texts: What is the "Hell's Best Kept Secret" teaching that's circulating in various Evangelical Churches?

texts:
There's a teaching called "Hell's Best Secret" that's been circulating for several years, originally preached by Ray Comfort, the a New Zealand-born minister, and founder of Living Waters Publications.

Without going into whether or not the teaching is true, what is the primary message of the teaching, the Scriptural basis, and its influence?


texts: Can priests (or popes) administer sacraments in a liturgy other than their own?

texts:
As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church consists of a number of "particular churches" with separate liturgical traditions.  For example, the Ruthenian and Hungarian Greek Catholic Churches use the Byzantine liturgy, the Armenian Catholic Church uses the Armenian liturgy, the Coptic and Ethiopian Catholic Churches use the Alexandrian liturgy, and so on.

Furthermore, individual Catholics are always enrolled in a particular church upon baptism, and though they may by necessity receive sacraments according to a different ritual church, adults cannot permanently transfer themselves to another such church except by marriage or by special dispensation from the Apostolic See.  (See Can. 111–112.)

This brings me to my main question:  Is a priest permitted to administer sacraments in a liturgy other than that of his own particular church?  For example, could an Armenian Catholic priest celebrate a Byzantine mass?  If so, could he do this whenever he wishes, or does he require exigent circumstances or special dispensation?

As a follow-up, is membership in the Latin Church currently a prerequisite for serving as Bishop of Rome (i.e., as pope)?  If it is permitted to elect a non-Latin pope, would he be required to formally transfer to the Latin Church first and to perform all sacraments according to the Latin rite?


texts: Why do English-speaking Catholics say 'descended into hell' instead of 'descended into Hades' or 'into Sheol'?

texts:
This article states that

In the context of the Apostles’ Creed, hell does not mean what we
understand by the word today. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
explains this point as follows: “Scripture calls the abode of the
dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol-- in Hebrew or
Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision
of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous,
while they await the redeemer (no. 633).

If this is correct, this leads to the question: why is the word 'hell' used if it's not what is meant by 'hell' today? Why, instead, don't English-speaking Catholics say 'Hades' or 'Sheol' to make the meaning of the Apostles' Creed more clear?


texts: What is an overview of beliefs on "Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God"?

texts:
Recently, I've been racked at the possible ways this belief might be construed when someone says it. I suspect that the primary Biblical basis for it is John 1, but as we know, there can be many interpretations for just a single verse, depending on your assumptions and starting points.

So when a Christian says "Jesus is the Word", what is an overview of the various beliefs that this Christian may ascribe to?

NOTE: I do not want to focus on general christological overviews. I realize this question is indeed a christology question, but I want to be sure that answers focus exclusively on what Christians mean when they say this phrase and how that relates to their theological perspective (which you don't have to explain, just name).


texts: How are the Calvinist, Arminian and Lutheran conceptions of Total Depravity different?

texts:
I'm quite sure I understand the concept of Total Depravity, but I'm not sure it's viewed exactly the same in different doctrinal frameworks that support it. I've spent a lot of time among Lutherans, and while I'm sure they support Total Depravity, they usually rather talk about Original Sin. Is this because Total Depravity as a term originates in Calvinism?

I came upon a table comparing the Lutheran, Calvinist and Arminian ideas of Total Depravity, but I don't quite understand it. Can you explain the main differences in the three views to me?


texts: If God can do everything than, why don't he just abolish sin and evil from the world. As if it never existed? There's no reason to have sin and evil running around if the lord finds it sickening why must it exist? Is evil and sin some force above God's power?


texts: Somewhere in my travels, I read that Jesus can be considered as Adam reincarnated. Is that a possibility? "First Adam flops, second Adam triumphs" - is that an idea some of you know?


texts: Is there biblical support for "feeling the presence of God" as reported by multiple Christian conversion testimonies?

texts:
A pattern I've noticed after watching many Christian conversion testimonies is that plenty of them report feeling the presence of God in a life-changing manner at the moment of conversion or maybe not long after. For illustrative purposes, I will list below some of the testimonies that in my opinion are the most reliable (i.e. they are very likely being honest and not making up stories) and impressive, along with a short summary/paraphrase of what each testimony says. In case you may want to watch the testimonies yourself, I'm including the links with timestamps so that you can jump directly to the parts where the relevant experiences are narrated.

From model/to New Age witchcraft/To saved by Jesus Christ: after water baptism, she was lying in bed at night and suddenly was overwhelmed by a feeling of holiness, love, joy. She also had tears of joy and had a vision of the air as gold. For more details, please watch the video.

New Age to Christianity // My Supernatural Experience with God: she prayed to Jesus in the bathroom, and suddenly an "atmospheric peace" engulfed her. She describes it as the most supernatural experience she ever had in her life. Afterwards, she reports having both an "inner knowing" and the feeling that the Holy Spirit entered her, and then reports her life completely changing.

From New Age to Jesus - My Unexpected Encounter with God: she prayed the sinner's prayer, asking God to become the ruler of her life. A minute after the prayer, she says: "I felt this incredible feeling, coming from the top of my head [...] it was like someone pouring oil or warm honey from the top of my head, and just sort of slowly moved down my body, and as it was going down I felt the warmth, just pure love, pure joy, pure peace [...]". She also claims that the feeling was "a whole nother level" above anything she had experienced before in the New Age.

Testimony of Andres Bisonni. Daystar Television Network: he visited Argentina during a revival and was hungry for having an encounter with the Holy Spirit after hearing encouraging testimonies from fellow Christians in a youth conference. While in a bus, someone prayed for him and suddenly he experienced the following: "[...] it's almost impossible to describe with words, but I felt this love being poured into my heart, and this like heat that came and surrounded me, this supernatural presence embraced me [...]".

Paul Washer- The Presence of God: simply put, after months of seeking an encounter in a prayer closet, one night he was suddenly visited by the presence of God, which he perceived as glorious and making him vividly aware of his sin initially but then turning into an overwhelming joy that led to spontaneous praises.

Some common themes I observe in these and other testimonies:

The experience of peace, joy and love.
Describing the experience as something that surpasses anything experienced before (including people who were previously involved in meditation and other spiritual practices).
Describing the experience as something "atmospheric" or that "surrounds" or "embraces" the individual, as if submerged into something.
Sometimes the feeling of heat or warmth is reported.
Sometimes the feeling of a holy presence (a sense of holiness) is reported.
Most individuals describe the experience as life-changing.

Is there any biblical support for this experience? Are there records in the Bible of individuals having encounters with the presence of God who reported feelings or symptoms that resemble the ones reported by these and other testimonies?


texts: Take your cross, how do evangelicals do this in practice - Matthew 10:38

texts:
What does picking up your cross look like practically speaking for evangelicals? What does picking up your cross mean in every day life?

———————————

I’ve read the related questions to this verse

  “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.”
  Matthew 10:38

But the responses are obscure and ambiguous and if applied practically I wouldn’t know what exactly to do. The answers are still relegated to the realm of abstract and conceptual theory.

What is a working definition, or a practical definition, or a practical application for take (up) your cross in the evangelical circles.

Please keep this a serious discussion, don’t include answers like getting married, the spouse being the cross, or being terminally ill, no one willingly takes on terminal illness, especially excruciatingly painful kinds. It needs to make sense to the text.

———————————————

Or in the same vein, if it won’t be misconstrued as a separate question, crucify the flesh. They both seem to be saying the same thing.

  Gal 5:24  And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires


texts: Why do some people say that the angels wanted to preach the gospel?

texts:
I heard from several Christians that the angels wanted to preach the gospel.
They say that based on I Peter 1:12 (KJV):

  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they
  did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that
  have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from
  heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

But I read this verse to say that the angels desire to "look into" and not to "preach".

Does anyone know where that statement came from?


texts: What is the meaning of the stained glass above the altar at Votivkirche in Wien with the Portuguese Quinas on it?

texts:
I would like to know more information on a glass painting I found in the church Votivkirche in Wien (Vienna, Austria).  Above the person with the shield there is the symbol of the Portuguese Quinas.

Is there a reason / story about this?

I was able to find a plan of the church (not sure if it is the same as today), on this website.

I think the location is the one on the left side that says "kapelle".


texts: Is the ASV Bible version Public Domain in Canada? Any other Bibles Public domain in Canada?

texts: I have found on Biblegateway.com that there is a list of Bibles that are in the Public Domain for the US including the ASV, but I am not sure if that also covers Canada.


texts: Is there a term for children whose parents' marriage ends with nullity?

texts:
In its discussion of marriage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element"(CCC 1626) that seals the covenant of matrimony. "If this freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid." (CCC 1628)

The CCC goes on to say, "For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void), the Church ... can declare a nullity of marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." (CCC 1629)

In consideration of this, it lends to question what the nature of the sexual relations were if the marriage never existed. However, that's an aside; it's the children of such a union I'm asking about. Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents.

Is there a term for children born from what was thought to be a valid Catholic marriage whose parents then go through legal divorce and the Church delclares the marriage null? Please no derogatory answers, but if there's something "you've heard somewhere," feel free to add as a comment with some context.


texts: Are there any examples of deductive arguments used to defend a doctrine?

texts:
Does anyone know an example of a doctrine, from any denomination, that is defended via a deductive argument, where the doctrine is logically deduced from an initial set of premises? If so, what about the argument's validity? What about its soundness?

As a reminder of what a deductive argument looks like, the following is an example taken from the Wikipedia article:

All men are mortal. (First premise)
Socrates is a man. (Second premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

Another illustrative example of a deductive argument is The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.


texts: According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, were the Levitical sacrifices also penal substitutions?

texts:
I am not a proponent of penal substitutionary atonement. While considering this question, I considered whether my position is incorrect, and the language of Isaiah 53 necessarily implies penal substitution. I asked myself if a Hebrew father would be reasonable to say something similar to these words while consoling his own son who asked him why they slaughter a sin offering.

It occurred to me that, Christ's atoning sacrifice and the Levitical sacrifices being considered in parallel, if these latter are penal substitutions according to the Old Covenant, I might have to reconsider my position on the matter.

So, my question is:

According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, are the Levitical sin offerings in their very nature penal substitutions? If so, what exegetical arguments are given to support that conclusion?


texts: How can we identify, sometimes, the angel of the Lord as God if the prophets also spoke as God?

texts:
I am not saying the prophets are God. What I am saying is that the prophets have a tendency to speak like God in the first person. Which can make it difficult to use the OT when discussing the premises of the Trinity.
This was an argument used by Muslims.


texts:
There are many possibilities how to twist the faith.

For example: assumptions, prejudices, misinterpretation, unintentional deception, projecting wishes... These things can twist the spiritual way,

How do I find out if someone's faith was twisted?


texts: Two Editions of Pelikan's "Whose Bible Is It?"

texts:
Yaroslav Pelikan's final book "Whose Bible Is It?" has two editions.  The first edition came out in 2005 and was sub-titled "A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages."  The second edition came out the year he died, and the sub-title changed to "A Short History of the Scriptures."

What I'd like to know is if there are any differences between these two, beyond superficialities such as the sub-titles, publishers, etc. In short, does the text differ at all?


texts: What biblical passage(s) reveal(s) what God says was the fallen angels' sin?

texts:
From this question: Does the Bible provide any passages that might help in understanding how Satan became sinful?, answers have attempted to find from a biblical-basis, how Satan became sinful.

This question is asking what God himself says was the sin of the fallen angels. The earlier question deals with how, this one: According to God, what was the sin of the fallen angels?


texts: Isn't "Jehovah-Jireh" (and other such names) just the name of a place?

texts:
It seems like many of what are referred to as the names of God are actually the names of places that have been dedicated to God:

Jehovah-nissi - Moses built an altar and called that it Jehovah-nissi (Ex. 17:15)

Jehovah-jireh - Abraham called the place where he almost sacrificed his son Jehovah-Jireh (Gen 22:14)

Jehovah-shalom - Gideon built and altar (Jdg 6:24)

Is there an element in the Hebrew that I'm missing? Sure, these clearly describe attributes of God, but can they rightly be called His names?

Please note that I fully understand that Jehovah is God's name. If I call my house, God-Dwells-Among-His-People, then God doesn't suddenly get a new name. Yet many Christians talk about these names for places in the Bible and say they are the names to God. Why do they do that? Is it a proper thing to do?


texts: How do people who reject transubstantiation interpret these verses?

texts:
Luke 22:19 (The Message)

  Taking bread, he blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
  “This is my body, given for you. Eat it in my memory.”

It has been argued that even the grammar must be taken into account. From the grammatical structure of the sentence is the meaning of transubstantiation derived. The verse in Luke has been used to defend the doctrine of transubstantiation, but what about the next verse of John? Apparently, Jesus really emphasizes the fact that he is a piece of food, waiting to be eaten. How can this not be seen as transubstantiation? Maybe it's metaphorical, but still, he describes himself in a similar way.

John 6:35-40 (New International Version)

  Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will
  never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But
  as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All
  those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I
  will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my
  will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of
  him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me,
  but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that
  everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal
  life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Now, this part seems to get a bit eerie. As it is a piece of dialogue in literature, it illustrates Jesus' character and how he reacts to questions. When prompted by the "Jews", he appears to take the bread as body of Christ literally, which may support the doctrine of transubstantiation.

John 6:52-59 (New International Version)

  Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this
  man give us his flesh to eat?”

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh
  of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
  raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood
  is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in
  me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live
  because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of
  me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate
  manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He
  said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

How do people who reject transubstantiation (but believe in sola scriptura) interpret these verses and still refute transubstantiation?


texts: Is 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) a Latin corruption?

texts: Is the biblical passage at 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) a Latin corruption that has entered the Greek manuscript tradition?


texts: What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

texts:
In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says:

  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people,
  but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever
  speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever
  speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this
  age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32 ESV)

In the KJV, this is called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost".

What does this refer to?

PS: I have taken a look at a related question(Are there unforgivable sins?), but I would like more answers to this specific question.


texts: Is there a Christian name of the Destroyer Angel?

texts:
In 2 Samuel 24:15 a destroyer angel come and strike Jerusalem with the Plague.

If I understand correctly, the accepted name for this angel is Azrael in Islam and Samael in Judaism. What is his accepted Christian name ?

I know he is never named in the bible itself, but perhaps later Christian literature have agreed on a name for him or perhaps you can help me have an educated guess as to who he might be.


texts: What is the Old Testament basis for the position that God is a God of love, compassion, and mercy?

texts:
Love, compassion and mercy are typically associated with the God of the New Testament, while the God of the Old Testament is typically associated with judgment and vengeance.  However, the Bible also presents God as unchanging.

What, then, is the Old Testament basis for the idea that God is a God of love, compassion, and mercy?

This question is seeking an answer based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.


texts: Which Bible verses support adult-only baptism?

texts:
I am a Reformed Presbyterian and it seems that for most people I run into, baptism for 'adults' after confession of faith only is the default position.  I always find myself fighting an uphill battle against this view.  However, I have yet to see one verse that prescribes that only adult believers be baptized.  I would ask that answers show where the Bible says that only believers are to be baptized or if not then what series of texts of scripture and lines of reasoning are used to support this view.

Since the sign of inclusion into the covenant under the Old Covenant (circumcision) is so closely tied to the sign under the New Covenant (baptism) Col 2:11-12 and since the Old Covenant sign was offered to children and since the New Covenant is more inclusive in every way than the Old Covenant and since telling a Jewish Christian that they can not baptize their children would have been a big deal to them (and the scriptures show no discussion on this point at all), it has always seemed to me that the burden of proof showing the change in practice lies at the Baptist doorstep.


texts: Ephesians 4:5 what does "One faith" mean?

texts:
Paul says that there is one faith.
I'm guessing that this mean theres only one faith that can save you. And that faith is in "believing" that Jesus died for your sins, and you're no longer a slave to death or sin.

Is my understanding wrong, or does it mean something different?


texts: Must Catholics believe in Christ's historicity?

texts:
Is there some philosophical doctrine in Catholicism which does not require to believe in the historicity of Christ, like in Buddhism (you can "believe"/practice Buddhism, but don't believe in Buddha and his historicity)? I ask it because I can believe in symbol or philosophical concepts but not in those Bible stories, they sound absolutely immodern, naive and untrue. I know about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, but I don't know what is the current status of his doctrine in Holy See.

Also, it's super difficult to me to believe in a soul and anthropomorphic God... And believe in soul makes close death very difficult, you know, hope is a pain, sleep is a rest. Maybe there are some more symbolic or philosophical or mystic concepts in Catholicism for peoples like me? Like there are such ones in Islam and Buddhism?


texts: If Adam is an allegorical character, which Bible character in messianic genealogy is the first real human?

texts:
Whenever a question is posed about Adam, Eve, or other characters and events described in the book of Genesis, inevitably some answers state that these events are allegorical. So I would like an answer from Christians who consider the Genesis account to be an allegory: When in the scriptures does allegory stop and reality begin?

Specifically, for those who consider the early part of the Genesis account an allegory, which Bible character in the line that leads from Adam to Jesus Christ is the first real, non-allegorical human being?


texts: How do Catholics reconcile these verses about giving publicly and yet privately?

texts:
I understand that the Bible encourages charity, however my question is in regards to how it proposes we ought to go about performing charity according to Catholic Christians.

  "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody."  - Romans 12:17 NIV

This verse would seem to suggest that one's charity should be well known to others. The context of this verse would suggest to me that others should know of our kindness so that they have a favorable view of the church as a whole.

  “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
  2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matthew 6:1-4 NIV

This verse would suggest to me that we ought to give privately so that our motivations for charity aren't tainted by pride or selfishness.

How does the Catholic church reconcile these two views?


texts: Is it sinful for priests or/and those in state of religion to hug women?

texts:
Question.

Is it sinful for priests or/and those in state of religion (eg. Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) to hug women (of course, we are not speaking of hugging mother, sister or something like that)?

Argument against.

We can see this happen publicly on the show The Voice (about 7 minutes and 45 seconds in the video). Also, I see many examples in the youth groups where the priest becomes (very) friendly with the youth. So, obviously those who have authority are seen to do such things and I have seen no one to reproach them; so it seems that they are not doing anything evil.

Argument for.

It would seem that all hugging between male and female (which are not husband or wife or are family) is sinful (so for a priest or religious it is also a sin). For it is mentioned as a sin in the Eisenger Confessionale p.180:

  qui deliberate exosculatus aut complexus fuit vel tetigit mulierem
  (who deliberately kissed, hugged or touched woman)


texts: What is the Catholic argument against scripture alone?

texts:
What is the clear argument against scripture alone?
Much the same way as in Judaism you have  the Talmud and so on as a comment on the scripture or the Torah. The understanding of scripture alone you hear more in the Protestant church.

What is the Catholic church  argument against scripture alone?


texts: How was Jesus able to be heard when preaching?

texts: During Jesus’s time when he preached to thousands of people with his disciples how were people able to hear him?  I mean at that time there were no microphones or speakers. How were people able to hear him considering many times he preached to thousands of people at once?


texts: How can one offer Christ's sacrifice to God?

texts:
I'd like to know what is the Catholic theology behind offering Jesus's suffering to the Father.

I'm trying to understand this prayer (from St. Bridget's 12-Year Prayer) more deeply:

  Eternal Father, through Mary’s unblemished hands and the Divine Heart
  of Jesus, I offer to Thee the terrifying suffering of the Heart of
  Jesus on the Mount of Olives, and every drop of His Sweat of Blood, as
  atonement for my and all of humanity’s sins of the heart, as
  protection against such sins, and for the spreading of Divine and
  Brotherly Love.

I don't fully understand how can one offer somebody's else suffering to gain grace for oneself.

I have a theory but I'm not sure if it's correct. My theory or understanding is that none of us is capable of such a sacrifice which brings reconciliation with God. So offering it up to the Father it reminds him of this reconciliation. And here I think is the problem with my understanding. I don't think God the Father needs to be reminded of his suffering. That's why I'm asking what is the teaching...


texts: Why did God tell Moses to make a bronze serpent on a stick?

texts:
In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses makes a bronze serpent on a stick to heal the Hebrews' snake bites, as per God's instructions. They don't worship it, but they are to look at it in order to live. Isn't this sort of like an idol, or a graven image? Or could it be a reference to something learned from Egypt, like possible Hermetic disciplines?

Also, is it related to the image of a serpent coiled around a staff, seen commonly today in the medical field?


texts: What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God?

texts: Both Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians could, it seems to me, be described as "modalist" in contrast with "trinitarian." Obviously there are plenty of general differences between the two church families. But are there differences between their respective brands/flavors of modalism (if that's even what it is)?


texts: What is the biblical basis for believing that Christ is the man upon the throne from Ezekiel 1:26?

texts:
In Ezekiel 1:26 we read

  And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness
  of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the
  likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man
  above upon it.

My question is:

What is the biblical basis of those who interpret this as a vision of Christ, the Messiah (himself, not just a figure of him)?

A good answer must take in consideration respected published commentaries.


texts:
How do Orthodox Christians explain that the Father and the Son are not two different Gods?
Orthodox Christians had a different version of the Trinity in that for them the one God  is the Father as found in the Nicene Creed and 1 Cor 8:6 (this is in contrast with the Athanasian creed which affirms that the one God is the Trinity).
The Orthodox teaches that the one God is the Father in the sense that (a) everything came from him and (b) he himself came from no one else. That is, by being the "Father" ( = origin of all things), the first person of the Trinity is rightly ascribed the "Monarchy" (Greek: μοναρκια -  the sole rule). (cf. John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, 15:26-27).
In this case, there is a different definition of θεος for the Father that is not applicable to the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this sense, the Son and the Holy Spirit are unlike the Father. Neither the Son nor the Spirit is God (θεος) in the same sense as the Father in the aforementioned New Testament texts. How do Orthodox Christians explain that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are not  different Gods?

This  question seeks an answer from Orthodox Christianity preferably with both scriptural and patristic sources.


texts: What is the context of Chesterton's quote, "When we bind our hearts, we free our hands"?

texts:
In anticipation of watching the new Ragamuffin movie, I'm watching an interview with Rich Mullins. Here's the transcript.  During the interview, he is seeking to explain what it means by "centering yourself on 'Love everybody'" in contrast to a certain rigidity when it comes to holiness.

At 22:30, Mullins quotes G. K. Chesterton, who says, "When we bind our hearts, we free our hands."  I had never heard this quote before, and I'm not 100% sure I get what is being said.

Where does this quote come from, and what did Chesterton mean by it?


texts: The Bible says there is one God who is eternal. Does Joseph Smith, LDS founder, prophet, seer and revelator contradict the Bible?

texts:
He said, "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods: and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it." Joseph Smith Jr., Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pg5.
He also said, "Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have reverence for." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol, 6, Pp. 473-479.
One more quote, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will now refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...he was once a man like us... (Smith, Teaching of the Prophet, pp. 345,346.)
How do the Mormons reconcile these statements from what the Bible teaches? Mark 12:32, "And the scribe said to Him/Jesus Christ, "Right, Teacher, You have truly stated that He/the Lord God is ONE: And there is no one else besides Him." Or Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou are God."


texts: What is the Scriptural evidence for the Protestant view that the AntiChrist will be Jewish?

texts:
In Eschatology, there is a lot of speculation about the identity of the AC, and if he's active on the world stage now, [in other words, a well known leader but just not having revealed his true identity yet] There is also a common view that he will be Jewish, and this is related to the idea that the Jews will think he is the Messiah.
**This is not to be seen in any way as a Anti-Semitic - I' am actually part Jewish, and very proud of this part of my heritage.
I'm happy to have answers from Jews and Catholics, but I'm only looking for answers from the 66 Books of the Canon.


texts: Does Catholicism confound the role of "elder" and "priest"?

texts:
I am somewhat interested in joining the Roman Catholic Church, but there are some things that I've had to further investigate, one of which is the role of "elder" and "priest" in the Roman Catholic Church.

Priest

Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "priest."

In the Old Testament, כֹהֵן = ἱερεὺς = "priest" (Masoretic = LXX = KJV)
In the New Testament, ἱερεὺς = "priest."

For example: Gen. 14:18 in the OT, and Matt. 8:4 in the NT. In summary, ἱερεὺς is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is translated consistently into English as "priest."

Elder

Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "elder."

In the Old Testament, זָקֵן = πρεσβύτερος = “elder.” (Masoretic = LXX = KJV)
In the New Testament, πρεσβύτερος = “elder.”

For example: Num. 11:25 in the OT, and Acts 11:30 in the NT. In summary, πρεσβύτερος is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is generally translated into English as "elder" and seldomly "presbyter," but never as "priest."

The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the English word "priest" states,

  The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions.

Notice how it equates "priest" and "presbyter." ("Presbyter" is simply a loan-word derived from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. Loan words are essentially loose transliterations, but not translations. The translation of πρεσβύτερος would be "elder.")

I understand "priest" is etymologically derived from πρεσβύτερος, but πρεσβύτερος is consistently translated into English as "elder," not "priest." We consistently see the Greek word ἱερεὺς translated into English as "priest" instead.

So the question: where in the OT or NT did the "elder" - which is the actual meaning of πρεσβύτερος -  function also as a "priest" (ἱερεὺς), that is, one who was mainly tasked with offering sacrifices in a Temple? Why does the Roman Catholic Church equate the two terms?


texts: If Christ had a complete human nature, how come his human nature wasn't totally depraved as ours is?

texts:
I understand the reformed doctrine of total depravity to be that the human nature is such that it is utterly unable to choose to follow God. Another way I've heard it put is that men are by nature inclined to reject God.

Now, I also understand that Christ took on a human nature at the Incarnation. He assumed the same human nature we have, thus He is rightfully called the one mediator between God and man.

How do Calvinists reconcile the fact that Christ has a complete human nature while they teach that this human nature is at odds with God?


texts: What does "to appeal from the Hell" mean?

texts:
I'm new on this site of Stack Exhcange. As a non-native speaker, I've been asking questions on ELL and ELU. However, I thought this might be related with religion (in this case, of course, Christianity) rather than language.

The following passage is an excerpt from god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens:

  Pre-Christian hells were highly unpleasant too, and called upon the same sadistic ingenuity for their invention. However, some of the early ones we know of —most notably the Hindu— were limited in time. A sinner, for example, might be sentenced to a given number of years in hell, where every day counted as 6,400 human years. If he slew a priest, the sentence thus adjusted would be 149,504,000,000 years. At this point, he was allowed nirvana, which seems to mean annihilation. It was left to Christians to find a hell from which there was no possible appeal. (And the idea is easily plagiarized: I once heard Louis Farrakhan, leader of the heretical black-only “Nation of Islam,” as he drew a hideous roar from a mob in Madison Square Garden. Hurling spittle at the Jews, he yelled, “And don’t you forget — when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s FOREVER!”).

I can't understand what he means by "appeal from hell" at all. I would be more than happy if anyone could explain me the meaning here.

Thank you very much.


texts: Christianity certainty and other religions certainty

texts:
The same certainty we have on the Bible and Jesus Christ, other people from other religions have on their gods and "holy books" (between commas because I'm one of those who have the certainty about Bible) and I have no explanation for that and I'd like one so I can answer some friends about it.

Thanks in advance.


texts: What is the difference between mind and soul (if any)

texts:
For reference, this question asks whether there is a difference between the soul and spirit.

Assuming that there is a difference between the two (i.e., that man's nature is tripartite), and that your spirit is the heavenly nature of man, is the soul the same thing as mind, as in personality, temperance, intelligence, conciseness, etc.?


texts: God is love, pure, and all good, and omnipotent?

texts:
In my opinion, if someone says, "God is" or "God is not" or "God looks like" or "God doesn't look like" they've limited him and he's no longer omnipresent, omnipotent, or omnificent.

So then, how can God be omnipotent and be limited to only love?  Love cannot be hate.  Good cannot be evil.  The light cannot be on and off at the same time.  Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive but not both.

"only God understands how this can be" is not a valid answer.

1 John 4:8

  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

But does that mean, he is only love?


texts: What is the Biblical basis against the existence of one "ideal" spouse for each person?

texts: What is a Biblical rebuttal of the belief that there is one right person (a soulmate) to be your spouse?


texts: What is the biblical basis against the idea of luck?

texts:
I'm curious what the Bible says about Luck.  Is this something that is a real occurrence or is every little detail ordained and controlled by God (fate)?

I searched biblegateway and did not find "luck" under NIV. Then I tried NASB.  The closest thing I've found comes out the of Good News Translation (which I don't trust at all) and out of the book of Sirach (which I've never heard of).

  Sirach 20:9 (GNT)
  Bad luck can sometimes lead to success, and a stroke of good luck can sometimes lead to loss

There are more sayings in that book and translation, however, this really doesn't satisfy me, since I've never heard of the book of Sirach (and I really don't trust the Good News translation).

What is the biblical case against the concept of Luck?

Just to be clear, I'm referring to Luck as the random chance—coincidence—that brings good or bad fortune.  I'm not referring to an external force that influences the good or bad that happens in our lives.

Clearly, if there is an external force that brings us good or bad fortune, that could be directly attributed to God, Satan, demons, or angels from a biblical/Christian stance.

Scope: Just to be clear, I'm interested primarily in the Protestant Bible, but I'm willing to accept Catholic translations and Deuterocanonical books.


texts:
Currently the Pope is hosting an interfaith conference in the Vatican about the sanctity of marriage.  I have been listening somewhat to the different speakers. One in particular, Rev. Dr. Richard D. Warren of the Saddleback Church, caught my attention to what he said, which has sparked a question.

This link is his speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XF7cBeDZiM. Near the end he said something along these lines:

Jesus said, there will be no marriage, nor families in the next life because these are institutions created by God to prepare us for what is to come, and because we will be part of it, we no longer need them to prepare because we are there.

Question: Where in the scriptures is this taught?

To give some background, I am LDS, to which we believe that family life extends into the next life and we can live with our spouses and children forever based on our righteousness.


texts: Introduction to Catholicism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Anglican and Eastern Christian for kids

texts:
I'm quite ignorant on such different Christianity religions, on their history, main differences, and relations etc, so quite handicapped in introducing such to my 7 years old boy.
I noticed there's a very good question here Can somebody summarize the different "branches" of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place? however it's more for adults, ie more on facts.
May I ask for a recommendation on materials that explain such clearly and also with much fun? It's even better if it's a book.


texts: Was it necessary for Jesus to be identified by a disciple of His?

texts:
Why did the Jewish leaders have to seek the help of Judas Iscariot in identifying Jesus for them ( Matt 26:49 ; Mark 14:45 ) . Is it that Jesus looked so similar to his disciples that  it was difficult to identify Him without the help of someone well-acquainted to Him ?  Or, is it that the Jewish leaders did not want to risk arresting the wrong person and thereby losing a second  chance (of arresting Jesus)  fearing a public commotion ?  What is the Roman Catholic view on the role attributed to Judas?

By the way, the Gospels do not quote any prophesy - of course, other than that of Jesus Himself - having been fulfilled by way of that betrayal, which has since been talked about all through human history.


texts: Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible?

texts: Which angels and fallen angels are named in the Bible. and what are they responsible for?


texts: Were there provisions for salvation for non-Hebrews in the OT?

texts:
One of the significant points of Jesus ministry and the evangelism done by the early apostles seems to be their going to "gentile" nations and preaching that they too were recipients of God's plan of salvation.

Are there any provisions for (or examples of) non-Hebrews in the OT? Was salvation strictly limited to a specific nation and race or was there a way in other than birth?


texts: Why would one literally eat the body of Christ, if it is literal?

texts:
According to those who hold that the bread and wine do not merely represent the body and blood of Christ, but actually are those things, why are those things eaten?

Should they not be buried?


texts: Is there a prescribed posture for prayer?

texts: I want to know if it is wrong to lie in bed and pray. I know we should kneel and pray but when I do that I lose focus and is not as meaningful as when I am in bed so is it okay to lie in bed and give a meaningful prayer or should I just focus more and be patient until I get used to kneeling on my knees


texts: Where, exactly, were Christ's body and soul during the Descendit?

texts:
In the Confessional Presbyterian, Vol. 3, p. 104ff., Daniel Hyde wrote about several different views of the Descendit - the descent of Christ into Hell - in his article "In Defense of the Descendit: A Confessional Response to Contemporary Critics of Christ's Descent into Hell". I found the article helpful, but found myself a bit puzzled on what exactly each of the views thought concerning where Christ was at any point during the Descendit. According to the orthodox view, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. His divine nature is God, and therefore omnipresent. But His human nature is the same as ours, yet without sin. So, for these different views of the Descendit, where is Jesus' human body, and where is His human soul during the events of the Crucifixion, Descent, Resurrection, and Ascension?

The four views about which Daniel Hyde wrote about are the following:

The Punishment View (Christ's human soul undergoing more suffering in order to finish our redemption)
The Second-Chance View (to give those who died before His first coming the chance to repent)
Pronouncement of Triumph to Believers View
Pronouncement of Triumph to Satan View

If you know a particular view's beliefs (it doesn't have to be in this list), I'd be happy to see them here.

What I'm looking for is a sort of chart that has the four events I mentioned above along the top for the columns, and Jesus' human body and human soul along the left for two different rows. So that's 8 table entries per view of the Descendit. Example:


texts: What were the "sons of God" in Genesis 6, according to Mormons?

texts:
This is similar to this and this other question about the subject, but here I am interested in the LDS church point of view.

It's about this passage in Genesis 6:2 (here according to KJV):

  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and
  they took them wives of all which they chose.

Note that above is the same text as the Genesis 6:2 in the KJV here at lds.org.

According to one interpretation that I have read is that the "sons of God" were spirit beings who materialized (similar to the ones who visited Abraham in Genesis 18, and Lot in Genesis 19). Another one is that they were part of some group of humankind that married the daughters from the line of Cain.

What is the Mormon interpretation on who these "sons of God" were?


texts: In Luke 1:67, was Zechariah filled with the Holy Ghost as the Apostles were in the book of Acts? It is my understanding that the Holy Ghost was sent after the death of Christ.


texts: What is the role of Lucifer in the Heavenly realm?

texts:
Lucifer means "bearer of light". Would this means that he bear Jesus who revealed himself as the Light or the scriptures are speaking of a different light?

Scriptures, Church Fathers and Saints teach that Lucifer is only a "cherub" but Book of Ezekiel chapter 28 described the beauty and intelligence of Lucifer plus mentioned that he was "anointed" (Ezekiel 28:14)

  Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth

What is the role of Lucifer in the heavenly realms before his fall according to Catholicism?

Does the anointing given to him means additional role aside from bearing the light?

It may appear that I am inquiring numerous question, but the intention is simply to have a clear picture of the totality of Lucifer's role in the heavenly realm before his fall.


texts: Wouldn't the "spirit of Jesus" [mentioned in Acts 16:7] challenge the idea of the Trinity?

texts:
As seen here: http://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/16-7.html

  ...and after they came to Mysia, they were trying to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them;

If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the Godhead, how is it that we read here "the Spirit of Jesus" and yet in other places "the Holy Spirit" (Acts 16:6) and not come to the conclusion that, at the very least, Jesus is the Holy Spirit?


texts: What are the requirements for each of the three levels of Glory?

texts:
In LDS theology, there are three levels of Glory for the Saints.  What are the requirements for reaching each level?  (In other words, what determines who goes to which?)

Also, who goes to Hell (The temporary Spirit Prison), and what determines if one escapes from Hell, or gets cast into Outer Darkness?

Scripture references, links to the official statements, and teaching from the Church are all welcome as valid supportive references.


texts: Is there a difference between celebrating Mass for a living person and for a deceased one?

texts:
In the Catholic church, the people can have Mass celebrated for someone. From the salvation point of view, what is the difference between celebrating a Mass:

for dead persons whose souls are in purgatory
and for persons that are still alive (e.g. for healing or repentance of that person)?

Based on this difference, is it possible to say which purpose is more important?


texts: Need help with Latin Formula for an unusual Saint Benedict Cross

texts:
Can someone help translate the Latin formula used on the left side of the cross below. I already know the right side is the formula for Saint Benedict's Medal but the letters on the left still elude me. I'm assuming they relate to the Saint Benedict prayers of protection, because of what is known about it so far.

I believe the letters on the left are delineated by the Greek cross between some of the letters but that's just an assumption on my part. Anyone familiar with this representation of the St. Benedict's Medal or perhaps the formula on the left looks familiar to someone familiar with the Benedictine Order.

If it helps, the translation of the formula on the right is below.

CSS is found diagonal on the top, then ML-NDSMD going down from right center.
C S S M L - N D S M D, initials of the words Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Non draco sit mihi dux! ("May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon (devil) never be my overlord!")

Then these letters are found on the crossbars (just to the right of the vertical phrase mentioned above)
V R S N S M V - S M Q L I V B, in reference to Vade retro satana: Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas! ("Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!")

At the bottom the is CSPB, listed left to right and top down.
C S P B in reference to Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti ("The Cross of [our] Holy Father Benedict").

Also possibly of note, it's on double cross bar often associate with a Caravaca or Crusaders cross with a Celtic design at center.


texts: How common is it to fast for 40+ days among Christians?

texts:
I recently watched a testimony that reports the results of a 40-day water/juice fast (no food). The individual claims to have been addicted to drugs for 22 years, including marijuana, cocaine, mushrooms, LSD, ecstasy, prescription pain pills and alcohol. He went cold turkey, abstaining from both food and addictive substances during the 40-day fast, after which he reports complete freedom and no relapses.
I find this testimony quite impressive, both for the amazing results and the endurance required to accomplish such a long fast, but I also find it kind of extreme. I know that Jesus is reported to have fasted for 40 days too in Scripture, but to be honest, fasting for such a long period of time is not something you commonly hear about.
How common is it to fast for 40 or more days among Christians? What are the typical reasons Christians give for the decision to fast for 40+ days?


texts: How widespread is the safe environment program in Catholic Catechetical programs?

texts: Tomorrow I get to once again do the safe environment class as directed by my diocese (Madison). I was just wondering, because I have nearly no way of knowing other than to maybe randomly get an associate of the USCCB wandering in here and answering my question, but is everyone doing this program or is it dependent on the amount of sexual abuse cases in your diocese, is it ever going to go away?  For me, at least, its getting pretty old.


texts: According to Trinitarianism, should prayers always be directed at one Person at a time, or can we pray to the whole Trinity simultaneously?

texts: According to Trinitarianism, is it valid to pray to God "in general" (the whole Godhead) without specifying the Person (Father, Son or Holy Spirit), or should we always be explicit about which Person we are specifically directing the prayer to?


texts: What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy?

texts: I sometimes find myself lost in my own church's different levels of clergy and the Catholic church's seems even more complex? What different positions in the clergy exist within the Roman Catholic church and how do they relate to one another in the church's governing structure?


texts:
According to 131 Christians Everyone Should Know:*

  [Martin Luther] mocked fellow reformers, especially Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, and used vulgar language in doing so.

What was Luther's rationale for disparaging Zwingli?

* Galli, M., & Olsen, T. (2000). In 131 Christians everyone should know (p. 36): Luther, Martin. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.


texts: Was the Lord with whom Abraham negotiated material or Holistic?

texts:
In Genesis chapter 18 Abraham negotiated with one of the three men who came to his tent.

Verse 18:20 refers to that individual as 'LORD' , and only two of those are called Angels and go on to Sodom.

Since all things material were created by God in Genesis chapter 1, using the word 'Lord' would seem to indicate that that being was non material.

And yet we know that Abraham saw three men, that leads me to wonder if that one with which Abraham negotiated were an apparition.

I was further intrigued by the fact the other two (who are referred to as Angels) continued to Sodom while the  'LORD' did not.

What do Theologians say about this?


texts: What was the role of Apollos in the early church?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 3:6, Paul wrote:

  I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.

Why did Paul specifically mention Apollos as that is the name of a god in Greek mythology?


texts: Did Martin Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door?

texts:
The traditional story is that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church doors of Wittenberg, Germany, which served as a bulletin board of sorts, on October 31, 1517. However, some sources debate this. For instance, this article about Luther commemoration in the US contains a slideshow with the following:

  Did Luther really nail his 95 theses to the main door of the Wittenberg Castle church? Reformation historians are still discussing this point 500 years later. In fact, Luther himself never mentioned the theses. Belgian historical painter Ferdinand Pauwels didn't seem to care - he painted Luther with hammer and nails anyway.

It unfortunately does not elaborate or provide sources.

Did Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door on October 31st? And if not, where did that traditional image and date come from?


texts: What is the biblical evidence against a pre-incarnate Jesus?

texts: According to groups that reject Jesus having a pre-incarnate existence, what Biblical evidence do they cite for the position that Jesus, the Messiah, did not exist prior to his conception in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit? In particular what groups hold this position and what common  ground do they share in their evidence for it?


texts: Nehemiah 9:2 were there foreigners in Israel at that time?

texts:
Nehemiah 9:2 NIV reads: “Those of Israelite descent had separated themselves from all foreigners.”

Were there other people in Israel that didn’t have Israel descent at the time? And did they build the wall as well? Did they worship the same God?


texts: When did the insertion of title-page for Old Testament and New Testament started?

texts:
All the Bible I have seen have title-pages for both New Testament and Old Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title "The Old Testament" which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title "The New Testament" indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament.

I wanted to know how it was in the antique Greek Bibles and I checked the Codex Sinaiticus online. Have a look at this particular page, which is the last page of the Book of Job and the last page for the Old Testament in Codex Sinaiticus. The next page is Gospel of Matthew. I did not find any extra page dedicated for the title "The Old Testament". (I can't read Greek, so please someone read for me what is written at the bottom right corner of the page as I believe it marks the end of Old Testament or something like that)  :P

When did the division of the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament started?

When was it decided that it should be divided?

(Thanks in advance to whoever read those Greek words for me)


texts: Was Esau's Birthright also a physical token?

texts:
I read long ago in the Open Bible as a note, that birth rights were actually a physical carved token that Jacob tricked Esau out of, I guess a registered icon with the powers that be. Is this true? It's never mentioned anyone else.

It seems to make sense to me, as Esau could've lied to this father, even though he swore to Jacob. He couldn't do this if the supposed birthright token was transferred to Jacob.

Perhaps the bible version I read was incorrect... would be interesting to find out for sure.


texts:
Fewer texts in the OT have been more important to the Christian church than Isaiah 7:14. To give a context let us go through a few ancient translations of Isaiah 7:14 in the Versions of the Old Testament.

Hebrew Masoretic of Isaiah 7:14

לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם אֹ֑ות הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמֹ֖ו עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

The Jews of the second century AD did not interpret העלמה as a virgin as St. Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho demonstrates. Therefore, the text probably should be read in a neutral way, the young woman will conceive and give birth to a son as intended by the surrounding context of that text without excluding a possibility that the young woman might be a virgin.

We can compare both MSS and DSS with LXX which differ from one another. There is no known manuscript or fragment of Isaiah 7:14 which use בתולה instead of העלמה. Perhaps the real issue should be whether or not the word בתולה, which always means virgin, was used in Isaiah for that purpose. The answer is, yes, it is used in Isaiah 62:5. LXX translated both indistinguishably with ἡ παρθένος, a virgin.

St. Jerome was the only Christian to argue from the Hebrew text, who concluded that the Hebrew העלמה should be read as virgo, if even in a periphrastic way.  Jerome actually believed that the Hebrew העלמה meant abscondita “hidden.”  Therefore the girl in Isaiah 7:14 was more than a virgin.  She was a cloistered girl, which necessitates virginity.

Greek Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ.

Its reading  is found in Matthew 1:21 and it has become the proof text of the virgin birth of Christ for the Church among the Church Fathers. But to translate a Hebrew word העלמה the Greek Septuagint calls Dinah as ἡ παρθένος in Genesis 34:3 after being raped in a verse earlier.

The readings of Aquila and Theodotion, two of the Three Jewish revisers of the LXX in the first and second centuries clearly remove the idea of chaste woman from the text.  Of course a young woman might incidentally be a virgin, but their usage of ἡ νεᾶνις renders the Hebrew העלמה and implies that the conception and the birth of the son will happen in the natural way.

How Christians explain that Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin? Can such passage be read textually as referring to a young cloistered maiden while maintaining that it necessitates virginity as suggested by Jerome because it's a sign to support a Christian doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ?1

1 I appreciate Justin’s argument from the Greek word σημειον in Dialogue 84.  In essence he argues that it would not be a divine sign if the woman would give birth in the natural way.  The sign is precisely that because the Messiah would be born in a supernatural way by a virgin. But Jews argue that the sign isn't alluding to a virgin birth.


texts: Who told Cain and Abel of Sacrificial rituals or offerings?

texts: In Genesis 4 Cain and Abel gave offerings (or sacrifice). Who instructed them to give this offering or sacrifice? Was it a burnt offering?


texts: Research project: am I missing any verses where Jesus addresses wealth and greed?

texts:
This is what I have so far; have I missed anything important?

Luke 06:24-25 (woe to rich & fed)
Luke 12:15-21 (rich fool parable)
Luke 16:19-31 (rich man & lazarus)
Mark 10:23-24 / Luke 18:24-25 (camel & needle)
Matt 06:19-21 (treasures in heaven)
Matt 06:24 / Luke 16:13 (god & money)

Thanks for any input.


texts: What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

texts:
Some religions claim to have a newer revelation of God: the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an are presented to be the latest revelation of God.

The Old Testament closes with a climax of expectation of the Savior. The New Testament presents the Savior and finishes with his return. What are the biblical arguments that the canon is closed?

I do understand that Catholics include in the canon what protestants calls the Apocrypha, but I don't want to make a distinction about that in this question. Although, there is no need to quote out of these books to answer this question.


texts: Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor?

texts:
I found this Christianity Stack question which asks if Lutherans use pastor or priest: Lutheranism: "Pastor" or "Priest"?

However, my question is specifically regarding the Roman Catholic Church and whether priests are ever addressed as pastor. I have an assignment about the Protestant Reformation and the use of the title pastor, and had assumed that in the U.S. the term pastor is only used within Protestant denominations.

That could be a serious error on my part.  So, before I continue with my assignment, I seek clarification on the use of the title pastor, specifically with regard to its use within the Catholic Church.  Are Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor?


texts: In the Catholic Church's calender, what are Solemnities, Feasts, and Memorials?

texts:
In researching for this question: Anne and Joachim are the parents of Mary - is this a Catholic dogma? | @H3br3wHamm3r81, I came across

  Each year the Church venerates the memory of Saints Anne & Joachim on
  July 26th.

And the day was termed a Memorial.

Looking through the Church's calender, celebrations were termed Solemnities, Feasts, and Memorials.

Are these all the terms that can be applied to a celebration?

What distinguishes these terms, and how does a celebration get a particular term?


texts: Does Luke 13:24 give us a more vivid picture of how many people will be saved?

texts:
I mean how many times have we said 'let me see' or 'let me try'. Or how many times have we felt like - I'm trying to be a Christian.  Seems like trying is not good enough according to Luke 13:24:

  Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

For example, as a Christian, I've been trying to give at least my tithe, but have always failed because I hold back. So if I don't change NOW, I'm not gonna make it. Right or Wrong. Is there anywhere else in the Bible that reads trying is not good enough?

There are about 7 billion people on earth. Taking Luke 13:24 in mind, is a FEW like 7000 people.


texts: Which Reformed Christians deny the doctrine of common grace and why?

texts:
Common grace is the doctrine that states that God has a general sense in which he gives all people, not just believers, gifts that proceed from his own graciousness. Most of these gifts concern material provision (Matthew 5:45) arts, politics, and culture (Genesis 4).

Which Reformed groups deny this? How do they explain their denial?


texts: What is the creationist view on animals equipped with lethal weapons?

texts:
If God created the world with the intention that his creatures should live in harmony (as pictured in Isaiah 11:6-9) why did he create some animals with lethal weapons?

Why do spiders make webs to trap insects? Why do scorpions have venomous stings? Why do lions have teeth that are great for eating meat but lousy for eating grass?


texts: So, the best question any pastor can be asked is "How can I learn to pray?"  I know how I do it, but what resources (preferably in Scripture, although classic works are acceptable) would be useful for actually guiding someone in developing a disciplined prayer life?


texts: What's the name of the heresy that declares Mary Mother of God is a goddess?

texts: Such heresy was condemned centuries ago by the Church, but I cannot remember its name.


texts: What is the historical evidence of people gagging, retching, dry heaving and vomiting during exorcisms?

texts:
A pattern I've noticed across multiple live recordings of exorcisms from totally independent sources is that in all of them you see the individuals being exorcised have intense gags. Here are a few examples of this phenomenon:
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
M,
N,
O
(the links already include the timestamps of when people start retching). What I find interesting is that they are not vomiting food, they are just dry heaving, spitting out saliva at most, and this usually happens when the exorcist is commanding the alleged "entities" to leave the person, "lift a curse" or something similar. In fact, there appears to be a whole trend of "online" exorcists uploading videos of remote deliverances via Skype or other platforms, and it's very common to see people manifest and start retching and coughing at some point in the videos.
Here is a similar anecdote posted by U.S.Catholic on May 16, 2011:

After a decades-long absence, interest in demonic possession—and the ritual to
defeat it—is on the rise. For more than a decade, Frank, a software
consultant who lives near Silicon Valley, California has been haunted
by depression and rage. Searching for remedies to lift his dark mood,
Frank, 52, tried pills, therapy, even channeling spirits. Nothing
worked.
Three years ago, his wife handed him a book about demonic possession.
Written by a former priest active in charismatic Catholic circles, the
book presented scriptural arguments for the existence of demons and
offered advice to questions such as, “How do we know if an evil spirit
is really present?” and “How do I pray for deliverance?” Desperate for
relief, Frank decided, while jogging one night, to pray for
deliverance.
“If I had known what was going to happen, I would have picked a more
private place,” Frank says.
After reciting the recommended prayer, he doubled over, dry heaving,
by the side of the road. His lungs felt like they were leaping out of his chest.

So, is this just a recent phenomenon, or can we find evidence of retching, gagging, coughing, dry heaving and vomiting during exorcisms all throughout history?


texts: Is there a link between Socinianism and Sir Isaac Newton's conclusion to his Principia Mathematica (1687) where he attacks the Trinity doctrine?

texts:
This linked question What was Isaac Newton's view of the Trinity? was useful with the answer giving one quote from John Byl's article 'Newton and the Trinity' where Newton said that the great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, "the false infernal religion".
However, the claim was made that "Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature". Yet in this link, it appears that Newton did make some statements of this nature at the end of his Principia Mathematica: https://isaac-newton.org/articles/
Under the heading "Theology of General Scholium" it says,

"This essay, published in Osiris in 2001, reveals that the most famous
book in the history of science (Newton’s Principia) concludes with an
account of biblical monotheism and an attack on the doctrine of the
Trinity."

However, I cannot get the link to open up the actual essay. This is why I am asking this question, to see if anyone can help establish that this published work shows disagreement with the Trinity doctrine, and - further - to see if his anti-trinitarianism shows any links to the Socinianism that predated his Principia Mathematica by at least 80 years.
I have this about Socinianism and The Polish Brethren, with which Stephen David Snobelen identifies Newton in the above link.  The quote below is from E.H. Broadbent in The Pilgrim Church, pp224-5:

“One form of prevalent error which Calvin hoped to suppress by his
strict rule [in Geneva] was Unitarian in character.  It was of ancient
origin, resembling Arianism in some respects, but at this time began
to be described as Socinianism on account of the association with it
of Lelio (1525-62) and Faustus (1539-1604) Sozini, uncle and nephew,
natives of Siena in Italy.  The latter lived much in Poland, since
there as in Transylvania, Unitarian teaching was permitted and was
wide-spread.  He united the divided sections of Unitarians in Poland;
they were called “Polish Brethren” and the “Racovian” Catechism
expressed their views.  Socinianism spread from them as a centre.  It
early affected some in the Protestant churches...”

So, my question is, Does Newton end his Principia Mathematica with anti-trinitarian claims as suggested in Snobelen's web-page, and is Newton's anti-trinitarianism a form of Socinianism?


texts: According to Baptist theology why doesn't Satan surrender?

texts:
We know that Satan is at war with God.  This is a root cause of the Fall (depending on your perspective).  We also know that God is omnipotent, while Satan is not.  This means that Satan is doomed.  In James 2:19 it says (New International Version (NIV))

  You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that — and shudder.

This scripture shows that demons know that they are doomed too.

If I were in a fight that I knew I had a precisely 0% chance of winning, I would surrender if I had the chance.  As God is merciful, I am pretty sure he is giving or has given Satan that chance.

Why hasn't Satan taken the opportunity to accept God's infinite mercy?

I am asking from the Baptist viewpoint.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the logical Problem of Evil?

texts:
From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

  The problem of evil refers to the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God (see theism).
  …

  The problem of evil is often formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil.

  …

  Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus, the logical argument from evil is as follows:

  If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
  There is evil in the world.
  Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

My question is, what is the biblical basis that such a logical problem exists?  More specifically, what is the biblical basis that God has unlimited power, has  the capacity to know everything that there is to know, and has unlimited or infinite good will or disposition to do good?

Edit: I had hoped for answers that would have taken a more holistic view of the Bible (that is, that these attributes are always with God and have always been with God).

If a verse states is that God is Omnipotent and  maintains the universe in its order, then how and why does God rest? (cf. Genesis 2:2–3)
If a verse states that God is Omniscient, then why does God ask men questions? (cf. Genesis 3:9, 11, 13; Genesis 4:6, 10; Acts 9:4) or why does God change his mind? (cf. Amos 7:6)
If a verse states God is Omnibenevolent, then why does God have evil plans or do evil things? (cf. Jeremiah 26:13; Jonah 3:9–10; 1 Chronicles 21:15)

Note: this is not asking for a discussion of how to answer or defend against the problem of evil such as these questions:

How to answer "Why do evil and suffering exist?"

How can we defend our faith against the "Argument from Evil" or "Problem of Evil"?

The following question is different because: (1) does not contain all three requirements of my question and (2) is only bounded by the general understanding of the term and not by the philosopher's meaning of the terms as framed by their question.

What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience?


texts: What does the bible say about interracial marriages?

texts:
This has been a popular topic of debate, at least where I live. As Armenians, we like to...discourage marriages with spouses of a different ethnicity or nationality, simply in order to carry the culture and Armenian name for as many generations as possible.

Were there any mentions of interracial marriages or relationships in the bible, like whether it is condoned or not?


texts: What is the biblical basis for women being created in the image of God?

texts:
This question is not made to defame Biblical doctrines or teachings, just a genuine curiosity that no one I talk to has an answer for.

Genesis 1:27 states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him male and female created he them."

So when 'man' in the singular is mentioned, I saw that it was the historical use of 'mankind' or 'human' and the Bible referred to both man and woman collectively in the singular (conf. Genesis 5:2). But this explanation became confusing considering 1 Corinthians 11:4-13. I don't even understand what the image of God really means nevertheless. While it seems obvious that women are held in much higher respect in both the real world and the Bible than, say, animals and plants, there is also plenty of Bible to justify a subordination.

And when proponents for the view 'woman are not made in God's image' are brought up, they bring up passages like 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 and 14:34, as well as the fact that every church traditionally forbade women from ordination. Ultimately, I'd like to know what the Biblical basis is for the belief that women are made in God's image, in light of the restrictions set upon them.

Again, this is a real question not meant to defame anyone or belief and I am not advocating for any reform or anti-church political agenda. I am a God-fearing, albeit doctrinally-ignorant and confused, Christian.


texts: What Biblical support for praying to the saints is usually cited by those Christians who practice that?

texts:
Possible Duplicates:
  Praying to people outside the Trinity
  What is the Basis for the solicitation of prayers from dead saints

I understand that those who practice praying to the saints rely heavily on either their own experience in this regard or on the experience of others who likewise practiced praying to the saints in their lives. However, they may also have some support from the Bible for this practice. What places from the Bible do such Christians view as indicating the validity of this practice?


texts: Is it impossible to think that after judgment day being thrown into hell and then not existing after that is way worse than being in hell?

texts: I have always believed that if you go to hell your soul will be there for ever.  After looking at all the versus talking about heaven and hell, is there any verse that clearly states your soul will LIVE forever in hell. What does the words parish and destroy mean in Hebrew and Greek?


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses make the Old Testament forms of address to God ( "Jehovah" and "Father") more important than "Abba?"

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe God is the Father whose name is the Hebrew YHVH, the Tetragrammaton, which was the name the Apostles called on to be saved.
However, after calling on the name to be saved, the New Testament states that those who believe and accept what has been done to restore the relationship between God and man should acknowledge they are sons of God by calling the Father "Abba:"

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15) [ESV]

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:6)

The term "Abba" is from the Aramaic אַבָּא vocative form, originally a term of endearment, later used as a title and personal name; rarely used in reference to God which is transliterated into Greek as ἀββα. It was taken over by Greek speaking Christians as a liturgical formula.1
The use of "Abba" by the Greek speaking Christians is not surprising given Paul's instruction. Historically what is described with the name, is similar to animal sacrifice which those who rejected God's act of salvation believe is still necessary but the Apostles and all who believe understand are no longer required. In other words, where the Jewish people were told to call on the name of YHVH to be saved and to call on "the Father" (eg. in prayer) before the death and resurrection of Jesus, and still do, those who had been saved were to use "Abba."
Moreover, "Abba" is also how Jesus addressed His Father in the garden of Gethsemane:

And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36)

How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain the requirement to use the name which was and still is associated with the Old Testament and its sacrificial system and not address God the Father in the way which acknowledges the current condition? In other words, since Paul says "Abba" is how someone who has been saved because the OT law has been fulfilled and is a child of God should address God the Father, how is instructing someone to use the Jewish name "Jehovah" consistent with the message of salvation Paul preached in the New Testament?

Fredrick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, The University Chicago Press, 2000, p. 1


texts: How are the religious minorities spread over Syria?

texts:
When hearing about the civil war in Syria often religious (and ethnic) minorities are mentioned. There are for example different kinds of muslims, Yazidis, different kinds of Eastern Orthodox Christians, different kinds of Eastern Catholic Christians.

My question is: How are these minorities spread over the country? I am not interested in statements like "Christians live in the North", but "There are whole provinces with nearly only Orthodox Christians with some scattered Eastern Catholic villages." or "The minorities live unseperated. In each village you will find one of each minority."

My focus is on Christians and esp. on how Eastern Rite Catholics are distributed among the Orthodox. Mentioning other minorities is good too.

I am interested in answers for before todays mobility (maybe 100 years ago) and for now (or before the war).


texts: Why do Catholic churches have a red lamp burning inside?

texts:
Is there any significance to the red lamp that is lit inside Catholic churches?

I ask because I recently saw a green lamp lit at the entrance to a Church of Scotland village church and wondered if the lighting of a lamp is common to both Catholic and (some) Protestant churches.  Just curious!


texts: In Eastern theology, the idea of a dispassionate God is common. It is often said that wrath is an energy of God but is not part of his essence. I have even heard Western theologians say that wrath is not an eternal attribute of God (it did not exist in the absence of sin, it only exists in response to unholiness). Does he really get mad or is this just for our benefit, since "God is love?" Or is this an influx from Plato into Christian thought? I am interested in a Western explanation (which often speaks of eternal vs. temporal "attributes" of God rather than the Eastern model of essence vs. energies).


texts:
I understand that there is one sin that cannot be forgiven and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

But beyond this, what is the greatest sin that a person can commit? Either voluntarily or involuntarily?

I believe that we might be able to gain some insight into all other sin through the answer of this question.


texts: How can we be sure our specific Christian confession is true, when every other Christian group claims that it's not?

texts:
I'm a recent convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but I've started to doubt the faith recently, and I’m really desperate for help. The doubt I have is really one I've had since the beginning of my conversion process, and one I have never seen anyone satisfactorily answer, and it is currently the biggest impediment to my fully believing, namely: what if I'm wrong? And I don't just mean about Christianity, although that's certainly a concern too, but just about the particular Church I belong to.

Historic Christianity (and all churches that currently exist from apostolic times, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church, etc.) all claim to be the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" founded by Jesus Christ, and outside of which there is no salvation. Similarly numerous Protestant groups claim that if you don't adhere to their interpretations of scripture, you're most certainly hellbound.

And my problem is this: why must I become a historical and theological scholar to believe in Jesus? Deciding between the historic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian churches, Protestant, etc.) requires immense amounts of historical and theological study, and at the end of the day I could still be wrong. There will ALWAYS be that doubt in my mind, “what if you’re wrong about X doctrine, and you’ve been a part of the wrong Church this whole time,” no matter where I end up, this doubt is always going to be there. There will always be people claiming that I don’t “really understand” some doctrine or historical event, and therefore my faith is completely wrong and I’m essentially damned.

Christians talk a lot about us “submitting to the Truth, and not claiming it for ourselves,” but how am I supposed to do that if everyone is claiming they have the one Truth, and everyone is saying everyone else is just being deceived by demons or something? How can I submit to the Truth, if I don’t know what it is? Even if God decided to “reveal” something to me, how could I be sure it’s of God? At the end of the day, no matter what I believe, I’m always just relying on my own interpretation of the data. What I believe is decided by me, no matter how much “evidence” I may have for it, I’m a fallible human being and I could totally be wrong. I’m not a theology expert, I’m not a historian, I’m not a philosopher, and yet even if I was, would it matter? There are scholarly theologians, historians, and philosophers who all think they have the one Truth and everyone else is wrong, while completely contradicting one another. The same is true of all historic forms of Christianity that have canonized saints claiming that their Church is only right one, and all those outside are damned.

We can’t even rely on this notion that “well our saints perform miracles, and I’ve witnessed some of these miracles,” because the same holds true in Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Orthodoxy, and even non-Christian religions, and they can’t all be right. In fact, according to each group, they’re the only ones who have valid miracles and everyone else is just being demonically deceived. I really don’t know if there’s any actual response to this question, and so far I haven’t found it, and I don’t expect to find it from anyone here but I’m desperate here. I really want to believe, I really do, but if I can’t be sure, what’s the point?


texts: What is the earliest appearance of the expression "swallowed up in God"?

texts:
Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley and other Great Awakening writers often use the expression "swallowed up in God". It also appears in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux.

Does it have a scriptural or other early origin?


texts: Are there example writings of general refutation from Jesus' time?

texts:
There is an apologetic argument that goes like this:

If the gospels were not factual, then we should expect to find other writings from the same time which refute them. We do not, therefore the gospels are factual.

One assumption of this argument is that the gospels (or at least one) were originally written soon enough after the events were said to have taken place, that people who witnessed Jesus's life and death would have still been alive.

My questions is: Are there any examples from that time, location and culture which fit this category? In other words, that could compete the sentence: "...we should expect to find other writings from the same time which refute them, just like we do with XXX"


texts: What is a free online New Testament commentary you recommend for diving into the historical/cultural context and the Greek/manuscripts?

texts: Although I grew up with a Bible and went to a "church," I was raised in a pseudo-Christian group but I converted to orthodox Christianity. So I am planning on reading the entire New Testament on my own. Anyways, I prefer a commentary written by a scholar, especially one who specializes in historical context and Koine Greek. Thanks!


texts: What is the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon?

texts:
The Community of Christ – formerly the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" – is a rather unique branch of Christianity in that it stems from the LDS Church, recognizing the Book of Mormon, but is also Trinitarian in its beliefs.

It seems to follow from this that they must conclude that the Book of Mormon affirms the doctrine of the Trinity and does not teach eternal progression like the LDS church teaches.

My question, then, is what is the Book of Mormon basis in support of the doctrine of the Trinity?


texts: Is it true the term 'pontifex maximus' was the name of the high priest of the Roman Cult of Emperor Worship, before being adopted by the Pope?

texts:
This has always seemed strange to me that the Pope would not want to distance himself with emperor worship as much as possible. If pointifex maximus was a term used by the government of Rome in its emperor worship, wouldn’t the Pope’s PR men advise using a different title? Or am I not correct in the initial assumption?

Also, I have seen on occasion that he used a pointy hat (the original pontifex maximus) does the Pope ever wear similar clothes as well? Or is there no similarity in dress at all?


texts: Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?

texts:
(Note: I know this may start a firestorm, so I will be careful here.)

I believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is immoral.

I also believe that it does NOT condemn homosexuals to hell (a sin is a sin is a sin). When a person receives Christ in them they are saved and ALL their sins are forgiven.

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

Also, I would like this to be about homosexuality itself, not about homosexuals or the culture of homosexuality (i.e. stereotypes about homosexuals, etc.).


texts: Do Christians have "secret" (handshakes for example) ways of knowing who other Christians were?

texts: Did Christians ever come up with "secret" ways of knowing who other Christians were? I don't mean exactly a handshake, because I get that sometimes people don't (or can't) shake hands. Seems like it might be a bit pointless, like a joke you have with friends or something. But did they?


texts: Is it right for us to help more non-Christians people as compare to Christians? jesus sacrifice for us then more eligible christians or some ane else?

texts: i need the answers .. first tell me christians belong to Jesus or some one else.. if jesus sacrifice for us .. then first preference go the christians not the others religions right.. Do you know that jesus more love isreal not the others people  .. so tell me we have to prefer christianity or the buddist, muslims etc..


texts: What are some of the reasons for which Catholics are against gender-neutral secular marriage?

texts:
I get that Catholicism won't acknowledge religious gender-neutral or same-sex marriage (GNM) and why it won't support GNM,

but why exactly does that extend to being outright against (as opposed to having no stand) secular GNM?

Besides possibly the arguments here, what are there?

In case the article is too long for you, here is a response that takes the article apart.


texts: Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title "Mother of God"?

texts:
I have heard the title "Mother of God" in connection with the "Hail Mary" prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics.

However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting.  (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; Theotokos in Greek literally means "Birth-giver of God", as well as Bohoroditza in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups).

Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?


texts:
In my previous question Are Catholics allowed to believe that the EF or OF is objectively more reverent than the other?
someone mentioned two terms reverence and imparting grace. I had to ask a new question.
How can something be less reverent but impart the same graces?
A Sacrament can be done/celebrated in a less reverent way but still impart the same grace(s). This confuses me. It seems to make Sacraments something that has nothing to do with what the faithful do and how they participate.
Some have even said that in order to be forgiven of your mortal sins outside of Confession you need perfect contrition but in the Sacrament itself imperfect contrition is enough. I confuses me. I am only talking about cases in which a person cannot attend Confession eg. being either a non-Catholic or not being able to find a Priest.
Catholic Dictionary say this about reverence: "The virtue that inclines a person to show honor and respect for persons who possess some dignity."
Wiktionary: "1. Veneration; profound awe and respect, normally in a sacred context."
catholic.org says this about imparting grace: "The sacraments impart grace, but, in addition, the very act of celebrating them disposes the faithful most effectively to receive this grace in a fruitful manner, to worship God rightly, and to practice charity."


texts: Why has Mary Magdalene been portrayed as a prostitute?

texts: A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to watch ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’.  It wasn't all that great and yes I found it a bit offensive, however it did get me thinking.  Why does it seem as if Mary Magdalene was portrayed as a prostitute? She appears to have been a supportive force for Jesus, and not in any sexually immoral way at that.  Could it be that during that time period women were seen as less than men, and those who were supportive were seen merely as prostitutes if they were not married?  There seem to be several women throughout the Bible that were followers of Christ, and made a difference but were not seen as prostitutes, such as Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. So why portray Magdalene as such?


texts: What’s the Eastern Orthodox belief on the Lake of Fire?

texts: How does Eastern Orthodox view the lake of fire and “eternal judgment“ (hebrew 6:2)?


texts: At what point did Judaism and Christianity diverge? Christianity and Judaism share the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible), so it should be safe to assume they are the same people at least during the Old Testament period. Since when did they disagree?


texts: What makes the spirit and body inseparable after the resurrection?

texts:
According to Mormon doctrine, body and spirit combined constitute a soul. Every man and woman that has ever lived on earth, previously lived as a spirit in the preexistence, and was born to earth into a mortal body prepared by mortal parents. Our mortal bodies are frail, and eventually die, at which point our spirits are separated from them until the resurrection.

I remember learning about body and spirit as a child, when our Sunday school teachers would explain that our bodies were like a glove, and our hands like our spirit. When the hand is in the glove it gives the glove life, but when we take it out, then the glove dies. After the resurrection, our spirits are reunited with our bodies, but cannot die again meaning that they are forever thereafter inseparable (see Romans 6:9).

According to Mormon Doctrine, What happens to our spirit and body during the resurrection that makes them inseparable?


texts: If Joseph was Jesus's adoptive father then did Jesus really have David's blood?

texts:
I'm new to this site, but I'm as well searching for answers of several questions I've been facing.

Last Monday, I had a question involving the relationship of Jesus and Joseph.
So far I know, Joseph has been a long-descendant of David. and I believe Jesus was also supposed to have David's blood, because that was the reason why Joseph became his 'mortal father'

But since Maria was pregnant without involving intercourse with Joseph, then Joseph would theoretically have adopted Jesus as his son, breaking the connection of David's blood.

So, to repeat my question again, Is it true that Jesus has the blood from Joseph and finally, also David?


texts: In Reformed theology, are Christians still "totally depraved"?

texts:
In 2012, Calvinist pastor Tullian Tchividjian wrote an article, "Are Christians Totally Depraved?", in which he applied the language of total depravity to both non-Christians and Christians.  He argued that the phrase, "as understood and articulated by theologians for centuries, [...] means more than one thing" – both having "no spiritual capacity to incline ourselves Godward" (as non-Christians) and "sin corrupt[ing] us in the 'totality' of our being" (as Christians).

Is this the typical understanding of the doctrine of total depravity in Reformed theology?


texts: On what do Mormons base their practice of proxy-baptisms on behalf of the dead?

texts:
How does the LDS Church define their practice of performing baptisms on behalf of people who have died? I realize there is the following verse, but there seems to be few other Biblical references to the matter.

  1 Corinthians 15:29 (ESV)
  29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Is the Mormon practice of baptising on behalf of people who have died derived from this verse and on what sources do they base their interpretation?

Note: I am specifically looking for LDS doctrine and references used to interpret this verse. There is a related question here: How do Protestants interpret "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29?


texts: Was removing one's shoes a special sign of respect?

texts:
In Exodus 3:5 KJV God tells Moses to remove his shoes:

  And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

There is no doubt that God deserves and should be given every respect we can offer.

I can find no information as to why Moses was to remove his shoes at the burning bush, other than as a form of respect.

While I understand that the ground was Holy because of the presence of God, I have wondered if removing our shoes in the presence of God shows a higher form of respect.


texts:
St. John of Damascus (676 - 749) writes on his Critique of Islam:

  From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy.

Could Arianism have influenced Islam? What are the similarities and differences between Arianism and Islam? Did Arianism survive to the current day as Arianism, with Islam being a branch-off based on Arian beliefs?


texts: Is the concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) three Gods or One?

texts:
I don't understand the concept of God in Christianity. Based on what I do know, there is God, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit -- doesn't this add up to 3 Gods?

In Christianity, is there there One (True God) or are there three gods? If there are three gods, what is the role of each one? And who was the original God? Who is the father to the "Son of God"?


texts: The Glory Be prayer and consolation - Catholic Spirituality

texts: Is there a Catholic author who discussed how praying the Glory Be prayer can provide consolation? I am looking for a book/article on that topic.