texts: Although Jesus takes away the sins of the world, are God and Jesus still offended by every sin that is committed?

texts:
All Christians believe that God sent Jesus to take away the sins of the world because every sin committed by mankind has always been and always will be an offense to God.

Although Jesus takes away the sins of the world, is Jesus still personally offended by every sin that is committed by mankind since He and God are one?

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:9-10 "Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works."

Consider that the Jesus who lived on the Earth 2000 years ago did not change after He ascended into Heaven. Jesus in Heaven then is still part God and part human. He still has his human emotions, and if so, He is prone to becoming offended/angered by every sin committed by mankind. Jesus is capable of becoming angry, for instance recall the time Jesus got angry at the money changers in God's Temple and overturned their tables.


texts: How to know when a particular verse of the Bible have been or will be part of the Liturgy of the Word? (Catholic)

texts:
Is there a way to know (perhaps through an online database) when a particular verse of the Bible have been or will be read in Mass (if ever)? It could be under any rite (ordinary, extraordinary, Maronite, etc).

There are plenty of websites where you can check the particular readings of a given day (e.g. here and here), but the format in which these are presented are not easy for searching, or they cover a short period. But clearly, these websites are being sourced from somewhere so there information, in principle, is out there.

The ideal resource would be one where you would input a verse, and obtain in return exact dates when that verse has been read or will be read.

PS: why would this be useful? Well, say you have a blog of biblical commentary and have reflections of a particular verse. You might want to publish the text when it coincides with the particular day it is read in Mass.


texts: I'm just wondering because I grew up in an Islamic family in Iran and I became a Christian when age 23. Will people who were circumcised in this life (like myself) be circumcised in the next life? Or will we be whole in heaven? Because I really don't want to spend all of eternity missing a body part. Sorry if this sounds like a troll question but I actually genuinely am curious about it.


texts: Why did Katarina von Bora need to hide in a barrel to escape from her convent?

texts:
In the 2003 movie Luther, Katarina von Bora (future wife of Martin Luther) says that she escaped from her convent with other nuns by hiding in herring barrels. But we see that Luther did not need to take such drastic matters to leave his monastery, and that he worked among the people anyway andseems to have been able to come and go as he pleased.

Is there some aspect of this movie that is artistic license? Why did Katarina von Bora need to escape from her convent in a barrel when Luther did not need to do anything of the sort?


texts: What is the Catholic exegetical warrant behind the 2 interpretations of "perfect" in Matt 5:48 and Matt 19:21?

texts:
In Matthew there are 2 instances where Jesus said "to be perfect" (both rendering the Greek word τέλειοι).

Matt 5:48: Sermon on the Mount about loving our enemies, directed to the whole audience:

"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."

Matt 19:21: Jesus replying the rich man who asked Him how to get everlasting life:

"Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me."

In my understanding of the Catholic tradition, the 1st one is a "precept" (binding for every Catholic) but the 2nd one is a "counsel", only for those called to a religious life taking the vows of povery, chastity, and obedience.  (See the Catholic Encyclopedia article Evangelical Counsels).
While I understand the logic behind the teaching (which I happen to agree personally), what is the exegetical warrant for the two different interpretations & applications of the same word? Isn't perfect supposed to be the same for everyone?
Possibly relevant: Protestant's objections to the "two-tiered system".


texts:
I think that Jesus is the Father himself. The Father became man and as man he renounced his divinity, therefore there are Bible passages where it seems that Jesus is not God.
And that is why I don't believe that there is a Triune God.

This may be a ridiculous example, but when I play a video game and control a character, then I take on a new role, I who is in the real world is still me, but in the world of the game, I am another "person".
Maybe it's like Jesus, Jesus is the character of God in this world.
Is this way of thinking wrong?


texts: Did the early church believe that the damned would be eternally punished in a literal hell of fire?

texts:
I recently asked a question on the hermeneutics site with the intention of letting people share their exegetical takes on the words of Jesus found in Mark 9:47-49, where he said:

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire. [ESV]

As I imagined would be the case, the topic turned out to be quite controversial: some people understand Jesus' description to be literal and others to be figurative. I would like to know if this controversy also existed in the early days of the church. What were the early church's views regarding the eternal fate of the damned? Did early Christians believe in a literal hell of fire to which the damned would be cast to receive the eternal punishment for their sins?


texts: Does the New Testament have any mention of Kolob and if not, how come?

texts:
Kolob is a star or planet from the Book of Abraham - originally described in an ancient egyptian scroll - translated by Joseph Smith.  Kolob is near the throne of God (in outer space to my understanding).

Is Kolob mentioned in the New Testament and if not, how come?


texts: Do any Christian traditions intentionally use the name  'Yahweh'?

texts:
It seems that few Christians deliberatly use the term 'Yahweh', yet it is a cultural norm that using peoples real names shows some level of appreciation and honor.

Are there any Christian traditions that do take the standard cultural view and use 'Yahweh' specifically in order to better honor the name?

Also are there any Christian traditions that specifically forbid its use and how do their doctrines on the use of his name relate to respecting God?


texts:
It seems that Christian apologetics very much rests on the historical veracity of the resurrection. That is, if we can verify the resurrection, than we have an objective rationale to believe in the Christian faith.

Let's assume for a moment that William Craig is correct that there is good evidence for the resurrection. Even so, does this conclude that Jesus was in fact who he said he was, i.e. the son of God?

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 reads as follows:

"If there appears among you a prophet or a dream-diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, saying, “Let us follow and worship another god”—whom you have not known—even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream-diviner. For the LORD your God is testing you to see whether you really love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. Follow none but the LORD your God, and revere none but Him; observe His commandments alone, and heed only His orders; worship none but Him, and hold fast to Him."

And the resurrection served as a sign:

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:38-40)

As far as a Pharisee Jew is concerned, Jesus is certainly a god "whom you have not known"; Jesus and the Trinity were completely unknown to the Jews. Thus his sign should be disregarded.

Now you might be tempted to respond that Jesus is indeed that same God that they knew,   but he just didn't come out of the closet as Jesus until later. The question would then be: how are we to know that Jesus is, in fact the same god? For that Christian apologetics has turned to the resurrection as evidence.

But the verse clearly states: " even if the sign or portent that he named to you comes true, do not heed the words" thus excluding supernatural signs as evidence! (In fact, in Exodus 7:11 even Pharoah's sorcerers were capable of performing supernatural feats.)

So we are back to square one; first we need evidence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. Then and only then, does the historicity of the resurrection have any relevance to affirming Jesus. Without prior evidence, it seems justifiable to write Jesus off as a false prophet.

Now many are quick to point out that Jesus claimed to be that very same god of the OT and even admonished Israel for not revering the god of the OT. Nonetheless, this doesn't prove that he is that very same god. Where are we to look for that verification? The resurrection? But that may just be another "sign" or "portent".

It seems that the only acceptable form of validation must come from the Old Testament itself i.e fulfilled messianic prophecies. That is, the historicity of a supernatural feat has no place in the debate between Christians and Jews.

Please note what I'm NOT saying:

Christianity therefore must be false
Deuteronomy 13 by definition must exclude Jesus
The purpose of the resurrection was to serve as a "proof"

What I AM saying:

The Resurrection in and of itself can be evaded on supernaturalistic grounds.


texts:
Question: Is the Theology of the Body in line with traditional Thomistic teaching on marriage?

It seems to me that the love of husband and wife is sometimes brought to the level of adornment which only belongs to God and that sometimes marriage is put on the same level of perfection as virginity.

Note: I am not an expert on Pope John Paul II’s teaching, but I am acquainted with his theology of the body via many popular presentations (so I hope they did not an error).


texts:
I heard that there are some early books which tell of Jesus performing some miracles when he was a child. What are those books? And what are the miracles described in those books?

Are descriptions of Jesus performing miracles as a child, before he began His ministry, acceptable according to the canonical Bible?


texts: Does the New Testament override the Old Testament?

texts:
Throughout the Old Testament there have been many laws laid down by the Lord, that are perhaps more harsh then we, as Christians, follow today. Many times in the New Testament it has been found to change the laws of the Old Testament. My question is does the New Testament override the Old Testament in creating laws, that we as Christians should follow.

Old Testament:
Exodus 21:24

  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Then later in the New Testament: Matthew 5:38-48

  38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

These two obviously conflict each other. So I ask again.
Does the New Testament override the old?


texts: Does the Catholic Church consider abortion to be murder?

texts:
As a Catholic, I know that I am accountable to a higher law than human/positive law.  The natural moral law is the guiding force behind the formation of my conscience and if human laws are not in accord with the current law, I am obligated to deny/change/protest/ignore them.

As such, is it right, for me, to consider the moral crime of abortion to be equal in all instances to the moral crime of murder? Is abortion exactly the same as murder, under the natural moral law and in the eyes of the Catholic Church?


texts: Why is faith so much more important than being a good person?

texts:
I recently had a debate with one of my friends in which he asked "Why would a good and just God not make salvation dependent on ethics, but rather on gullibility, as the Christian God has?" and I couldn't provide him with an honestly good answer, and in fact it's a question that I need an answer to as well.

In Christian teaching we are taught that 'man is saved through faith and grace' and while there are scriptures that put emphasis on morality and service, that aspect seems to downplayed, and in fact there are some denominations in which you can be saved wholly by faith. What I'm getting at is that Morality seems to play a Robin to Faiths Batman.

Is morality really important in Christianity?


texts: Did Jesus teach separation of church and state?

texts:
Related: Biblical basis for the separation of church and state

In @Richard's answer on the provided link, he mentioned Mark 12:17 as foundation for Christ teaching separation of church and state.

I was wondering if this is to be taken as doctrine (meaning that the government should always be separated from the Church), or if it should be taken as advice on what to do if government is not united with the Church.

We all know that power corrupts. We've seen it many times in the Old Testament; One particular example of this (off the top of my head) is David, who was a prophet, and a very strong spiritual leader at that.

So, for the actual question:

Are we to understand that Jesus taught separation of Church and state as part of His new Gospel? If not, are we to understand that unification of the Church and the state government is a desirable thing (like in some Islamic states)?

Note:

We have, of course, seen the Catholic Church act as (or have a strong influence on) the government in pre-Protestant times; as we all know, the Catholic Church dealt with a lot of corruption in the leadership, so I don't think this can be taken as evidence of a formal declaration of doctrine.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Mary being the Tree of Life?

texts:
The following is taken from True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort:

If Mary, the Tree of Life, is well cultivated in our soul by fidelity to this devotion, she will in due time bring forth her fruit which is none other than Jesus.

In light of Genesis 3:22-24:

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Since God's clear intent was to prevent man from eating of the tree of life, what is the biblical basis for Mary being the Tree of Life and Jesus the fruit thereof?


texts: What did Paul mean by 'work out your salvation'?

texts:
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

Does this mean although a person has accepted Jesus as Lord, they still need to work out their salvation and they might loose it? From the scripture below I took it that salvation is a gift and one does not need to work it out?

  For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- (Ephesians 2:28)

Can you please explain what Philippians 2:12 means?


texts: How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?

texts:
Wesleyan perfectionism is often compared to a Calvinist view of sanctification but this question is different. It is designed for someone familiar with Wesleyan theology to provide an explanation that differentiates it from a Catholic view. I am trying to see in what sense is Wesley’s view similar to or different from a Catholic view in terms of sanctification and potential loss of salvation.

Here is what I understand (or think I do):

Catholics believe that when a person is baptized original sin is removed, the soul is renewed, adoption into the family of God has occurred and so long as one does not commit mortal sin, they remain justified - or inwardly just - by the infused good works within them by the grace of God. Wesleyan’s on the other hand hold a protestant justification view, so that sinners are made righteous before any sanctification has occurred, and that justification is an event introducing sanctification. However sanctification once introduced after justification implies a kind of elite level of true holiness that can be habitually attained that should surpass the experience of Prophets and saints prior to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the gift to the church and author of this very remarkable holiness so that a person can be in a sinless state even for longer than a whole day. The new heightened holiness or perfection after Pentecost enables Christians in some sense to be perfect (not just mature).

Here is what I do not understand:

Do Wesleyans consider certain sins committed by those who were truly justified as loosing that justified status, such as Catholics do under the concept of mortal sin? For example, if a Wesleyan commits adultery and dies in that unrepentant sin, does this mean he/she is damned?  If not, if there is no 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction what is the trigger that makes a Wesleyan in a state of being ‘out of grace’ such as a Catholic is with un-repented mortal sin? Is the only mortal sin just no longer having faith in Christ at all, or some other more complicated criteria?

The reason why I am asking this question is that in terms of Justification it is clear to me Wesleyans and Catholic are at opposite poles of thought. However, when it comes to sanctification and potential loss of salvation, I do not know how they are differentiated from one another. I suspect there are quite different, I just would like to know more from someone who understands Wesleyan theology. I would like this explained in contrast to the basic idea of Catholicism, which is that you are 'just or perfect' so long as you do not commit a mortal sin, upon which time you loose that perfection, justification or grace of God. Of course the methods of restoration to grace from that 'condemned state' would be different, but that is not my immediate question. The question has to do with the criteria for 'falling from grace' not the restoration back.

How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism (which might eventually lead to a total loss of salvation) differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?


texts: If two Catholics, both free to marry in the Catholic church, desire (for a very compelling and honorable reason) to marry before their required pre-cana procedures are complete and do so in a non-denominational ceremony, may they then be married in the Catholic Church when their preparation is completed?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, can having ideations to sin ever be mortally sinful?

texts: In the Catholic Church, is having ideations to sin a mortal sin? In other words, would a faithful Catholic have to repent during Confession for having ideations to sin or having attempted, but failed, to act on such ideations?


texts: What is the meaning of "sola scriptura"?

texts:
I often see "sola scriptura" used with two very different meanings.

Serendipitously, when I typed the title question, the first two "Similar questions" presented by SE were:

What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?
Sola scriptura is Latin for "by scripture alone". ... the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.
Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Canon
The basic argument of Sola Scriptura is that all Christian teachings and traditions are to be founded in and subservient to the Bible, and in nothing else.

The first says that the Bible is sufficient, but allows for additional sources of truth.  "Scripture alone" provides everything we need to know, but not necessarily everything we can know.

The second says that the Bible is necessary, and denies the possibility of additional sources of truth.  "Scripture alone" is the only acceptable source of truth.

Depending upon one's denomination, either meaning is acceptable, but it seems strange that the one phrase should have two such different definitions.

Which one of these is a corruption of the original meaning?

Clarification:

Everyone (even atheists) will agree that of the two definitions, either, neither, but not both can be true.

Given a "new" doctrine that doesn't conflict with the Bible, the first view would say "it might be true, and it's okay to accept it, but believing or not believing it won't affect our salvation", while the second view would say "even if it is true, we should reject it for being non-Biblical".

I'm interested in knowing the original meaning, and in the history of how the meaning of "sola scriptura" changed to take on two contradictory meanings.

Summary:

The response that best answers this question is the comment containing a link to GratefulDisciple's answer to a similar question, which refers to four different definitions of Sola Scriptura as described in Keith Mathison's "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".  In particular, the differences between "Tradition 1" and "Tradition 0" are what I was asking about.  Tradition 0 corresponds to the "in nothing else" view, which Mathison calls "Solo Scriptura", with an "o" rather than an "a".


texts: Why did Jesus not want people to talk about his healing?

texts:
There are numerous instances in the gospels of Jesus healing someone, and then Jesus in some form or another instructing them to keep silent about it. One example, in Matthew 9:27-31

27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”
28 When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”
“Yes, Lord,” they replied.
29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”; 30 and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, “See that no one knows about this.” 31 But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region. (emphasis mine)

Why did Jesus not want them to proclaim their healing? It doesn't make sense to me, as anyone who was healed of a lifelong malady would naturally want to tell all their friends & family. Was this just him making a point about how silly it would be not to share what God has done for us (e.g. the gospel) with others? Or is it something else?


texts: What was Samuel Rutherford's view on the role of pastors in wedding ceremonies?

texts:
Samuel Rutherford was an important 17th-century Presbyterian theologian who had significant influence in the drafting of the Westminster Standards, still widely used as a part of the constitutions of many Presbyterian denominations.

Recently, during deliberations on marriage in my denomination, a speaker raised the point that Samuel Rutherford and others did not believe that Christian pastors should preside over weddings – that instead, it was the civil magistrate's role to marry people.

However, I haven't been able to find evidence that Rutherford believed this.  I looked in his Lex, Rex, but a cursory search didn't turn up anything. I found a bit of background in J. V. Fesko's Theology of the Westminster Standards, which says:

  In their deliberations over the creation of the [Directory for the Public Worship of God] some divines argued that marriage is merely a “civil contract,” but others, such as Rutherford, believed there is something divine about marriage, but did not regard it as formally part of worship.

This doesn't shed much light on the specific question of the Rutherford's view of the role of Christian ministers, however, and Fesko doesn't cite his source on this particular point.

What was Rutherford's position on the role of ministers in marriage, and where does he comment on this issue?


texts:
I was singing in a choir at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne, Australia. One of the lyrics was as follows:

  God will give him the throne of David, his father.

  The Lord swore an oath to David;
  He will not go back on his word:
  'A son, the fruit of your body,
  Will I set upon your throne.'

  For the Lord has chosen Zion;
  He has desired it for his dwelling:
  'This is my resting place forever,
  Here have I chosen to live.

  'There David's stock will flower:
  I will prepare a lamp for my anointed.
  I will cover his enemies with shame,
  But on him my crown shall shine.'

I felt bad for singing these lyrics without knowing what they meant, so my question is:

What do these verses mean?


texts: Was the book of Enoch once part of the holy scriptures?

texts:
Jude 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the
Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints ...

This seems to indicate that the apostle not only read the book of Enoch but also that the apostle viewed it as actually written by Enoch. I have been wondering, was the book of Enoch respected by the apostles?


texts: Was Boaz named after the column in the temple?

texts:
Was Ruth's husband, Boaz named after the column by the temple of Solomon or vice versa?  Or was this a quiescence? Was this a common name for boys?

Ruth 2:1 ESV

  Now Naomi had a relative of her husband's, a worthy man of the clan of
  Elimelech, whose name was Boaz.

and

2 Chronicles 3:17 ESV

  He set up the pillars in front of the temple, one on the south, the
  other on the north; that on the south he called Jachin, and that on
  the north Boaz.


texts: Can pastors at Evangelical denominations teach that Jesus was resurrected with an invisible and immaterial body?

texts:
Murray Harris has views of the resurrection body of Jesus which fall within the statement of faith for the Evangelical Free Church in spite of the fact that the body is not a human body.

  Another issue of doctrinal tolerance that received a great deal of attention in the Free Church 15-20 years ago was the view of TEDS Professor Murray J. Harris on the nature of the resurrection body. Since I was Chairman of the Ministerial Association at the time of that controversy, I was intimately involved in the controversy and had extensive correspondence with the principals– Harris, Geisler, Culver, and others. While Harris repeatedly affirmed the EFCA Statement of Faith "without mental reservation," he did espouse some unusual views on the nature of Christ's resurrection body and the resurrection body of the believer. Since our Statement of Faith speaks only of the "fact" of a bodily resurrection and does not describe the "nature" of that body, Dr. Harris was judged by Free Church leaders to be in compliance (and I think rightly so). But the controversy raised a legitimate question: just how unusual can a view be and still be acceptable? (Drawing Doctrinal Lines: Where? And How?, EFCA)

Harris teaches that the resurrection body of Jesus was invisible and immaterial.

Some evangelicals  take issue with Harris’ view.  That being said, do the statements of faiths in Evangelical denominations allow for Jesus to have been resurrected with an invisible and immaterial body?      Can those who hold this view teach it from the pulpit?


texts: What is the basis for the belief that there were twelve Magi?

texts: Matthew, the only gospel of the four Canonical gospels to mention the Magi, does not mention their number. Many traditions say there were three, presumably because of the three gifts. The Syriac churches, on the other hand, number them twelve. What is the basis for number 12?


texts: Are there any Christian denominations that assure equality with God?

texts:
Christianity, in general, is a monotheistic religion and confirms the existence of a single god.
But in the Trinity God exists in three forms. And the three forms are equal except for relational differences.
It is well-known that we are not equal to God in at least many or all aspects. But my doubt is about the possibility of becoming God in all aspects at any point in time (includes post-death).
Can a human become God, in all aspects, according to any denomination?
No restrictions on human or time or place are assumed. I mean one is allowed to assume any human, any time (before or after death), any place (universe or heaven).


texts: What do Catholics think of the Philokalia?

texts:
The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity has always struck me. The Philokalia are an incredible source of ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God.

(1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia?
And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition?


texts: In Reformed Theology, what are seen as the implications of Traducianism versus Creationism (of the soul)?

texts:
Traducianism says that one's soul is derived from one's parents' souls, but creationism says that God creates a soul for each body.

The Wikipedia articles are a start, but I'm especially interested in learning about the implications for the transmission of the sinful nature and how Jesus is fully man (and God) yet without sin.

It seems this question isn't really an issue in broader Christianity today, but instead is more of an in-house debate in Reformed theology, e.g. W.G.T. Shedd holds to traducianism, but Louis Berkhof holds to creationism, and John Frame thinks that both are wrong. I have this general knowledge about these authors, but I haven't yet read their material.


texts: Is there a name for believing but not obeying?

texts:
Although it is a theoretical question, it is still very interesting for me.

Is there a system of beliefs or at least a name for people who believe in the existence of God and that events described in the Bible did take place, but refuse to obey God and his commandments?


texts: What does Romans 13:13-14 mean by "behave decently, as in the daytime"?

texts:
In Romans 13:13-14 NIV we read

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.

People sin in daytime as well as night-time, so in what sense is "daytime" being used here?


texts:
What is the official teaching on hell in the Church of England? (Anglican).  Please include sources.

The 39 articles of faith make no mention of hell, so what other source makes statement on the doctrine of hell?


texts: What theolological distinctives are exhibited in 'The True Furqan'?

texts:
The book The True Furqan, a work first published in Arabic a little over a decade ago, has come up recently in several contexts from being a suspect in anti government plots1 to being proof that Christians corrupted2 the New Testament. The Wikipedia article suggests several supposed motivations for the publishing and hints at some of the controversial receptions. What it doesn't give is any idea what sort of things the book actually contains!

What general theological distinctives are evidenced in the book? In what way does it represent the nature of God? Of humans? What does it say or imply about the nature of the Bible vs. the Qur'an? What Christian tradition would most align with its doctrinal position? Are there any significant ways in which the theology evidenced is distinct from that of orthodox3 Christianity?

1 Here is an English source that gives a general overview of the craze in my local media regarding an alleged government security bulletin linking this book to subversive 'Christian' missionary activities (source, source, source). That such activity is orchestrated by foreign entities as a  way to subvert the state is a common allegation and plays into the local penchant for religious conspiracy theories. Part of my purpose in asking this question is to find a way of clearly expressing the relation of this particular work and the ideology behind it to the broader context of historical Christianity.

2 This is an eminently common claim among Muslims. Every new translation of the Bible, every new publication, every new 'brilliant' idea somebody has for missions methodology stirs up another wave of "see they changed this, how can we trust the NT hasn't been completely changed?

3 For the purpose of this question, assume orthodox refers to the mainstream branches of Christianity that would widely be recognized as Chalcedonian.


texts: Can a Catholic cite a religion as a reason for not doing something even if that thing isn't officially prohibited by the Church?

texts:
So my impetus for this question is covid-19 vaccines, but it could be about anything from face masks to filling out the census.  If the Catholic Church doesn't officially say something is wrong, is it licit for an individual adherent of the Catholic church to exempt himself or his family from that thing using religion as the basis for that exemption?
For instance, Quakers claim a religious exemption from wars on the grounds that their religion is pacifist.   Now, I know Catholics have also claimed this religious exception (e.g. Dorthy Day, Daniel Berrigan), but I also know that the Church has Just War doctrine and the magisterial teaching of the Church did not explicitly forbid Catholics from participating in any wars protested in the last century.  So, would these objectors been right (in the eyes of the Church) in calling their objections religious objections or were their objections merely a matter of personal conscience?


texts: If humans are now genetically tainted by corruption, what was perfection like?

texts:
I have frequently heard the argument that various human frailties, such as dying of old age, are the result of corruption after the original sin; less frequently, but often enough to get my attention, I hear the extended lifespans in Genesis were a result of reduced corruption.

If I take this literally, though, I end up puzzled by what this perfection could have looked like.

For example, if there were no diseases or parasites before sin, then we wouldn't really have needed immune systems.  However, our immune system is impressively complex, including specialized organs that randomly shuffle the genes in immune cells until they make antibodies that accurately recognize invaders (so they can be destroyed).  However, if there were diseases and parasites but we were supposed to be perfectly immune, our immune system's design cannot do the job: all the machinery devoted to random shuffling necessarily requires time, during which we are sick.

As another example, cancer always eventually kills everyone if they escape every other malady.  There is no way to escape this fate because potassium, which is an essential element, is also occasionally radioactive; this radioactivity damages our DNA, which eventually will cause enough mutations to make cells misbehave and become cancerous.

How should we think about the initial state of perfection, given the physical barriers to it, and the sophistication of our bodies in dealing with imperfection?


texts: Do Lutherans have a rebuttal for the Jesus > Religion argument

texts:
I hear it a lot in Christian rock and this youtube video articulates the idea that somehow we'd be better off following Jesus and not following the Church He started.

As a Catholic that's about as high as it gets on my poppycock meter, but what would a Lutheran who attends services and practices their faith according to their traditions say to a man who thinks that organized religion is unnecessary. The fellow in the linked video is basing his argument in the Gospel and definitely appealing to emotions. But emotion aside, is there a Lutheran response to the argument against organized religion?


texts: Why was Jeremiah called the "weeping prophet"

texts:
I would like to know why Jeremiah is called the "weeping prophet"

I have looked in Scripture, but I cannot find the answer.


texts: In a Eucharistic miracle, do the communicants still partake of the sacrament?

texts:
In the miracle of Lanciano in the eighth century, not only the substance but also the accidents of the bread and wine became that of flesh and blood. Chemically, it was identical to human flesh and blood. The elements were preserved, and later tested and found to be AB-type blood and human cardiac tissue.

In such a miracle (of which there are others), does the Eucharist continue as normal? Or is it wrong to partake of the flesh and blood that has the accidents of flesh and blood?


texts: Was the 66 book Bible being used by early Christians?

texts: Referring to the most widely used Protestant canon of exactly (and only) the content of these 66 books.


texts: How do creationists address the similarity between Irreducible Complexity and God Of The Gaps?

texts:
"God Of The Gaps" refers to using holes in our understanding of the universe as an argument for God. It is rejected by modern creationists, as it is by Christians generally.

However, the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory. (Lael Weinberger - Harmony and discord)

Creationists do however support the Irreducible Complexity argument, which says that there are systems which require multiple components to work together for the system to have any productive function at all. So for example, they have argued that the eye is irreducibly complex, and cannot have evolved.
But this seems to me to be very similar to a God Of The Gaps argument. "If a system has 20 components, we might be able to remove 10 of them and have it still function, but we don't know how it could function with only 9. Therefore God."
Isn't this a kind of God Of The Gaps argument? How have creationists addressed the similarity between these arguments?

The basic concept presented by Dr Behe is that of ‘irreducible complexity’. A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which precise components work jointly to perform the basic function of the system. It also means that if any part of that system were to be absent or removed, the system would cease to function. Therefore, any step to simplify an irreducibly complex system would result in a non-functional system. This presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinist. If one alleges that all systems evolved by gradual addition to previously functioning systems, how does one explain a complex system that would not perform its basic function if it were missing even a single component? (Robert T. Mitchell - Darwin's Black Box)
The traditional conception of step-by-step major evolutionary change has the supposed advantage of reasonable probability for each step while suffering from the disadvantage of being incapable of producing the necessarily simultaneous changes (hence irreducible complexity). ... It almost seems as though evolutionists are invoking these hopeful mini monster mechanisms as an act of desperation. In any case, the giant chasm that remains between the observed tiny changes, on the one hand, and the speculated large-scale evolutionary outcomes, on the other, itself attests to the validity and force of the argument of irreducible complexity. (John Woodmorappe - Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists)


texts: Was the white smoke ever supposed to be miraculous?

texts:
With everybody waiting on a puff of white smoke to eminate from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, the engineer in me is curious about the mechanics.

I know in modern times that a special additive to the ballots is added to make the white smoke, but I wonder about the origin of this custom. Was there a time when the white smoke was not something that was manually introduced- akin to the Coptic Pope being chosen by a blindfolded boy?

Or, if in fact this always had been an engineered thing, when and why did the custom begin? More importantly, has it always been the same thing added to make white smoke? Who figured out the mechanics of it all?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?

We think that Sunday is the Sabath but the jews think that Saturday is the Sabath. If Saturday is the real Sabath, how did it get changed to monday?


texts: Is the Holy Watcher of Daniel 4:23 of a Similar Class to those Found in Scroll of Enoch?

texts:
Daniel makes mention of a holy watcher, which is an interesting distinction from the usual references to angels.

Is this of a similar class to the watchers found in the scroll of Enoch?

Or is this better compared to the role of the watchman of Ezekiel 3:17 in a different context?

What is the "Holy watcher"?


texts: Is Meister Eckhart's teaching condemned by the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
Meister Eckhart was a thirteenth-fourteenth century philosopher, theologian, and mystic who lived and worked in the Dominican Order.

In later life, he was accused of heresy and brought up before the local Franciscan-led Inquisition, and tried as a heretic by Pope John XXII. He seems to have died before his verdict was received.

What is the status now? Was he ever officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church or are his teachings recommended like the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas or other saints?


texts:
Matthew 8:5-10 (NLT)
   5 When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer came and pleaded with him, 6 “Lord, my young servant lies in bed, paralyzed and in terrible pain.”
   7 Jesus said, “I will come and heal him.”
   8 But the officer said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed. 9 I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go, or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves, ‘Do this,’ they do it.”
   10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to those who were following him, he said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel!

[Emphasis mine.]

If Jesus is God and therefore omniscient, how could He possibly be surprised by the Roman officer's words?


texts: Is SIN a sin just because God says it is sin?

texts:
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it
  had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not
  have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not
  covet.” (Romans 7:7, ESV)

In the Old Testament, working on Sabbath was a sin because God said so. Eating pork was a sin because God said so. In the New Testament, we are relieved from some laws but adultery is still a sin.

Suppose, after the Judgement Day, we all live in a New Earth, and God says,

  "There will be no more monogamy, no more marriage. You are free to sleep with anyone
  you wish, either male or female.",

will it still be a sin to do this?

Is "sin"  a sin just because God says it is sin?

And when God says it is no longer a sin, will it still be a sin?


texts: What Christian denominations accept the idea of a pre-Genesis creation?

texts:
Some Biblical Scholars insist on a pre-genesis creation in which the angelic beings were made, this creation pre-dates the 6 day creation of the 'heavens and the earth' mentioned in Genesis 1:1.

This idea comes from the Book of Job:
Job 38:4 - "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth; tell me if you know so much... (7) while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

We are clearly told here that intelligent beings existed prior to the creation of the Earth and of Adam. Much debate exists concerning exactly when the angelic beings were created. Which denominations support an angelic creation event prior to the Genesis creation event?


texts: To the Calvinist, what does it mean that in the beginning God already has His object of wrath?

texts:
I have a Calvinist friend who told me that before the creation, God already knows the objects of His wrath. (I'm not a Christian).

I question him

"the objects of His wrath" is in a point of view in the beginning or
in the end.
whether God wants His objects of wrath to repent or not

He gave me Romans 9:20-21 and told me the verse is telling that "in the beginning God has decided to make some are the objects of His wrath and some are the objects if His mercy".

But when I read the verses, I found in verse 22 is telling

  What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power
  known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for
  destruction?

So I said to my friend that even the writer of Romans still not sure about what he said in verse 20 and 21. This can be concluded when he say "What IF" in the verse 22.

Thanks for his pointing me out Romans 9:20-21 which made me also read the verse 22, it seems to me the answer of my question #2 is more likely (still not sure though) that God wants the objects of His wrath to repent, as the writer of Romans himself put a question on this case in his verse 22.

But then he starts to speak "bla-bla-bla" which to me is vague and not clear. He told me something like this : "Before the creation God knows that ALL (every) man is the objects of His wrath. Still in before the creation, THEN He choose some of them to repent ... so, after the creation He made His chosen one to repent."

To me, his explanation is more chronological in nature. Which raises the question: "Before the creation, before He knows that all man is the objects of His wrath, before He choose some of them to repent, didn't God know who are the one in Heaven and Hell at the end of the world already ?" From this question, it maybe can answer my question #1 : "the objects of His wrath is in the point of view in the end (judgement day)". (still not sure though if this is what Calvinist think or not).

I'm asking here hoping to get a clear answer from an English speaking Calvinist.


texts: Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

texts:
Karl Barth (1886–1968) is considered noteworthy for allegedly "recovering the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century." He is considered a reformed theologian, but his views are generally not considered classically reformed by confessional reformed bodies.

He heavily emphasized the doctrine of the Trinity in his writings.  Was his view consistent with the ecumenical creeds of the early church? I'm wondering if at any point his doctrine of the Trinity was not orthodox. That is, if he is not classically reformed in his formulation of the Trinity, is he still orthodox?


texts: In the Catholic Church, what makes something illicit vs. invalid?

texts:
From this question, Why can't the laity preach a homily, and can a lay person ever preach?, in the Catholic Church, what determines the licitness vs. the validity of something.

Please give examples.


texts: Which denominations regulate how a cross is worn on the body?

texts:
In public and private, people wear many different crosses in many manners. Which denominations hold any principles, explicit or implicit, that govern the display of crosses on the body?

Speculating, such rules might require that the cross touch the skin, or that it never be removed, or that it be hung on the neck and not anywhere else on the body, or that it never be worn by certain persons or in certain situations, or that it must be of certain material to carry.


texts: What are the NIV cross-references? Where do they come from?

texts:
In my NIV Bible I see tiny letters inside the text and references to other passages in the margins. Some of these are tremendously helpful, some seem only to relate by the use of one word.

Where do these cross-references come from, did they originate with the authors of the NIV or are they from some older source? On what basis did the creators of this system decide that passage A should be related to passage B? Do we know the intention of the authors for how they should be used?


texts:
I am a Christian, I want to teach and share the word of God as I wish
but I do no want the call of God upon my life. This may sound weird but please hear me out first.
I want to spread the word of God, its my passionate, something I love to do. But I don't want it to be like tag on me.

I don't know if I'm making sense, I can explain further on request.

My question is, is this ideology wrong?


texts: How was Jesus the Seed of David if Jesus is God who created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam?

texts:
How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David, if Jesus is God, and God created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam? This is a never-ending circle, and can't physically be possible. We are told in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be the seed of David. This prophecy is fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Joseph was not the father of Jesus; God was. So if Jesus is God, he is his own Father?

This is very confusing to me.

How has this apparent contradiction—between Jesus being the seed of David and Jesus being God—been resolved by Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God?


texts: Are there any records of animal-like behaviors outside the "Toronto Blessing"?

texts:
The so-called "Toronto Blessing" is well known for the controversy around the many reports of very strange manifestations. Among them, animal-like behaviors, such as walking or barking like a dog, are certainly part of the strangest ones, as illustrated by this video.
Are there any records of similar animal-like behaviors in Christianity outside the Toronto Blessing, either before or after?


texts: Why did the soldiers go backward and fall down when Jesus said "I am he" in John 18:6?

texts: I really don't get it. Why did the soldiers trying to arrest Jesus go backward and fall to the ground in John 18:6? Was it because they realized that he was the I AM? If so, then why did they arrest him anyway?


texts: I have heard this term used and would like more info about this idea. It really sounds like a hippie thing...


texts:
In Church History, when and how did The Glory Be (The Doxology) originate?

Is the history of this prayer known as to when and how it originated?

The Glory Be is part of those basic prayers like the Our Father and the Hail Mary.

Related question: How are doxologies formed for common prayers?


texts:
How much do we know about the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD?

I just bumped into a source that claims that Irenaeus, Eusebius and Saint Clement of Rome all mentioned that council. Is it that meeting that took place when Paul came back to Jerusalem in the book of Acts 21:18:

  And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the
  elders were present. (KJV)

or is it a council that took place much later? (I don't know the year when Paul returned to Jerusalem)

How much do we know about that council, what decisions were made?

Wikipedia has no article on the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD.


texts: When and who was the first disciple to truly believe Jesus' claims

texts: Same as title, the question came up in bible study looking for more information.


texts:
Jesus came and died for our sins so that we may be forgiven and have salvation.

But Matthew 12:32 (NIV) says there is at least one thing to prevent being forgiven.

  32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Are there unforgivable actions that would clash with Jesus' sacrifice (eg: an unbeliever 'speaks against the Holy Spirit', then later in life repents and turns to Christ.) Will that person be granted eternal life?


texts: What was G.K. Chesterton's proof of original sin, and what is so unique about it?

texts:
Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. - Orthodoxy, by Gilbert K. Chesterton; The Maniac Page 1

What is GKC's proof of original sin, and what is unique about it that similar logic can't be used to prove any other belief?


texts: What is the difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew?

texts: I know that most Messianic Jews speak Hebrew, but besides that is there any difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew? Do they have any significant differences in faith or hope!


texts: How does Catholicism contradict Brene Brown? (Lev 19:18) Practical implications?

texts:
My background: 4 years undergraduate in Catholic university including 3 unit Theology course on sex, love and marriage with M Scott Peck readings. Recently been following Brene Brown who says 'We can only love others as much as we love ourselves'. Example: If a socially struggling parent wants to love a socially struggling child, then the parent needs to love himself/herself by accepting his/her social struggles.

Question 1: Which part of my understanding or assumptions below is wrong, and why?

It's an alternative interpretation to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).
The usual interpretation is

  Humans generally don't have difficulties loving themselves, and their task is to love others to the level they love themselves. (2)

Brene Brown discovers

  Humans love others almost as much as themselves. Thus, they must love themselves more to love others more. (3)

Brene Brown calls self-love 'vulnerability' and loving others 'empathy'. [Edit: Alternatively, 'empathy' is one way to love others. I guess others would be generousity, hard work, etc]
Brene Brown says in order to have more empathy we need to have more vulnerability.
M Scott Peck does not say anything similar.
There is something in Catholic teaching that contradicts what Brene Brown said. --> If this is true, please cite from the Bible or Catholic teaching.
The Catholic Church agrees with (2) and disagrees with (3).

Question 2: (If there is a disagreement) What specifically is the practical implication, if any?

I really don't see how Brene Brown's interpretation of Lev 19:18 might make one a worse Catholic. For example, Headspace on Generousity has a similar idea and it seems to complement the Prayer for Generousity. But if Headspace and Brene Brown are so dangerously contradicting the Catholic faith, I hope to know right away so I can be unbrainwashed.


texts:
The serpent said so. The gnostics said so. Many others say so. But what does Christians say? And how do they interpret the bible?

In my Swedish translation it simply states that Eve gained wisdom, but then I read the Living Bible and there it seems that Eve just thought she would become wise:

  How lovely and fresh looking it was! And it would make her so wise!


texts: Does Catholicism have a notion of "the God in me"?

texts:
While being interviewed on the NPR radio show "On Being," lobbyist, lawyer, and nun Sister Simone Campbell said of developing compassion for her political opponents (at around 31:30),

  A few years ago on retreat, my retreat director did push me to realize that I have a list that, of folks that I call 'mistakes of God' and, you know, [jokingly] people that should have been voted off the island, it was God on an off day, [the audience laughs and she continues in a serious tone] but you know what? I came to realize that  if I was at odds with the God in them, then I'm at odds with the God in me.

This last statement struck me as something a Buddhist or Hindu practitioner would say, not a Catholic. Do any Catholic doctrines or Traditional teachings explain a Catholic notion of the God in you and the God in me, where recognition of the divine aspect of or in another person demands or motivates compassion?


texts: Would Mormons accept communion, administered by a representative of another Christian denomination, as valid?

texts:
There are considerable differences in some beliefs between Catholic and Protestant churches on one hand, and the Mormon church on another hand.

One of these is the belief in Trinity due to which, according to the answers to this question and this question, Lutheran/Protestant churches do not view Mormons as Christian. Another difference is the symbols used with the communion, being that Mormons use water instead of wine (as is explained in the answers to this question).

Now considering some more exceptional situation, such as when serving in U.S. military during a war, as in the book cover shown below, would Mormons accept communion from military chaplains that may not be Mormons?

Or would a Mormon in this case not participate in the communion, or have the communion on their own (or possibly request a Mormon chaplain)?


texts: Perseverance of the Saints – Historical Interpretations before Calvin

texts:
When I read the writings of early Christians I am constantly seeing references to persevering to the end and absolutely nothing resembling this teaching.  It is almost as if everything taught prior to Calvin suggests a different Gospel to the one preached by Calvinism.

When I look at Scripture like Hebrews 10:29, I don't see these passages mentioned in Bible only circles, like GotQuesions.org for example where many pro perseverance  scriptures are mentioned but not this one or the 80 some on other scriptures that speak opposite of this position are left out.

Was the Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints ever understood by any Christian before John Calvin? Even in the slightest?


texts: What is the nature of the theory for Pope Joan and the evidence that substantiates it?

texts: Two films, each called Pope Joan one in 1972 and one in 2009 repeat an old legend about a female Pope.  What is the nature of this theory, and is there anything to substantiate it?


texts: When God said to man that if he sinned he would die, was he speaking of death of the human body or death of the Soul, or the Spirit?

texts:
When God warned Adam about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he said that in the day that he ate there of he would surely die.

Genesis 2:17  KJV

  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.

We know that Adam lived over 900 years on the Earth:

Genesis 5:5  KJV

  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

So Adam and Eve did not die physically that day,  but  the argument could be made that they did die in the respect that they were now separated from God for eternity.

Since God had created man in their image, which I take to mean as in three parts body, spirit, and soul.

If sin had separated man from God eternally, and man was condemned to eternity in the lake of fire that would be the second death:

Revelation 21:8  KJV

  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

And since man was condemned to the lake of fire for eternity, which is the second death that would have taken place on the same day as their sin.

Could that have been the reason why:

Genesis 3:22  KJV

  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:


texts: Is there a converse of "judge not, lest you be judged?"

texts:
One New Testament exhortation is "judge not, lest you be judged."

On the other hand, Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

Is there any Christian sect, or school of thought believes the converse of the first line, something like "Judge and let yourself be judged?"

The core belief here would be something like, "You are a wicked, evil, sinful (wo)man--and so am I." (That's per the Romans passage.)

Put another way, is it possible to pass judgment on e.g. Adolf Hitler, knowing that "in his shoes, you or I might have done the same or similar things?"

Some commenters below believe that a Christian can, and should judge the actions of others, while refraining from judging the "righteousness" of the person. Another opined that the admonition is against "hypocrisy," that the "converse" is OK, if you realize that "as you deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal." Are either of these ideas in line with what the Scripture says?


texts: What does "scripture" mean in NT writing?

texts:
This is slightly a take-off from:
What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?

The Bible as we know it today wasn't canonized and compiled into a single volume until much later. In particular, I am concerned with the reference to all scripture being "God-breathed" (inspired) in 2 Timothy, as it was written long before (varying, based on which "canonization" we consider) any canonization.

So what was meant/intended by the authors by the term "scripture" at the time of New Testament writings?


texts: Does Christianity claim that the Bible is God's only Word?

texts:
If yes, what is the reference for this?

By this logic, any book before the Bible like the Torah is not the word of God.

According to Islam, Torah is the book of prophet Moses and Bible is the book of prophet Jesus and Quran is the book of prophet Muhammad.


texts: What does it mean to "flee to the mountains" as writen in Mark?

texts:
Mark 13:14
  New International Version (NIV)
  14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

First off, is this meant figuratively or literally? I lean towards believing it is literal. But then it specifically mentions that it is those in Judea that should flee... is this also literal Judea? What about those of us in the nations, now?

I do not like Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that they are the symbolic mountains and that by joining them we are already 'safe'; I believe there is more to it than that. For instance it is only when we see the abomination causing desolation that we are meant to flee, so that does not make sense if you compare it to joining a religious group.

And what of people living far from any mountains? This is where it is difficult to believe that it is literal, yet the detail of the rest of the verses in Mark do suggest that actual fleeing is necessary.

I'm a little stumped. What does "fleeing to the mountains" actually mean in this context?


texts: Do Christians believe that Jews must still follow the Mosaic law?

texts:
Deuteronomy 13:1-4 states:

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

The above passage seems to state that one may not subtract commandments from the Law of Moses which the Jewish people were commanded to obey, and  seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so. Do Christians believe that Jews must still obey the Mosaic Law, and if not, how is that consistent with the above passage?


texts:
The Creed (Nicene, Apostles, etc) is formally a "profession of faith". It's basically Catholics publicly declaring their beliefs.

But, is it also a prayer? It doesn't seem to be directed to God, nor to anyone in Heaven, so it seems the answer is a plain no. For what I can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (e.g. here), it doesn't seem to have been created as a prayer either.

Is this the case?


texts: Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence?

texts:
Please excuse my ignorance I'm new to this.

I've been looking through the Q&A on the site and I've noticed scripture and especially passages from the Bible are cited as evidence for one argument or another.

What is the theological argument that the Bible should form the basis of the Christian belief system?

EDIT

Whilst Mason's answer gives a good description of the ways, in which, the Bible is a good guide to commonly held Christian beliefs, the answer is, as Mason hints, a tautology.

I'm still a bit confused. There must have been a time after Jesus when some parts of the Bible had not been written and the Bible had not been gathered into one. Why is the Bible or, why has the Bible become the central text of the Christian faith?


texts: Why did Jesus keep himself and the disciples hungry and thirsty on some occasions?

texts:
We see at Matthew 12:1 (NRSVCE) :

"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat."

We also see at Mark 11:12:

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. "

Taking a cue from the above instances, one would surmise that Jesus kept himself and the disciples hungry and thirsty at least on a few occasions. My question therefore is: Did the Lord have a purpose of allowing himself and the disciples to be hungry and thirsty sometime during his ministry , say strengthening of their  will-power , or, were those occasions the result of sheer chance ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us about those occasions ?


texts: How has war been justified within Christianity, with respect to the New Testament and preferably the Gospels?

texts: Just really a question of curiosity on how the faith has, at times, turned down the wrong path of aggression and violence, specifically wondering what passages of the New Testament were used as justification for such action.


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

texts:
Many belief systems share common themes; an afterlife, rebirth, bodily mutilation and sacrifice.

To me this suggests a shared origin either in history or storytelling (Abrahamic faiths) or that they were all "made up" to appease basic human fears or death and to cope with grief.

Taking these similarities into account how do Christians dismiss other beliefs and accept their own as the one true religion?


texts: Where do dead in Christ rise from if they're with Jesus?

texts:
In Revelation and 1 Thessalonians we read that the dead in Christ rise first. This makes sense if you do not believe that the dead are already in heaven, but very many Christians believe that the righteous dead are with Christ already at this point, usually upon their death.

So if the dead are already with Jesus where are the dead in Christ rising from?


texts: The Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus created the angels, so why does Nehemiah 9:6 say God created them?

texts:
They further say, "That is why the Bible calls Jesus "the firstborn of all creation by God, Read Colossians 1:15,16."
But at Nehemiah 9:6 it says, "Thou alone art the Lord, Thou hast made the heavens, The heavens of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. Thou dost give life to all of them and the heavenly host bows down before Thee." There is no "ambiguity" in this statement.
Moreover, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, "Before he/Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Jesus lived as a spirit creature in heaven." They conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.
Yet we have at Hebrews 1:6, "And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." The "Him" here is Jesus Christ. How do Jehovah’s Witnesses reconcile these clear discrepancies?
The "thrust" of my question mainly centers around Nehemiah 9:6. It clearly states the heavenly host/angles bows down and worships Thee/God, period. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses teach God created Jesus and then used him to make everything else, INCLUDING ANGELS and the Witnesses teach Jesus is Michael the arc angel how do they reconcile their teaching with Nehemiah 9:6?
Now, the second part of my question regarding Hebrews 1:6 is another contradiction from what the Witnesses teach and what Hebrews 1:6 is teaching. In this verse the Son is called "first-begotten" (prototokon). Paul said Christ was first begotten or "firstborn from the dead." Colossians 1:18. John wrote the same at (Revelation 1:5) Here "firstborn is an expression meaning Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Prototokon refers to either superiority in rank or first in time. Hebrews 1:5 spoke of Christ as the "begotten" in a quote from Psalm 2:7. the Father said to the Son, "This day have I begotten thee," but the statement refers not to a literal birth. Rather, it points to a position of rank. God later declared of the Messiah, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth," Psalm 8927. here "firstborn" suggest being "supreme in rank" rather than "first in time."
In other words, God would make His Son as the Messiah higher than all other kings of the earth and even higher than the angels. This is also why the word for worship in the Greek is "proskuneo" and is used in this verse. It is also used at Luke 4:8 where Jesus said, "It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only." The word is "not" used in the sense of "obeisance" by expressing deep respect or deferential courtesy.
As a side note the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses Charles Taze Russell taught that Jesus is not Michael the arc angel and He should be worshipped. https://i.imgur.com/0uihs2K.jpg  Read it at about the middle of the page.


texts: How do Catholic apologists explain the cross to a Muslim?

texts:
I'm an American Catholic currently living in India and teaching Communicative English to students of an Islamic school (ages 5 - 14). I am trying to live on the fence and keeping my faith promoted and subdued as necessary for my profession. I am already "leading by example" of a righteous, caring, loving Christian, but now some students are starting to ask me questions about Christianity. I'm thrilled and nervous at the same time.

When a seventh grade student asks me "What does the symbol of a cross mean?", I want to present it in a way that answers the question correctly, but also is stated in a way that bridges the two religions and doesn't cause a rift in administration.

What is an overview of methods recommended by published Roman Catholic missionaries and missiologists for explaining the cross to curious Muslims?


texts: Overview of Trichotomous vs Dichotomous views of Man

texts:
There are generally two* views of Man

the Dichotomous (Soul & Body)
the Trichotomous (Soul, Spirit, & Body)

Notably, A W Pink ascribes to the Trichotomous view (or Tripartite).

Also notably, R C Sproul views the Trichotomy as heretical.

Personally, I believe that the Platonic Tripartite view is dangerous or heretical, but the Bible does seem to indicate at least some type of trinitarian mirroring of the image of God in Man.

What is an overview of these two perspectives and how much support is found in the Bible for both?

*An argument can be made for a Quadrichotomous view (Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit), but can be covered in another question


texts: Romans 1:4 / Resurrection implying Divinity of Christ

texts:
Romans 1:4 states:

  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

So Jesus is declared "to be the Son of God with power"
  "according to the spirit of holiness"
  "by the resurrection from the dead"

This seems to suggest that "resurrection from the dead" somehow implies the divinity of Christ.

Now, although I believe in the divinity of Christ, I don't fully understand this argument.

Elijah raised the Widow's son. Jesus raised Lazarus. Paul raised some girl.

Yet, we do not worship the widow's son, Lazarus, or that girl.

So my question is -- what is different about the resurrection of Christ that proves the divinity of Christ?


texts: Does being a Christian necessitate a belief in the supernatural?

texts:
Consider a person who adheres to the scientific philosophy that the laws of nature are the same in all places and all times, and can be determined through experimentation rather than, for example, by divine revelation.

Can this person who adheres to such a philosophy ever become a Christian? As in a follower of the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth? e.g. be good to your neighbours, turn the other cheek, don't murder, etc.

If not what can you call a person who follows Christian philosophy and morals (as oppose to say Islamic philosophy) but does not believe in the possibility of the supernatural. The teachings may be so ingrained in them that they see these morals as self evident. Even though they don't base their behaviour on a desire to live on in an afterlife.

(As an example, in the Jewish tradition there is no heaven as such, and yet Jews have a strict moral code.)


texts: How do those who believe that salvation cannot be lost explain Matthew 7:19-23?

texts:
How do those Christians who believe that the personal salvation once received by an individual by believing unto Christ and turning to Him in a prayer cannot be lost explain Matthew 7:19-23?:

  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
  into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every
  one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
  heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
  thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
  many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
  you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:19-23, KJV)

It looks like this passage tells us of people who knew the Lord's name and did pray to Him in their lifetime. They even used the Lord's name to cast out demons. That is, most likely, they were saved. However, they seem to fall into a category of those who are cast into fire.


texts: Posture when singing the Marian antiphon in the Evensong of the Divine Office of the Personal Ordinariates?

texts:
In the Roman Office, people, when singing the Marian antiphon, are expected to kneel while saying the Marian antiphon except on Sundays (Compline of the Roman Office by Benjamin Bloomfield.

What should be the posture of a person when singing the Marian antiphon of the Evensong of the Divine Office within the Personal Ordinariates?


texts: If Christ Has Been Given All Authority Why Does He Need to Make Intercession For Us?

texts:
The bible tells us both that Jesus has been given all authority but he also is ever making intercession for us with God the Father.
Has there ever been any theological explanation by anyone on why Christ with all authority needs to make intercession if the Father has already entrusted him with all authority?
Hebrews 7:25
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
Romans 8:34
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Colossians 2:10
and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;
1 Peter 3:22
who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
To clarify (from discussion in comments below):
I am interested in this topic specifically, the relationship of Christ's authority with Christ's making intercession. This is a Jesus Christ specific topic and understanding the dynamic of his authority and his role as intercessor including the meanings of those words and roles in relationship to each other.


texts: Finding Ancient/Byzantine Greek texts used by choirs from Mount Athos

texts:
Recently I came across some recordings of choirs from different monasteries in Mountain Athos (e.g. Vigil of the Holy Cross or just collections of chants from Vatopedi monastery). Where could I find some texts used in some of those hymns/masses/liturgies?
As it is obvious from the title of my question, I assumed that those are sung on Ancient or Byzantine Greek (I cannot tell the difference), but please do correct me if that is not the case!


texts:
What is the ideal age for a Christian to start dating? I'm not sure when to start, but I know a very devoted Christian family who thinks the age should be 16.

Does the Catholic Church have any guidelines as to what is the ideal age to start dating?


texts: When 1 Timothy cautions against "endless geneologies", is it talking about the Bible?

texts:
It seems that at the time that 1 Timothy was written, "certain people" had become much too interested in genealogies:

  1 Timothy 1:3-4
  3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines
  4 or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.
  5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
  6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,
  7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.

Other passages in the Bible, such as Genesis 10,
Genesis 5, and Matthew 1, list various geneologies. These hardly seem to qualify as "endless", unless one has a very short attention span. So what exactly is 1 Timothy talking about? I would guess, especially based on the context, that "certain people" were more or less fabricating geneologies about biblical figures, but on what basis? And is this a prohibition against being interested in any genealogies, or is it referring to a specific sort of interest? Most importantly, is it a prohibition against reading and being interested in the geneological parts of the Bible itself, provided that one remains interested in only what is said therin?


texts: What is the origin of throwing dust over head (as a sign of mourning) in the Bible?

texts:
In Job 2:12, when Job's friends first see Job at a distance, they "did not recognize him, and they raised their voices, and wept aloud; they tore their robes and threw dust in the air upon their heads."

I know that tearing of one's clothes is a common mourning ritual as portrayed throughout the Bible, but is throwing dusts upon one's head as well? Where did the mourning ritual of throwing dusts on one's self originate? What is is symbolic of? What other accounts do we have in the Bible for it?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that Mary is the mother of God?

texts:
Catholics often refer to Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, as “the mother of God.”1 What is the biblical basis for this belief?

1 CCC, §963


texts: Is the Pope allowed to publish books after resignation?

texts:
I've heard that after popes die (at least after Bl. John Paul II died) all their unpublished works and letters are burnt and I heard on the radio this morning that Pope Benedict XVI is pretty much going in to hiding, not just as a former head of state, but also to not influence in any way the new Pope.

So, we were expecting an encyclical on Faith for the year of Faith 2013, and if it doesn't get published in the next two and a half weeks will it be destroyed or can it (if it even exists) be published "posthumously"?


texts: Why do Mormons use the term "elder" for their missionaries?

texts:
Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as "elders", but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service.

How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?


texts: According to catholicism, what is the signification of burning incense during the liturgy?

texts: What is the signification of burning incense during mass and other liturgical functions?


texts: Why did Jacob insist that Joseph's sons were his?

texts:
In Genesis, Before Jacob dies, he has a conversation with his son, Joseph.

Genesis 48:1-6
Some time later Joseph was told, “Your father is ill.” So he took his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim along with him. 2 When Jacob was told, “Your son Joseph has come to you,” Israel rallied his strength and sat up on the bed.
3 Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty[a] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me 4 and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’
5 “Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. 6 Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers.

What is up with this passage? Why is Jacob insisting that Joseph's sons were his?


texts: Are there any denominations that are or have been both unitarian and think the parousia happened in A.D. 70?

texts: Are there any denominations currently or throughout the history of Christianity that are or have been both a) unitarian and b) think the events described in the Olivet discourse of Matthew (in particular, the tribulation and parousia) happened by about A.D. 70?


texts: When did the idea of a scriptural "canon" originate?

texts:
This question What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is NOT closed? made me wonder:

1) When did the idea of a canon originate? I would suppose this should be quite early, and Jews probably had the concept of a canon for quite some time... did they not?

2) The idea that this canon could somehow be closed - when did it originate? Seeing that we have 400 years of silence between Malachi and the New Testament, or a little less if you count Maccabeans as canon (which some people object), it could be a jewish idea, but I don't see any such indications in the New Testament. So, independent of deciding what the canon is, when did the idea originate that the canon is closed (or even can be closed)?


texts: In Catholicism, in what sense is free will restored by baptism?

texts:
The Second Council of Orange, Canon 13 states:

  Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it sound like baptism is totally unnecessary for free will (Paragraph 1705):

  By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."

How are these teachings reconciled? Do the baptized have some sort of "premium grade" free will while the unbaptized have "mid-grade" free will?


texts: Why does Joseph have a staff in nativity scenes?

texts:
I noticed that many nativity scenes present Joseph with a staff (in many cases a shepherd's staff). What was the original basis for this portrayal?

This answer is less concerned with the origin of the staff but suggests that it was a symbol of authority, suitable for a descendant of David, and was used in early stories as part of a miraculous sign.

Also, was the use of a shepherd's staff an original (or very early) conception, perhaps again relating to David, or a later change, perhaps a confusion with the staffs of the shepherds in nativity scenes?


texts: According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols?

texts:
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29, ASV)
No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. (1 Corinthians 10:20, NIV)

In some nations there are Muslims working in the slaughterhouses blessing the meat so it becomes halal meat, so that Muslims can eat it when it is sold in the stores.
For many this is  not okay. What does the Roman Catholic Church say about this? Is this meat being offered up to idols?


texts: What is the distinction between a sacrament and an ordinance?

texts: I have observed that Catholics and some other denominations call certain things they do "sacraments", and Protestants call certain things they do "ordinances".  I am not a Christian, but as an outsider, it seems that these things (like the symbolic drinking of wine in church) appear very similar.  What is the difference between "sacraments" and "ordinances"?


texts: Did Moses have more than one wife in his lifetime?

texts:
EX 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.

NU 10:29, JG 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.

This seems to suggest that he did. Curious if anyone else has looked into this.


texts: In what way is the Son of God "one with the Father"?

texts:
What is the Trinitarian stance on the meaning of John 10:30?

  I and the Father are one.


texts: Paul's suggestion to not marry vs Great Protestant Theologians

texts:
Paul states:

  1 Cor: 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.

Yet, if we look at the great Protestant theologians: Charles Spurgeon, John Owens, John Calvin, Martin Luther; as well as modern days: John Piper, John MacArthur, Timothy Keller, Paul Washer -- they're all married.

Why is there this disparity between Paul's advice and the great thinkers in reformed theology?


texts: Does Platonism have a denomination/group/following within Christianity?

texts:
I wish to follow Plato's belief of the forms and find other's who do so. Erm, question is, in Christianity is that actually a 'thing'? CS Lewis followed Plato. Peter Kreeft does...so Christians CAN but, well, how to know if you're among those who support it and can talk freely?

To clarify, the Platonist belief I am mostly interested in is the idea that everything has a heavenly archaetype that is more perfect than it, and that a bad thing made bad by being (to whatever degree) far away from its perfect, ideal form.


texts: Did God ever really help the Hebrews in battle?

texts:
Except for the Exodus story, im having serious doubts.

The Hebrews never seem to win against any of the bigger enemies which would be seriously impressive, because they are outnumbered by many factors. Looking at the figures of their victories they seem to have won because they outnumbered their opponent or simply due to better battle tactics.

After all if God really wanted to show his power why didn't he ever defeat Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylon?

Is this a fair comment?


texts: How did Christian react to Muhammad's teachings when they first encountered them? Did they view him as a Christian heretic like Arius? Was the a council to oppose them?


texts:
So this is a quick question. We all know Eusebius quoted Testimonium Flavianum in his Church History.

  About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

He either used a version of passage with Christian interpolations, or he is the one who interpolated it (completely unlikely he made it up).

However, I don't have Church history nor did I read it or found some context. So can someone tell my why Eusebius quoted it, in response to what or in which context?

Thanks in advance!


texts: According to mainline Protestant theology, why is Pentecost on Sunday and why did it lose its significance?

texts:
Christian Pentecost

It is well known that the early Christians were Jews who accepted Jesus, who was also a Jew, as the messiah. These Christian Jews also observed Shavuot, a Jewish holiday but later changed the name to Pentecost (its Latin name). The New Testament Book of Acts 2 explains that the Holy Spirit descended upon the eleven apostles (since the twelfth, Judas', passing). Thus Pentecost is “the birthday of the church.” Interestingly enough, this is similar to the modern Jewish concept of Shavuot which commemorates the revelation of the Torah.[1]

Of course, the original meaning of Shavuot was not to celebrate the giving of the Torah at Sinai since the Torah never selected a date for the Sinai revelation. Nevertheless, this was the meaning or how Shavuot was practiced (and still is) during Second Temple times (ie the times of Jesus).

Leaving aside the fact that Shabbat was originally on Sunday and that the rabbis later changed it to Saturday and Christians back to Sunday, why don't Christians (who consider themselves to be spiritually chosen, in a sense, nevertheless, keep Pentecost on Saturday, “Sabbath” since this was the date chosen by the rabbis? And why don't Christian also celebrate it as the date of the giving of the Torah?

[1] Christians also have a tradition that the Apostles were dressed in white, thus calling Pentecost Whitsunday (white Sunday).


texts: What were the 45 theologians' theological censures of «Amoris Lætitia»?

texts:
On June 29, 2016, 45 theologians from all over the world presented a critical study of Amoris Lætitia to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Sodano. (source)cf. "Filial Correction of Pope Francis for the Propagation of Heresies," issued August 11, 2017, and signed by 40 clerics and academics

What theological censures did they issue against Amoris Lætitia?


texts: How do Trinitarians explain Jesus' response to the scribes and Pharisees at Luke 5:20-24?

texts:
Luke 5:20-24 has Jesus forgiving the sins of a paralyzed man.

"When Jesus saw their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are
forgiven.” 21 But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to
themselves, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive
sins but God alone?” 22 Knowing what they were thinking, Jesus
replied, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which
is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and
walk?’ 24 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority
on the earth to forgive sins...” He said to the paralytic, “I tell
you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”"

Trinitarians think that the scribes and Pharisees were incorrect here in that Jesus was not blaspheming because he was, indeed, God. Yet, instead of simply stating he was God, Jesus says something different.

"But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on the
earth to forgive sins ..."

If the scribes and Pharisees were wrong in thinking Jesus was a man, why didn't Jesus correct them, but instead reinforce that belief by calling himself 'Son of Man' and saying he has 'authority' (why would God need to say he has authority to do something)?


texts: Catholic Encyclicals/Bulls in Which Jews and Freemasons are Mentioned?

texts: I need a list of papal encyclicals/bulls in which both Jews and Freemasons are mentioned in the same document.


texts: What are the sources concerning the deaths of Peter and Paul

texts: Where do we learn that the deaths of Peter and Paul were during the Neronic persecutions of 64 - 68 AD?  What is the source of this information and is it considered valid?


texts: Did Jesus help drunk people in Cana to be even more drunk?

texts:
This question have a bunch of subquestions. Not sure whether I should split that.

People in Canae are drinking "Oinos" (which could mean wine/beer/grape juice). The party goers seem to prepare enough drink. Yet, the guests drink enough to deplete all "Oinos".

Jesus then went on manufacturing even half a ton Oinos.

The party leader told patron, that people usually serve the good Oinos first. Once people are "Methuo" (i.e. drunk), they give the bad Oinos. Yet the patron gave the good Oinos last.

The word Methuo means drunk. However, it's miraculously translated as "have drunk freely" or have "drunk satisfiedly" in various bible translation for reasons beyond me. Some bible translations correctly translate that as were drunk.

My question:

Did Jesus produce non alcoholic or alcoholic beverage?
Do parties at that time serve alcoholic or non alcoholic beverage?
Was there anyone getting drunk at the party?
If some people are already drunk, why Jesus produces more wine?
If no body at a party was drunk, how was that accomplished? Did Jesus create another miracle making everyone sobber?
Why many bible translations translate methuo as "have drunk freely" instead of "was drunk"?

Basically it's one simple question. Did Jesus help drunk people get even more drunk? If the answer is yes, then we got issue of whether getting drunk is sin or not. If the answer is no, then we got a lot to explain there.


texts: Looking for a verse like "if all the Jews repented at once the world would be saved"

texts: I grew up as a Christian and vaguely remember from those years a verse like "if all the Jews repented at once the world would be saved". It might have been "all the Christians" or another group; it might have been "they would see God" or another concept than the "world" being "saved". I'd love pointers to where this might have come from.


texts:
Did Jesus own a home as an adult or was He a nomad?

If He did own a home, did He live with someone else?


texts: How and when was the belief that a baptism late in life increases our chances of being saved determined to be false?

texts:
The venerable fathers of the Church Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Jerome all seem to have accepted baptism late in their lives on the premise that it would improve their chances of being saved if they minimized sin after baptism.

How and when was this determined to be false by the Orthodox Catholic Church (that is: the Eastern Orthodox Church)?

(My statements in this question is based on the brief article: INFANT BAPTISM as I lack proper insight myself).


texts: How do Protestants understand the blessedness of Mary in Luke 1:48?

texts:
What are the common Protestant interpretations of Luke 1:48?

  Luke 1:48 (KJV) For he hath regarded the low estate of
  his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall
  call me blessed.

In each of their generations, how is Mary called blessed to the fulfillment of this scripture?


texts: I hear that Catholic bishops being considered 'infallible' is untrue and their words can be contested if they are not speaking truths directly from the Bible/other relevent documents. However, even if that myth is not entirely so, to what degree are Catholic Bishops opinion's viewed as infallible (if at all)? Is an ordinary Catholic able to gain 'official' undebatable answers even if that answer isn't in the relevent Catholic readings?


texts: Help with Verse Identification -- 'Jesus has not yet returned because...'

texts:
I have a particular verse in mind that I can't seem to remember. The gist is: 'Jesus has not yet returned for the sake of those who have yet to be added to his kingdom...'

It's something along those lines; if anyone knows what I am referencing I'd greatly appreciate a verse reference.

Thank you!


texts: What is the basis of the LDS (Mormon) belief that the Apostle John never died?

texts:
I was recently informed that the LDS Church teaches that the Apostle John never actually died and is, presumably, still on earth somewhere today.

What is the Biblical and/or other basis for this teaching.

Also, if he is still alive and on the earth today, is there any church teaching regarding where exactly he may be?