texts: Why was Jesus able to silence his critics simply by pointing out that the Messiah was both Lord *and* son?

texts:
In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question:

  41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
     “The son of David,” they replied.
   43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
     44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
     “Sit at my right hand
  until I put your enemies
     under your feet.”’[e]
   45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

The response is silence, and apparent victory:

  46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord.  I get that its a good theological point.  But why does it silence his critics?


texts: Some questions concerning Aramaic in the Old Testament

texts:
I'm wondering which parts of the bible were written in Aramaic? I believe certain parts of Daniel were written in Aramaic. Which parts exactly and is there anywhere else in the bible that were written in Aramaic?

I'm also wondering if the parts of the bible which were written in the Aramaic language also make use of Aramaic script in the original manuscripts, or do they use Hebrew script instead? (So as to fit in with the rest of the scriptures) If this is the case, it would be possible for someone who doesn't understand Hebrew or Aramaic to read the original manuscripts and not realise that the language had changed, because the script is the same.


texts: What order were the Pauline epistles written, according to evangelical critical scholarship?

texts: I am unaware whether this is a hotly contested issue or not, but if it is, I would be looking for the majority opinion among evangelical scholars, that is, scholars who affirm Pauline authorship, inerrancy, and the various other doctrines that make a scholar an evangelical.


texts:
According to the teachings of the Catholic Church (infallible or not), where does Grace reside? I would imagine the answer is "in the soul". I've searched for concrete answers in the Catholic Encyclopedia (e.g. here and here) without success. I found the unreferenced quote below in the article about sin:

  The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace.

So it seems it is the soul. But I would like a more authoritative reference, ideally from the Church itself (Magisterium). Any ideas?


texts: What does "in persona Christi Capitis" mean?

texts:
The Church says that the Priest acts "in persona Christi Capitis".
Where is this term taken from?


texts: Does the Catholic Church say which is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology)?

texts:
This is one rendering of The Glory Be:

  Glory be to the Father, and to the son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it
  was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
  Amen.

And this is another:

  Glory be to the Father, and to the son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it
  was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Does the Catholic Church say which of these is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology)? If none is, what is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology) according to the Catholic Church?

This is what got me thinking, that the Mass in English has a New Translation.


texts: What role does hymnody play in non-Western churches?

texts:
My wife and I were discussing the central role that congregational singing of hymns takes in Western churches, when it dawned on me that I don't real have a good understanding what its like outside of Roman Catholic and Western Protestant circles. I realized I just assumed everybody sang "Amazing Grace," "Tis So Sweet To Trust In Jesus," "Are you washed in the Blood," and all those "traditional Baptist hymns" I think about.  That's not something I could back up, however.

In a Baptist service, for instance, there will be several hymns (and usually one of them has to mention "the blood of Jesus"), that will generally precede the sermon, and almost always a "decision hymn" after the sermon and during the altar call, which the preacher typically uses to drive home the point of the message, and provide time for reflection. Often the theology of the hymns plays a fairly significant role in shaping the theology that parishioners really carry throughout the week

In an Episcopalian one, there are hymns sung during communion, but because the sermon itself comes so early in the order of worship, the songs with the richest theology tend to be the parts of the mass that are sung every week - the Sanctus, the Doxology, etc...

I'm curious to get an understanding of those churches I'm least familiar with:

LDS
Jehovah's Witness
Eastern Orthodox (totally different league)
and just a non-Western perspective altogether.

(Anybody outside the US - I really want to know - when do you sing hymns, and what types do you sing?)

Specifically, what is the role of congregationally sung music - is it used to drive home theological points, used primarily in ritual, or is it not present, in the denominations listed above?

Please feel free to characterize what role congregational singing takes in your churches, and what the purpose of these songs is.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for it being wrong for couples to live together “chastely” before marriage?

texts:
Many Christians say that a couple shouldn't live together before they get married, even if they are not having sex with each other.

What is the Biblical basis for this position? Are there certain passages of Scripture that speak against it? Or are there aspects of Church tradition that speaks against it? Or is there something else that has prompted Christians to view this as wrong?


texts: Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:16 that "even though we once knew Christ by means of the flesh [ kata sarka], we know him thus no longer

texts:
What was Paul trying to say here?
"We know him  thus no longer"


texts: According to Baptist teachings, what are the actual precepts God requires of us who are his?

texts:
I am reading Psalm 103 and I come to the word "precepts" in these verses in the NIV:

  17 But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those
  who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children—
  18 with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.

According to Baptist teachings, what precepts does God require from his children, particularly in reference to this Psalm?

Lord's Blessings.


texts: Which Protestant Christian denominations accept the Deuterocanonical books?

texts:
Which Protestant Denominations accept the deuterocanonical books on equal inspirational footing as the rest of the Biblical canon? I can't think of any, which is of course why I'm asking☺.

I was raised Baptist so we referred to these books as Apocrypha and generally saw them as a distraction from the "true" word of God. I'm curious to see what non-Catholic denominations hold these books to be inspired as well.


texts: In what way are we to be one, as Jesus and the Father are one?

texts:
In his prayer for the disciples at the last super, Jesus prays this verse.

John 17:11

  I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world,
  and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of
  your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are
  one.

and later in verse 22 and 23

  22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one
  as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought
  to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have
  loved them even as you have loved me.

Perhaps I have made incorrect assumptions about this verse, but I have always thought that when he says "so that they may be one" he is not only referring to the disciples but the entire Church or all Christians. Also, when he says "as we are one" he means his participation as the second person of the trinity, with God the Father.

If this is correct, I have never understood, in what ways we as finite beings, can be 'one', in the same way, or a similar way, as the persons of the trinity are are 'one'? What is 'complete unity'?


texts: Who was St. Joseph's Father? The New Testament seems to give two answers

texts:
Matthew 1:16 (NASB)

  16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 (ESV)

  23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

The problem here is that Matthew names Jacob Jesus's Grandfather and Luke names Heli. What is going one here? A mistake? A misunderstanding of Jewish genealogies?


texts: What is the extra value of the body of Christ in the Eucharist when someone is already full of the Holy Spirit?

texts:
In the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is almost the central practice of their faith. By eating the bread as the body of Christ, one is united with God, but sometimes a person can be so full of the Holy Spirit (like St. Paul) that it seems to them that the Eucharist isn't the center of their belief.

So how did the Eucharist become the center of faith, according to the Catholic Church, if one is full of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13)? How do the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist relate to each other?


texts: What are some situations documented outside of the Bible in which God intervened in human affairs?

texts:
As a continuance of whether we can truly know anything about God's affairs and also whether all Christian views need a Biblical basis, I was curious if there were any instances of God's influence on humanity that are not mentioned in the Bible. On a basic level, many people like to believe that God intervenes from time to time in answering prayers; surely all the ones post-Bible aren't documented in the Bible (like, if you had a prayer answered yesterday, obviously it's not in the Bible). I'm looking for something a bit more substantive than small answered prayers though, like God revealing himself to a group of people or something of that nature, which isn't strictly found in the Bible but most/many/some Christians hold the event to be true in the Christian lore.

What are some of the situations accepted by Christians in which God performed some act, or revealed himself, or otherwise influenced mankind in some way that is not mentioned in the Bible (if any)?


texts: Do Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have polar opposite views of wisdom?

texts:
I've noticed that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have shockingly differing views of wisdom and knowledge:

“Her [wisdom and understanding personified] ways are pleasant ways and all her paths are peace.” (Proverbs 3:17)
“Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Clearly peace is not the same thing as grief, nor is pain the same as pleasant.  Considering that there is no argument over that, what then make sense of these two verses.  Can they both be true at the same time?  Is wisdom and understanding a grievously pleasant and peacefully painful thing?  Are we supposed to do the math and determine that wisdom is just average then in every regard?
How can these two verses be understood so that they are both true, but can be in harmony with each other and not be a ridiculously obvious contradiction?


texts: What Bible passage contains Satan and God where God rebukes Satan?

texts:
I'm thinking of a Bible passage where the narrator has a dream/vision of being before the throne of God. Satan accuses him of being a sinner and unworthy and then God rebukes Satan and tells him to keep silent.

I can remember reading that story, but I don't remember where. Try as I might, I can't find it. Does anyone know where that story appears?


texts:
I'm asking this from a born-again Christian perspective (so I guess this makes me an evangelical Protestant) and seeing how there's controversy over the KJV, NIV, ESV etc., does the type of Bible that you use really matter?

Most Bibles used by Protestants tend to be based off from the Masoretic Text but some websites indicate that the Septuagint is the earliest translation, which Jesus and Paul used during their time on Earth. So which is it? Or is it better safer than sorry to read a variety of translations and compare them?


texts: Does Numbers 16 describe the first earthquake?

texts:
Numbers 16 describes the Levites revolting against Moses and Aaron. In proving the Lord sent him to do all those things, Moses said

  "But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth
  opens its mouth and swallows them...you will know that these men have
  treated the Lord with contempt. As soon as he finished saying all
  this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth
  and swallowed them...the earth closed over them, and they perished and
  were gone from the community." Numbers 16:30-33

It sounds like "something totally new" was an earthquake causing the ground to split. Is there any evidence for or against this?


texts: Which denominations believe that John 19 indicates that the crucifixion had the date of Nisan 14?

texts:
According to Wikipedia:

  The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15.

and

  According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

The article mentions that this was the first Easter controversy which petered out around the 4th century and that "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14."

Recently, an answer on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14.  This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions.

Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14?  Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?


texts: When and how was the doctrine of the one divine will established?

texts:
Many (perhaps most) Trinitarian theologians says that the Father, Son, and Spirit each possess the one singular divine will. This is a stronger statement than saying they are "united in will", which could leave open the possibility that each person of the Trinity has its own will. (In the incarnation the Son took on a human nature including a human will, but that is out of scope for this question. Answers should not focus on the incarnation or Christology. This question is about the one divine will possessed by the Father, Son, and Spirit in eternity.)

When was this doctrine first expounded, and what arguments, whether Biblical or otherwise, were given to support it?

Another question, Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons?, has some good information and quotes about this doctrine, but it does not ask about the earliest defences of it.


texts: Where does the Bible stand on vegetarianism?

texts:
The subject of vegetarianism (or dietary recommendations in general) appears to me to be a bit ambivalent in the Bible.

For example, Genesis 1:29 , Romans 14:21 and Isaiah 65:21-25 appear to endorse a plant-based diet, while passages such as Genesis 9:3 and Matthew 14:13-21 seem to suggest that animal-derived foods are to be included in our diet as well.

How should these (and any other similar) seemingly contradictary passages be interpreted?


texts: How much water is necessary for baptism (Catholic perspective)?

texts:
In Catholicism, how much water is necessary for someone to be baptized?

For example, if the only water present is a single droplet on a leaf, is that sufficient to baptize or is more needed?  How much more?

Or if there is not even a droplet of water, but it is a humid day, and there is water in the atmosphere, is the atmospheric water that is continuously in contact with the skin sufficient, or is more required?


texts:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that superstition is not supposed to be practiced and it is a violation of the 1st Commandment to honor God about all else.

However, there's always something going on like a 9 day novena or a 40 day fast or a request to return to a particular grotto on the 11th of each month. Then there's other significant numbers like 3 and 7 and 12 which are supposed to mean something and spooky numbers like 6 and 666.

So, where is the line between superstition and awe at the way God orders things mightily?


texts: When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate?

texts:
The Bible mentions that one of the miracles Jesus performed was the healing of Peter's mother-in-law.  This makes it quite clear that Peter himself was married, and Peter is the considered the first Pope by Roman Catholics.  I've also heard that many if not all of the first popes were married and had families.

So, my question is this:

When was it that marriage first became prohibited for priests and popes in the Catholic church (for Latin Rite priests)?

  And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of
  Simon and Andrew, with James and John.  Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay
  ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.  Mark
  1:29-30 ESV


texts: Is there biblical basis for the "blood moons"?

texts:
Most of the members of Christianity.SE have probably heard about the latest craze on the subject of End Times prophecy - the Blood Moons.

We are currently in the midst of what is referred to as a lunar tetrad, a period of time in which we experience a series of four consecutive total lunar eclipses, with six full moons in between, and no intervening partial lunar eclipses over a course of two years (two one year, two another), and fuelling this further is the fact that these moons usually occur on Jewish feast days. Those who teach that this sign is miraculous will note that these lunar tetrads have occurred in the past either on other Jewish feast days, or other major events in Jewish history.

While that certainly makes for a good story, research will show that these events occur on feast days because the Hebrew calendar (and thus, Jewish holidays/feast days) are based on a lunar cycle, so they aren't necessarily uncommon. And while positing that these are rare, we see they have occurred some 60+ times in the past.

Now, I know that Revelation and other Old Testament prophecy tells us the moon becomes red and the sun black, but being a prophecy intended (because of it's OT roots) for Israel, which to me would indicate both the sun and the moon taking on these colors in the sky at once, hardly an eclipse of this kind.

Are there any other biblical sources for the blood moons? Or is this more or less a cry for attention?


texts:
Today a Pastor on a local TV (in India) was preaching that we need not pray for someone's salvation. Salvation is something that belongs to God and His Plans. He also said that nowhere in the New testament are believers requested to pray for sinners or to ask God for a non-believer's salvation.

He said the plan of salvation by God is already fulfilled, and we only preach the Gospel and live a model life for unsaved people to come to our Lord.

Revealtion 19:1 says,

  19 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord.

If salvation belongs to the Lord, praying for someone's salvation would become absurd, correct?

PS: I found another question  Praying for someone's salvation. Is there a point? but that was asked in a bit different approach. If this question still seems irrelevant, kindly close it or merge it. Thanks.


texts: Is there a Christian definition of "social justice?"

texts:
Most (if not all) major Christian denominations seem to support the idea of "social justice." Most sources I've read seem to agree that the term itself was originally a Christian term that's gotten traction in more secular circles. Nowadays, people tend to use it mostly as a catch-all for a wide variety of political movements they believe in. I've seen "social justice" tied to campaigns for organic food, both sides of the abortion debate, tax policy, you name it.

My question is: Is there a specific Christian definition of the term "social justice" In particular, is it something different from plain ol' justice, or is the extra word just redundant?


texts: In John 14:16, according to the Catholic Church, who is the Spirit of Truth?

texts:
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16–17, NIV)

From Jesus' words the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, but if we consider the succeeding verses below, it seems like it's describing the role of the Holy Spirit as a Teacher of Faith and someone who will testify in full about who Jesus is.

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
  (John 14:26)

  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.
  (John 15:26)

My question is: according to Catholic teaching, is the Spirit of Truth a person in whom the Holy Spirit chose to dwell, to testify to and become the teacher and guide of the Apostles?


texts: Do Orthodox Christians believe that God wants a personal relationship with the individual?

texts:
This question only asks about "Christians". One high-quality response on that question suggests that the personal relationship idea extends from the Enlightenment. So, in light of that question and answer, do Orthodox Christians believe that God wants a personal relationship with the individual?

I focus on Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Enlightenment is chiefly a Western phenomenon. Because of the geographical barrier between Eastern and Western Europe, I would not expect an Enlightment idea would somehow influence Orthodoxy, unless there is some kind of intense mass communication going on or the personal relationship thing has been with Christianity since the beginning.

So, generally speaking, do Orthodox Christians believe in a personal relationship with God? Why or why not?


texts: Since when has white wine been used in the Catholic mass?

texts:
In any Catholic mass I attended (in Germany) white wine was used for the holy Eucharist. There are some plausible practical reasons for that. But, as far as I know, red wine was the normal wine in antiquity.

So when the use of white wine in mass started? Were there discussions on the validity of Eucharist with white wine? Were there the opinion, that one could but shouldn't use white wine and red wine would be better?


texts: What is the proper title for someone who was a pope and is now canonized as a saint?

texts:
There are a number of men who became Pope who were later canonized as a saint, such as John Paul II and Paul VI. What is the proper title (in English) for such individuals when referring to them today (as opposed to in a historical sense)?

Pope John Paul II
Saint John Paul II
Pope Saint John Paul II
Saint Pope John Paul II
Something else?

By "proper", I mean the title preferred by the Catholic Church, and which I imagine is used in its official communications.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses still believe the number of the 144,000 in Revelation is a literal number?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the number of the 144,000 (those who will rule with Christ from heaven) is a literal number.

  14 Interestingly, Charles T. Russell recognized the 144,000 to be a literal number of individuals making up a spiritual Israel. In The New Creation, Volume VI of his Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1904, he wrote: “We have every reason to believe that the definite, fixed number of the elect [chosen anointed ones] is that several times stated in Revelation (7:4; 14:1); namely, 144,000 ‘redeemed from amongst men.’” In Light, Book One, published in 1930 by the Bible Students, it was likewise stated: “The 144,000 members of the body of Christ are thus in the assembly shown as selected and anointed, or sealed.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently held to the view that literally 144,000 anointed Christians make up spiritual Israel.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274226/11/0

In 1935 the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed they were part of the anointed 144,000 was 52,465.  Then, in 1938 they were told that the number of the 144,000 had been sealed and from that point, the number of Witnesses partaking of the bread and wine decreased rapidly. I had relatives who became Witnesses in the mid 1930's and they were told they could not be part of the heavenly anointed class. Instead, they were led to believe they would be part of the earthly class.

The lowest number of partakers this century was 8,524 (in 2005) but that number went up to 19,521 (in 2018). However the 2019 Yearbook is not available on the official JW.org website.  Has the number of Witnesses gone up this year?

Has the Governing Body received increased light to suggest that the number of the 144,000 is now perceived as being symbolic rather than literal?

If that is not the case, and the number is still literal, why is that number increasing rather than decreasing?


texts: Are the Ten Commandments in OT arranged in the order of their importance to the believer?

texts:
At Luke 18:18-20 we see:

  A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.  You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’

We see that Jesus is not quoting the commandments in the order of sequence they were given to Israel through Moses.

My question is: Are the Ten Commandments in OT arranged in the order of their importance to the believer, that is, if a person takes God's name in vain  and then commits adultery, will his former sin be considered  more serious than the latter one?

What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us on the subject?


texts: The Mark 16:15 Command as Practiced by the Apostles

texts:
Mar 16:15  And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

The Apostles were told to "Go into all the world", yet the Bible records Peter and John going to Samaria once (Acts 8), and Peter going to Caesaria once, and only after being convinced by a vision (Acts 10).  All other times, the apostles are recorded as being in Israel/Judea (Acts 9:26-27, Acts 11:1, Acts 15, Acts 16:4). When explicitly told to "go into all the world", why did the apostles instead, stay home?  Or how did the Apostles obey the command to "Go" by remaining in Israel?

In answering this question, please do not cite "tradition".  Instead, please rely on the Bible which is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".


texts: How do Trinitarians respond to syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus?

texts:
In a previous question in which I asked for evidence of early Christians denying the divinity of Jesus, a user posted an answer that, among other things, presents sixteen very interesting syllogistic arguments against the divinity of Jesus. The arguments are very simple and easy to read, so I thought that it would be a good idea to ask a single question introducing the sixteen arguments and let trinitarians respond to them (in a rational manner, of course). Are there any flaws in these arguments that should make us question their validity and/or soundness?
The sixteen arguments are listed below:
Argument #1

The Father is the only true God (John 17:1,3)
Jesus is not the Father (John 17:1,3)
Therefore, Jesus is not the true God

Argument #2

There is no God besides the Father (Isa. 64:8,4)
Jesus is not the Father (borrowed from previous argument, and generally accepted)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #3

Man is not God (Ezek. 28:2)
Jesus is man (John 8:40)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #4

God is spirit (John 4:24)
Jesus is not a spirit (Luke 24:39)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #5

God never wearies (Isa. 40:28)
Jesus was weary (John 4:6)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #6

God never sleeps (Ps. 121:3-4)
Jesus slept (Matt. 8:24)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #7

God never dies (I Tim. 1:17)
Jesus died (Mark 15:37)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #8

God knows everything (I John 3:20)
Jesus does not know everything (Mark 13:26, 32)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #9

God would not acknowledge another as God (Isa. 46:9)
Jesus acknowledges the Father as God (John 20:17)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #10

God has natural (inherent) authority (Job 34:13)
Jesus has acquired authority (Matt. 28:18)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #11

God has natural holiness (Lev. 19:2)
Jesus has acquired holiness (John 10:36)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #12

God has natural lordship (Ps. 100:3)
Jesus has acquired lordship (Acts 2:36)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #13

God has natural power (Gen. 17:1)
Jesus has acquired power (Acts 10:38)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #14

God has natural judgeship (Gen. 18:25)
Jesus has acquired judgeship (Acts 10:42)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #15

God has natural saviorhood (Isa. 45:21)
Jesus has acquired saviorhood (Acts 5:31)
Therefore, Jesus is not God

Argument #16

God is OVER ALL (I Cor. 15:27-28)
Jesus is UNDER God (I Cor. 15:27-28)
Therefore, Jesus is not God


texts: Matthew 11:3: Was John the Baptist losing his faith?

texts:
How is Matthew 11:3 usually interpreted in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantism?

  And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
  another? (NIV, Matthew 11:3)

The very fact that John the Baptist asked such a question strikes me as a bit illogical. John knew that he came to prepare the way for the Lord. Even before he saw the Lord he said it clearly that the One "the straps of whose sandals he was not worthy to untie" was coming after him, the One who "surpassed him because He was before him".

When he first saw Jesus he right away proclaimed Him to be the Lamb of God who was going to take away the sin of the world. Later he said that Jesus was the true Bridegroom who "must be greater, while John must be less". All of these words send a clear message that John had no doubt in his mind about who Jesus was. However, when he was imprisoned he suddenly asked this kind of question.

I heard many different theories. One claims that this was John's way of asking Jesus to deliver him from prison.

Another one says that John was forced to ask this question by Pharisees in order to accuse Him later.

Another theory says that John was simply losing his faith in Jesus.

And yet another one that I don't remember well, says something about some Jewish tradition that, in fact, two Messiahs were supposed to come.

So, what is an overview of common interpretations that are given to this matter in the three main branches of Christianity?


texts: Why is the Bible seemingly silent on the love which the God the Son has for God the Father?

texts:
I assume that each member of the Godhead loves each other member of the Godhead. God is, after all, love (1 John 4:8 and 16).

The Gospels are quite explicit regarding the love which God the Father has for God the Son. Jesus himself makes this very clear (John 3:35; and 5:20). Moreover, the voice coming out of heaven at Jesus' baptism addresses the Son as "My beloved Son" (Luke 3:22; Matthew 3:17; and Mark 1:11). (True enough, the voice from heaven is not linked specifically to the Father, but the word Beloved is clearly linked to the Son, not the Father or the Spirit.)

One could say quite accurately that Jesus proved his love for the Father in everything he did and said while he was on earth. On more than one occasion, Jesus made this devotion to his Father's will quite explicit:

  "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work" (John 4:34).

And

  ". . . he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him" (John 8:29 KJV).

Logically, then, one could also say that Jesus proved  he loved the Father by doing His will and by obeying Him. In the same way the apostle James emphasized the role which works play in the faith/works duo, perhaps by analogy Jesus in his way of life emphasized the role which loving obedience played in the love/works duo.

In this regard, the apostle John, the "apostle of love" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved," said,

  We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth" (1 John 3:17-18).

In other words, saying "I love you" to someone is much easier than demonstrating your love for the same person by performing a loving action such as feeding or clothing him, visiting him when he is on his sickbed, comforting him when he has recently lost a loved one through death, or forgiving him when he has sinned against you.

I have no doubt that Jesus loves his Father, but I am curious as to why that love is not stated as explicitly in the Gospels as is the love of the Father for his Son. I suppose a good answer to my question would draw from both Testaments and would be framed in terms which are consistent with the Father-Son relationship which is foreshadowed in the Tanakh (e.g., in Psalm 2) but revealed more fully in the New Covenant.


texts:
Without Light, there is darkness. Darkness is not made, it is just there. However, before the creation there was nothing. Does that mean that darkness was also not there?

Let us look at Genesis 1:5:

  1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth.
  2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's Spirit was moving over the water.
   3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
  4 God saw that the light was good, so he divided the light from the darkness.
  5 God named the light "day" and the darkness "night." Evening passed, and morning came. This was the first day.

There is no mention in the Bible that suggests that God created the darkness. When exactly was Darkness created? Is Darkness a thing, or is it the same as nothingness?


texts:
Is there a Christians (preferably protestant) viewpoint that you may not work while fasting?

A while back I talked to a guy that told me you may not work while fasting and quoted a few verses to make his point (which I cannot recall) I know he had a protestant background, so I am wondering if this is a common belief or practice in the church; if so, why?


texts: Does the Chalcedonian Definition mean Christ has two minds?

texts:
In the seventh century two Christological doctrines were determined to be un-orthodox and in contradiction to the Chalcedonian Definition: that Christ has one "energy", and then that Christ has one will. Chalcedonian Christianity teaches that Jesus has two complete divine and human natures, united in one person, and as the will was understood to be a property of a nature and not a person, he must necessarily have two wills, otherwise he would not have two complete natures.

How far is this model to be extended? I have heard it said that not only does Christ have two wills, but also two minds. Is this an accurate interpretation of Chalcedonian theology?

Previous questions have asked if the Trinity possesses the faculties of will and mind by nature or persons; possessing these by nature means the three persons would each possess the one singular will or mind, possessing them by person means each have a distinct will or mind. My understanding is that Chalcedonian theology should strictly be understood as teaching that these faculties are possessed by nature. (Not all who take the label of Chalcedonian would agree though.) This leads to the confusing situation where Chalcedonians teach one will in the Godhead and two wills in Christ, and those who disagree teach three wills in the Godhead and one will in Christ! If this is an accurate summary of Chalcedonian theology, are all such faculties properties of nature rather than person?


texts: What hard evidence is there that Charles Wesley was Arminian?

texts:
It is well-known that John Wesley was an adherent and defender of Arminian soteriology. I have noticed that it is often assumed, and occasionally explicitly asserted, that his brother Charles agreed with him on this point; and yet, I have never seen any actual document or writing or quotation justifying this assertion.

Indeed, some verses from some Wesley hymns would appear to indicate a more "monergistic" view of the work of God in saving sinners than the Arminian view; a famous example is the penultimate verse of And can it be:

    Long my imprisoned spirit lay

    Fast bound in sin and nature's night;

    Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray,

    I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;

    My chains fell off, my heart was free;

    I rose, went forth and followed Thee.

The key point here is that the last three lines are the consequence not of a merely "will-freeing ray" by which it became possible for Wesley now to choose to follow Christ. Rather, the light, freedom and rising in this second half of the verse (remedying the previous lying, bondage and night mentioned in the reverse order in the first half of the verse) are all the consequence of the external intervention of Christ's quickening (i.e. making alive) ray; undoubtedly, this life refers to the spiritual life of being in Christ, not merely a new ability to choose God that wasn't there before.

But perhaps more striking still is the second verse of the less well-known hymn Spirit of Faith, Come Down:

    No one can truly say

    that Jesus is the Lord,

    unless Thou [the Spirit] take the veil away

    and breathe the living Word.

    Then, only then, we feel

    our interest in his blood,

    and cry with joy unspeakable,

    "Thou art my Lord, my God!"

The key is the phrase Then [and] only then, ... Charles Wesley clearly portrays only two possible scenarios:

In the first scenario, the individual's experience has not yet involved having the Spirit removing the veil and breathing the living Word, and this inherently means that the individual is left unable to say with genuine meaning that Jesus is the Lord, feeling no real interest in His blood.
In the second scenario, the Spirit's work of removing the veil and breathing the living Word is applied to the individual, and the consequence of this will be the opposite extreme, namely that the individual responds to the reality of the blood of Christ by crying out with unspeakable joy that Christ is his/her Lord and God.

So in view of these, my question is:

    What actual evidence is there that Charles Wesley was Arminian?

Please note: I am not just asking for evidence that Wesley wasn't a full-fledged 5-point Calvinist; indeed, the previous verse of the same hymn says that it belongs to the Spirit to give a person eyes to see that He Who died for every sinner died for that person.


texts: Did the importance of the resurrection increase as the New Testament was written?

texts:
I've often heard that if you lay out the books of the New Testament by the chronological order of their composition, the story of Jesus' resurrection becomes more important in the later books. Some also say it becomes more supernatural.

Is there any truth to this? I do not know the order of the books by when they were written.


texts: According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, why was Jesus likely not born in December because of Levite temple service schedule?

texts:
This is about a particular reason why it was not likely for Jesus to have been born in December, based on an explanation I remember hearing from a Jehovah's Witness over a decade ago.

I know that multiple arguments can be provided against a December birth date but this particular one is of interest mainly because I forgot the exact reasoning behind it and have not been able to find it explained anywhere.

From what I remember of it, it had to do with the Levite temple service schedule and possibly John the Baptizer's father serving at the temple.

If there is a reasoning along these lines, what was the explanation for it?


texts: Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity against doing yoga or meditation?

texts:
I've heard opposite opinions on this (for example, in an interview with Christine Mangala Frost) and I was wondering about it.

So is Eastern Orthodox Christianity against doing yoga or meditation?


texts: Which groups believe that Jesus is a Created Being?

texts: This question refers to people who believe that Jesus is a Created Being.  Who are these people? Which groups who identify as Christian teach that Jesus was created? I'm guessing they're not professors of the Nicene Creed "Begotten not made".  Is there one name to refer to such a classification of Christians or are they a multitude of denominations?


texts: Is there Christian scripture or literature absolving the old Jewish laws of usury?

texts:
Most people are aware that Jewish law forbade earning interest from the lending of money to another. As Christianity gained momentum in the early first and second century, many of the Mosaic laws were abandoned, although certain aspects remained in place - for example, punishments for parental disrespect were abandoned although Christians taught that a child ought to respect his or her parents.

Is this another case of the letter of the law morphing into the spirit of the law? Christians seem to generally believe that it's sinful to impoverish another by means of lending practices, but that doesn't really stop many forms of interest charging that were previously forbidden. Is there any relevant scripture or literature relating to usury after the death of Christ?


texts: What is the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on John 18:36 "My kingdom is not from this world"?

texts:
A lot of people don't consider JWs to be Christian, usually for the reason of their view on the Kingdom of Jesus to be a kingdom here on Earth. I respect the guidelines of this site, so I do not wish to discuss who is considered Christian and who isn't. I'm only curious about how they view John 18:36 and similar statements. Despite Jesus explicitly stating multiple times, that Heaven is something totally different from what we can perceive, and is not from this world, they still believe the following two views, which very few if any Christian denominations accept:

The number of people admitted into the "real Heaven" is limited, and already filled.
All the rest have only a chance in the best case to live here in an earthly utopian kingdom, which is not eternal.

What biblical basis do they have for it? Their door-to-door preachers I had seen, neither could say anything except a small handful of Bible verses they memorized, but nothing in this topic. I don't have the occasion (neither do I have the intention) to start lengthy debates with some of their better qualified members, this is why I'm asking here.

It would be good if someone here was a Jehovah's Witness, who could tell their view on this question. It might even be possible that the two points I listed come from a misunderstanding and they don't really have those views, could someone more knowledgeable clear this?

Of course, you don't have to be a a JW to post an answer :)


texts: Was the feast of unleavened bread celebrated for 8 days (opposed to 7) as it is outside Israel today in Jesus' time?

texts:
I am wondering if two Seder meals were eaten during Jesus' time the way it is today outside Israel. If so that might help explain why the gospel of John mentiones eating the passover the night he was crucified and yet other gospels say the last supper was when the evening of the day the lambs were sacrificed. This link answers the question regarding today but how was it during Jesus' time?
TO EDIT:
These are the references to the so-called contradiction.  In the Synoptics, Jesus is eating Passover before He suffers.  John portrays the Passover yet to come after He suffers.

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

This fairly well-known "contradiction" has been explained in a number of ways ranging from the idea John was written centuries later, for religious purposes, to a different type feast (Passover or other), and to the 7 or 8 day view of which this post is about.
Is Passover 7 or 8 Days?


texts: Is the definition of "sin" subjective? Of whom's morals is it based on?

texts:
Whenever I try to determine what is a sin and what isn't I get very confused... I read things by Paul and sins seem to become very subjective...

_____ is a sin if you make it a sin through belief that it isn't acceptable due to your obeying of the law (the old law, before Jesus came)

then I read the old testament which makes it much more objective...

_____ is a sin because it is immoral (Referring to God's morals)

If the first is true than couldn't anything be justified as not-sin simply by a choice in a state of mind and what you believe your morals are (if that's the case why would you need Jesus for salvation, you are already free of "sin"... so that obviously isn't the case)

If the second is true than how do we ever know what is sin and what isn't? (The spirit that is given to us.)

Okay, but what about before the spirit came (personally and historically), how could anyone interpret wether or not they are sinning? I know the law was given but surely the law couldn't cover everything?

Is it all just a matter of the heart? I read about "sexual immorality" but what is that even referring to, immoral things in your conscience and the culture you live in or immoral as a definition of a standard of God that was never given to man... I see people who look at everything sexual as a biological process so of course they never feel guilt or remorse and it would seem almost unjust to classify their actions as sin. I see others who see it as something where ____ is culturally acceptable but ____ is not and is therefor sin.

How does one define sin? I know it seems like a broad question but I can't simplify it any further than what I've typed above.


texts: What do you call the adherents of Covenant Theology (CT) and New Covenant Theology (NCT)?

texts: An adherent of Dispensationalism is called a "dispensationalist" but would the proper term for an adherent of Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology be, respectively, "Covenant Theologian" and "New Covenant Theologian"? It sounds to me like it would lead to a little confusion, but I haven't really heard any terms in usage for either.


texts: What kind of characteristics does the Great Tribulation have in LDS eschatology?

texts:
There is this other question with an answer that touches on the Great Tribulation as it is viewed in LDS eschatology, but I would like to ask more specifically about the situation on earth during the Great Tribulation:

What physical events do Mormons believe will happen before or during
the Great Tribulation?
In what sense will it be a "Great Tribulation" - is this mostly
symbolic or are there spiritual or physical (e.g. economical)
reasons that warrant the label "Great Tribulation"?
Do Mormons have any official beliefs on how long the Great
Tribulation is expected to last?


texts: In Christian dogma, can Satan and the fallen angels (his demons) get married and have progeny?

texts: All of us know that Satan and his demons (fallen angels) have a role in temptation of Adam and his progeny. The question is can Satan and his demons get marry and have progeny? In Islam, Satan (Iblis) has progeny as mentioned in Quran. If Satan can get marry and has progeny, so why not unfallen angels can get marry and have  progeny?.


texts: What is the differentiation between " sons of God" and "daughters of men" referred to in Genesis  6:1-2. Is it that there were extra-terrestrial human-like beings at the beginning of creation on earth ?


texts:
I've always assumed that the Holy Spirit did not make his presence known amongst men until Pentecost.  Famously, in Acts 2, the Spirit descends upon the first believers, gives them power of speech, and adds tremendously to their power.

Jesus clearly foretells the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1 - just before he ascends into heaven - saying:

  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

That Jesus must go away before the Holy Spirit comes is attested to in John 16:7

  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

All of this fit my narrative neatly, thinking, okay - Jesus takes center stage until He returns to the Father, at which point the Holy Spirit comes onto the scene with tongues of fire and such.  Sure, he may have "descended on Jesus like a dove" at Jesus' baptism, but he was pretty much quiet in the affairs of men. And indeed, as an eternal pre-existent being much like Jesus, I assume he was around, just not so much involved in the day to day affairs of men.

But then, I listened closely to the lectionary this week. I heard something in John 20:22 that I was not expecting.  After Jesus appeared to his disciples, after the resurrection, he said:

  And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

This seemingly contrasts with a non-involved Holy Spirit.  I thought that Pentecost was the "firstfruits of the spirit," the first time the Holy Spirit deigned to dwell amongst men.  Am I off my rocker, or am I missing something?

In others - was

a. Pentecost supposed to be the first appearance of the Holy Spirit, or
b. am I just making up the idea that Pentecost was supposed to be the first outpouring of the Spirit?

If (a), how is John 20:22 reconciled?  If (b) how could the Holy Spirit come in light of John 16:7?

In other words, when did Jesus send the Spirit, and how does it fit with the external witness?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic position on the validity of the marriage between an infertile man and infertile woman? Also, from this standpoint, what is the difference between a marriage in which both partners are opposing sexes but infertile and a marriage in which both partners are the same sex?


texts: Why doesn't Paul sign all of his letters like he says?

texts:
2 Thessalonians 3:17 (NLT)
Here is my greeting in my own handwriting—Paul. I do this in all my letters to prove they are from me.

But such a greeting only appears in five of Paul's letters: 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Why, then, do we trust the other epistles without Paul's proof?


texts: How is the date of Easter set on the Orthodox calendar?

texts:
How is the date of Easter set by the Orthodox churches?  (If that's too broad, I'm specifically interested in Greek Orthodox.)  According to the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America:

Easter is on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (same general rule as the western church).
The earliest possible date is April 3 because the church follows the Julian calendar and the Council of Nicea hard-coded March 21 as the "equinox" date.  (March 21 on the Julian calendar is April 3 on the Gregorian calendar.)

Putting those factors together, we should expect Orthodox Easter to be the same date as western Easter in a "late" year (when the full moon is after April 3), and a month apart otherwise.  But that's not what happens.  In 2018, for example, the full moon is on March 31 (too early according to the Julian calendar) and Orthodox Easter is on April 8. The next full moon is April 29, so I expected Orthodox Easter to be the Sunday after that.

This Wikipedia page adds the following detail, without citation:

  Also, because the Julian "full moon" is always several days after the astronomical full moon, the eastern Easter is often later, relative to the visible moon's phases, than western Easter.

I wasn't able to find anything about calendrical full moons not matching astronomical full moons.

How does this all work?

(I know that both churches have a fixed cycle of dates now.  I'm asking about the computation and reasoning, not "because this is year N in the cycle".)


texts: Why do Catholics believe in the immaculate conception?

texts:
I would like to know where Catholics got the idea that Mary was born without original sin. I know it's Church dogma from early on but how did it get started, and what was the reasoning? And do Protestants universally reject this?

Was she the only human to have been born this way besides Adam and Jesus?


texts: According to Mormons, why did God make Eve's childbearing painful?

texts:
This question is about the following explanation from this page at lds.org:

  “If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would
  have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created
  must have remained in the same state in which they were after they
  were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

  “And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they
  would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they
  knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

And the passage in Genesis 3:16 (NIV) records the following statement from God to Eve after the "fall":

  To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very
  severe;with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire
  will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The question is: why would God make Eve's childbearing severe and painful after the fall, if the fall was needed for them to accomplish God's plan?

(I would have thought the verbal expression from God in this case should then have been something along the lines of "Yesss! Congrats! You chose well, both of you. Now go forth and multiply.")


texts:
At Matthew 26: 27-30 we see:

  Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;   for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.   I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

That is perhaps, the only narrative in the Gospels where we see Jesus singing.  There is a school of thought which says that Jesus taught many things, including the Lord's Prayer, in verses. The Catholic Church is yet to come up with a confirmatory statement on the said prospects. Be that as it may, I am eager to know if Jesus was good at singing, just as his forefather David was. Does any apocryphal teaching endorsed by the Catholic Church say that Jesus was good at singing ?


texts: How does the mainstream Christian view of the physical body differ from that presented in The Gospel of Thomas?

texts:
What is the value of the physical body in mainstream Christianity? Sometimes it seems to be very negative and to encourage one to concentrate primarily or even almost solely on the spiritual realm.

Other times looking after the body with Biblical references to it as a temple for the holy spirit and the like.

What is the mainstream Christian view of the physical body?

Specifically, I'd like to compare and contrast the understanding of the body as found in the Gospel of Thomas with Nicene Christianity. Are the two incompatible?


texts:
Which early church fathers (pre 500) taught it was possible for a person after their death to hear and receive salvation in Christ Jesus?

We know some groups teach the necessity of water baptism to be saved.  So for example, for them, a baby born but not baptized would be consigned to hell.

Who taught it is possible to be saved even after one died, rather than go to and stay in hell for all eternity?


texts: What is the significance of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden?

texts: If Adam and Eve were created perfect and without death (immortal), then what is the significance and purpose of the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden?


texts: What are the major differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches?

texts: Do the priests of the Eastern Catholic Churches attend seminary school before ordination?


texts: Why is the curse of original sin not specific to humans?

texts:
From what I learned in church the whole world "fell" after Adam sinned.

Now the typical question is why should everyone have to pay the price and is usually answered by we would have done the same if in Adams shoes.

However,  I have a hard time applying that logic to the rest of the entire world.

Why should everything else in the world have to pay the consequences of humans?

For example why should our pets have to experience sickness and death and suffering?

Or sea creatures or even plants etc.?

Is this fair and just?


texts: Was Antipas a person or is the word a symbolism for Christian?

texts:
In the Revelation chapter two verse thirteen Jesus refers to Antipas being martyred:

Revelation 2:13  KJV

  I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Mickelson lists the original Greek word as:

Ἀντίπας Antipas (an-tee'-pas) n/p. Antipas, a Christian

The Greek revised version also uses that same word  αντιπας and is also defined as a Christian.

So I am confused as to whether Jesus is referring to a specific person named Antipas or simply saying one of his followers, was slain among them.


texts: Does it state ANYWHERE in the Bible that pets can or can not go to heaven?

texts:
I've heard it both ways , but can't seem to find it.  Some have told me dogs have no soul so they can't go, but I am sure my dog feels guilt when he steals food from the cat.  Is that not a sign of a soul?

I understand that the question of whether or not they do go to heaven has been addressed in Do animals go to heaven/hell? but this is a different question.  The answers there deal don't directly state whether or not there is a direct Biblical statement on this.

Can anyone tell me, all personal interpretation or doctrinal extrapolation aside, is there any clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture that tells whether or not animals/pets can go to heaven?


texts: What does it mean to be "poor in spirit"?

texts:
I'm working through a study on "The Beatitudes" of Matthew 5 and would appreciate any insight into Christ's statement:

  Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
  ESV

My question is specifically in regard to what "poor in spirit" means, not "kingdom of heaven."

An interesting paradigm shift came to me from Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy, 1997, which inverts the apparent formulaic assumption of "poor in spirit" to represent a bad thing. on pg. 99 of his aforementioned book he puts it this way:

  [Willard's paraphrase of Matt. 5:3] "Blessed are the spiritual zeros -
  the spiritually bankrupt, deprived and deficient, the spiritual
  beggars, those without a wisp of 'religion' - when the kingdom of the
  heavens comes upon them."
  ...

  ... The poor in spirit are blessed as a result
  of the kingdom of God being available to them in their spiritual
  poverty.

So, seeing "poor in spirit" turned into a bad thing that the kingdom of heaven's availability turns into a good thing was an interesting idea to me, but Williard fails to provide much objective or external support for this beyond his own reasoning. If you're aware of an objective or external argument supporting this perspective, please share it.

In short, any answers that can expound on the meaning of "poor in spirit" would be greatly appreciated. Please avoid giving me opinions, and please provide references for all answers, if you can. Thanks!


texts: If Mary is sinless then how is Christ her victory?

texts:
Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church believe in the sinlessness of Mary. Although their beliefs differ, they agree on the belief that "Mary was sinless."
If Mary is sinless (i.e. the Catholic belief that Mary was created without the stain of original sin, and also did not sin. OR - the Eastern Orthodox belief that denies original sin, yet claims Mary never sinned) how, then, is Christ Mary's victory?
Christ's sinless life, death, and resurrection is our victory. He is our perfect example. He is the only One who perfectly loved God with all of His mind, soul, heart, and strength. If we say that Mary is also in the sinless category - how is this not robbing Christ of His Glory? Additionally, how is this not demonstrating that Mary cannot say "Christ is HER victory?"  If the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is true, she cannot rely on the sinless life of her Son. She cannot fall on her knees in humble gratitude to her Son, accepting His perfect life, because she would have done it without Christ.
Thoughts on how the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary does not do the following:
(1) robs Christ of His unique office and glory
(2) robs Mary of the opportunity to fall in humble gratitude to her Son's perfect life.
(3) cause us to turn our eyes on Mary also (which consequently robs Jesus of the focus)


texts: How can the Son not know what the Father knows?

texts:
Matthew 24:36    (NLT)
  Mark 13:32 (NLT)

  36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.”

Now hold on a minute here... in according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are the same God, yet the Father knows something the Son doesn't? What's going on here?


texts: Mere Christianity Book IV Chapter 9 ("Counting the cost") : George MacDonald References

texts:
In C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity, Book Four, Chapter 9 ("Counting the cost") there are 2 illustrations that C.S. Lewis borrowed from George MacDonald.
The first:

And yet—this is the other and equally important side of it—
this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing
less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the
first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the
simplest duty. As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald)
pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to
walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a
firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he
said, ‘God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.’

The second:

I find I must borrow yet another parable from George
MacDonald. Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in
to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand
what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping
the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs
needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he
starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably
and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He
up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different
house from the one you thought of—throwing out a new
wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers,
making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made
into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He
intends to come and live in it Himself.

The question: Which books / sermons / stories by George MacDonald do these references coming from?


texts: What did Jesus mean by " many" beneficiaries of His ensuing blood-shed?

texts:
At Matthew 26:27-28 (NRSVCE) we read:

  Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Those words of Jesus are reproduced in the Eucharistic celebration of the Catholic Church. My question is: Why did Jesus use the words "for many" instead of  "for all"?  What are the connotations, including references to the OT, which the Catholic Church attribute to the word "many" as used by Jesus at the Last Supper?


texts: According to those holding that Lazarus was literally raised from the dead, why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke not mention it?

texts:
John 11 tells the remarkable story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead:

  43 When [Jesus] had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” [ESV]

John portrays the event as quite public, and a key factor in the decision of the Jewish leaders to plan to arrest and kill him:

  45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. [...] 53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.

Yet despite the importance of this miracle in John's narrative, none of the other Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) mention Lazarus being raised.  Critics thus often challenge the historicity of this account specifically, as Richard Bauckham writes:

  The raising of Lazarus has always been major evidence for the view that John invents characters and events, not simply because the Synoptics say nothing about this miracle but also because it is so important in John's account of the events that led to Jesus' execution, that it is hard to believe that the Synoptic evangelists did not know of it or, knowing of it, omitted it. (source)

How do those who hold to the literal, historical truth of the account – that a man named Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, was physically raised from the dead by Jesus – explain why the other Gospel writers failed to mention it?  What is an overview of their arguments?


texts: What is the difference between apostolic pardon and absolution?

texts:
I was preparing for Catechism Class tonight on the the last things, the notes in my teachers manual say that unconscious people receive "apostolic pardon" if they get the anointing of the sick while unconscious, and should go to confession if they regain consciousness.  What does that mean and how is it different from absolution that comes from the sacrament of reconciliation?

related question


texts: When the Bible talks about wine does it mean alcoholic wine?

texts:
In discussions I have had in the past over the acceptability of a Christian drinking alcohol I have heard that some 'dry' believers say that the wine in the Bible was not wine as we know it commonly today. It was actually non-alcoholic grape juice.

I personally believe that the wine of Jesus' day is the wine that we know.

Is there any Biblical/historical evidence to the contrary, that the wine of the past was non-fermented juice?


texts: Can a person be baptized against their will, according to Catholicism?

texts:
In the 2006 film Nacho Libre, there is a scene where Ignacio, a Roman Catholic (but not an ordained priest), decides to sneak up on his tag partner Steven and baptize him, despite Steven not wanting anything to do with the church.

Ignacio: I'm a little concerned right now. About…your salvation and stuff. How come you've not been baptized?
Steven: Because I never got around to it, okay?
[Ignacio shrugs and starts to fill up a bowl with water]
Steven: I don't know why you always have to be judging me. Because I only believe in science.
[Ignacio finishes filing the bowl with water and starts walking up behind Steven]
Ignacio: But tonight, we are going up against Satan's cavemen. [Makes the sign of the cross] And I just thought it would be a good idea if you … [dunks Steven's head in the water] are baptized!
[Steven is in shock]
Ignacio: Felicidades.

While this is played for comedy, would forced baptism, like that shown in Nacho Libre, be valid according to Catholicism? What would be the rationale if it isn't?


texts: Are there any Unitarian Catholic Churches?

texts:
Preface to Question:

Weird question, I know that Catholicism's orthodox teachings are trinity, so this question is strange to me also.

Growing up, I was not raised catholic and believed that Jesus was God and still hold that clear teaching of scripture, but I remember arguing with a child in Jr. High who was catholic and said, "Jesus is not God, he is God's son," and denying that Jesus should receive any worship.

At first sound, this sounds like a kid that was misunderstanding the trinity. But growing up I was always told that Catholics in the area didn't believe Jesus was God.

Catholicism in general agrees on the same dogmas, but every now and then, many do disagree on small issues. Is this a wide spread thing?


texts: How do molinists justify a world where not everyone freely chooses salvation?

texts:
Assuming not all humans on earth will become Christians. Many have lived and died that have not. The Bible is clear that many will fall away and perish.

If Molinism is true,

Then either:

  A. There is no possible world or state of being that allows all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God

Or:

  B. There is some possible world or state of being that would allow all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God

If A is true, this implies some limit to God’s power, or if not, it seems prima facie false. It's fair to think that there is some possible world where all individuals on earth to freely choose belief in God.

If B is true, then God freely chose not to create a world where all individuals freely choose God, even though he could have. Which seems very unlikely if God is omnibenevolent.

Is there an official molinist response to this?


texts: Torment of Unbelievers vs those who take the Mark of the Beast

texts:
Revelation 11:10-11

  10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
  11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Questions:

1) Is this torment in Hell, or while they are alive?

Since it's "for ever and ever", I'm inclined to believe it's in Hell.

2) While the Holy Angels + God is watching, are the Saints not watching?

3) If it's in Hell, are unbelievers (who did not receive the mark of the beast) treated differently from those who did receive the mark of the beast?

4) Any additional insights on this vs being thrown into the lake of fire is also welcome.


texts: When did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

texts: Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?


texts:
According to Gen 46:27, Jacob entered Egypt with a family of 70. Kohath was Levi's son, Amram Kohath's, and Moses Amram's, so Moses's generation was 2 generations from Kohath's. 600,000 men, with women and children, left at exodus (Ex 12:37).

Meanwhile, before Moses was born, pharaoh ordered, that all male children from then on have to be killed. Moses survived miraculously, so 600,000 has to refer to men from generation above. Roughly estimating, 35 women (half of 70 that entered Egypt), gave birth to 1,200,000 people, which gives a fertility rate of about 34,285 (assuming 0 mortality). This seems quite large.
Moreover, if we assume that Jews didn't stop procreating with pharaoh's command, at that fertility rate, there would be about 20 billion women in Moses's generation.

Further, despite lacking partners from same generation, they could be impregnated by their uncles (Moses's mother was the aunt of his father, so it probably wasn't that uncommon), which would push the number even further.

Such numbers are very unlikely, and since Bible is inerrant, can you help me find error in my reasoning?


texts: Malachi 4:6 vs Matthew 10:35: did Jesus come to reconcile parents and children or the reverse?

texts:
Malachi 4:6: He [Elijah] will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.
Matthew 10:35: For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Is Malachi 4:6 about someone other than Jesus Christ? Jesus taught to love your neighbor as yourself, as Malachi suggests, but why then does he say what he says in Matthew 10:35?
Matthew 10:37 goes on to say that if you do not love Jesus more than your brother, you are not worthy of Jesus, but he starts the section in verse 34 by saying "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."


texts: Roughly how many Christian priests, and how many 'rotten apples' are there?

texts: The credibility of Christianity has been severely damaged by a few Christian Priests being found guilty of molesting minors. I would like to quantify just how small a minority this is. So how many Priests/ministers are there in the world, and how many have been found guilty of pedophilia?


texts: Communion of Saints and Our Relationships in Heaven

texts:
We as Catholics believe in communion of saints after the resurrection.
Such communion means that we will be in the complete union with God, and with all the other saints in heaven.

When we are saying that "we will be in complete union with all the other saints in heaven", does this mean that in heaven, I will have deep, intimate, and fulfilling relationship with each other member of heaven to its full extent? or does this only mean that we all will be united as a community of heaven in general, which does not necessarily mean a deep and intimate relationship with each of its members to its full extent?

Thank you,


texts: If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge?

texts:
If the premise for Marcion's Two Principles (Dualism) is correct; how does one decipher which words in the Bible belong to the Demiurge from those of the True God?

Marcion of Sinope (Wikipedia)

Catharism later on also adopted a belief in a form of Dualism and one of their works "Book of Two Principles" outlines the apparent contradictions between the God of the Old and New Testaments; but how did they (like Marcion) discern between the words of the Demiurge from those of the True God?

Cathar Theology (Wikipedia)


texts: What kinds of Mormon missionaries are there?

texts:
I'm used to seeing young missionaries travel in pairs, talking to people and visiting them, but I don't typically think of them as serving their missions online (as evidenced here) or doing other types of activities.

What kinds of missionaries (or missionary services) are there in the LDS Church and what do they do?


texts: Can the God of the Old Testament be seen as a consistent moral law giver?

texts:
There seems to be instances when God tolerates sin, since it is an improvement over the cultural conditions of the time. For instance, the laws regarding the treatment of slaves some have argued were encouraging people to treat slaves as human, and thereby eventually leading to the world we have today, in large part, which sees slavery as a great moral crime. Or requiring a rapist to marry the woman he raped is progressive. The argument goes that during this time in history, if a woman was raped she was essentially soiled for life; no one would want to marry her afterwards. This law is essentially forcing the rapist to take responsibility for his crime, and see that the woman is taken care of (materially at least, or in some sense, though it is hard to imagine today).

There are other times where God is incapable of tolerating sin, there are examples of the death penalty being used in punishment of transgression of the Sabbath, keeping spoils of war, striking your parents, etc.

How then can God be seen as a consistent moral law giver given these seeming contradictions?

Edit
For context, this is a question that I hear a lot from atheists as to why it is not rational to believe Christianity (or Judaism) in a particular. It is one I have a hard time answering. I am wondering what the Christian reply is.


texts: Do any major Christian traditions have documented ways of dealing with religious doubt?

texts:
Many religions claim to be the only true religion, including most branches of Christianity. Among the major Christian traditions, are there any documented statements of faith that include the possibility that their own beliefs might not be the "one true religion"?  In other words, is there any literature treating religious doubt accepted in the tradition as part of the tradition, and not examples of individual cases of religious doubt?

If there is such literature, and if this point is covered within it, how do these major traditions view themselves in light of the "risk" involved if they were wrong in the claim to exclusive truth?


texts: How is Matthew 24:36 explained by trinitarians?

texts:
In Matthew 24:36 Jesus is quoted saying, that even he does not know when the end of the world will come, only God (the Father) alone.

I'm interested in how the major trinitarian denominations explain this.


texts: Could a cardinal or pope have children if they are a widower?

texts:
Could it be possible for a cardinal,or even the pope to have children,if he had been married previously,and then taken up holy orders after being widowed?

This would seem to fulfil the requirements of not being married and also being celibate whilst being a priest,but I can't find a definitive answer-all the celibacy guidelines seem to just refer to during the period of the priesthood.


texts: What is the origin of the belief that Satan tortures the unsaved in Hell?

texts:
There's a thought that Satan (the devil) tortures the unsaved in Hell.

For example, a brief search revealed a website wherein a member posted the following:

  I think of Satan more of a psycopath who wants people to follow him not God. He wants to seperate us from God and he will use any method he can to do it. However being a bitter bastard for what he is forced to live in he gets angry and takes out his anger on the populace of hell.

Even growing up, I was under the impression that the unsaved were tortured in Hell by Satan, and Satan himself ruled over Hell. Of course, now I know better, or so I think! Is there any biblical basis for the belief that Satan tortures the unsaved in Hell? If not, what is the origin of that belief?


texts: Either Tobiah or Archangel Raphael (or maybe both?) has some sort of relationship with a dog, as shown in Tobit 6:2 and Tobit 11:4.  The dog goes out with them and comes back with them and isn't otherwise mentioned.  Does the dog have any special significance?  Given Tobit 2:13-14 it seems pretty odd for Tobiah to have picked up a dog somewhere in the past.


texts: What is the basis for the idea that marriage requires a ceremony?

texts:
Adam and Eve were never shown to have had a marriage ceremony, yet God commanded them to multiply.

What is the basis for the idea that God requires a ceremony to be performed for marriage, rather than being a spiritual commitment made by the husband and wife?


texts: How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified?

texts:
Many Christians hold the view that unborn and born infants and children who die before the age of reason or eternal responsibility are guaranteed access to heaven. For instance, Dr. William Lane Craig has famously stated the following, When justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites:

  Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.

It seems obvious that if a child/infant dies before they are responsible for accepting salvation they should not be condemned to Hell, but that they should be automatically granted salvation also seems equally unjust. I would think that it be more just for God to annihilate the souls of those children.

How, in this view, is God just by automatically saving all infants/children who die before they can be held responsible?

As Matt Gutting pointed out, the question is about how someone holding the view that infants/children who die in infancy are guaranteed salvation can reconcile their view with God's justice.


texts: Is being asexual considered the same as having the virtue of Chastity?

texts:
Some people seem to have not any sexual desire (asexuality). In 1 Corinthians 7:7 it is stated that, "God has given different gifts to each of us". The question is, can being asexual be seen as such a gift or is this something different?

Are there any comments on this in the RCC?


texts: Is there a good example of believers seeking out advice from other believers in the Bible, especially one that is a story children would understand?

texts:
I am also looking for an example of believers (Old Testament Jews or New Testament Christians) getting advice from other believers. Again, this is for teaching children aged 5-8 so ideally it will be a story to which they can relate.

There are individual verses that help eg:

Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 15:22

but a story is better. I briefly considered the council at Jerusalem which is a story but I don't think children could relate to it.


texts: How do Christains argue that "messianic psalms" are messianic and refer to Jesus Christ?

texts: I've heard Christians assert that you can prove that Jesus Christ is the Messiah from the book of psalms. There doesn't seem to be any watertight argument for the existence of messianic psalms other than the New Testament says so, let alone that Jesus Christ is the Messiah referred to in the psalms.


texts:
One of my new neighbors is a "Pentecostal Catholic" from India.  I have heard of this denomination before, during an Evangelical Missiological Society conference, but didn't have a reason to investigate further until now.

What is a "Pentecostal Catholic"?

I'm familiar with Catholicism and Pentecostalism, so feel free to explain it in terms of the main differences between one (or both) of those denominations if that makes it simpler.

NOTE: I am not looking for an exhaustive explanation of all of their doctrines, just a "what you need to know" sort of thing; i.e. What do they emphasize?  What's the back-story?


texts: How do adherents of sola scriptura respond to "extra" biblical beliefs?

texts:
"Extra" in the sense that these beliefs were kept by the Jews but not found in the (39 book) old testament, but nevertheless recorded in the new testament books.

  And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23

  Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. Matthew 23:1-2

  When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. Jude 1:9

  Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 2 Timothy 3:8

  Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months. James 5:17


texts: Did Pentecostalism lead to Cessationism in the modern Reformed churches?

texts:
I understand that several theologians throughout church history believed that the gifts of the Spirit had ceased or mostly ceased. It didn't seem like a huge point of contention for them as it is today.

So my questions is: Is the modern day doctrine in Reformed churches that the gifts of the Spirit have ceased a response to the Pentecostal movement in the 20th Century or is it consistent with pre-Pentecostal ideas of the cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Citations would be most appreciated. Thanks.


texts: Why is it rare to combine Reformed/Calvinist doctrine and Dispensationalism?

texts: I've been told that it's rare to find someone who combines Dispensationalism and Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine (such as John MacArthur).  Why is this?  What ideas don't mesh well?


texts: Why did Joseph Smith condone, or perhaps even encourage polygamy?  What scriptures, if any, support this practice?


texts: Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve?

texts:
After Cain killed Abel, he was cast away and said "whoever finds me will kill me", there he took a wife.

I think this indicates there were other people on the face of the earth created by God, but are there any other explanations?

The reason I ask this is that Adam and Eve are supposedly the couple that gave birth to all humanity, which I think is genetically impossible.


texts: Can non-inifinite beings make logical deductions about infinite properties of God?

texts:
Some of the least useful discussions I've seen in Christianity revolve around the absolute, superlative properties of God.  "God is infinitely good, therefore, He ..."; "God is infinitely just, therefore He ...".   For example, I've seen friends posit conclusions based on God's all-knowing, all-foreseeing with absolute confidence in ways that make Him seem less good or just.

Q:  Do either the bible or church fathers offer any caveats on us (we limited beings) making logical inferences from statements on God's infinite character?


texts: Do annihilationism and universalism argue against eternal life?

texts:
Annihilationists and universalists argue that the Greek word translated "eternal" (aionion/aionios) is more appropriately translated "eon-like", and thus New Testament terms like "eternal fire/punishment" (in e.g. Matt 18:8, 25:46) should be interpreted to mean long lasting but still finite fire and punishment.

Given that argument, do annihilationists and universalists have any New Testament basis for believing that "eternal life" is really eternal and not merely long lasting?


texts: I believe we have free will and that God has free will.  It would seem Lucifer also had free will.  Do all angels have free will as we do?


texts: Better safe than sorry? Should you confess if you're not sure if you've committed a sin?

texts: I’m guessing if you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyways than to be stuck in hell forever? Is there anything wrong with wrongly confessing or is it OK?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for believing the judgement comes immediately at death?

texts:
In my discussions I've talked to Christians who had different concepts about the specifics of salvation which seem to make a significant difference, at least if one's only unrepented sin is not believing.  Most Christians have said to me that we're all judged at the exact moment of death, but some have told me that after death we're confronted by God/Jesus and then judged.  I don't know if this is a denominational difference or not.  It seems significant that in the second instance belief would no longer be a problem when faced directly.  It's because of this that I've been told non-Christians are not necessarily in any more hot water than Christians .

My question is, what is the scriptural basis for the belief that we're judged at the exact moment of death?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, when Jesus speaks, is he is speaking as a Man or God or both?

texts:
I want to know if there is an official Catholic ruling on the quotes that occur in the New Testament.

The belief is that Jesus is both 100% Man and 100% God.

So when we come across a direct quote from Jesus in the Gospels, do we take it as the speech of a mere human being or as the speech of God?

For example, I heard that Professor James R. White says that when Jesus was asked when the hour was, and he didn't know, and said only the Father knows ("But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." - Mark 13:32, NIV), this is because Jesus, as God, "emptied himself" of that knowledge.   From this understanding it means that his quotes in the New Testament are seen as divine speech, and not the speech of a human.

Is there an official Catholic stance on this specific question?


texts: What happened to Aaron's staff and the jar of manna placed by Moses in the Ark of the Covenant

texts:
Please note, I am not asking what was inside the Ark of the Covenant (question asked in June 2013) but what happened to Aaron's budding staff and the jar of manna by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon.

Exodus 16:33-34 says the jar of manna was placed in the Ark in front of the stone tablets.

Numbers 17:10 says Aaron's budding staff was placed in front of/before the Ark of the Covenant.

1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 both say that by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon there was nothing inside the Ark except for the two stone tablets of the testimony/covenant.

However, Hebrews 9:1-4 says the Ark contained the two stone tablets (the terms of the covenant), Aaron's rod (or staff) and the gold jar containing manna.

What happened to Aaron's budding staff and the gold jar of manna?  Were they lost or were they stolen? And why does the writer of Hebrews mention them?


texts: What are the differences between Apostles, Prophets, Peter and Jesus Christ in being the "foundation" whereon the church is built?

texts:
1 Corinthians 3:11 Jesus Christ is the foundation whereon the church is built.

Ephesians 2:20 Both the Prophets and the Apostles are the foundation whereon the church is built.

Matthew 16:18 Simon Peter is the foundation whereon the church is built.


texts:
My Question: Does the real presence of the Eucharist persist even after digestion to the point of being taken out of the body by defecation?

Yes this is a serious question. In case the answer is no, where does the real presence go then? Is it integrated into our bodies like vitamins?
I realize that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I understand that there are spiritual advantages to taking the Eucharist, but what I would like to now understand is also how those advantages are communicated to us when we eat Christ. The process.


texts: The original number of The Beast is 616 not 666; previous Bible prophesies effected?

texts:
The actual Number of The Beast is only mentioned in Revelation 13:18; In the Greek manuscripts, the number is rendered as χξϛ or "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave The Beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

How this discovery will effect bible prophesies based on number 666?


texts: What did early Christians say about apostolic succession?

texts: Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?


texts: What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history?

texts: What sources outside of the Bible give supporting evidence to the existence of Jesus and any of the events in His life?


texts: Why do Mormon missionaries travel in pairs?

texts: Why do Mormons travel in pairs (husband and wife, two young women, or two young men) instead of a group? Does a pair that consists of a brother and a sister ever go on a missionary trip together?


texts: What is the case against Gore Vidal's view that St. Paul "invented Christianity"?

texts: I was watching Gore Vidal being interviewed for CSpan's In Depth series and his book Live from Golgotha was being discussed. He claims that St. Paul "invented" Christianity. That Jesus came for the Jews only, but that St. Paul wanted to internationalize the appeal for Jesus and so twisted the truth. What are some arguments against this claim?


texts: According to the LDS Church (Mormons), what role do secret handshakes and passwords play into a person's entrance into heaven?

texts:
I have heard or read that in the Mormon Temple Ceremony, each person learns certain secret handshakes and passwords that are necessary for them to enter into heaven.  I've also heard that a woman has to enter through her husband.

My question is, according to LDS teaching, when does a person have to use the secret handshakes and passwords?  Are there different levels for different handshakes?  What if a person forgets them?  Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?  If a person later abandons the LDS church, can he still get into heaven, since he already knows the secrets?


texts: What is the purpose of praying over the water at an Church of England baptism?

texts:
The Church if England baptism liturgy in 'Common Worship' includes a 'prayer over the water'.

There is a choice of two prayers, here: Prayer over the Water .

Catholic Anglicans seem to readily understand this as a priestly 'blessing' of the water, but the wording 'prayer over' avoids that understanding, as does the rule that Deacons can baptise, and even laypersons in pastoral emergency.

Is there an authoritative account of what is happening in the Church of England understanding of prayer over the water at baptism?


texts: What is the rationale for not making the Sign of the Cross after receiving Communion?

texts:
I was taught that is was an unnecessary act to make the Sign of the Cross after receiving communion and that what you just did (receiving Jesus) took precedence over signing yourself.

What is the exact reasoning behind this (or was it something I misheard?) and had anybody (besides liturgists) weighed in on how exactly one should behave after receiving Communion?

This seems semi-important because it would seem that the way a child is taught to receive Communion sticks with them their entire life.  My daughter, for instance, finds it very hard to kneel to receive, even though our bishop clearly wants us to and is having kneelers re-installed in parishes in our diocese.  My son kneels to receive with our scout troop so it's natural to him.

Signing yourself after receiving Communion seems more cumbersome when you kneel to receive, so this smacks of Post-Vatican II chicanery foisted upon us by the modern attack.  So, if you can't answer:

Why do Catholics make the sign of the cross at the Eucharist?

Then perhaps you can answer this question!


texts: Are parents responsible/accountable for the sins of their children?

texts:
Reading 1 Samuel 2:12 et seq, one could say that Eli is treated the same way as his wicked sons, although he tried to dissuade them from doing their sins.

Generally speaking, are parents today responsible/accountable for the sins of their (adult, if it makes a difference) children? More than they are in common for their surrounding to tell the gospel?


texts:
In a comment conversation on another question I suspect (at the chastisement of my interlocutor) I may have misused the term "synthetic theology" (or, perhaps, theological synthesis?).

I think I had in mind that the term intends bringing together multiple passages to form a cohesive theology. Am I off-base here? What is meant by this term?


texts:
Do Catholics believe that God is actively "fighting" Satan? Or do they believe that Satan is a "tempter" who only tries to corrupt humans?

I vaguely recall stories from the Old Testament when God fought Satan directly, but I wasn't sure if Catholics believed that God was still actively fighting Satan.


texts:
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries

~ Hebrew 10:26-27

Just what is knowledge of your sin? Is it being told / someone agreeing with you? Only when the bible says is sin? What if you feel uneasy about what your doing? If feeling uneasy and know your doing wrong is a sin, what about doing something to protect those you love (fighting, not out of rage) or displaying tough love. Or rather, how does the bible separate knowledge of sin, the feeling you've done something wrong, and actual sin?


texts: What is the earliest recorded instance where Mary is called "Blessed Virgin?"

texts:
I was recently spending some thought on this topic which came from this question: How do Protestants understand the blessedness of Mary in Luke 1:48?

I answered the question and proposed as an afterthought that people cynical of Catholic Tradition would quickly dismiss the significance that Mary is called blessed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not sure yet how this might help that argument either way, but what is the earliest instance (outside of Luke's gospel) of Mary being called "Blessed Virgin" or some variation involving the word "blessed"? Since the Lucan story specifically states that "all generations will call me blessed", I don't want a quote from Luke or any work that just retells the story. I mean any works from later writers that explicitly call Mary "blessed"; that is, examples of further generations calling Mary blessed.

If it so happens that such statements evolved to their current state I would like to see a few examples showing that evolution.


texts:
In the past and up till now, the majority of humans have believed in some form of deity. Now assume out of all those deities, only the The Holy Trinity is the only true God:

  And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3, RSV)

Is faith in The Holy Trinity a choice or a gift? Or is it a combination of both?