leave?


texts: What Christmas traditions have roots in Jewish traditions?

texts:
There are many traditions in modern Christmas celebrations, that Jesus would not be familiar with.

What Christmas traditions have their roots in Jewish celebrations, that Jesus would recognize?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in annihilation?

texts: What is the official position of the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to hell, specifically the doctrine of annihilation which says that people will not go on existing, that eventually God will just extinguish some/all souls rather than leaving them in a state of eternal punishment.


texts: Based on what verse did Luther know that no sin can separate the believers from God?

texts:
The article in this link said:

  Something has gone wrong in Lutheranism. It has been more than
  adequately shown that regarding the doctrine of the eternal
  predestination of God Martin Luther taught things directly contrary to
  the standards of Modern Lutheranism

Which to be honest, I still cannot understand that "the Modern Lutheran Church has gone wrong" is in a positive sense or a negative sense in the view of the writer in that article.

In other words, it's not clear to me whether the views of Modern Lutheran Church is an apostasy or not in the article's writer point of view.

Anyway, Luther said in this link:

  No sin can separate us from Him (Martin Luther: Letter to Melanchthon)

One of my commentator said:

  Luther knew that no sin is 'too great' to separate us from the love
  and forgiveness of God, in Christ

So the question is:
Based on what verse did Luther knows that no sin can separate the believers from God ?


texts: When did the "upside down cross" become a symbol of anti-Christianity?  I can find no mention of it in the Bible.  However there is, in Christian history, the story of Peter's execution – which really isn't a sign of anti-Christianity but the admiration he had for Jesus.  Is there a line in the sand date when this became an anti-Christian symbol?


texts: To Catholics: Natural Law and Marital Intimacy

texts: I have a bit of a different perspective since I am not a Catholic yet but am starting to learn about Catholicism. I am currently non-denominational, but I’m waiting for RCIA to start and I have weekly meetings with a Deacon at my local Catholic church to discuss Catholicism. So far I have found certain things about Catholicism that I like, but others that have me concerned. One of which is the Catholic notion that any male ejaculation outside of the vagina is a mortal sin even if you’re married (Venial sin I might understand, but mortal? Really?). Protestants are virtually unanimous on the agreement that any sexual act within marriage is permissible so long as it’s consenting by both parties, and doesn’t involve bringing in more people (adultery) or pornography (lust). This is because the Bible never states that oral sex, anal sex (between heterosexual couples. What verses refer to sodomy are in the context of homosexuals only), manual stimulation (by the partner), or any other such like is a sin. The Bible says that a married couple will become one flesh, but it doesn’t say HOW they become one flesh. So my question is, what is the biblical basis for this seemingly rash judgement on the part of the Catholic church? I’ve seen other forum posts talking about “natural law” and saying that since such acts violate “natural law”, that’s what makes them sinful. So what is “natural law” to begin with, where is the concept of natural law mentioned or expressed in the bible, and what is the biblical basis for the Church’s interpretations of natural law? Furthermore, I discussed this topic with my Deacon briefly as well. He was confused, and said he had never heard of any specific Catholic doctrine regulating physical relations within marriage other than the above-mentioned examples of adultery and lust. He said to the affect of “We don’t tell married couples what to do in the bedroom. That’s between them and God.” So how could a Deacon not be aware of these restrictions, especially since he’s married?


texts: What does the LDS Church (Mormon) teach about marriage and polygamy in the afterlife?

texts: I have heard or read something that the LDS church teaches that there will be marriage and even polygamy in the after life for people who are good Mormons.  Is this available for all people are just a few?  And what are the specific teachings about this?


texts: Why is the Lord's Prayer different in the NIV and KJV?

texts:
Why is Matthew 6:13 different in the NIV that some other translations?

NIV (the latest version, I think is 2010)

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

KJV

  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

I checked the Chinese translation it also has the equivalent of "For yours is the kingdom and power and glory, for ever. Amen."

So is the NIV different?


texts: Author's words in Proverbs 5:20 compared to his way of living?

texts:
And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? (Proverbs 5:20, KJV)

It is well-known that Solomon had many wives and concubines. It seems that the advice he is giving here contradicts to his own way of living. How is this seeming contradiction usually explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestantism?


texts: Purgatory, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Protestantism

texts:
2 Corinthians 5:10 reads:

(NA28) τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον.
(My translation) For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive for things done in the body, whether good or bad.

How do Protestants interpret "we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ that each one may receive for [bad things done in the body]?" (not just rewarded for the good). Catholics call this 'Purgatory' (Cf. 1 Cor 3:15).


texts: What is meant by the expression "living in darkness"?

texts:
At my church (Calvary Chapel) we have guest speakers from time to time. Many of them mention the same phrase "living in darkness", refering to the time before they were saved.

Are there Biblical (or more specifically New Testament) references to this concept and a description of what it entails or is it just a relative and subjective phrase coined by man?


texts: What was Calvin's view of capital punishment?

texts:
What was John Calvin's position on use of the death penalty?

For what offenses did he support its use?
Did he support or oppose any particular methods of execution?
In what ways did his views change through his life? For example, on pages 313-317 Did Calvin Murder Servetus?, Stanford Rives argues (convincingly I think) that Calvin waffled on whether it was permissible to execute people for heresy. A good answer will deal (preferably briefly) with this example and give other examples if applicable.

Calvin is a controversial figure, and capital punishment is a controversial subject, so I suspect most sources will have some sort of bias. I would prefer that answers rely chiefly on sources that are at least mildly sympathetic toward Calvin, but without ignoring the charges that opposing sources bring.


texts:
The Easter hymn Exultet speaks about felix culpa ("happy fault"):

O felix culpa,
quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!
 O happy fault
that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

Does it mean that the first sin was good for something?


texts:
I got the following line from the movie Cowboys vs Alien.

  God doesn't care who you were. He only cares who you are.

Taking it with a pinch of salt, I'd like to ask the community if this statement can be asserted with biblical sources.


texts: According to Catholic theology, why are there two and only two processions in the Godhead?

texts:
Catholics, and to my understanding other Trinitarian Christians, believe and teach what is borne by scripture [cf. Eph 4:4-5] i.e. there One God the Father, One God the Son, and one God the Holy Spirit.

The Father, being the Origin without origin is perhaps easier to grasp.

Why can't his Son have his own son and so on ad infinitum and therefore be a corresponding infinite number of spirits?

According to Catholic theology, why are there two and only two processions in the Godhead and therefore three and only three persons in one God?


texts: How does the Swedenborgian Church interpret Psalm 110:1 and Mark 15:34?

texts:
This question is about two passages: Psalm 110:1 and Mark 15:34.

In Psalm 110:1, King David wrote, according to the KJV:

  The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make
  thine enemies thy footstool.

...and here according to the American Standard Version:

  Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make
  thine enemies thy footstool.

When on earth, Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matthew 22:41-45 (ASV):

  41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a
  question, 42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he?
  They say unto him, The son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then
  doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto
  my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies
  underneath thy feet? 45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his
  son?

The passage in Mark 15:34, on another hand, records Jesus' expression when near death (here according to the KJV):

  And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi,
  Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God,
  why hast thou forsaken me?

According to the answer to this other question, the Swedenborgian view of the relationship between Jesus and God is that God (i.e. his Father) is his soul within him.

To the question about whom Jesus was talking to when praying, the answer states:

  Jesus was talking to himself, and specifically, to his own soul, which
  was the Father within him.

The questions I would like to ask are:

If God is a component inside Jesus, then how is the command to sit
"at God's right hand" to be interpreted?
How is the notion of God as a component inside Jesus reconciled with
the seeming authority structure in Psalm 110:1 (describing an
invitation from a higher authority to a lower authority to sit at
his right hand)?
How is the notion that God is the soul within Jesus reconciled with
Jesus' expression that apparently indicated that God had at that
point "abandoned" him?