texts: Can a physically healthy, married couple honor God without having children?

texts:
If a married couple is physically able to have children (at least potentially) can they honor God without having children?

Roman Catholics, for example, say that sex has at least two purposes according to God: uniting a couple and producing offspring. Therefore if a couple is able to have kids they should at least try to at some point in time.

Under what circumstances would other church doctrines weigh in on whether or not a couple, otherwise able to have children, might choose to adopt rather than procreate in the natural fashion?


texts:
In Joshua 1:12, Joshua talks to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

What made the Manasseh a half-tribe? The Bible doesn't refer to the Reubenites and the Gadites as "half" a tribe. Why are they a "full" tribe compared to the tribe of Manasseh?


texts: Which denominations allow abortions, and why?

texts: Are there any Christian denominations that allow abortion? What (Biblical) argumentation do they use to justify this?


texts: What's the basic premise behind "restorationist" movements?

texts: To the untrained ear, the labels used in Christian circles for some groups of churches as either "reformational" or "restorationist" don't seem that different. If the label "reformed" is a direct connection to the Protestant Reformation of 16th century, what exactly makes something "restorationist"? Does this refer to one specific historical movement (e.g. 'Protestantism') or more generally to a genre of religious movements?


texts: Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Western Catholic)

texts:
This question is related to Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Protestant interpretation), but I didn't realize there may be different interpretations.

My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine.

If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination.

If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he was not a real human.

According to Western Catholic trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?


texts: What do the names of the different hours of the divine office mean? Where do they come from? (Etymology)

texts:
I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called.

The hours:

Matins
Prime
Lauds
Terce
Sext
None
Vespers
Compline

(I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)


texts: Gates of hell lock forever. What does gates of hell mean?

texts: Jonah 1:17 Jonah was inside the fish 3 days and nights. Jonah 2:2… Jonah went down to "the land whose gates lock forever" (Todays English Version) & Mat 16:18 (TEV) "not even death will be able to overcome it", (the church). Is the gates of hell (KJV) then death. Do we not fear being locked away, apart from God then if Jesus triumphed over the grave being 3 days and night in the belly of the earth/hell?


texts: What was Jerome's defense for translating the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן (kikayon) in Jonah 4:6, etc. into Latin as hedera?

texts:
In the Vulgate translation of Jonah 4:6–7, 4:9–10, Jerome translated the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן  (kikayon) into Latin as hedera, which is the equivalent of the English word "ivy."

Some, including Augustine, expressed their discontent with this particular translation of Jerome. In response, what was Jerome's personal defense for his translation of the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן into Latin as hedera?


texts: Baking and cutting eucharistic bread in the Eastern Orthodox Churches

texts: What is the scriptural basis of the Eastern Orthodox Church to select a person in good standing to bake the bread in preparation for the Eucharist, and what is the scriptural basis for cutting the bread (as opposed to breaking the bread), and in which jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox churches does this occur?


texts:
I'm not disputing that Hell exists, what I want to know is WHAT IS HELL?

In my opinion there are only two possible answers, but you might inform me of something else. Many people have argued that evil is the absence of God, hell must be evil, thus hell is the separation of us from God. As poetic as this sounds, I've never found the scripture to back this up. Maybe you have some that I haven't read yet.

The second option in my understanding is that hell is the wrath of God against the disobedient. I have found one piece of scripture that debatable states that God is in Hell, but not what He is doing down there.

Can you set me straight with the scripture that I need to understand the lake of fire?


texts: How are emendations to the Masoretic Text viewed within the doctrine of inerrancy?

texts:
This was prompted by an answer to another question of mine which quoted a source that noted alternative vocalization of the Masoretic text as an example of liberal tendencies in the NRSV.

This question is aimed at understanding the viewpoint of those groups who endorse the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as outlined in the Chicago Statement. I understand that there are likely sub-groups under this umbrella, and this is intended as an overview question of perspectives within that group. From the statement:

  WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

Clearly, neither the consonantal decisions of the Masoretic text nor vowels of any sort were part of the autographs, with the implication that these are, strictly speaking, outside the purview of the statement. However, as noted above and in the linked answer, people (myself included!) seem to feel uneasy when encountering emendations to the Masoretic text.

To what extent do various traditions under the umbrella of 'inerrancy' value the Masoretic text, both its vocalization and consonantal textual decisions? This may include the degree to which these decisions are considered inspired, instructive, illustrative of authorial intent, or whatever other facets of 'valuable' can be brought to bear.

Appendix:

A few examples of questions on Biblical Hermeneutics where we have discussed emendations to the MT that are understood by many Christian translations:   Psalm 22:16, Deut 32:8, Psalm 19:4, Obad 7, Ecc 7:27, Job 6:14, Hosea 11:12.

These include some examples where the emendations are purely conjectural and others where they are based on alternative witnesses, most prominently the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.


texts: Evangelical Christians claim Jerusalem was destroyed in either 587 or 586 BCE. What is the evidence?

texts:
Whereas Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC, many evangelical Christians who write on such things believe it was destroyed in either 587 or 586 BCE.
Is there any Biblical evidence to support either of the two dates 587/586?  What other evidence supports either of these dates?
Please give evidence, either Biblical or extra-Biblical, not just statements of belief.  I ask from a Trinitarian point of view.


texts: What is the difference in rewards between a person who is virgin till death and a person who is married?

texts:
Nun in the churches are virgins till death. And normal women marries a man.
So what is will be the difference in reward after they die. And reach heaven.


texts:
I'm interested primarily in LDS doctrine, but I welcome the perspective of other sects as well, as I believe that all of Christianity shares the same roots. Please specify from what denomination your view is from in your answer.

In reference to the vision of Mosiah Hancock, how are spirits born or created? We know from the scriptures that:

  4 ... Have ye not read, that he which
  made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4; KJV)

and,

  11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the
  woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

  12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the
  woman; but all things of God. (Corinthians 11:11-12; KJV)

There are more scriptures that reference how man and woman are twain without each other, and how united they are one flesh.

We know it is impossible to be exalted without being married and sealed, so there is obvious significance to the sexes being reunited.

Mosiah Hancock mentions in his vision that before the creation of Earth, all the children of God were arranged in pairs, a male with a female, and that each pair seemed to have been created mates.

I'm looking for further knowledge and insight into this. Considering we are created in His LIKENESS and image, I'm left to assume that all spirits are born unto heavenly parents like children on earth are born unto mortal parents. But if that is so, then why are they born with spirit bodies, and not bodies of flesh and bone like unto their resurrected parents? Are all spirits born as male-female twins? Are they actually born, or are they created? If created then how are they created?

Update, Aug 12th 2014

I was reading this article: “In the Beginning”: A Latter-day Perspective, and stumbled onto this:

  “‘And I, God, blessed them [Man here is always in the plural. It was
  plural from the beginning.] and said unto them: Be fruitful, and
  multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion
  over [it].’ (Moses 2:27–28.)

  “And the scripture says,

  “‘And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the
  beginning: Let us make man [not a separate man, but a complete man,
  which is husband and wife] in our image, after our likeness; and it
  was so’ (Moses 2:26).

The part I found most interesting was, "The likeness of God is a complete man, being husband and wife." This seems to be inline with Mosiah Hancock's vision, and spirits being created mates.


texts: Do Mormons believe that black skin originated as a curse by God?

texts:
This question is a bit related to this other question, which is asking about the curse of Cain.

One of the answers in this other question refers to the "Book of Moses" (part of Book of Mormon), chapter 7, verse 22 which states:

  And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of
  Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the
  seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place
  among them.

I can also see that the same chapter in "Book of Moses", verse 8, says about Canaanites:

  For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the
  barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness
  came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among
  all people.

And in 2 Nephi chapter 5, verse 21 it says:

  And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore
  cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened
  their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint;
  wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,
  that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Based on these statements, I wanted to ask:

Is it a belief of the Mormon church that a curse from God is the
initial origin of all dark skin among humankind today?
Did God choose black skin in order to make the cursed people
unappealing (as it seems to say in 2 Nephi 5:21)?


texts: Where does the Bible say that nature will speak the word if men don't?

texts:
I am trying to remember a verse I've heard, and almost positive I've read, before.

I do not remember the exact phrasing.

It was similar to: 'If no one is there to witness, even the rocks of the field and [trees? mountains? nature?] will witness/speak the word`. I believe this is in the New Testament, possibly Jesus speaking.

What is the passage that relates to what would happen if no one was around to witness?


texts: Is there a special name for the room where sacramental bread is made?

texts:
In churches or cathedrals that have a special room for making/preparing the sacramental bread, does this room have a special name?
Edit: I'm wondering because I saw a room in an Eastern Orthodox cathedral where the windows were clouded over, apparently because they cook the sacramental bread in there. I was wondering whether that kind of room has a special name, or is it okay to just call it a kitchen?


texts: Is there any difference in meaning between "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost"?

texts:
Is there any difference in meaning between Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost?

When should we use Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost?

By the way, Wikipedia says:

  Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is a term found in English translations of the Bible, but understood differently among the Abrahamic religions

I already asked about the English meaning. But what are the differences in religious meanings?


texts: Other than non-Trinitarian, what terms are there for Christians who don't believe in the trinity?

texts:
Back story: I've been looking for Christian churches in my city that don't believe in the trinity.

Research: I tried web searches for related words such as 'non-Trinitarian', 'Unitarian', 'Monotheistic' churches. I either don't get relevant results or get links to free-thinking 'Unitarian' Churches.

Objectives: I'm trying to explore the idea of Jesus being the son of God, not God incarnate. I'm also trying to avoid radically divergent groups such as the Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Perhaps at a deeper level, I'm trying to understand the historical Jesus' and the early church's message.

Question: What other terms are there for Christians who would believe in the specialness of Jesus and his Savior/Messiah status, but not necessarily his divinity?


texts: Is ”sola scriptura” the first appeal of "Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda?"

texts:
"Sola scriptura" & "Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda" (a church reformed and always to be reformed according to the Word of God)  are the "two mottos" among others, from the early church and the reformation era that bring us to the passionate fervor of the bygone days of the reformation.

How relevant are the mottos to modern day churches, especially evangelical Protestant churches?
Is the age-old "theological deadlock" over the dogmas, namely the Soteriology among the major  denominations,  from the theological laxity and inattention to the Scripture?


texts: Were the similarities between the miracles of Elisha and Jesus deliberate or simply coincidental?

texts:
I have often wondered if God deliberately intended for the miracles of Elisha to be a preview of the miracles our Savior would perform, as a way of verification of Jesus Deity.

Elisha brought the dead son of the Shunammite back to life in 2 Kings 4:33 thru 35.
Jesus brought the daughter of a certain ruler back to life in Matthew 9:24 and 25, and also Lazarus in John 11:43.

Both were preceded by a prayer.

Elisha turned a small amount of oil into an abundance in 2 Kings 4:1-7.
Jesus turned water into wine in John 2:1-10.

Elisha turned poison stew into good stew to feed a hungry group in 2 Kings 4:38-41, and fed a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn in 2 Kings 4:42 and 43.
Jesus fed 4,000 with a few fishes and loaves in Matthew 14:15-20, and 5,000 in Luke 16 and 17.

Elisha cured Naaman of Leprosy in 2 Kings 5:1-14.
Jesus cured 10 lepers in Luke 17:11-19.

Elisha made an iron axe head float in 2 Kings 6:5-7.
Jesus made himself and Peter to walk on water in John 6:19 and 20, and in Matthew 14:25-29.

It seems to me that these miracles are too uncommonly alike to be merely coincidental. Have any prominent theologians or teachers made the same connection?


texts: Are Catholics not supposed to pray the St. Michael Prayer?

texts:
I was looking up exorcism stuff on the Vatican website and stumbled across this from (then) Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI)

From these prescriptions it follows that it is not even licit that the faithful use the formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels, extracted from the one published by order of the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII, and even less that they use the integral text of this exorcism. Bishops should take care to warn the faithful, if necessary, of this.
Letter to Ordinaries regarding norms on Exorcism

So does that mean that the St. Michael Prayer:

Glorious St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil, and do thou o Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the Earth seeking the ruin of souls. Amen

I learned by heart this prayer some 15 years ago and say every time the creepy crawlies pound on my windows at 3 AM is verboten?


texts: In Catholic evening prayer, why do some days have Psalm prayers, other days do not?

texts:
Nov 9, feast of St. John Lateran, feast, evening prayer, no psalm prayer.
Nov 10, St Leo, pope and Doctor, memorial,, evening prayer, psalm prayer.
Nov 11, St Martin of tours, bishop, memorial, evening prayer, no psalm prayer

Why some days are there psalm prayers, other days not?


texts: How was the word preached in NT era churches?

texts:
In many churches today, the word is preached as follows:

a pastor / priest talks for the entirety of the meeting (generally 1 hour)
a large group of Christians listen.

In the Watchmen Nee inspired Local Churches we have:

a group structure where, anyone who is a member stands up and speaks
instead of having 1 person speak for 1 hour, numerous people speak for 3-5 minutes each

While Christ was on the earth, there are numerous situations where:

a large group of Christians listened
Christ preached

Now, in the book of Acts does Church still maintain this structure? In particular, in the various churches in the book of Acts, during meetings, was it:

choice A = 1 person speak for an hour

or
choice B = lots of people speak for 3-5 minutes each

Now, I know it may not be exactly either of the above—but what was it closer to? A single person speaking, or many people speaking short amounts of time?


texts: In Catholicism, does baptism against the will of a dying, unaware person result in baptismal regeneration?

texts:
Suppose that a hostile unbeliever meets a Catholic priest. The unbeliever is a blasphemer and firmly stated that he never wants to become a Christian. However later that day, he is dying and non compos mentis. The priest while the unbeliever does not know what he is doing, grabs him and baptized him with the baptismal formula. Immediately after he dies.

According to Catholicism, did he go to Heaven?


texts: What is the Meaning of Hebrews 2:11 - he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one

texts:
Hebrews 2:11 (KJV)
  For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

It is very confusing to read "he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one".
What is the meaning of this verse?


texts:
I'm seeing this phrase being displayed on all the news channels, in conjunction with a lot of cheering people under umbrellas who have been waiting for the new pope to be elected. Is there some sort of background and history that explains why this obscure latin phrase is being used?

What is the meaning of the phrase "Habemus Papam"?


texts: How is Hal Lindsey regarded in the Christian faith?

texts:
In "The Late Great Planet Earth," Hal Lindsey presents a view of Armageddon referred to in Revelation.

Is this view considered "valid, and if so, by which Christian
groups?"
Is Lindsey considered a "false prophet, and if so, by which
Christian groups?"
Has a consensus yet formed as to whether or not Lindsey's view "holds up?"


texts: What was Jesus' view on the authority of Scripture?

texts: What was Jesus' own personal view on the nature of the Scripture as far as the divine authority of the OT? Can his view on this issue be determined through his own use of it?


texts: How can a non-Catholic get into state of grace as understood by the Catholic Church?

texts:
State of grace:

  Condition of a person who is free from mortal sin and pleasing to God.
  It is the state of being in God's friendship and the necessary
  condition of the soul at death in order to attain heaven.
  source

Now,

  We cannot merit anything supernatural if we are not in a state of
  grace. To argue the contrary is to argue for Pelagianism.
  Nonetheless, God does hear the prayer of the repentant sinner.

  ... but the prayer of the unrepentant sinner, who prays for something
  other than for the graces of conversion, is a prayer lacking in merit
  or efficacy it would appear. source

I know some Protestants who are sincere in their faith and I saw them deeply praying. But from the quote above I also know that even if they pray deeply they can't merit anything as they aren't in a state of grace because they are not taking part in God's divine nature according to some theologians and the Catholic teaching.

My question is, how can a non-Catholic obtain the state of grace as understood by the Catholic Church? Is it even possible without becoming a Catholic? Does it even make sense for a non-Catholic to pray for anything other than for a conversion to become a Catholic?


texts: In which denominations do people consider Mary, mother of Jesus, to be the "Second Eve"?

texts:
I was reading DK Publishing's The Illustrated Bible Story By Story. The authors claim to be biblical scholars, historians, and pastors, which may give a Christian slant to the Bible, even though the audience, as they claim in the book, is for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike. The authors love to use weasel words, such as "some biblical scholars think..." or "Christians believe..." without really pointing out which denomination actually believes that doctrine. They claim, for instance, that Mary, mother of Jesus, is more than just a mother of a child on Christmas cards. Mary is the new Eve, but unlike the first Eve during the Creation, Mary is obedient to God and suffers silently, because she has to deal with the social stigma of bearing a child out-of-wedlock. They even cite Isaiah to support the notion that a virgin would give birth, which may be interpreted as foreshadowing of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. As Jesus grows up, she becomes her son's disciple. It is said that she will be called "blessed" by all successive generations because of her son Jesus, and through her, people will achieve eternal life, whereas Eve denies humanity eternal life.

I wish to know how many denominations actually believe that Mary is regarded as the Second Eve (like how Jesus is regarded as the Second Adam). The authors of the book seem to evade the denominational issue, treating Christianity as one whole group.


texts: What must we do if the vast majority of the members of the Catholic Church here on earth profess heresy and are thus excommunicate?

texts:
What must faithful Christians do if the vast majority of the members of the Church here on earth, including those comprising the hierarchy or even the Pope, profess heresy (and are thus excommunicate)?

This question is seeking a Catholic answer, specifically, one from a sedevacantist perspective.


texts: How do Baptists interpret Revelation 20 and 21?

texts:
I understand that Revelation is one of the more challenging books to ask about, but what I hope to find out is what Baptists believe chapters 21 and 22 foretell for the future.

Chapter 20:1-3 and 20:7-9; do they believe the confining of Satan to
the abyss and then release onto the earth is literal or figurative?
What do they derive from the verses about a “new earth” described in
Revelation 21:1-4?


texts: Has Christianity ever come down in opposition of arranged marriages?

texts:
Many cultures in many ages have practiced arranged marriages. I understand that in Jewish culture --at about the time of Christ-- arranged marriages were considered a normal way of life. Obviously if this was a religious value at the time Christianity probably had an opinion about it. Somehow today, many 'Christian' cultures do NOT practice arranged marriages (none in the west, only a few scattered ones elsewhere).

How did this happen? Is it a cultural issue that Christianity never held a position on or did the early Christian church take a stand against the Jewish custom? Was it Christianity and some doctrine that instigated this change, or just coincidence?


texts:
If you are looking for direct scriptural proof of this dogma, you will not find any. Mary’s Assumption was not explicitly recorded in Scripture. However, Pope Pius XII formally defined the dogma of the Assumption in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" (source)

My Question:

What is the Catholic theological basis for the Munificentissimus Deus?

If it wasn't recorded in Scripture, and we don't have any archaeological evidence to support it, then what did Pope Pius XII use as a basis?


texts: When will be the end of the Catholic Church on earth by definition?

texts:
Matthew 16:18

  And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my
  church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
  it.

Is there any teaching of the Catholic Church on when it can be considered the end of its existence by definition?
Clearly, it is not the death of the pope as the new one can be elected. Is there a time period how quickly the pope needs to be elected and if not met the institution ends? I doubt there is.

Would that be if the last person who was baptized in the Catholic Church die? Can we then say this is the end of the Catholic Church on Earth?
We still have the communion of the saints so basically, it will never cease but I'm asking on Earth.

When I say "when" I don't mean in time but rather what are the conditions so we can say this is not the church anymore.


texts: According to Protestants what transpired when Mary was "overshadowed" in Luke 1:35?

texts:
[Luk 1:34-35 ESV]
  (34) And Mary said to the angel,
  "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"
  (35) And the angel answered her,
  "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
  and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
  therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.


texts: Is a bishop in Roman Catholic tradition equal in authority with the apostles?

texts:
According to an answer to this question When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?, the Pope is the bishop of Rome.

So this made me wonder - since Peter was ordained an Apostle (not bishop of Rome) and he is considered the first Pope - are bishops equal in authority with apostles according to Roman Catholic tradition?

I understand what apostolic succession is, but it doesn't seem clear from this that it's the actual apostolic authority or just a part of it handed down to the bishops from the original apostles.


texts:
Was listening to K-WAVE yesterday and there was a lot of talk about sexual sin.

What are the expected results of sexual sin?
(More specifically focusing during this life, not the after life or going to hell.)

For example, what are the effects for the person who cheats in marriage or a single man who masturbates?

Does it make the person feel emotionally oppressed on some level or does it just separate them from God spiritually without any effect here?

EDIT
Looking for biblical supported answers that translate to real life examples. According to the program, this is a very big devastating issue that is taking over. They even mentioned that pastors were calling into the anonymous line, asking for help with addictions to pornography, that sex has taken over our schools with kids "sexting", and is used to sells products.

So this "take over" must be very destructive for us - but how ?

Thanks.


texts:
Polygyny is practiced in the Bible with God's full knowledge.

What about polyandry?

Many say that Western values are based on Judeo-Christian principles.

One western value is that marriage is gender neutral.

Is marriage gender-neutral in the Bible? Polygyny was legal. What about polyandry? I mean if the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage is gender neutral, we would expect polyandry to be as legal as polygyny right? So what's the story?


texts: Why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture?

texts:
From the very limited research that I've done thus far, it seems that the RCC does not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture. I'm not positive that this is true, though it seems to be.

The meaning of "perspicuity of Scripture":

  Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Wikipedia)

Am I right, and if so, why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to such a belief?


texts: What are the soteriological consequences of heresy?

texts:
From the Catechism (paragraph 2089), quoting canon law 751:

  Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Neither the surrounding portions of the Catechism nor the surrounding portions of Canon Law describe the consequences of heresy nor delineate heresy which is not damning from heresy which is.

What are the soteriological consequences of heresy and what, if anything, delineates damning heresy from non-damning (venial?) heresy in Catholic teaching?


texts:
Where does the Catholic church stand on governments supporting foreign groups or other governments that abuse human rights?

In a Christians perspective; should their/a government support foreign governments/groups that abuse human rights?


texts: Is there any evidence that Romans viewed Christian teachings on sexual restraint as a liberating influence?

texts:
Sarah Ruden (via John Stonestreet) makes an interesting claim about the Roman Empire in the time of Paul:

  Dreher cites classics scholar Sarah Ruden, whose book “Paul Among the Gentiles” was the subject of a BreakPoint three years ago. According to Ruden, “it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.”  On the contrary, “Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time . . .”  Christianity “worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.”  (from BreakPoint Commentary 5/23/2013)

While it is common to think of Classical Rome and Greece as morally decadent societies, I do find it surprising that sexual restraint was positively received as Christendom advanced.

Outside of Ruden's claim, are there are patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?


texts: According to Christians that believe in Evolution, when did people start getting Souls?

texts:
Let me start by saying I personally believe in evolution and the science of evolution.  I believe Genesis is a description of this in a way that was able to be understood at the time it was written, and God of course is the creator of it all.

But that led me to wonder that if all life on Earth came from the same place so long ago, but not everything has a soul, then when exactly did we get souls?  At what point in our evolutionary chain did God start giving our ancestors souls?

There are those that say Adam and Eve were the first to have souls.  If that is so, then what species exactly were Adam and Eve?

There are also those who say that souls evolved just as everything else did.  But then if that is so, how exactly does a soul 'evolve', and why is it believed then that not everything has a soul?


texts: Did any groups or noted theologians in early Christian history teach that the Holy Spirit is matriarchal?

texts: Count Zinzendorf came to the aid of the Moravian Brethren.  He held that the Holy Spirit was matriarchal. Are there any teachings of this perspective in early church history?


texts: Does the Catholic Church endorse the children of narcissistic parents breaking off contact with them (not necessarily permanently/forever)?

texts:
There's this article about narcissists, written from a Christian perspective, ending with claims about how ACONS can honor their nparents. One is:

We honor them by insisting that they get the professional help that they need, before they have anymore contact with us & our family members.

Question: Would the Catholic Church agree with that?
What I tried: Google shows a lot of articles about Catholicism/Christianity and narcissism, but I don't know which ones are (Catholic and) official/officially endorsed.
Note: This may extends to abusive parents in general, whether or not they are narcissists. I think it would be a good partial answer to answer in the general case. Maybe it's not really different from the specific case of narcissists, hehe.

ETA 1: Based on the now deleted Mormon answer provided (by JBH, iirc), it seems the answer is likely. (Update: See the Mormon answer.)

In general, yes, but the precise actions to be taken during estrangement or steps to be taken to become estranged or, in the first  place, whether or not to become estranged must be decided with advice from a religious or mental health professional/s such as priests, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.

Or simply

Probably yes, but definitely seek professional advice.

My guess then is that this question instead falls under a broader range of questions to which the answer is either of the above. What range of questions could this be? I'm thinking now of some church document or section entitled 'On matters pertaining to mental health, etc'

ETA 2: Guess we're not ready for Catholicism SE (unlike how we've been ready for statistics SE and how we might be ready for operations research SE)

I'm disappointed that none of our Catholic participants have been able to contribute an answer. Even a link to a Catholic social services organization would have helped.


texts: Is there evidence that Isaiah 53 was viewed as a Messianic prophecy within Judaism, or is it an exclusively Christian interpretation?

texts:
The modern Jewish interpretation of the so-called suffering servant song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is that it is a prophecy referring to the nation of Israel, not the Messiah.  As such, it is sometimes suggested that Christians invented the idea that this is a Messianic prophecy.

What evidence is there that (at least some) Jews saw the passage as having Messianic implications?  Do such interpretation predates the advent of Christianity?  When did the nation of Israel interpretation become common?


texts: I've seen it mentioned that some translations use the Textus Receptus and others don't, so why is this document important?


texts:
According to Wikipedia:

  The G12 Vision is a Christian evangelism and discipleship strategy established by Pastor César Castellanos, the founder of International Charismatic Mission Church.

However, it doesn't explain the origin of the name. What is the significance of "G12" in the evangelism strategy "G12 Vision"?


texts: Where does the Body, Soul and Spirit of man go after Death?

texts:
Here is a question that came during a Bible study and I believe it is very interesting. So much I want to share here and see what answers can come out.

I am going to keep it simple.

So, we all have a Body, Soul and Spirit. Now, at death, the Body returns to dust while the Spirit returns to God (Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7) but where does the Soul go?


texts: Did the events of Good Friday take place during winter?

texts: Peter went to a camp fire when Jesus was being crucified, but we celebrate Good Friday in the spring/early summer. That Peter required a camp fire makes me doubt that the events happened at the time of year we celebrate them. Did they take place during winter?


texts: What contemporary definitions of Sola Scriptura are there, from self-professed proponents, which do not call it the supreme spiritual authority?

texts:
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is generally defined as the belief that, while tradition, reason, and experience may be sources of spiritual knowledge for the Christian, the scriptures are the only infallible source, or the supreme spiritual authority. For example:

Wikipedia: Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
Marty Foord writing at the Gospel Coalition Australia site: Firstly, sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority. Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers used other authorities like reason and tradition.
Mark D. Thompson writing at crossway.org: But, critically, both an appeal to the fathers and the application of reason could be questioned on the basis of the plain reading of the text of Scripture. Scripture alone must reign. Our consciences are not captive to any other authority than the Word of God.
Wayne Grudem: In order to guard against making our authority something other than the Bible, major confessions of faith have insisted that the words of God in Scripture are our authority, not some position arrived at after the Bible was finished. This is the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or “the Bible alone,” as our ultimate authority for doctrine and life.

This doctrine was defined in the Westminster Confession (though without the phrase sola scriptura):

WCF 1.10: The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Unfortunately there is a real lack of clarify over these definitions, and many other people give contrary definitions. Keith Mathison in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura says that many evangelical, fundamentalist, or non-denominational Christians say they believe in Sola Scriptura but reject the ancient creeds and any concept of tradition. On the other hand, there are proponents of Prima Scriptura a doctrine which seems at least on the surface to be essentially the same as Sola Scriptura is defined above, but is upheld by its supporters in explicit contrast to Sola Scriptura.
I would like to ask who are the self-professed proponents of Sola Scriptura, who would define it differently to the above definitions, or differently to Prima Scriptura? Who are the people who say they believe in Sola Scriptura, but mean something else by it than what I believe is the general consensus definition above?
To be clear: I am not asking about opponents to Sola Scriptura who might define it differently, either out of ignorance or for polemic reasons, or about proponents of Prima Scriptura.
To make this into an overview question rather than an unbounded list question, it would be good if answers can explain the shape and history of these Christians: do they come from one denomination, or stem from one important teacher or group of Christians in the past? Is there a creed or confession which defines it differently? Is there an important systematic theology textbook or course which defines their doctrine? Is there a theological college which teaches "Solo Scriptura"? In short, is there an organised group of Protestant Christians promoting an alternative definition of Sola Scriptura, or is it just isolated Christians and Churches which may not be aware that they are not teaching either the historical or commonly agreed upon doctrine?


texts: Is the Catholic Church the oldest church?

texts: I read one of your articles which stated that Catholicism was the first Christian religion.  I was under the impression that the Chalcedonians and Armenians both predate Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.  They were apparently Jewish either by birth or conversion.  Where do they fit in?  I understood that the aforementioned Catholic branches did not evolve until the Great Schism in 1050, and were not actually official until Constantine's reign.


texts: Are there any denominations that believe in "Eternal Security" but deny "Perseverance of the Saints" or vice versa?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, the doctrine of Perseverance of the saints is:

[...] a Christian teaching that asserts that once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life.

On the other hand, the doctrine of Eternal Security is defined as follows:

Eternal security, also known as "once saved, always saved", is the belief that from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell, and will not lose salvation. Once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nothing in heaven or earth "shall be able to separate (them) from the love of God" (Romans 8:39) and thus nothing can reverse the condition of having become a Christian.

So it appears that Perseverance of the saints is about unshakable sanctification after true conversion, whereas Eternal Security is about unshakable salvation after true conversion. So there appears to be a very subtle distinction between the two doctrines.
Question: are there any denominations that believe in one doctrine while denying the other? Is it even possible to endorse one doctrine without endorsing the other?


texts: What is the Biblical basis and support for and against the view of predestination?

texts: Simple and easy. I am looking for Biblical support (not opinion) for and against the view of predestination. Predestination is the view that all events are willed by God. I'm looking for both sides of the view, not just one side. What Biblical evidence exists for/against predestination?


texts: Is there a name for the low wall that is often in front of a choir?

texts:
There's typically a low wall, about hip-high, in front of the first row of the choir. Religious architecture typically has its own terminology, and Christian architecture in particular. So is there a special name for that wall? Or is it just "that wall that keeps the first row of ladies from being embarrassed?"

Alternately, is there a name for the low wall that's sometimes in front of the first row of the congregation?


texts:
I am a Christian but I struggle with this question;

God knows everything past, present and future.  He knew us while we were still in the earth.  He picked the place, time and tree for Jesus to be crucified.

God created us, knew how we would act and what we will do in the future.  He knows we will sin against him and which of us will go to hell and which are preordained to go to Heaven...because he knows everything.  Why does he put us together that way knowing we will sin.  Why did he bother to create Satan?

I guess I would like to know why he didn't just create us with love like his.  He could have given us free will with the worst choice we would have to make is chocolate or vanilla.


texts: How are the broken bones in the Shroud of Turin seen to be consistent with the bones of Jesus not being broken?

texts:
Many Christians believe that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Recent research demonstrates how two nails pierced the right foot of Jesus, and the first nail actually went through his heel bone.

Additionally there are images of the right knee that show it to be severely swollen and indicate a fracture of the Patella bone.

According to those who believe that the Shroud is authentic, how do they see this as consistent with prophecy in John 19:36 that none of the bones can be broken to be a proper sacrifice?


texts: Why do most Christians call Jesus "Son of God" rather than simply "God"?

texts: We call Jesus the son of God that became the son of man.  And yet, Jesus is God per the doctrine of the trinity.  Why don't orthodox Christians address him as God when talking about him and praying?  Is there a biblical basis?


texts: Christianity and Usury from a Historical perspective

texts:
It is safe to say that the Old Testament prohibits usury?
Jesus followed the Law and as a rabbi he would have also prohibited it.
It seems that the Church banned usury until roughly the 18th Century.

Are these statements correct from a historical perspective?


texts: Where does the belief the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit come from?

texts:
My pastor mentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man.

Where does this concept come from (rather than just written by wise or experienced men)?

Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just man's ideas and are indeed God inspired or "written"?

Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?


texts: Why is Cain afraid when he is driven away from God?

texts:
When God punishes Cain, he replies:

  Gen 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth,
  and whoever finds me will kill me. (NIV)

All are his brothers and sisters? And he is the elder brother of all of them? So who is Cain fearing?


texts:
What are the ordinances Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11:2?

  1 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV)

  2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

I figure baptism ought to be one of them. Is he also referring to Eucharist/Communion/Sacrament? Eating bread and drinking is mentioned later in the chapter.


texts: Does the Catholic church believe that God really forgives by confession alone?

texts:
My question is does the Catholic Church hold that God forgives every crime by confession alone?

If so I could commit crimes from Monday to Saturday and then go and confess to a priest on Sunday - problem solved.

So what is actually the relation between forgiving and confessing?

Any citation from Bible would be appreciated, or other material that the Catholic Church considers authoritative.


texts: Info about living in the temple quarters?

texts: While the Bible talks at length about religious ceremonies conducted in the Temple at Jerusalem, I’ve seen very little information about living quarters and what one did there when they were not actively performing religious duties. I’ve wondered this especially in the case of Samuel, as he moved to the Temple at a very young age - so, for example, was there some kind of program set up for children there?


texts: What is Matt Redman's denominational background?

texts:
So, I've been learning to love a new (for me) song called 10000 Reasons.  I discovered that he is also the writer of another "modern classic" Blessed Be Your Name.
In writing his music, he takes an approach to infusing Scripture that I find rather fascinating, described here as follows:

This song is Bible-based, but you didn’t use the text word-for-word. Please explain some good practices in capturing Scripture in song.
Redman: My ideal for songwriting is to infuse passion with truth. I love worship songs that are so rich with the word of God, but very obviously exploded out of the heart of the songwriters in a passionate way. You can, of course, take a big chunk of Scripture and keep it word for word, composing a melody for it. I’ve never been very good at that approach and honestly I think it’s a very tricky thing to do, within the style that I tend to write in. The main benefit of that approach is that people can commit the Bible to memory through song, and there’s much to be said that’s very commendable about that (my personal aim has never really been the memorizing of Scripture, as brilliant as that is). But my main aim in songwriting is to see something of Jesus, and then reflect it. So I’ve always taken a different approach.
The best way I can describe it is actually found in Eugene Peterson’s book, Under the Unpredictable Plant. He writes that when Jonah is in the belly of the fish he pours out a prayer of great passion but notes that not one phrase in the prayer is original—it all comes from the Psalms. In fact, it comes not just from one psalm, but many different psalms. So he’s not just reciting a piece of Scripture in that moment. He’s pouring out his heart, and many different phrases from the Psalms are being woven together into his prayer. The point is, Jonah is in an intense situation, and what pours out of him is utterly heartfelt, and yet also utterly full of the Word of God. My ideal is that the same could be true in the writing of worship songs—that we could be so full of the truth of Scripture that in our most intense moments in life, be it joy or sorrow, what pours passionately out of our hearts is infused with the Word of God. It may not be a whole portion of Scripture—perhaps the song contains an essence of something Paul said in one of his letters, with a phrase or two from the Psalms, with an overtone of what Jesus said at one point in the Gospels, and something from the Old Testament in there too. That’s definitely a key to make sure our songs are raw and real—and yet full of life-changing and God-honoring truth.

While obviously not dogma, I'm finding that approach to feel really both authentic and scriptural.  What I am curious about is the tradition that encouraged such an approach.  Does Matt Redman talk about his faith journey somewhere that expresses where this comes from?


texts: I've been re-watching Jesus Christ Superstar recently and a thought sprang into my mind: did the real Jesus ever sing? I mean, are there any records to that effect in the Scriptures or elsewhere, perhaps, in apocryphal texts, Coptic texts, etc.


texts: Good Urdu Translations of the Bible from the Masoretic and one of the Textus Receptuses, or just either?

texts:
I am looking for urdu translations that are reasonably close to the reconstructions of the Hebrew Masoretic text and/or Greek Textus Receptus, being a literal translation. Like how despite the KJV translators deciding to translate the first verse "In the beginning created God, the Heaven and the Earth," because the Context clearly shows that the firmament is called "the Heavens," and the Schlachter 2000 translates it "Im Anfang schuf Gott die Himmel und die Erde --" the "heavens."

Not Young's Literal translation, because words can have different meanings, but obviously not "correcting" Luke 5 where Jesus tells Peter to let down all of the Nets, but Peter being a word the Bible says I can't say, and I agree, decided: I know better than you, I'll let down just the one net, like the N.I.V. does.

Technically it does not have to be close to the King James, but just as close word-for-word to an english Bible. Unfortunately even then, they might contradict each other, like the Spanish and English K.J.V.'s...

Pray this isn't that confusing...


texts: What is the Biblical evidence that there are ONLY three persons in the "Trinity"?

texts:
(This is a followup to the various answers for the question What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?)

The specific concept of 'trinity' isn't specifically spelled out in the Bible.  Instead, we have deduced from various scripture verses that there are three distinct persons within the Godhead.

What is the Biblical evidence that there are only three persons in the Godhead?  Why don't trinitarians believe that there could be others that are not revealed specifically through scripture, or that we can attribute multiple "persons" to a single concept of Father or Holy Spirit?


texts: Black and white races are equal - in the New Testament?

texts: To me, it's simple that black and equal races are equal. But since the recently, black people had a lower status than white people and also suffered from discrimination as everybody knows, and I'm wondering, because the Christianity exists around 2000 years, and these issues were among white Christians, so I'm wondering maybe what we think today, wasn't simply understood to people in past, therefore I'm looking for proofs/verses from the New Testament that support or oppose the idea that black and white people are equal in their rights etc.


texts: What is the relation of Jesus's and Jonah's boat stories?

texts:
Studying about "sleep" in the Bible I came across some passages and found out that the story of Jonah and Jesus in boats are quite similar.

  And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he [Jesus] was asleep. (Matthew 8:24)

And

  But the Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken. [...]
  But Jonah [...] was fast asleep. (Jonah 1:4-5)

I wonder if:

Are there published commentaries that relates this two stories?
If so, what is the commentator insight on relating those two? (Specially devotional insights)

A answer quality will be measured by the quantity of commentaries with a contundent insight from the part of the commentator.

A contundent insight, for this question, is a relation between the two texts that goes beyond the obvious: "the passages are similar".


texts: Acording to Orthodox Christianity does God know the future?

texts:
Acording to Eastern-Orthodoxy, does God know the future in its completeness?
Does he know what I'm going to eat, what I'm going to wear...

I'm reaching the conclusion that Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will"
is really, more or less the same theology as both Orthodox and Catholics.

I'm not saying Orthodoxy doesn't teach free will. But if God knows that I, willingly, would behave like this or that in this or that circumstances, and different in other circumstances, the more or less, it's really the same thing.

The Catholics have a name for this, Thomism and Molinism.
We don't seem to talk much about this, but in the end, I fell we are forced to.


texts: How do the Jehovah's witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, and that it was Jesus who created all other things:

  Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. (Who Is Jesus Christ? on wol.jw.org)

We see this most clearly in the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of Colossians 1:15-16:

  Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

But Isaiah 44:24 says that it was Jehovah who created all things by himself: note the last line of Isaiah 44:24 which says that no one else was with Jehovah, probably speaking primarily about humans, but also angels and other spiritual beings, which would seem to preclude God co-creating with Jesus.

  Isaiah 44:24 (NWT): This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser,
  Who formed you since you were in the womb:
  “I am Jehovah, who made everything.
  I stretched out the heavens by myself,
  And I spread out the earth.
  Who was with me?

How do the Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God and it was Jesus who created all other things?

Question based on various revisions of this now deleted question by Mr. Bond.


texts: According a Catholic interpretation of the natural law, do individuals posses a right to privacy?

texts:
This question is mainly about the idea of contact tracing, but in a broader sense, in the Natural Law, as interpreted by the Catholic Church, her doctors, popes, noted philosophers, well-meaning dons, radio personalities, etc... do individuals have a right to privacy and if so, what sort of a right is that?
Is it merely a negative right, as in, other people have a duty not to pry into your details or do people have a positive right to keep things to themselves?


texts: From an LDS perspective, what is the difference between feeling the influence of the Holy Spirit and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit?

texts: What is the difference between the two? What scriptures are used to best explain the differences? How does one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?


texts: Are the words that Jesus spoke the Logos?

texts:
Is there anything amiss with the following argument?

Jesus is the Word of God (Jesus is the Logos)
Jesus spoke words
Jesus is God
The words that Jesus spoke are the words of God
The words of Jesus are the Logos

In particular, if a person were to insist that "Word" is used in the same way that it is used in "I will send word to you", is it possible to decisively correct this person using only scripture? If not, then does scripture suggest that the words of Jesus really are the Logos?


texts: What is the difference between a Use and a Rite?

texts:
This wikipedia page gives a list of all the liturgical Rites and Uses that have been employed throughout history in the Roman Catholic Church. It lists many rites, such as the Ambrosian, Braga and Mozarabic Rites, and it also has a couple of Uses, such as the Anglican Use, Zaire Use, Use of York and Cologne Use.

I'm wondering what it is that determines whether a liturgy will be considered a "Rite" or a "Use"? They both just seem like unique liturgies to me so I'm not sure what the distinction is between them.


texts: What was written on the two stone tablets of Moses?

texts:
What I understand in Exodus 20-23 is that the words in these chapters are continuous words spoken by God. We know that Moses was given two stone tablets, and that the commands were written on them by God's own hand.

What exactly was written on the two stone tablets?

Exodus 20-23 is very long, and to write all that on two stone tablets would be difficult. It could be written with very small characters. Perhaps only the ten important points were written?


texts: Is a testimony from devil about Jesus, good?

texts:
Mark 1: 21-24
  They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came,
  Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were
  amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had
  authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their
  synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, “What do
  you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I
  know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

When Jesus was at Capernaum, a man who is possessed with demon came to him and spoke:

  "....I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"

But he shut him up.

  Mark 1:25
  “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” The impure spirit
  shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

And again at evening he again drove away many demons but this time he didn't allow these demons to speak at all.

  Mark 1:32-34
  That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and
  demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed
  many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he
  would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Why did Jesus stop the first demon (mentioned here) to talk and not
the others mentioned later?

First demon, was so scared of Jesus and gave a testimony about Jesus(the Holy One of God) in front of everyone.

A testimony from devil about Jesus would have make the people
gathered around him to believe in Jesus more, right?


texts: How did Elizabeth know the name was "John"

texts:
The angel of the Lord only spoke to Zechariah about the name of the child to be born. How did she know about the name? Did the Lord reveal this to her or her husband told her? How she know what the baby should be named?

  Luke 1

  59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were
  going to name him after his father Zechariah,
  60 but his mother spoke
  up and said, “No! He is to be called John.”

  61 They said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who has
  that name.”

  62 Then they made signs to his father, to find out what he would like
  to name the child. 63 He asked for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s
  astonishment he wrote, “His name is John.”


texts: What is the origin of the Christian tradition of praying before eating?

texts:
This is sort of related this other question about holding hands when praying before a meal. However this question is more generally about the praying itself.

When looking at the origin of Christianity, it seems that it has some features that are carryovers from Judaism. One example is the belief of an atoning sacrifice given instead of sins (other religions may have the concept of sacrifices but typically to attempt to gain favor of a deity, as opposed to cover for sins).

However I have not been able to find any examples from the Bible showing that people prayed before eating, or that it was even required to do so.

What would be the origin of this tradition?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that the church is a hospital for sinners?

texts:
Pope Francis, in his recent interview, uses a very common metaphor for the church:

  “I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up

I've heard this, and even preached this, but I'm realizing that I don't really know where its Biblical basis comes from.  What is the biblical justification for understanding the church as a place where believers are supposed to be emotionally healed?


texts: This is one of a series of questions I have regarding the Christian notion of the Trinity.  Assuming Jesus soul was created, and that Jesus has a free will of his own, then any God-like attributes Jesus possesses would be the gifts given by a Father to a dutiful Son.  If Jesus soul was not created, then presumably "Jesus" would just be another name for "God", being one and the same identically.  Presumably.  Is there a consistent Trinitarian view on this, or are opinions widely varied?


texts: Why did Jesus say he came to create division?

texts:
In Luke 12:51-53 Jesus said:

  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but
  division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against
  each other, three against two and two against three.

There must have been a larger point to this. What was the division that he spoke of? I can't imagine it's as simple as separating the "good" from the "bad" since he often made it clear that God holds no distinction between those two types of people, and loves everyone equally and unconditionally.


texts: Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests?

texts:
This is similar to another question "How did Judas Die", but is specifically addressing another aspect of the story.
In Matthew we have the priests purchasing the field:

Matthew 27:5-7 (NASB)
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers.

And in Acts we have Judas purchasing it:

Acts 1:16-18 (NASB)
16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

This seems a clear contradiction in the New Testament. What is going on here?


texts: In light of grace, How does a Christian consider the devotedness of Muslims and Jews?

texts:
This question is somewhat triggered by this question. I felt a plethora of emotions when I thought about the right way to approach answering it, and I felt it would be better to express these sentiments in another question rather than as an answer to that question.

The sentiments are as follows: Judaism and Islam are two religions whose devotees display (quite frankly) an incredible and exceptional level of devotion to God, a level of devotion which I could not personally dare to imagine myself undergoing. When I think of the number of commandments which adherents of Judaism have to follow, and think of the common image of adherents of Islam bowing to God in humble submission, I feel nothing but utter respect. From the point of view of Christianity, this level of devotion might appear misguided, as salvation is through Jesus Christ and nothing else. Agreed.

But with all the above mentioned factors in play, how does one go about even thinking about this issue? How does one go about approaching it? Is there a balance that can be sought in discussions on the topic? How can one aptly say, "yes, salvation is through Jesus Christ, but the amount of devotion to God which adherents of Judaism and Islam display is frankly admirable, even to (certain) Christian eyes"?

Apologies if the presentation of the question is a little unclear, but I hope you get what I mean. Thanks.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, can you cook food while you're fasting?

texts:
Can you cook food while you're fasting? And eat it afterwards? I have often made dinner for others during a fast. And I have also made dinner for myself but waited until the fast was over to eat it.

What is the Catholic doctrine on this question? Are there any rules about this?


texts: What is the relationship between the mass and the cross in precise terms?

texts:
I have read that during a mass the sacrifice of the cross is "re-presented" which is to say "presented again", which implies that the single sacrifice of the cross is just neatly packaged up and presented to the father - so the sacrifice only happened once, 2000 years ago, but the "presentation" or "offering" of that sacrifice is repeated many times and perpetuated throughout the ages.

But then again I have read in other places that the sacrifice of the mass is literally the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. Which is to say, being present at mass is ontologically equivalent to being present at the foot of the cross. Or in other words, a Catholic mass is not merely the "offering" or "presentation" of a previously performed sacrifice - it is in actual fact the performance of the sacrifice itself; The sacrifice of Christ is not merely being "offered up", he is instead literally being sacrificed before our eyes. I find that this understanding of things is hard to wrap my head around (It would seem that the sacrifice is being repeated in this case, and that the protestant criticism that catholics are "re-sacrificing" christ might have something to it). Nevertheless I find it very important for my faith walk, because keeping this understanding in mind really brings the mass to life for me.

With this preamble in mind, please clarify the following yes/no questions concerning a Catholic mass:

Does Jesus "die" during the mass?
Does Jesus die "again" during the mass?
Is the sacrifice of Christ repeated during the mass?
Is the one sacrifice of Christ performed once for all 2000 years ago merely packaged up and "offered to the father again" during mass, or is the sacrifice of the cross literally performed before our eyes during a mass?
Is the sacrifice of the mass a different and completely separate sacrifice to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross?


texts: Does a Mass intention have any value now, if the Mass will be held, possibly, a year later?

texts:
Does a Mass intention have any value now (as expressed, submitted and donation made now), if the Mass will be held, possibly, a year later (due to long waiting list of intentions)?

I would like to submit the intention/prayers for the possible success of the development of the Covid-19 vaccine. Coronavirus treatment: Vaccines/drugs in the pipeline for COVID-19 is one list of ongoing projects, but there are other lists too), but I am afraid that the respective mass will be held after some half or full year from now, but our prayers for the all aspects of the development (scientific, political, business, economical, societal support) of vaccine are required exactly now!


texts: 1 Corinthians 11:18, what kind of divisions actually?

texts:
1 Corinthians 11:18

  In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church,
  there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

My question is already there by reading verse 18.

However, after reading the next verse, 20 to 21 :

  So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat.
  For when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private
  suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets
  drunk.

From the bold sentences, my guess of the divisions is something like this :
There are some who agree to "go ahead with their own private suppers",
 but there are also some who don't agree to "go ahead with their own private suppers".
The group who agree, don't care to the hungry (the poor).
The group who don't agree, care to the hungry (the poor).

But since I realize that my guess above is only my own imagination, that's why I post this question.

Thank you.


texts:
Psalms 76:11 (NIV) says

  Make vows to the LORD your God and fulfill them.

Many other passages in the old testament as well we hear about vows and fulfilling it.

In New testament we read in Acts 18:18 (NIV)

  Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken.

Also we read in Mathew 5:33-35 (NIV) we see reference of vow:

  “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

Questions:

What are vows?
Are they  relevant even today?
For what, we need to make a vow?
Why would have Paul vowed to cut his hair?
Why we do not hear about such vows these days in churches?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying "Neither this man nor his parents sinned"?

texts:
John 9:3 (NIV)

  "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Here you have the clear understanding That sin brings on sickness ,but Jesus seems to have another explanation here (or in this situation).

What is Jesus saying here according to the RCC?


texts: How do Trinitarians explain the Father granting life to the Son (John 5:26)?

texts:
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26, NIV)

How do trinitarians explain the fact that the Father has granted life to the Son?


texts: I understand there are the ten commandments, which I naively presumed were the only "commandments" in the bible. I am under the impression that this is not true and that there are additional commandments. If this is true, what defines an instruction as a commandment in the bible?


texts: What is the "paradise" that Jesus references in Luke 23:43?

texts:
Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

At first glance, I casually assumed "paradise" was referring to heaven, but if Jesus was dead for 3 days after His crucifixion and didn't ascend to heaven until much later, what is He referring to here?

A prerequisite question may be: where was Jesus during the 3 days after crucifixion?


texts: What does "biblical Christianity" mean to evangelical Protestants?

texts:
What does "biblical Christianity" mean to evangelical Protestants, and does it entail the emphasis on and especial attention to sola scriptura?

I think this question is important, because it may be jargon for something in the evangelical Protestant culture.


texts: Was Constantine The Great a Nicene Christian?

texts: Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?


texts: Does LDS teaching hold to a multi-universe theory or an infinite universe theory in order to account for the doctrine of eternal progression?

texts:
I recently read about the doctrine of eternal families in the LDS Church.  As I understand it, the LDS church teaches that men on this planet have the potential to become gods themselves, who then have their own planets upon which people may become gods also.

I am mathematically inclined, so I began thinking of this from that perspective.  Currently, the LDS Church has a membership of around 15 million people worldwide.  If we, however, only assume that one million men attain godhood from God's spiritual progeny on this planet and that this is the only planet on which His progeny attains godhood, then we would have a generational ratio of 1:1,000,000 or 1:10^6.  If that ratio were to hold for each man that becomes a god in each subsequent generation, the numbers become quite large very quickly, even assuming linear growth rather than exponential.

I understand that LDS teaching holds the our God was once a man on another planet, so at the very least, people on this planet are the third "generation".  If our God is one of a million others who also became gods on their planet, then the total number of gods and planets, if this really is the third generation, would now be 10^6 X 10^6, or 10^12 (one trillion).  If this is the 4th generation, then there would be 10^12 or one quintillion gods and planets.

Ten celestial generations would produce 10^60 gods and planets, and 20 would produce 10^120 gods and planets.

Science estimates that there are only between 10^78 - 10^82 atoms in the observable universe.  So, my question is whether or not the LDS Church speaks to this reality and whether it holds to a multi-universe or infinite universe theory in order to account for the mathematical realities or if there is some other explanation.

I have never read anything about this question on any other sites.  The mathematical realities just occurred to me as I was thinking about this.


texts: Are there any examples where the non-believers demanding a miracle for the proof of Catholic faith and a saint succeeding in performing it?

texts:
Questions: Are there any examples where the non-believers demanding a miracle for the proof of Catholic faith and a saint succeeding in performing one?

I am looking for those kinds of examples, especially if they were performed by a saint.


texts: What is the definition of 'free will' as explained in the Bible?

texts:
Reading a question on this site I suddenly realized that I do not know what 'free will' means. I cannot find a definition in other questions asked and my philosophy books clouded the whole issue. Augustine says a lot but also seem to think I already know what it means. So I thought I would look in the Bible but can't find the term.

Where in the Bible can I find a definition or explanation?


texts: Which year did Jesus die? What is the most commonly held view

texts:
Is there a commonly held year for Jesus' crucifixion? What is the basis? In particular I would like to see biblical-basis.

If not which Christian denominations teach a specific year for His crucifixion? and what is the basis.


texts: What were Martin Luther's main disagreements with the Catholic Church? Were these beliefs of Luther's and his disagreements with the Catholic Church the origin of the Lutheran Church?


texts: Does Sola Scriptura go hand in hand with personal interpretation?

texts:
I asked this question on Sola Scriptura a few months ago and got the answer that denied my premise that Sola Scriptura is about private interpretation.  Unfortunately, I didn't get a good reason as to why.

The reason I think Sola Scriptura, meaning the Bible is the entire deposit of revelation, necessitates private interpretation is because the Traditions of the Catholic Church are held as cursory, if not just wrong, under it.  Therefore, in Protestantism, any doctrine or dogma as it relates to the Bible lives and dies with the one who reads it and discovers it.  Even if that person starts a movement, followers of that person (Lutherans, Calvinists etc...) are under no obligation to adhere to the doctrines promulgated by the leaders of their traditions or if they can't find them in the Bible themselves then they'll up and leave.

But, to say they just pick up a bible and ask if something is biblical regardless of precedent would be perhaps overstating the truth, but the difference between Catholic Tradition and Protestant precedent is the difference between an American judge following a Supreme Court ruling (binding over the entire nation) and taking under advisement a UN Resolution (binding to only those who acknowledge it as law, i.e. no one).

So what I'm asking is, does any part of Sola Scriptura, as Protestants believe, allow for a biblical dogma to be defined definitively like Hell or Judgement or the Blessed Trinity, or does every young Protestant get to craft in their own mind their conception of Hell and Judgement and the Blessed Trinity based on their own reading of the Bible?


texts:
There are some verses that use the terminology "power", and I heard it with different preachers that the Christians possess power.
Here are some examples:

and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, ESV)
And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. (Acts 6:8, ESV)

What is the power that Christians possess?


texts: Were exactly three people crucified on Golgotha the night Jesus was crucified?

texts: We know for certain that Jesus and two other men who were convicted of crimes were crucified on the same hill. Is there any basis for believing that there may have been other convicts?


texts: According to Ravi Zacharias's apologetic argument, how could love have existed prior to the fall?

texts:
Ravi Zacharias explained in a Q&A (14:50) that for true love to exist between God and man, the current creation is the only possible way for it to exist. He gave four possible examples of creation, but knowing good from evil results in perfect freely chosen love between man and God.

According to Zacharias, how is it possible then for a loving relationship between man and God to have existed in the Garden of Eden? (man did not know good from evil)  Only when the serpent mislead man, good and evil was revealed. How could Adam and Eve have lived in a state of true love with God?


texts: What role does the New Covenant play in Reformed Theology?

texts:
After looking at @Affable Geek's answer to an overview question on different understandings of why Jesus had to die, and in particular after his comment on Catholicism in this respect, I went to look at the discussion in the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the role of the death of Jesus in salvation. .
One thing that struck me about the Catechism's discussion of "Why did Jesus die?" is the intimate connection the Catechism draws between the offering of Jesus on the Cross and the institution of the New Covenant. This connection is evident in the language of paragraph 610,

On the eve of his Passion, while still free, Jesus transformed this Last Supper with the apostles into the memorial of his voluntary offering to the Father for the salvation of men: "This is my body which is given for you." "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

and also in the language of the Eucharistic Prayer:

When supper was ended,
he took the chalice1 and, once more giving thanks,
he gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.

That is, rather than specifying a single reason why Jesus had to die (was it as a ransom from sin? an atonement for humanity?), Catholicism appears to focus instead on the New Covenant between God and Man which His death and resurrection created.
I don't see this connection being made in the soteriological approaches discussed in the answer above. How does Reformed Theology in particular connect its view of the purpose behind Jesus' death with the institution of the New Covenant? Or does Reformed Theology not talk much about the New Covenant? What sort of emphasis does it place on any connection between the Covenant and the Sacrifice?

1 There are a number of difficulties I have with the new translation of the Roman Missal; one is the translation of "calix" as "chalice" rather than the simple "cup" of the previous translation.


texts: Should the words to prayers said in private be changed to fit the company?

texts:
Why do we pray "Our Father who art in Heaven" and "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death".

Should we instead pray My Father and "Pray for me, a sinner now and at the hour of my death"?  Or is there a reason to always use the same words in those prayers?

I know there is some conflict in the Nicene creed where both I believe and We believe is used, but specifically in prayers, and not creeds, what is the reason for using the plural pronoun when you're the only person in the room, does this have something to do with the communion of saints or is it just convention?


texts: Where does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Are inter-faith marriages prohibited by the Bible?

1st & 2nd Corinthians speak of how Christians should not be "unequally yolked" in marriage to non-Christians.

Where else does the Bible talk about marriage to non-Christians?


texts: What is the difference between an "issue of covenant" and an "abomination to God"?

texts: When looking at Old Testament Mosaic law, I'm confused as to what applies to Christians and what does not.  In an answer to a previous question that I asked, it was said that a certain law did "not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God."  Are an "issue of covenant" and an "abomination to God" different categories of laws in the Old Testament?  What is the Christian view of how different types of Mosaic law apply to us?


texts: John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God" - How do Trinitarians reconcile this scripture with the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God?

texts:
In John 1:18, it states

  θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε
  "No one has ever seen God."

Trinitarians believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God [the Son], the second person of the Trinity. That being said, how do Trinitarians reconcile the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God with the statement in John 1:18, "no one has ever seen God"?


texts: Is God more just than he is love? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
I am wondering how Christians see God. I hear many Christians say God is love, but is also just. But I ask them, how can he be love if he is also just?

So two attributes God has given himself are love and just.

In the Old Testament, it is seen that God sets standards for his creation, and consequences: the wages of sin is death. This is God's just side.

But God also says he is love, and that he loves his creation. And he prophesies in Isaiah about salvation from the consequences he has set.

And we see in the new testament, the both the just side of God, and the love side of God be satisfied by the blood of Jesus Christ. The law was fulfilled by Jesus's blood, but also God's love was fulfilled by giving his son for creation.

But then a new law appears: The wages of not believing Jesus is the son of God is eternal torment in hell. How could a God who loves his creation allow them suffer so much?

How do Christians deal with this confliction that seems to come up? It seems to be quite obvious. Romans 8:38 says that nothing can separate humans from God's love, yet how can Paul say God loves them if they are burning in the hell God put them in? If God really is love, then, logically, he wouldn't let them burn there. He would love them too much to watch them sit in anguish for eternity.

From the Catholics I know, most believe that God is love, but logically I fail to see their conclusion in this? But if God instead is not love itself, but just has some love. He is much more just than he is love, then he could let them burn there, for justice prevails his love and allows the punishment to occur.

For someone who may not know the common knowledge of the children growing up in the church, it has occurred to me that it might be common knowledge that God is just first, love second, but from the Christians I know, it would surprise me if the Catholic church agreed with this.

And also, if God really loved creation, couldn't he just switch up the rules to allow his just side to be satisfied? And if he is love would he not forgive Satan also?

I know on this site I must declare what denomination I am targeting, but really I just want to know the logical process where one concludes that God is love, unless of course someone biblically verifies that God is just first, then love second (which I myself cannot find in the scriptures.) But if I must pick a denomination, I will choose Catholic because it seems that is the majority of this site.

This question arised from the verse 1 John 4:8: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."


texts: How did the threefold distinction of Deacon, Priest and Bishop come about?

texts:
I was reading in another question, and I've heard it said before, that in the early church (Apostolic era), there was not a clear-cut distinction between Deacon, Priest and Bishop in the sacrament of Holy Orders. So I suppose that if an apostle laid his hands on you and gave you holy orders, you became equal to the apostle in fundamental power and teaching authority. Priests were considered the equal to bishops and deacons.

Perhaps all of that is just a myth in which case please correct me with sources. If not, I'm wondering when and how (and why) the church evolved it's theology of Holy Orders such that there is the threefold distinction between Deacon, Priest and Bishop.

This is a history question, so anyone is welcome to answer. But if I absolutely must scope it down, then please keep it to the Catholic view only


texts: Are there disadvantages to Chronological Study Bibles?

texts:
I recently bought a copy of The Chronological Study Bible. According to the preface, the Bible takes all of the verses of the KJV bible and rearranges them (with some debates on certain verses) into chronological order.

I've read through the KJV Bible a couple times in years past, but have pretty much always gotten lost in terms of the time period (i.e reading was more mechanical than understanding.)

Clearly most study Bibles are not in chronological order. Why is this? What are the disadvantages of arranging a Bible in Chronological order?


texts:
There seems to be an idea among some Christians of a metaphysical timeline that goes something like this:

All the angels are created sometime before or during the 7 days of creation in Genesis.
Satan desires to become like God, and starts a "war in heaven"
Satan loses the war and is cast out of Heaven along with many other angels before or during the time Adam and Eve reside in Eden.
Satan, fallen and cast out of Heaven, appears in Eden in the form of a serpent to tempt Eve, and Adam.
Satan continues to tempt, torment, and accuse mankind, as evident in Job.
Satan is bound for a time when the Messiah comes into power.
Satan is released from bondage and wages a final war upon Heaven with his fallen angels and many nations who follow him.
Satan is defeated and cast into the lake of fire, which is eternal destruction.

Was there a war in Heaven for which Satan was cast out that occurred before the fall of man?

What Biblical sources can be cited that describe the events that led to the exile of Satan from Heaven?


texts: What happens to retired Popes like Pope Benedict?

texts:
Does the pope get paid for being the pope?

The above question is answered very well and shows that the Pope genuinely has no personal assets. He is well cared for by the Vatican.

But what about the recently resigned Pope Benedict. He is no longer Pope and likely has very little or even no personal assets. What will happen to him?

This is interesting to know because I think only two or three Popes have actually ever resigned. Most die in office. So there is no Papal retirement fund and I would think not really any official or traditional way of handling this.


texts: What is the biblical support for the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of Old Testament laws?

texts:
I just asked this question looking for where this view point came from and when it was made popular.

  Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel's worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus' death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.
  Civil Law: This law dictated Israel's daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
  Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

Here I would like to get answers on the Biblical support for this viewpoint.


texts: Did Mary desire to be the Mother of the prophesied Messiah?

texts: Before the Annunciation by St. Gabriel, did Mary desire to be the Mother of the prophesied Messiah?


texts: If only those who died after Jesus death are among the ones that go to heaven, how do JWs view the ascension of Elijah?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144000 (the group mentioned in Revelation 14:1-3) have a heavenly hope, while the rest of humankind have the hope of living forever on earth. This is for example explained in the selected answer to this question.

Additionally an answer to this other question says (emphasis added):

  However, all of these faithful ones from before Jesus' day have the
  earthly hope, just as most Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The
  heavenly hope has been reserved for 144,000 which have been chosen
  by Christ ever since his death. Those with the heavenly hope will
  assist Christ in ruling the righteous ones on Earth.

and

  This is the only distinction between those who died before Jesus'
  death and those who died after: the ones who died after are able to
  be members of the 144,000.

However 2 Kings 2:11 says that Elijah was taken to heaven:

  And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold,
  there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them
  both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses view the case of Elijah if only those who died after Jesus' death are among the ones that go to heaven?


texts: Should we love Satan since he is our greatest enemy?

texts:
Jesus asked us to love our enemy Mat 5:43-44:

  43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

So, should we love Satan?


texts: In contrast to Judaism and Islam, what is the importance of Abraham's sacrifice of his son in Christianity?

texts:
My question is in reference to the verses of Old Testament: Genesis 22:2-8

How Abraham's sacrifice is being interpreted in Christianity in general. And as Muslims and Jews interpret and commemorate in full letter and spirit so what really makes Christian a "Christian" by interpreting it in a different way?
I am asking this question as Christianity in its beginning emerged as a separate sect (disciples and followers of Jesus) of Judaism, so what makes them to interpret that biblical and historical event in a different manner(if he and his followers ever did) than the Jews and Rabbis of his days...after all Jesus said that: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

And the relationship of a common and modern Christian is defined with Abraham's God, the same God that Jesus talked about and whose teachings were preached throughout his life.


texts:
I have always found it odd that Paul seems to have the need to emphasize the fact  that he isn't lying. It is almost like he is insecure about  his credibility. In Romans 3:7 he seems to imply that lying is acceptable if the glory of God is enhanced, I don't ever recall reading Jesus or any other Apostle having to lie to enhance the glory of God. Paul then wonders why someone might judge him as a sinner?

Ro. 9:1 I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying,

1Ti. 2:7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle
— I am telling the truth, I am not lying — and a teacher of
the true faith to the Gentiles.

Ro. 3:7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s
truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still
condemned as a sinner?”

My question is : Was Paul ever accused of lying directly or indirectly by someone?


texts: How does free will fit with the doctrine of predestination?

texts:
The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination states that God has chosen who will live and who will die.  That Christians are unconditionally elected for salvation or damnation.

However, how does this fit the idea of Free Will?  If it's God that is choosing whether we turn to him or not, do we not really have free will?

(Please, Calvinistic views only.)


texts: Is anyone aware of a precedent of C.S. Lewis' Transposition in Christian thought (Transposition is an essay found in The Weight of Glory that describes how richer content can be described in a less rich medium: e.g., how heaven is described using merely earthly elements)? Was he the one who first used the word in this sense?


texts: How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable of the Sower?

texts:
How do advocates of a strict perseverance of the saints doctrine explain the Parable of the Sower?  That is, how does someone explain it who believes that once someone is saved they cannot lose that salvation?  Jesus' own explanation of the parable says:

  Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.  And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. (Luke 8:11–15, ESV, emphasis added)

It certainly seems like Jesus is saying some people believe for a while and then stop believing, implying it is possible to give up/lose one's salvation.  How does one resolve this with a "once saved, always saved" theology?  I'm sure the answer will be something along the lines of "they weren't real believers to begin with," but I want more in depth exegesis.  Why are there four groups in the parable if there are only two or three type of people (real believers, "pretend"/apparent believers, unbelievers)?  What do the different groups represent if no group represents people who left the faith (after legitimately having it)?  Why should we take the words of Jesus that some believe, but only for a little while, to mean they didn't really believe at all?

A good answer should reference commentary by a published theologian who adheres to a strict perseverance of the saints doctrine.