texts: When did the practice of tearing one's own garments start among the Jews?

texts:
At Matt 26: 63-65 we see:

"But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”   Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”   Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy."

I wish to know when the practice of tearing one's own garments in order to show protest, especially when one was witnessing apparent blasphemy, started among the Jews. Did such a practice have its origin in the scriptures ?


texts: Do Catholic children near death recieve the Eucharist as Viaticum

texts:
Canon law says that anointing of the sick is to be done to someone having attained the age of reason, same as reception of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance.

However, as "Food for the Journey", if a child is near death, do they usually still receive the Eucharist as Viaticum?

If you read the Catholic encyclopedia entry I linked to on viaticum it says that they are. But, I'm not sure if it's outdated because it seems to conflict with Canon Law.  As this answer states younger children receiving communion used to be normal, but not any more, is this the same for Viaticum or is it totally separate from the sacrament of anointing of the sick (other than the fact that they both usually take place before death).


texts:
Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?
The Catholic Church has suffered from the unfaithful and immoral priests within her ranks since the outbreak of the Sexual abuse scandals of 2001.
As concerns the seminaries within the United States of America do we know which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of priests who were accused of and\or convicted of sexual abuse in the USA?
I am also interested in the particular time period, either of accusation, conviction of the offences in question!


texts: How does Western Christian theology explain the doctrine of the Filioque within the context of the Old Testament?

texts:
I'm doing a pseudo-superficial scriptural study of the Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed and how it differs from the Latin addition of the Filioque. The Caroligian theologians mainly used the Gospel of John's words of Jesus where he says that he will "send" the Holy Spirit from the Father.

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how this applies to the co-eternal relationship between the persons of the Trinity. How does the Spirit "proceed" from the Son before he is sent by Jesus, given that scripture indicates the Spirits procession from the Father before the incarnation?

Ref. Psalms 51:13, Isaiah 63:10


texts: Has Protestant-led public bible study ever been viewed by Roman Catholics as violation of the Magisterium?

texts:
The Catholic Encyclopedia has this text on the topic of the Magisterium, and the problems of Protestant approaches to scripture:

  In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma.

Have there been any cases where Roman Catholics opposed bible study or other ecumenical worship in a public setting (say state-run schools) on the basis of this doctrine?


texts: Was the near-stoning of the adulterous woman something to be considered common practice, or was it strictly to trick Jesus?

texts:
I have heard the argument that, in the time of Jesus, stoning and other forms of severe punishment according to the law had basically ceased, and therefore was only seen here to try to trick Jesus into doing, well, something (exactly what wasn't expressed).

Does this argument seem historically, textually, or logically consistent with the text?


texts: Is Christianity an experiential practice?

texts: It has been stated to me that Christianity is "experiential" meaning it is experienced and not necessarily understood.  Do I have that definition correct?  Is this true?


texts: Why did it take so long for papal infallibility to be defined?

texts:
I have a question about papal infallibility. According to this source,

  That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.

it was first formulated in the Vatican Council, which is in 1869–70.

Pardon me for asking this question, but is it justified if I think that this is an attempt to define the papal infallibility in a way such that the past actions of the previous popes 'fit' the definition (considering it is defined about 1800 years after the Church's history)? Please explain. Thank you for your response.


texts: When and why did the Catholic Church first start issuing annulments?

texts: I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments in place of divorces under certain circumstances.  When did this practice first begin and under what was the reasoning given for it and its distinction from divorce?


texts:
What is the origins of Popes wearing a white soutane with other articles of clothing such as mozzetta in red?
Most sources say that the pope wears a white soutane since the time of Pope Pius V.

That is the traditional understanding of why the pope wears white. In fact, Pope Pius V simply continued to wear the habit under his papal robes, as a sign of familial affection to the Order, but also as a sign of humility: beneath the symbol of authority invested in the papal garb, he remained a humble friar.
According to another tradition, still quite widespread in 1700 and reported by Filippo Bonanni, in his work “Of Sacred Hierarchy” (Roma 1720), the use of the white robe for the popes derives from “the appearance of a white dove at the time of the martyrdom of St. Fabiano” ( L’Osservatore Romano July 14, 2010). - Why Is the Pope Always Dressed in White?

Yet another source claims the white soutane is linked to Pope Innocent V in 1276:

The first popes probably wore the common dress of their time, though increased power and prestige beginning in the time of Constantine caused that attire to become more regal in appearance. Later, like many clerics, they may also have worn academic gowns if they came from a university. Many of the liturgical and nonliturgical vestments used today have their origins in the everyday gowns and capes of earlier times, though some had political or academic symbolism attached to them.
It is believed that the white cassock became standard dress for the pope because of Innocent V, who was elected in 1276. He was a learned friar of the religious order founded by St. Dominic. As the first Dominican pope, he continued to wear the white habit of the order during his short pontificate. A professor of theology at the University of Paris, he was revered as an enlightened scholar and powerful preacher whose papacy sought peace and union with the Eastern Church. His renown must have affected his successors as it soon became common for the pope to appear in daily attire consisting of a white habit similar to the dress of the Dominican order. - Why does the pope wear white?

I am interest in a canonical answer that also reveals the origins of the symbolism of these two papal clothing colours.


texts: Why was Yeshoua interpreted as Jesus in the new Testament?

texts:
Inspired by What is the significance of the name "Jesus"? and previous readings about the name, the interpretation of Yeshoua means Joshua in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament.

What brought about this differences in interpretation?


texts: Can a non-Catholic receive Baptism (to formally marry a Catholic), without converting to the Catholic faith?

texts:
I am a practicing Catholic who wishes to marry my Buddhist girlfriend.  For the marriage to be a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Church, she must be baptized as a Catholic - something she would be happy to do, but she would not want to renounce the Buddhism in which she was raised and which she practices devoutly. So a couple of questions on what is admittedly an unusual circumstance:

Once she receives the sacrament of Baptism, is she required to convert to Catholicism for that Baptism - and therefore the marriage - to be valid in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God?
I have read that a Catholic can even marry an unbaptized non-Catholic within the Church, but that such a marriage "would be valid, but not sacramental."  If we were to marry in this fashion without her Baptism, is there a danger of living in mortal sin as a result?  I assume if that were the case the marriage would not be allowed in the first place, but this is a grey area I would like to have clarified.


texts: Does the phrase "in good standing" have a definition in Catholicism?

texts: I'm helping draft a some statutes for a Catholic Lay Organization and we want to come up with a fairly exclusive group for our leadership and thought. The phrase, "Catholic in good standing" sounded like a good way of putting it. Is there a Canonical definition of what a Catholic in Good Standing is?


texts:
From what I understand, Jehovah Witnesses believe in a form of Arianism that claims Jesus is “the son of God”, but he is inferior to “God the Father”, as he is usually understood as “God’s first creative act”. Then this spiritual entity was sent to earth, where he “became flesh” in the “incarnation”.

I’m not a Trinitarian myself, but it does include words like “human nature” and “hypostatic union” to describe how Jesus can be a “real human”, while “consubstantially” existing as something much different than a human.

According to Jehovah Witnesses, in what way is Jesus human? Was he a spiritual entity cloaked in human biology, or would they agree with the Trinitarian idea of a hypostatic union?


texts: What important Mormon doctrines are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?

texts: I've never seen a Mormon establish doctrine on the Book of Mormon, only arguing that the Book of Mormon is "another testament of Jesus Christ."  So, since Mormons believe that is the case, surely they base some doctrine on the book of Mormon. So what important doctrines do Mormons believe are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?


texts: How did Adam and Eve win at Hide and Seek?

texts:
I began reading the KJV a couple months ago, and one question that keeps plaguing my mind is, "How did Adam and Eve successfully hide from God?"

Genesis Chapter 3:

  8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in
  the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the
  presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

  9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art]
  thou?

  10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid,
  because I [was] naked; and I hid myself.


texts: Topographical Map of Israel / Transjordan?

texts:
As an aide in Old Testament study, I'm looking for a topographical map of Israel - both East and West of the Jordan. Specifically, I want a map with topographical layer-lines showing specific heights. I'm not looking for one of those "green is lower and brown is higher and mountainous areas look crinkled" maps. I want the most precise and detailed map available. It would also be helpful if this map had major landforms (rivers, mountain peaks, etc.) labeled.

Does anyone know where I can find one?


texts: Does the Catholic Church consider it sinful for couples who aren't able to conceive to have sex?

texts:
Say a married couple has sex, no babies are coming out, they go to a doctor, and they find out that they can't have children due to certain complications.

Given that the Catholic church takes a strong stand on the reproductive nature of sexual activity, if they have sex, is it sinful?


texts: I came across this acronym when reading about Calvinism.  What does it stand for in reference to theology in general?


texts: What is the Catholic understanding of Antichrist?

texts:
Is there a good explanation describing how to identify the anti-Christ?
They say a lot of false prophets will rise up in the end times to preach the anti-Christ.

Is there a biblical explanation or does the Catholic Church had an official teaching about the anti-Christ?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic position on literally reading the Flood account in Genesis?

texts:
Elsewhere on this site, the question of whether the Roman Catholic church supported evolution was answered with evidence that the Catholic position is that evolution could be true. That is, because they believe that "truth cannot contradict truth", if scientific truth contradicts literally-read Biblical truth, then a literal reading is likely not the best way to read the passage.

In light of this, what is the Roman Catholic church's position on the Flood? Do they believe that the Flood literally happened, or do they similarly believe that the Flood was not necessarily a literal event?


texts: I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, but considering attending a Greek Orthodox church instead of our local RC church. Will I be welcomed?

texts: I am Roman Catholic, but am considering attending an (Greek)Eastern Orthodox Church on Sundays instead of my local RC Church. Will I be able to receive communion? What differences should I expect? I understand that the Divine Liturgy is different from Catholic "mass", but as I read about the reasons for the split back in 1054 I have recently realized that I tend to lean toward the Orthodox beliefs.


texts: Can a Catholic be denied communion for the way they want to receive Communion?

texts:
I was at a gathering of group leaders for the Federation of North American Explorers, (a group operating under the FSE; a Vatican approved lay association of the faithful).  A leader from Quebec said that they were either denied communion or told to leave by a priest because they would only receive Communion on the tongue.  One of the rules of FNE is that members receive the Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue.

Regardless of the plot holes in the above example (I should have asked more, but there was a bit of a language barrier), does a priest have the right to tell anyone to leave Mass (or deny them Communion) because of how they choose to receive?


texts:
In Luke we are told,

Luke 22:3And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve. 4And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.

So then, did Judas sin or was it Satan inside him sinning?

If a computer hacker uses my computer to comit a crime all liability falls on the hacker using my computer. In the same way Satan utilized Judas as a vessel.

Did Judas have free will in this matter (elsewhere in the Bible it says “Resist Satan and he will flee from you”, does that apply here?)


texts: What is the meaning of "anything" in Matthew 18:19-20?

texts:
In Matthew 18:19-20, Jesus says:

  “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

What does Jesus mean?

From a surface understanding, it sounds like any prayer request will be granted if two people agree? However, I know from experience that is not the case - Bob and Sue agree that a new car would be a good thing, but they do not get one.

How should this directive be applied?


texts: In LDS doctrine, why isn't repentance possible without eternal punishment?

texts:
Alma 42:16

  Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a
  punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be,
  affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also
  as the life of the soul.

Why is repentance not possible without eternal punishment? I understand why punishment must exist (it's explained well in the chapter), but it doesn't explain why the punishment must be eternal.


texts: What about those who lived before Christ long outside the reach of Israel?

texts:
Possible Duplicates:
  What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?
  Who saved people before ~33AD?
  Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die?
  Were there provisions for salvation for non-Jews in the OT?

You know, there's always the question about what happens to those that have not heard the gospel and therefore can neither accept nor decline the offer of God. Some say that they get a chance somehow and that Jesus may show himeself to them, and Paul writes something along the lines that some fulfill the requirements of the law by their heart (if I remember it correctly). I don't know what God's plan is for them, but I think that a sligtly bigger and more interesting question, is what happened to those that lived before Christ and long outside the reach of Israel?

I guess you can say that one of God's plans for Israel, is that it should present God to the world. Those who lived close to Israel and could see Israel and the works of God in that land could choose whether to accept that, but those who lived far away from it didn't have that choice. Take, for instance, the aborigines of Australia or the Inuits of North America. Did they have any chance for salvation?

I talked to my wife about this and she said that she had heard that -- but this could as likely be wishful preaching -- Jesus went down to realm of death and gave them a choice to follow him, or something like that. I failed to find a passage in the Bible giving an account for this, but it seems kind of plausible to me.


texts: What is the difference between 'Biblical' and 'Systematic' theology?

texts:
Particularly among Protestant traditions, it is common to classify books and classes that cover broad looks at theological issues as either 'Biblical' or 'Systematic'. Sometimes this is even extended to categorize theologians.

What is the difference between these arrangements or systems? Are they in conflict or competition with each-other, or are they complimentary in some way?


texts: In Catholicism, is an object a third-class relic if touched by a saint when they were alive?

texts:
So, I know that a piece of a saint's body counts as first-class relic. And I know that third-class relics can be created by touching them to a first-class relic. But usually people only talk about first-class relics as a saint's remains - the body once they've passed on.

If a saint touched an object while they were alive, does it still gain the status of third-class relic? I'm not talking about objects the saint owned and regularly used (which would be second-class relics IIUC) - more like, something they touched incidentally while doing their saintly work.


texts: Jonah and the Whale - Is there any scientific proof that it is possible to survive in the belly of whale?

texts:
The book of Jonah records that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a great fish (possibly a whale).

  And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was
  in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.  Jonah 1:17 ESV

Is there any scientific evidence that suggests it is possible for a person to survive in the belly of a whale, or are we left to conclude that this was part of the miracle?


texts: What is masturbation, according to the Catholic Catechism?

texts:
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

CCC 2352

So does this mean I need to buy extra gold bond medicated powder to avoid jock itch (and mortal sin), or is that just excessive scrupulosity?

The real question is, is the 'grave matter' involved in masturbation always involve ejaculation or does the offense against chastity lie in your intentions?  And the source of consternation in this is that in conjugal sex,  ejaculating outside of your wife is considered the 'grave matter' so I'd have to imagine the rationale for that being bad is totally different than the rationale for masturbation being sinful but I don't know why.


texts:
In Luke 15, Jesus gives one parable of a man that lost 1/100 sheep, and rejoiced when that sheep was found. And another parable of a woman who lost 1/10 silver coins, and rejoices much when she finds her lost coin.

In order for something to be "lost", it must be in one's possession at some point beforehand; and these parables confirm that in the sense of salvation. So, in regards to this, I have a two part question: Will all that are "lost" be saved? And in what sense were we previously in the Father's possession? Is there any scripture that talks about this?

I know my 2nd question could mean those who had previously come to God, but have fallen away, and came to God again, but I think He is particularly talking about those who have not yet come to God. I think this could be clarified when Jesus says He came to seek that which was lost in relation to a Chief tax collector.


texts:
In the Bible account of Exodus, God gives the Jews a type of bread called "Manna".

What exactly is manna? What is in it? Do Jews or Christians still eat it today? If so, do they eat it at certain times? What does it taste like?

I wanted to be a chef many years ago, but that didn't pan out, so to speak. Cooking food has always been a passion, as is learning. I want to find out more about this bread and try to recreate it if possible.

This is in reference to researching the historical diet of both the early Jews and Christians. The scope of that is much to wide to ask in total right now, so I will ask in parts, starting with manna.


texts: Are those who have a history of eating disorders excused from obligatory Roman Catholic fasts?

texts:
Say that a person has a history of eating disorders, such as anorexia or bulimia. Are they excused from obligatory Roman Catholic fasts like those on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday? I've heard of exceptions for physically demanding jobs or current illness, but not this.

Given that regulations for fasting are adopted per nation, I'd like an answer for the United States, although other nations would be useful supplementary information.


texts: What does it really mean to leave parents after the marriage?

texts: Many references in Bible points out that Man must leave his parents after marriage. Does it really mean that the parents and wife cannot live together in a common house ?


texts: What's the first ancient document composed by a non-Christian denying the resurrection?

texts:
What is the first ancient document composed by a non-Christian denying the resurrection of Jesus that we have access to?

I am specifically looking for a document actually penned by a non-Christian, so references to people denying the resurrection in a Christian document do not count. Further, Christian documents quoting non-Christian documents do not count.


texts: Is it possible to get into heaven, but then be cast out at a later date?

texts: People struggle to enter Heaven, but what guarantees you that once you get there you won't be cast out from Heaven? In the Bible there is no guarantee about that. What will prevent you from making bad mistakes there?


texts: If Christians believe that Christ was a God and immortal (or resurrected), why do some avenge his killing in his name?

texts:
Arguably the killing of Jesus Christ was the most avenged killing in history.  There is no other person for whom there were so many other people killed in the name of retaliation.

In Russian Empire the oppression of Jews was explicitly justified because of their complicity in Jesus' murder.

I wonder whether those Christians who thought that somebody, either modern or ancient, is guilty in killing Jesus, really believe in his resurrection and immortality?

How can one avenge a murder of an immortal? Or do those Christians believe in resurrection of Christ only metaphorically/figuratively? Do they think that he was resurrected in the body of the Church or in the spirits of Christians rather than physically?

An analogy: your father dead. You think that you or someone else is guilty. Then God miracliously resurrects your father. Do you still feel remorse, guilt or desire for revenge?

Is not desire for revenge actually a disbelief in real resurrection?


texts: YHWH translated to Jehovah 4 times in KJV but not elsewhere... why?

texts:
YHWH is regularly translated as LORD in English translations of the Bible, including the KJV. I grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness and this was regularly used as a way of proving that they knew God because they knew his name was “Jehovah” based on these 4 scriptures in “worldly bibles”.
As an example The Authorized King James Version (1611) renders Jehovah in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4, My congregation taught that YHWH should have been translated to Jehovah all throughout the Bible but it was replaced with LORD instead, with the exception of 4 scriptures.

So my question is, why was it translated to Jehovah in 4 places instead of LORD, like in the rest of the Bible? Is there a reason for this differential? What is the reason?


texts:
The Bible often makes references to the law being written on our hearts, for example:

  The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,
           And his tongue talks of justice.  The law of his God is in
  his heart;
           None of his steps shall slide.

Psalm 37:30-31 (NKJV)

I know it's not being literal when it says the law (morals) are written on our hearts. So how do we get morals?

Are we born knowing (genetic?).
Is it spiritual and morals are
transmitted to our brains from our spirits?
Are they learned from reading the Bible?
Are they passed down from generation to generation?
Something else?

Background (my justification for asking the question)

I'm an agnostic atheist and an emotivist. I enjoy watching debates between atheists and theists.

The theists frequently ask the atheists:

  If god isn't real, then how do you know what is right and wrong?

Which is a good question, but I rarely hear the reverse asked:

  If god is real, then how do you know what is right and wrong?

Thanks.


texts: What day and year was the first public and general confession held in the Church of England? Was it prescribed in the Act of Supremacy of 1532?


texts: In Catholic understanding, did Paul speak/write ex cathedra while Peter was serving as Pope?

texts:
Catholic doctrine teaches that Peter was the first Pope and that Popes may speak "ex cathedra".  When they do, that is considered infallible.

However, while Peter was alive and presumably serving as the first Pope, Paul, John, and James all wrote books that are considered to be Scripture.  In fact, Peter himself refers to Paul's letters as Scripture:

  and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our
  beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
  16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in
  which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and
  unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their
  own destruction.  2 Peter 3:15-16 NAS

Were other people besides the Pope, then, able to speak/write ex cathedra while not serving as Pope?  If so, can others besides the Pope speak/write ex cathedra today?  What is the Catholic understanding of this?


texts: Is Jesus talking about supererogatory merit in Matt 5:38-48? i.e. earning a reward rather than sin

texts:
I know the word "merit" will send up red flags for Protestants, but what I mean has nothing to do with justification.  By supererogatory merit I mean doing something not required, and doing it for the purpose of earning a reward (not of being justified).  The reason I ask the question is because normally I've read Matt 5:38-48 as a set of disjointed verses (reading it in the KJV which is always printed verse-by-verse).  But recently having read it in a few modern translations that arrange the verses in paragraphs, I noticed something interesting.

The verses on turning to the other cheek, giving your coat to anyone who sues for your shirt, loving your enemies, all seem to be connected to verse 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"  So its all about trying to earn a reward.  "And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?"  Ah, and its about doing more than others!

This calls in question the traditional interpretation that its a sin to defend yourself, to defend yourself in a lawsuit, to hate your enemy, and presents these things as extras, something above and beyond for those who want to do more than others and earn a special reward.

So my question is basically, what do you think?  Is there any basis to this interpretation or do you think its entirely wrong?


texts: What is the Bible's oldest Messianic prophecy?

texts:
Some Messianic prophecies occur near the beginning of the Bible, such as Deuteronomy 18:15 (or even Genesis 3:15).  What I want to understand is which Messianic prophecy do scholars believe was actually recorded first?

Does, for example, the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 8:23-9:1 predate Deuteronomy 18?

If that question is too difficult, due to questions of authorship and redaction, can we ask

What is the earliest date for which historians are confident Messianic prophecy existed in Israel?


texts: What does "Style" mean in the context of feast days

texts:
I was wading through the weeds of the Catholic Encyclopedia trying to figure out why and when April 5th was the Feast of the Annunciation and what Lady Day is and whether that means it used to be more likely to fall on the same day as Easter when I ran into something I'd never seen before.

... most common of such starting points were 25 March (Feast of the Annunciation, "Style of the Incarnation") and 25 December (Christmas Day, "Style of the Nativity").
Beginning of the year (Catholic Encyclopedia)

What does "Style" mean in this sense? Sounds like another one of those cool Catholic words you thought you knew the meaning of, but in fact, means something completely different liturgically.


texts: According to Catholicism, are Popes expected to receive power by the Holy Spirit to operate in the miraculous as Peter did?

texts:
The Bible records many instances where Peter operated in the supernatural by the power of the Holy Spirit. For example:
Peter was among the disciples that were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a noise like a violent rushing wind came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues that looked like fire appeared to them, distributing themselves, and a tongue rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with different tongues, as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out. [Acts 2:1-4 NASB]

Peter received words of knowledge from the Holy Spirit:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the proceeds for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.”

Peter had the power to heal the sick with his shadow:

14 And increasingly believers in the Lord, large numbers of men and women, were being added to their number, 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any of them. 16 The people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together as well, bringing people who were sick or tormented with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed. [Acts 5:14-16 NASB]

Peter had the authority to lay hands on new believers so they may receive the Holy Spirit:

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. [Acts 8:14-17 NASB]

Peter had supernatural visions:

9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and on it were all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the sky. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. [Acts 10:9-16 NASB]

Peter heard direct instructions from the voice of the Holy Spirit:

19 While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” [Acts 10:19-20 NASB]

According to Catholicism, are Popes expected to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to operate in the miraculous during their ministry, just like Peter (the first Pope) did?


texts: Were humans created before the animals? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
In Genesis 2:18-19, it is mentioned that God created man first and then the animals so the man can't be alone and he can name them.

  The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

But in Genesis 1:25-26, it is mentioned that God created animals and THEN man.

  God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. THEN God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (emphasis added)

So according to the Catholic Church, were humans created before or after animals?


texts: What is the basis of the LDS teaching that the angel Michael became Adam?

texts:
The answer to another question referenced a website that discusses the LDS endowment ceremony.  I was looking through the part about creation and was a bit surprised to see that the angel Michael actually takes on flesh and becomes Adam.  I had read that Brigham Young had once taught the so-called "Adam-God" theory, but I had never heard the "Adam-Michael" concept.

  JEHOVAH: Brethren and sisters, this is Michael, who helped form the earth. When he awakens from the sleep which we have caused to come upon him, he will be known as Adam and, having forgotten all, will have become as a little child.

So, my question is, "What specifically is the basis for the LDS teaching that Michael took on flesh and became Adam, the first man?"  Is this in the D & C or anywhere else in particular?

With apologies to anyone who might be offended by this question... I understand that this is from the sacred endowment ceremony.  However, I am asking just about the doctrine itself, which happens to appear in the endowment ceremony.  I am assuming that the basis for the doctrine is not the ceremony itself, but comes from elsewhere.  That is what I am asking about.


texts: How do Lutherans or Reformed Christians interpret Acts 8:16?

texts:
A little context, Acts 8 tells us about Philip baptizing the people of Samaria, however people that have not received the Holy Spirit, even after baptism, until Peter and John lay their hands on them on verse 16.
How do Lutherans and other mainline protestants, who believe the Holy Spirit descends upon a believer at baptism reconcile this idea with this verse?

I'm asking about mainline protestants like Lutherans and Reformed Christians because this obviously is not a problem for credo-baptist Christians or for Orthodox and Catholic who affirm the sacrament of confirmation.


texts: Were there indulgences sold for those who had no family when they died?

texts:
The book Martin Luther: A Life by James A. Nestingen describes the indulgences around the time of 1517, and says that they could be bought for oneself or others, typically family members.

An indulgence takes the place of some other form of penance. So, having undertaken a pilgrimage or made some other sacrifice, financial or otherwise, the penitent could obtain indulgences that could be used to satisfy penalties for oneself or for a deceased soul. […]
The slogan [used by John Tetzel to sell indulgences] was, “When a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from purgatory to heaven springs,” and it came complete with lurid portrayals of dead relatives waiting urgently in purgatory for someone to buy their release.

It’s clear that indulgences were sold to individuals for the benefit of their deceased family members. But were they ever sold for the benefit of people who had no family?
For instance, if an orphan or a widow died and there were no family members alive to buy an indulgence, would people in their community be encouraged to buy indulgences on their behalf? Similarly, would indulgences be bought on behalf of nondescript people, like “someone who has been forgotten and has no family members to buy an indulgence”?


texts: What does the account of pigs and demons mean?

texts:
Luke 8

  31 And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the
  Abyss.

  32 A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons
  begged Jesus to let them go into the pigs, and he gave them
  permission. 33 When the demons came out of the man, they went into the
  pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was
  drowned.

Why did the demons need to go inside the pigs? Would that be the only way to avoid abyss? Why not request to roam around in a desert or sit on a tree?
Why then did they kill the pigs? I thought they wanted to live in a body.
Why did Jesus send them into pigs instead of sending to abyss where they belonged?
Am I to make some spiritual/moral sense of this story or is it just a historical record?


texts: Why do Christians have different books in their Bible?

texts:
Some Bibles have all 4 Maccabees books, for example, while others don't. Some Bibles have Esdras and Wisdom, and yet others don't.

Why is this? If there was an agreement on what books would be in the Bible in the early church, why are there so many differences between the books in various Bibles? Did some church leaders walk out and start there own churches with those books? Or is there some other reason?


texts: Was universalism the majority belief of the early church?

texts:
I recently came upon an article that made this statement:

  According to historical records, Universal Reconciliation was the majority belief of the church during the first five centuries of the Church and the majority of the early Church Fathers.  Through infighting, jealousy, and outright heresy among unscrupulous churchmen who conducted Church Councils after the year 400 AD, the doctrine was soon disregarded then completely eliminated.

Is this true? What writings do we have from early church fathers prior to 400 ad that supports or doesn't support this statement?


texts: What is the meaning of the word Devils in the King James version of the Bible?

texts:
The word Devils appears in the King James version of the Bible 55 times, and appears to refer to different entities in different places. This is apparently someone or something different from The Devil or Satan which I understand to refer to the fallen Angel Lucifer.

In Deuteronomy 32:17

  They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

and Revelation 9:20

  And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

the apparent reference is to false gods.

In Matthew 8:16

  When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

and in Revelation 18:2

  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

it appears to  just some kind of Spirits.

and in Revelation 16:14

  For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

It seems to refer to some being which has a Spirit.


texts: Has any Christian (group) attempted to compile a list of personages, which are Biblically stated to be (eventually) in heaven?

texts:
I recently asked myself, of which Biblical personages it is stated in the Bible, that they are or eventually will be in heaven. I presume, that I am not the first one to think about this question. So I am asking now:
Has any Christian (denomination) attempted to compile such a list?

For answers with lists, which are created by only one person, I want to emphasize, that this person should be a well known preacher or teacher. The question is not about arbitrary individuals.
This question asks about concrete Biblical personages not a "how to". Thus, answers of the form "All who ..." are not targeted, except if they point to people who "...".
The lists should have Biblical basis.

I did a bit of research before asking the question, which follows here. The persons are sorted in order of the respective Bible verses cited.
(All cites are from the English Standard Version (ESV).)

Enoch

Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Genesis 5:24 (ESV)

Elijah

And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2 Kings 2:11 (ESV)

David

But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.
Jeremiah 30:9 (ESV)

Peter (Not 100% directly stated)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [...]
Matthew 16:18-19

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob

‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.
Matthew 22:32 (cf. Mark 12:26-27, Luke 20:37-38)

Moses and Elijah (Also not 100% directly stated)

And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory [...]
Luke 9:30-31 (cf. Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:4)

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.
Luke 13:28 (ESV)

Maybe Lazarus, if a real person (and again Abraham)

and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luke 16:23 (ESV)

Jesus and a criminal hanged next to Jesus

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Luke 23:43 (ESV)

Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph (Son of Jacob), Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets

By faith Abel [...] Enoch [...] Noah [...] Abraham [...] Sarah [...] Abraham [...] Isaac [...] Jacob [...] Joseph [...] Moses [...] Rahab [...] Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets [...].
And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
Hebrews 11:4-32,39-40 (ESV)

Moses (Again, not 100% directly stated)

But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
Jude 9 (ESV)

Related:
Answer to "What is the Biblical basis for the belief that there are humans in heaven now?"
Did Adam and Eve end up getting saved?


texts: In light of the fact that Donatism is heresy, why do most churches require a priest to bless the elements?

texts:
As the church was emerging from its persecutions under Diocletian and into legitimacy under Constantine, there arose a schismatic church named the Donatists.  Now, as one might imagine in a time of persecution, there were priests who, when given a choice between denying Jesus and being thrown to the lions, did in fact, deny their Lord.  A question then arose as to whether or not the Eucharist that these priests celebrated was legitimate - the Donatists said 'No,' but the official orthodox position of the church (especially as articulated by Augustine), was that 'Yes,' in fact the Eucharist was valid because, "the efficacy of sacrements is not affected by the worthiness of celebrant."
That idea - that the Eucharist is not affected by the worthiness of the celebrant - seems to be quite a firecracker if taken to a seemingly natural conclusion.  Namely, if the efficacy of the sacrement is strictly ex opere operato (meaning from the work performed) and not ex opere operantis (from the worker who performs it), why then is a priest required to bless the elements, in most traditions?
So, some disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1:  Yes, some Radical Anabaptists like John Smythe had no problem celebrating the Eucharist even without ordination, but it is a fairly fringe case.  Even many traditional mainline Baptist churches require that the elements be blessed by the minister, and without that, it is not considered communion. Certainly within the Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and even I suspect the Methodist churches, if the Youth Minister decided to bless the elements, he'd get a minor toungue-lashing for the offence.

Disclaimer #2: Yes, there are some churches that don't believe Donatism is a heresy.  They are fringe cases - the vast majority of the church holding that Donatism is, in fact, heresy.

Disclaimer #3: This question touches on why Catholics believe a priest is required.  In an otherwise excellent answer, the key part of the question that I am interested in (Why can't laity bless the elements), I read:

In terms of why the laity cannot yield the effect of transubstantiation, I don't have an extensive enough knowledge to pin that question down precisely.

Disclaimer #4: I am fully aware of the emergency situation where any priest - defrocked, heretic, or otherwise, is obliged to administer the sacrement of absolution.  A good answer may extend this case, but should reference appropriate sources.

So, with all that said, Why can't the laity bless the elements in most churches?  Is there a biblical case to be made, or is it just tradition.  If the answer is 'tradition,' is it canon law? (Cites would be fabulous, and various denominational rules are acceptable!) Contratriwise, are there denominations (other than LDS - who I do believe would allow this!) that would say, for example, "Sure, the father can serve communion to his wife and children" ?
In short, why do we need priests (Catholic or Protestant!) to bless the Eucharist, if in fact, Christ is the one who is present in the elements to begin with?


texts: Are the teachers and prophets who laid hands on Saul & Barnabas in Acts13:1-3 ordained Bishops?

texts:
Some Catholics justify St. Paul’s apostolic succession by citing Acts 13:1-3:

  Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

St. Paul’s testimony on Galatians 1:1-2 seems to contradict Acts 13:1-3:

  Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers and sisters with me

To clear out the contradiction, does the  Church have a record who ordained St. Paul or did St. Peter ordain St. Paul?

If no one from Apostles ordained St. Paul, then St. Paul testimony on Galatians 1:1 prevails.

Is there a clear explanation on this two passages?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate?

texts: What scriptural basis has traditionally been put forth by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches to support the idea of monarchical episcopate (the idea that there must be only one bishop over a city or a region)?


texts: What was the stance of Arius on John 1:1?

texts:
Introduction

Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology?

  Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis
  in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in
  Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's
  subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become
  the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary
  topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor
  Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source).

  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and
  the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV)

Question

What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?


texts: How far was Peter from Jesus when he denied him?

texts:
In The Gospel of Luke it says:

  Luke 22: 61- and the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice

Was Jesus next to him? In films I've seen, it portrayed as such that Jesus walks by arrested or is next to him (or within viewing range) that Peter sees him and breaks down in tears. Or was Peter able to see Jesus wherever he was at this point? Luke is the only gospel to mention he "looked upon" him.
The Bible says "looked upon" not "looked on" . Looked upon however was used in 1 John 1:1 which could mean something more heavenly..but a few other verses don't seem to match this meaning. Such as Mark 16:17. In fact looked upon is not used much at all, even by Jesus.


texts:
Who are the seven princes of Hell?
I think I know them but I am not 100%. I believe they are Belial, Satan, Beelzebub, Asmodeus, Laviathan, Mammon, Belphegor, Lucifer.
Could someone tell me if I am right and if so what hell are they in charge of please. If I am wrong could you tell me with their roles please.


texts: According to Molinism, what is the meaning of a counterfactual of freedom?

texts:
If I understand correctly, Molinists consider it important that counterfactuals of freedom ("If person P experienced circumstances C, she would perform action A") are meaningful. In fact, if I understand correctly, the crux of Molinism is the doctrine that the truth or falsity of a counterfactual of freedom is logically prior to Creation.

But I'm struggling to understand what a counterfactual of freedom even means from a Molinist perspective. It seems clear that the circumstances C do not logically entail the action A; we can coherently imagine P experiencing circumstances C but nevertheless refraining from A. But if I understand correctly, Molinists endorse a libertarian notion of free will, in the sense that the circumstances C do not cause the action A, either.

So in what sense is A the unique action that P "would" perform, were she to experience circumstances C?


texts: Do Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit stopped leading the church?

texts:
What do Protestants believe in the matter of the Holy Spirit leading the church? Especially the Catholic church. The first mention of the catholic church was about the 1st. century.

Did the Holy Spirit stop working in apostles and others that time christian leaders? Did he start working again in people in 15 century? Was He quiet the whole time since the first century? In order to believe this, isn't this kind of against Jesus promise, that he will stay with us and he'll give us his Spirit?

Isn't this sinning against the Holy Spirit? Mark 3:29

so 2 questions:
1. Was HS gone during 1600 years?
2. Believing this, isn't it sinning against HS?


texts: Why does God punish us when He gives us free-will?

texts:
God gives us free-will. But why does God punish us for exercising our free-will in certain ways (disobeying Him, sinning)? Why even both to give us free will, if we are to be punished for exercising our free will in a certain way.

I would say that is not really free will. If I give you a glass of water on the table, and say you are free to drink the glass of water, but if you drink it, I will kill you --- Why even bother to give that person the option of drinking the water, when you are essentially hindering his free-will and stopping him from drinking the glass of water?

If I want to carry out an action but in the back of my mind I know it is a sin, I might hesitate to carry out that action if I know God will punish me. Isn't that not obstructing my free-will? Why give me free will, if you punish me for making certain choices I want to make?


texts: Why is Jesus' genealogy traced through Joseph?

texts: Why is Jesus' genealogy in Matthew and Luke traced back to David through Joseph if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit?


texts: What is the Biblical Basis of a "water canopy", and is there scientific evidence to support it?

texts:
Some Creationists have asserted that in the pre-flood world that there may have been some sort of water vapor canopy that perhaps doubled the air pressure and caused things to be much healthier than they are today (post-flood).

What is the biblical basis for this and what is the scientific evidence the proponents use to support this theory?


texts: Based on Luke 3:22 & 1:39-41, Genesis 1:2, the 'Holy Spirit' was already here, so who does John 16:7, 16:13-14, John 14:26 talk about?

texts:
I have seen some similar questions, however, this is slightly different.  The passages in John cannot be referring to the 'Holy Spirit' as it was here already, Jesus in John is talking about someone to come after him.

Luke 3:22 2 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven:

Luke chapter 1 verses 39-41:
And Mary rose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

(Genesis 1:2) – from beginning of time - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete (advocate) shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7 also John 16: 12-14 and a number of other passages.

Jesus also mentioned as parakletos
1 John 2:1 Jesus is a parakletos (advocate), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father.

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, ["Paraclete" (Parakletos, Advocate, Comforter, Helper)] that he may abide with you into the age (to come)."John 14:16

John 1:20-24
20He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.” 21“Then who are you?” they inquired. “Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” 22So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” 24Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25asked him, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”…
"2 Peter 1:21" - For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit;
“John 15:26" - When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me”.
“Ephesians 4:30"  - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. “Acts 4:31" - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
"John 16:13" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but what so ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come."
John chapter 16: verses 7-8:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”


texts: What is the Biblical argument used by Evangelical Christians against the Catholic doctrine of the invocation of the saints?

texts:
The Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of Intercession of the Saints. As I understand it, this refers to the saints in heaven praying for us saints on earth.However, Catholicism teaches that we need to ask the saints in heaven for their prayer. This is the doctrine of the Invocation of the Saints.

  The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set
  forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that "...the saints who
  reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men.
  It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse
  to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God,
  through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and
  Saviour."(source)

Evangelical Christians generally reject this doctrine. So, what is the specific biblical argument they use to oppose the Catholic doctrine of the invocation of the saints?


texts: What is an overview of Protestant explanations of the difference between dead faith and perfect faith in James 2?

texts:
In James 2:17-22 (KJV) it reads:

  17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

  18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
  faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

  19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
  also believe, and tremble.

  20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

  21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered
  Isaac his son upon the altar?

  22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith
  made perfect?

From the Protestant perspective, what is the difference between "dead" faith (as described in verses 17 and 20) and "perfect" faith (as described in verse 22)?

For example, how do you tell them apart, and what are the outcomes of these different kinds of faith?

(Related)

Edit: Since different Protestants believe different things, an overview of the different viewpoints, and which denomination believe them.


texts: How was 'a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger' a sign?

texts:
The angels told the shepherds:

  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you:you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger. (Luke 2:11-12, ESV)

The question is how would this scene that they found serve to be a sign? Also a sign of what?


texts: Why did Jesus address Yahweh as God at the Cross?

texts:
Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus addressing Yahweh as 'Father'. But we see at Matt 27:46 Jesus addressing the  Father as `God':

  "And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

One is eager to know the deeper meaning of that way of addressing. What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about the particular way Jesus addressed the Father just before His death at the Cross?


texts: What properties does Christianity attribute to God

texts: What are the claimed properties of God that define Christianity, and what is the basis or reason for each attribution?


texts: Since the Bible states that God has a plan for us, and he is in charge of our lives, then if he wants your family member or friend to die of cancer, and you don't, and you are praying for him to get rid of the cancer, will you change God's mind?


texts: Does the RCC allow confirmation names that aren't based on saints?

texts: I was wondering if it is mandatory for it to be named after a saint or optional?


texts:
An answer suggests that "time is meaningless in heaven."  Do we know this to be true?

It seems like an easy conclusion to draw, based on the following:

God created the entire universe, including all dimensions and time. Therefore, God exists outside of time.
Heaven is the place of "eternal" life.
In Heaven we will be "with" God (so possibly/presumably outside of time as well?)

But does all of this add up to time being meaningless or nonexistent in heaven?  Or does the Bible give us any other clues as to the "timeliness" of Heaven?

If there are significantly diverging views on this based on theological tradition let me know in comments, and I can try to make the question more specific, or ask separate questions for those traditions in which I am most interested.


texts: Why was Jesus called the King of the Jews?

texts:
In Luke 23:38 it is written,

There was a written notice above him, which read:
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS

Why was the notice placed at the crucifixion proclaiming Jesus to be King?


texts: If Jesus brought everlasting life and Abraham died before the coming of Jesus (and in fact before Judaism), would we therefore expect to see Abraham in heaven? What passages in the bible direct us to an answer?


texts: What did Calvin think about Knox's "Monstrous Regiment"?

texts:
Scottish Protestant reformer John Knox (1514-1572) is the author of the work of vile misogyny, The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women (1558). In the book, Knox rails against the idea of women having authority over men, particularly in the case of queens. He calls them "weak", "sick", "impotent", "foolish", "mad", "frenetic", "impatient", "feeble", "inconstant", "cruel", "corrupted", and so forth.  Mary I of England was "that cursed Jezebel" and "horrible monster", "bloody tyrant"; Mary of Guise was "that crafty dame". He called for the people to rise up to murder both of them. He also hates "the odious nation of Spaniards", Catholics ("pestilent and detestable"), and frankly quite a lot of other things.

In a comment on an answer to an earlier question, I said that John Calvin (Knox's mentor) disapproved of what Knox had written. On reflection I realize that I don't actually have any evidence for that. I was misremembering a different comment by Calvin where he said "moderate your rigor" to Knox, but that was in the context of tolerating variations in the conduct of public worship (Knox absolutely hated any deviation from his ideas).

What did Calvin actually think about the Monstrous regiment?  - both in terms of the political difficulty it created, and in terms of the actual content (that is, did he agree or disagree with the basic sentiments, independently of the trouble the book caused?).


texts: What is a word to describe someone who is not a Protestant?

texts:
I've been wondering for a while if there is a word (or concise phrase) that can be used to mean someone who is not Protestant. Something that specifically groups Catholics, and Eastern Rite followers (Orthodox churches). But hopefully that does not include such groups as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for example (which are not Protestant nor even trinitarian/monotheistic). Is there such a term? Is there one that does include these last two groups?

The obvious choice would be "non-Protestant", but is there a better term than this? Since, technically, atheists and Muslims are also non-Protestants.

edit:

In the comments, I propose a term that could convey that message, but that seems to be getting a different usage:

Patriarchal Churches

Which then makes me wonder if something like

Patriarchal Rite Churches

would be a good candidate to describe this grouping. I don't think I've ever heard of a Protestant denomination having a Pope or Patriarch. Even the hierarchical ones.


texts: What are the duties of a Pope? Can a pope be "good" or "bad" in this perspective?

texts:
Is there something like "bad" or "good" popes"?

What is the meaning when a pope is qualified "good" or "bad", with the historical perspective. For instance, some popes have bad reputation in the history books. Did they fail to their duties? What were their duties? Have you got some examples of popes who failed to them in the history?

At the opposite, can some popes being considered as very exemplary?


texts:
What musical liturgical melodies could Jesus have sung in the synagogues of his day?

Do any possible examples still exist, based on historical evidence?

Have any musically inclined historians mentioned any possibility of this and have given examples of what Jesus and his Disciples sang or chanted liturgically in their synagogues of the first century AD?

Bonus question: Are there any melodies that exactly or nearly are the same as found in early Gregorian Chant or Early Byzantine Chant?


texts: Is there biblical evidence of "cavemen"?

texts:
Do old earth Christians believe that there were cavemen in early times? This is not to say people who lived in caves but more as what is pictured in early evolution.

I hope I'm wording this correctly and somewhat intelligently. If not, please feel free to ask for details etc.


texts: Why are archdeacons (Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox) called "The Venerable"? What is the origin, in Latin and English, of this title?

texts: Wikipedia doesn't seem to provide a fleshed-out etymology of this title. Who first held it? When did its usage become applied to all archdeacons. And do archdeacons ever have issues with the title, which doesn't necessarily indicate their priestly/diaconal status?


texts:
I'm trying to get clarification on how this word is used.  'On ferias at Terce' - does that mean any day of the week Sun->Sat?  All days except Sunday?  All days except Saturday and Sunday?  All days except feast days?  Days outside of penitential seasons?
Is Feria 2 = Monday?  Feria 3 = Tuesday?
The usage may have changed, but I'm interested in how it was used in the Middle Ages.  Thank you.


texts: Did the American Restoration Movement (Stone-Campbell Movement) Have a Position on Original Sin?

texts: What did the early American Restoration Movement Churches (Stone-Campbell Movement Churches) believe regarding the doctrine of Original Sin?


texts: John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood - Translation of Greek Phrase

texts:
In Book 3, Section 6, he wrote,

  οἱ μὲν γὰρ εἰς ταύτην, οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐκείνην γεννῶσι. Κἀκεῖνοι μὲν οὐδὲ τὸν σωματικὸν αὐτοῖς δύναιντ' ἂν ἀμύνασθαι θάνατον, οὐ νόσον ἐπενεχθεῖσαν ἀποκρούσασθαι· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ κάμνουσαν καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν πολλάκις ἔσωσαν, τοῖς μὲν πραοτέραν τὴν κόλασιν ἐργασάμενοι, τοὺς δὲ οὐδὲ παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφέντες ἐμπεσεῖν, οὐ τῷ διδάσκειν μόνον καὶ νουθετεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ δι' εὐχῶν βοηθεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ ὅταν ἡμᾶς ἀναγεννῶσι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα συγχωρεῖν ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν ἁμαρτήματα. «Ἀσθενεῖ γάρ τις, φησίν, ἐν ὑμῖν; Προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπ' αὐτόν, ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου· καὶ ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα καὶ ἐγερεῖ αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος, κἂν ἁμαρτίας ᾖ πεποιηκώς, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ.»

The phrase in question is «οὗτοι δὲ καὶ κάμνουσαν καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαι μέλλουσαν τὴν ψυχὴν πολλάκις ἔσωσαν». W.R.W. Stephens (link) translates the clause as,

  but these others have often saved a sick soul, or one which was on the point of perishing

According to the Greek text, is the soul that is saved "sick or on the point of perishing"? It seems to me that the soul is "both sick and about to perish." Which translation is more in accordance with the Greek text?

References

John Chrysostom. On the Priesthood. Trans. Stephens, W. R. W. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Vol. 9. Ed. Schaff, Philip. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1889.

John Chrysostom. Regarding the Accusation because He Hid from the Priesthood (Πρὸς τὸν Ἐγκαλοῦντα ἐπὶ τῷ Διαφυγεῖν τὴν Ἱερωσύνην). Patrologiæ Græcæ Migne. Book 3, Ch. 6. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 48. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. (646)


texts: Don't the questions of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13 demand an answer of 'None'? So how can Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus is the archangel Michael?

texts:
There's a suggested duplicate to this question but that question deals with how the Jehovah's Witnesses explain the begotten divinity of Jesus while still maintaining that He is unequal to God.  This question is directed toward the distinction between the Son and angels as portrayed in Hebrews chapter 1.  I've included the entire chapter so that the context is plain in the reading (bold is added for focus):

  Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:1-14

Twice the question is raised "To which of the angels has God ever said...?" and sandwiched between these questions is a direct contrast between angels and the Son.  The answer demanded by any plain reading within context for these questions is 'God has never said any such thing to any angel.'

In claiming that Jesus, the Son of God, is Michael the archangel Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be stating that God did, in fact, say such things to an angel.  My question is, how do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this seemingly clear contradiction to the context?


texts: What does the abbreviation "RNIO" mean in a painting of the Virgin and Child?

texts:
In the Crivelli painting "The Virgin and Child with Infants Bearing Symbols of the Passion" there is (at the right, under a bare tree) an injured (?) knight with a red shield inscribed with the letters "RNIO".  (Or maybe something else in place of the "I".) Here is an image with that particular detail of the painting:

What do those letters mean?  I assume they're an acronym of some kind?


texts: Why did Jesus not want to be known as the Messiah?

texts:
Jesus, when talking to his disciples in Matthew 16 specifically instructed them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Matthew 16:20 (NIV)

  Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Why did he do this?  Do we know his purpose in hiding this fact from everyone?  Is there any doctrinal relevancy or importance to this request of Jesus?

Additional passages similar to this include Mark 1:43-44, Mark 7:36, and Matthew 9:30.


texts:
Why are the civilly married not allowed confession in the Catholic Church?

Is there any guide or law about this?


texts: Biblical basis for claiming Eve was a virgin prior to the Fall

texts:
In Against Heresies (book 3, chapter 22) Irenaeus attempts to draw a comparison between Eve and Mary similar to the comparison Paul draws between Adam and Christ.  He says that Mary obeyed in a state of virginity

  But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a
  virgin.

And that Eve, having been disobedient, was made the cause of death to the entire human race and Mary, obeying in the same state of virginity, became the cause of salvation for the entire human race.

Hosts of questions come to mind but this specific question is:  Is there biblical ground to claim that Genesis 2:25 "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." means that they had not yet had moral and lawful intercourse as man and wife (as Irenaeus asserts) even though the command to have intercourse came before the fall?


texts: Why did Zechariah's neighbours make signs to him?

texts:
In Luke chapter 1 verses 20-22 we read that Zechariah was stricken with muteness, and he makes signs to his fellow priests cuz he can't talk.

But then in verse 62 his neighbours make signs to him, as if he is deaf as well, but we're never told that he's deaf.

Why did the neighbours make signs to Zechariah?


texts:
Question

During the Coronavirus pandemic many Catholic bishops have decided to dispense the faithful from the obligation of attending Sunday Mass.  The standard teaching is that missing Sunday Mass constitutes a mortal sin (according to things like CCC #2181).

Consider two kinds of mortal sin: murder and missing Mass.  The latter can be dispensed whereas the former cannot.  Common sense would seem to say that if something is a sin then it is a sin regardless of what the Church says.  Murder is a sin and the Church cannot "dispense" someone from the obligation to not murder.  But if the Church cannot dispense someone from a sin, then how can the Church dispense someone from the obligation to attend Mass given the catechism's admonition that to miss is a "grave sin."  If a sin can be dispensed, is it really a sin?  Or more precisely: If an act which is usually considered a mortal sin can become non-sinful with a dispensation, is it really a mortal sin?

What I am asking

If a sin can be dispensed, is it really a sin?
Does the Church have the power to declare that something is now a sin which was not previously a sin, and to declare that something is no longer a sin which was previously a sin?
Why are the sins of murder and missing Mass treated so differently?  What is the fundamental difference between the two?  Do they have the same degree of severity?

What I am not asking

I am not asking about what constitutes a mortal sin (e.g. knowledge, freedom, consent, etc.).
I am not asking about whether the Church has the power to judge whether something is or is not a sin.  For example, the Church judges masturbation and contraception to be sinful.  This question is not about whether She can judge something to be sinful, but whether She can dispense the faithful from an obligation to avoid sinful activity.


texts: Why is the word 'Lord' in all caps in the OT but not in the NT?

texts:
My friend asked me the other day, why is the word 'Lord' in all capital letters in the Old Testament but not the New Testament?

I tend to lean towards the fact that the OT was written in Hebrew and the word for God in Hebrew is YAHWEH, or rather YHWH, and since they believed His name was so Holy, they only used capital letters.


texts: If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will?

texts:
This was originally part of this question  However, it's really a separate line of logic (and therefore a different question, imo).  If others prefer, I can remerge this into the original.

God is omniscient.  He truly, literally knows everything.  God knows whether or not I will sin.  God can (and does) direct certain people to prevent them from choosing one way or another.

Exodus 4:21 (NIV)

  The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Clearly, this is an instance where God stepped in and prevent Pharaoh from making the decision.

Since he controls decisions and knows what decisions I will make, do I truly have free will?  Or do I only have free will in the inconsequential things (which isn't really free will, after all)?


texts: According to those holding that Jesus was literally born of a virgin, why did Paul not mention it?

texts:
Matthew and Luke each open with an account of Jesus' miraculous virginal conception and birth. The virgin birth is widely seen as an essential belief in Christianity, being found for example in the Apostles' Creed.
Numerous passages in Paul's letters explicate what has been called wisdom Christology, which includes belief in a pre-existent and divine or semi-divine Christ, and he directly references Jesus' birth once. But he never mentions the virgin birth, leading some to claim that he knew of no virgin birth tradition. See for example pages 108–109 of Jesuit priest John McKenzie's book The New Testament Without Illusion:

If Matthew, chapter 1, and Luke, chapter 1, were missing from the New Testament, there would be no biblical mention of the virgin birth. ... Paul, the earliest of the New Testament writers, does not mention the virgin birth, in spite of an excellent opportunity to mention it in Galatians 4:4.
The argument from silence is generally regard as invalid when one deals with documents, unless it can be shown conclusively that the writer could not have omitted the item in question had he known it. This cannot be shown for the virgin birth. But the omission does raise speculations, as I said. The event is unusual enough for one to wonder why an author who knew of it would not mention it; and it seems that those who maintain that Mark, John and Paul knew of the virgin birth owe their readers some explanation why these authors thought it was not important enough to deserve mention.
On the other hand, those (like me) who solve the problem of the silence of all New Testament writers except Matthew and Luke by ay asserting that all the writers except these two never heard of the virgin birth also owe their readers some explanation of the supposed ignorance. This explanation I shall attempt.

How do those who hold that Jesus' mother literally gave birth to him without having had intercourse explain why Paul failed to mention it? What is an overview of their arguments?


texts: According to Catholicism, why does Paul spend so much time arguing that the law doesn't apply, when Jesus seems to indicate that it does?

texts:
Jesus in Matthew 5:17,

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Jesus in Luke 16:16,

  It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law

Meanwhile, Paul spent his entire ministry arguing for the futility of the Law. cf the letter to the Galatians.

This appears to be a contradiction: Paul appears to be teaching that the law doesn't apply in any way, while Jesus appears to be teaching that it still applies down to the smallest detail.

How does Catholic teaching resolve this apparent contradiction?

(Scoped to Catholicism to avoid the truth question problem).


texts: What is the official Catholic view of a feminine element within the Trinity?

texts:
A recent question on Christianity Stack (about monotheism and the Trinity) suggested that since Christians present the Trinity as a “family” it must contain a feminine element.  This came as news to me, so I started to look into it.

Gender of God

I would appreciate an overview on any official Catholic position on this subject.  This question is directed at both Western and Eastern Catholic Churches.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church #239 states that God is called "Father", while his love for man may also be depicted as motherhood, but he ultimately transcends the human concept of sex, and that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God".

Does the Catholic Church subscribe to the view that the Trinity is a family and does it contain a feminine element? I would appreciate quotes from the Bible to support official teachings along with other Church sources.


texts: According to the Catholic Church in her recent pronouncements, what is the order of truths to which the believer adheres?

texts:
This @PeterTurner's answer to What is the difference between a dogma, a doctrine, an infallible statement, an ex cathedra statement, etc.? opined

  There are a few levels of Magisterial Teaching. Some people say there
  are 3 some people 4 and Wikipedia says there's 7, but I'll go with 5,
  the first two are infallible the last 3 aren't so much.

From her very beginning and through the centuries, the Church has had symbols of faith.1 One such symbol is the Apostles' Creed, rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the Apostles' teaching.2

Perhaps "levels of Magisterial Teaching" meant to say that there is a “hierarchy of truths” to which the believer adheres.3

Understanding it this way, the question is, according to the Catholic Church in her recent pronouncements, what is the order of truths to which the the believer adheres? Does this order correspond a new symbol of faith, a new Profession of faith?

Note, the best answer will be the one that references official documents.

1. cf. CCC 192.
2. cf. CCC 194.
3. cf. Since you asked, Walter, no, you are not a heretic, but | In the Light of the Law, A Canon Lawyers blog.


texts:
Do Christians still make icons?

Typically, it's easy to find Christian icons from the Middle Ages. But are there any Christian icons in the modern age?


texts: Does the Bible tell us who should be interpreting its message?

texts:
Is there a passage in the Bible which tells us who should interpret the Bible? I know there are many interpretations/translations of the Bible already. Maybe I can get a better understanding from the different denominations and their interpretation.

For example, is it men, children, clergy, everyone?


texts:
What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and how does it differ from water baptism?  Do all Christians experience Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

EDIT

A few references to Baptisim of the Holy Spirit, or similar phrases, in scripture:

"He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" -- Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16
"one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit" -- John 1:33
"you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" -- Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16


texts: Are there any complete tables that can accurately pinpoint the year of the flood?

texts:
Answers in Genesis -> Timeline for the Flood says that the Flood happened in 1656 Anno Mundi.

However, they don't provide similar table to tell that the exact same Flood starts at 2348 BC. Instead it just quotes a source.

Anywhere I can find such tables in quick and easy to read format? There should be continuation after that?


texts: The Bible does not record angels having wings at any point, but this is a popular depiction of angels. Do any Christian groups teach that angels do have wings, in extra-biblical materials? Where does the idea come from?


texts: Are there any major / orthodox Christian leaders that taught that Paul didn't meet Jesus?

texts:
I've heard the claim many times that "Paul never met Jesus." A simple Google search turns up scores of examples. It is usually in the context of those who are, how to say, "outside orthodoxy" and want to advocate giving less weight to the doctrinal content of Paul's epistles.

At face value, it seems a most fatuous claim, in that it would seem hard to assert a historical Paul without referring to the Book that gives us this encounter:

  He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Acts 9:4

My question is whether any church leader "within orthodoxy" has asserted such a claim.   By "within orthodoxy", I am looking for papal statements, denominational founders (Wesley, Luther, Calvin, etc.), church fathers (those at ccel.org), or noted figures in evangelicalism.   (I'd even accept the Mormon prophet for purposes of this question.). Contemporary figures within "theologically liberal Christianity" not of interest here.


texts: Dates of Epiphany and Baptism celebrations shifting in Ireland and England

texts:
In Sunday Missal approved for Ireland, England & Wales, and Scotland I found, that the Epiphany of the Lord is celebrated on 6 January in Ireland, while in England & Wales and Scotland on 8 January.

The same shifting appears for the Baptism of the Lord celebration: 8 January in Ireland, 9 January in England & Wales and Scotland.

What's the reason for these shifting?

Can it be in order not to mix celebrations of same holidays in Church of England and in Roman Catholic Church for families with mixed confessions?


texts: What are the details for the Catholic position on the inspiration of Scripture?

texts:
Catholicism teaches that Scripture is inspired by God and that the bible is free from error "in matters of faith and morals".

I'm wondering what the Church means when it says that the scripture is "inspired by God". Does it mean

Physical Inspiration. The individual physical penstrokes in the original manuscripts were inspired by God. In other words the way in which the molecules of ink were physically arranged on the original manuscripts was determined/inspired by God.
Implications: no one really has a copy of the true "word of God" because only the original manuscripts are the true "word of God". Copies and translations are not "inspired". The best we can get are "uninspired" copies of the inspired originals.
Verbal Plenary Inspiration. The Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic words were directly determined and inspired by God, word for word. Every individual word and it's position in the sentence is important, chosen by God, and can't be ignored.
Implications: Translations of scripture will be inherently inferior to the bible in the original languages because translation always leads to a loss of information and context. There is no perfect translation. Copies of the original manuscripts are considered just as inspired as the originals, however translations of the originals are not considered inspired.
Kerygmatic Inspiration. It's not the original/individual words themselves which are inspired, but the message that the words convey.
Implications: Different translations of the original texts can be considered equally as valid as the original texts so long as they convey the same message (This would seem to legitimise the "Dynamic equivalence" school of translation). In this way an English translation of the bible can be considered equally valid to the original manuscripts, so long as the message they convey is the same. We could also potentially feel free to muck with the original manuscripts (if we had access to them) and change the wording in some places that are unclear and confusing so as to clarify the meaning, or add entirely new words as elaborations (the Comma Johanneum is a historical precedent for this). Translations and copies of the original manuscripts are considered to be just as inspired as the original manuscripts.

What is the Catholic position?


texts: How do small groups pray the Liturgy of the Hours?

texts:
At my troop's Federation of North American Explorers meetings, the leaders and the boys pray the Liturgy of the Hours together sometimes for our prayer at the end of meetings.  We often do it with half the group on one side of the altar and half on the other trading verses.

Is this the expected format when doing "call and response" in the Liturgy of the Hours for Evening Prayer?  Generally speaking, I would like to know what a little of what seminarians are taught in their formation.

One side says "God come to my assistance", the other says "Lord Make haste to help me.
One side says "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit" The other says "As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be"
We sing a hymn together
One side says the Antiphon, the other side repeats the Antiphon
The psalms and canticles we split every 2 lines or so,
Another "Glory Be" as above, then
Repeat the Antiphon as above.
same for the next two psalms (unless otherwise noted)
One lucky boy reads the reading. He doesn't say "A reading from the Letter of St. James" nor does he conclude with "The word of the Lord".
The responsory is read verbatim
The Magnificat is read with antiphons the same way as the Psalms.
We all say the Our Father together.
One lucky boy says the closing prayer.
The conclusion is sung call-and-response style.

So, I'm guessing that's partly made up, and partly right.  I'd like it to be 100% right, so please let me know where I'm wrong!


texts: (Catholic view) What was the scriptural basis for the existence of limbo?

texts:
Looking at this other question, limbo is an intermediary place for (some) souls to dwell in until they get to heaven.

One of the answers to the question mentions two kinds of limbo:

Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs (limbus inferni seu patrum)
Limbo for children (limbus puerorum)

What is (or was) the biblical basis for the existence of these?


texts: How does washing your face and anointing your head hide that you are fasting?

texts:
How does washing your face and "anointing your head" hide the fact that you are fasting?

  But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face; (Matthew 6:17)


texts: What is "Christ Consciousness", and which branches teach it?

texts:
I'm interested in the concept of Christ Consciousness, and have been to several churches, and have since fell away from institutional religion since I couldn't apply it to my life.

How can I learn about this concept, and are there different approaches to learning about it from a non denominational, born again, protestant, or babtist perspective?

Are any opposed to this concept?


texts: Biblical era gesture signifying peace between two parties?

texts:
I am working on a painting set in the Biblical era which shows a military group confronting another group.

I am trying to find a gesture which the leader of one army would make to indicate that they are at peace with, or have peaceful intentions toward the other party.

Does anyone know of anything like that?

Specifically I am thinking of a gesture which would be understood this way in the first century, but a gesture from previous biblical eras would probably also work.


texts: Can people who don’t believe, yet don’t not believe in Jesus Christ, still make it into heaven if they’re a good person?

texts: My boyfriend and I have gotten into many discussions. He’s mentioned “I don’t get it. I don’t not believe it him, but I can’t say I’m a whole hearted believer. Who’s to say I won’t go to heaven if it’s real? I’m a good person. Why do murderers who find Jesus only because they are imprisoned get to go to heaven, yet I’m sent to hell for simply not being 100% sure?”. He’s also mentioned “what if my perfect world is different from yours? Is heaven one solid thing, or will I have a perfect after life and you’ll have a different but still perfect heaven?”. He’s raised many questions and I think they’re good topics to talk about, since I have no clue.


texts: What does it mean that God is the saviour of all people, especially those who believe?

texts:
So this verse puzzles me:

  1 Timothy 4:10, ESV: For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

What did Paul mean by saying that God is the savior of all people and especially those who believe? How does being a believer make him more of a savior than he already is?


texts: Is the nation of Israel itself a type of Christ and, if so, how?

texts:
There is a branch of theological study devoted to archetypes, or types of Christ.  Some of these are explicitly defined in the New Testament, as when Jesus speaks of the manna from heaven and calls Himself the Bread of Life and the Bread the came down from heaven.

My question is whether the nation of Israel itself is considered an archetype, and, if so, what makes it so.


texts: "Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39) - What does this mean? not to fight evil?

texts:
Matthew 5:39:

  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
  thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

What does this mean? Not to fight evil? Does it mean one should ignore evil?


texts: Religious Blessing at a Non-religious Wedding

texts: My daughter has decided to have a non-catholic/non-religious wedding.  There does not seem to be any possibility of changing her mind mostly due to her fiance.  Needless to say this has caused some "discomfort" within my family.  While I know that the wedding can not be blessed by the Catholic Church, is there any type of a Catholic blessing or prayer that I can give at the wedding or at the wedding reception?  I am at a loss as to what else I can do.


texts:
Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Orthodox Wiki, 2015).

What is the Biblical Basis of Eastern Orthodox Christians that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone?


texts: What is the argument AGAINST the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?

texts:
In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What is the logical and biblical argument against this position?  I'm interested in an argument that emphasizes Paul's writings themselves.


texts: Does Roman Catholic Church recognize some Eastern Orthodox Saints?

texts:
I heard that in some of Catholic churches (I mean parishes) in Europe there are icons of Russian Saints, such as Seraphim of Sarov, for example (may be I'm wrong, I personally haven't seen this).

So I wonder, does Roman Catholic Church recognize (officially) some Eastern Orthodox Saints?


texts: Why does Jesus' Resurrection mean hope for an individual and in what context?

texts:
This Easter, the phrase "Jesus' Resurrection represents hope for you and your family", was repeatedly stated among different Christian outlets (sermons, radio stations, banners, etc nation wide in the U.S.).

However, not much of an explanation why.

In this question: Why the resurrection?
the Resurrection does not really focus on hope for individuals but more about the hope that Jesus is really God and as a way to heaven.

However, I also found this quote:

  "knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us
  also by Jesus."--2 Corinthians 4:14

So does this hope pertain to an individuals every day life experience here on earth.... or is it a more spiritual hope in Jesus and heaven?

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/595852/tagle-christs-resurrection-a-message-of-hope-to-faithful


texts: Why did Adam and Eve not die after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

texts:
I just began reading the Bible.

In Genesis 2, it says

  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
  thou mayest freely eat: 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.

Why did they, ultimately, not die? Instead, God punishes them in some other way.