texts: How to interpret the ban of unions between believers and non-believers?

texts:
Having lately studied the bible from Second Epistle to the Corinthians I have pondered whether or not unions between nonbelievers and those in faith are really fully and undisputedly condemned by the scripture. There are numerous passages where they are at least discouraged if not bluntly denied as sin, but throughout the word there is the message of love, sharing and caring that seems to conflict this by limiting e.g. marriage to those who share faith. I'd like to hear your ideas especially regarding the passage on  2. Cor.6:14-16?

My question, hence, is: is the union (by union I suppose the reference is to marriage but I'm also interested if there is something to be said about cohabitation prior to marriage that is quite common these days) of a believer and a non-believer condemned without exemptions and in case of such marriage, is the one in faith committing continuous sin as long as the marriage lasts, and will that turn used against him/her in the final judgment?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Can a Christian walk away from their salvation?

The Bible teaches that when you accept Christ as you personal savior, your name is written in the book of life. Is it written once for ever? According to Bible, can a person lose salvation at any point?

What are the arguments for an against the doctrine of Eternal Security?


texts: How do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the day of Lord?

texts:
As predicted by Jesus

Matthew 17:11: He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things."

and

Malachi 4:5: See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

Now, as for Jesus's coming we will know him for sure, but how do we recognize Elijah when he will come?
I think he is not one of the two witnesses of Rev 11, because in that time the tribulation should be already in place.


texts: What did Luther think of the Eastern Orthodox and vice versa?

texts: When the Reformation began to take hold, the Orthodox may have been in decline, but were definately still present. I'm curious to know what what the two "breakaways" thought of each other - is it a case of "my enemies' enemy is my friend," or was the doctrinal difference too great?


texts:
Let me first explain my understanding of these words (punishment & revenge):

Punishment is typically when you do something to one person to make things better for society, or for that person.  It is either something unpleasant, so that the person will not want to do the bad thing, because they know the punishment is there, or they do the crime, but because of the punishment (death penalty / chopping off someone’s arm / being locked away) they cannot do the crime again or will think twice before doing it again.

Punishment, in theory, serves the majority of people.  It is a good thing.  It has positive benefits to most people (negative to one person – the crime committer – temporarily to solve a social problem).

Revenge is completely different.  That is when you cannot control your anger and hurt someone because they hurt you.  No positive benefit, other than making the angry person feel better.  It is, as I understand it, all about emotions.

Romans 12:19: “It is mine to avenge, I will repay, says the Lord”.  Hell does not seem like punishment, it seems like revenge.  This makes no sense, given the "good" and "just" descriptions of God.

So, based on the above, what is God, who is good and just, intending by sending people to hell:  to punish, or to take revenge?  Please include a logical explanation with your answer.

EDIT

I've been asked to define what I understand as "hell", and the doctrinal context that I want this answered in, so here's my attempt to do that:

I understand hell to be a place of eternal suffering that God created, where He sends people who do not believe in Jesus.

This is what I understand to be the typical protestant view of hell, as described in the bible.  If you have a different view, then you may not be the best person to answer this question, because I really want an answer from those who believe this point of view.

I would also like all answers to include some kind of reference, if their source is not simply logic.


texts: Is physical presence in the church necessary to fulfill the Sunday mass obligation?

texts:
I was checking out the website of a rural parish in Ireland and I noticed that the main parish has many small churches in the surrounding villages. The small churches don't necessarily have a priest and the priest from the main village has to come down to the smaller ones. On the parish website it indicates that you can listen to the Mass on the radio and on the TV.

If you were in the little villages with no priest can you fulfill your obligation by watching the Mass on TV or by listening to the radio? The main village is a 20 minute bus ride from the smaller ones so it's not like it would be impossible to attend.


texts: According to Catholicism, why is the Holy Spirit never spoken of as the Father of Jesus?

texts:
The sixth article of the creed recites:

  He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the
  Virgin Mary.

Now a woman conceives by the agency of a man who becomes the father of that child.

What is the Catholic theological explanation as to why the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as the Father of Jesus? In Catholicism it is always understood that God the Father is and always is the Father of Jesus.

Moreover, one of Mary's title within the Catholic Church is Spouse of the Holy Spirit. [cf. Enyciclical Redemptoris Mater, 26 | Pope St. John Paul II].

Please note the two natures in Jesus, the nature of God and the nature of man. This question is more interested in his nature as man.

To make things complicated, Joseph is referred to as the father of Jesus and Jesus as the Son of David.

Asking another way,  why isn't the title "father" even remotely applied to the Holy Spirit when it is by his power that Jesus, God the Son made man was conceived in Mary?


texts: Has a pope ever been corrected publicly by a non-cleric in the presence of cardinals because of the unclear wording of a papal document?

texts:
At the moment there is a lot of talk about four cardinals who have submitted a dubia to Pope Francis regarding the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

In one article it stated that: "any 'fraternal correction' of the Pope should be made 'in camera caritatis,' without a public statement."

This made me think of another question. Has a pope ever been publicly corrected or rebuked in front of cardinals by a non-cleric member of the Catholic Church?

What I mean by a non-cleric is a Catholic faithful who is not a deacon, priest, bishop or cardinal, but may be a layperson, nun or religious brother (not ordained).

Post Script (Edit): In this question (When did a “formal act of correction” of a pope's statement happen in the past?) which is similar, yet not a duplicate, the OP asks "when and who did it happen that the bishops had to carry out the "formal correction" in the history of the church?"


texts: Where can I find the Graduale Romanorum in Latin or Croatian in physical format?

texts:
I've been looking for the official Graduale Romanorum which sanctions which hymns, chants, etc. are allowed to be performed during Mass.

Unfortunately, I could only find the Latin version in digital format.

Also, if anyone knows a good hymnal in Latin or Croatian or where I can find official documents with texts, it would be much appreciated.

This comment on this article inspired me to look for it.


texts: Has a notable militant non-Christian ever converted to Christianity due to a "Road to Damascus" experience?

texts:
I would like to know if there are published testimonies of notable militant non-Christians -- which could be a militant atheist or any non-Christian person who has actively waged war against the Christian faith -- who ended up making an unexpected 180 degree turn to Christianity due to an extraordinary, "Road to Damascus" kind of experience. We know that extraordinary experiences like that have the potential to turn Sauls into Pauls, persecutors into warriors of the faith. Has this ever happened to a notable militant non-Christian? Or at least has a former militant non-Christian ever testified about an extraordinary experience being the cause of their conversion?
Of course the apostle Paul, whom I'm using as a reference, does not count. More recent cases are preferable.


texts: Where Does Jesus Say "I will save humanity"?

texts:
I had an old friend ask the following: "Where in the Bible does Jesus say, "I will go save humanity"" (Or something along those lines). I tried to explain God is Jesus, and it was his will. But they were looking for the exact verse. I couldn't think off any the top of my head.

I know it says the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. But that doesn't really say it all. This person is having trouble understanding why Jesus (in particular), would do this for us bad people.


texts: Can Prince Harry marry his fiancée by the Church of England's precepts?

texts:
Prince Harry, from the British Royal family, is to marry his fiancée. The communicate was:

According to several newspapers (e.g. here),

  A royal source said it would be “a happy church wedding”

There is no other official source about the type of wedding, but it is reasonable to be in a ceremony by the Church of England (untimately, his grandmother is the head of the Church of England).

Importantly, there is speculation/commentary in the media that Harry's fiancee is Roman Catholic.

If the latter is true, and as things stand, is it possible within the Church of England's precepts for Harry to marry his fiancée in a religious ceremony, receiving the Anglican sacrament of matrimony?

I am curious because, as far as I understand, if the reverse were true (i.e. Harry being Roman Catholic and his fiancée being Anglican, marrying in a Catholic church), such sacramental marriage is not possible.


texts: In Hebrew 5:9, what changed about the Son's perfection?

texts:
In the book of Hebrews, we read:

  8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 5:8-10 (NIV)

Here, the writer to the Hebrews describes God the Son as being "made perfect". The simple reading of this would imply that he was imperfect before this event, but that would contradict my understanding of the rest of scripture.

How would a reformed protestant understand the idea of God the Son being "made perfect"?


texts: Were Malachi and Isaiah normally bound or grouped together?

texts: This is probably not a surprised to scripture veterans, but noticed that Mark 1:2-3 is a quotation from two separate sources, Isaiah and Malachi, but it is ascribed only to Isaiah by the author of Mark. That leads the question above.


texts: Did the first Christian believers keep the Sabbath and if so on which day?

texts:
According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on whether to keep the Sabbath:

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

Did the first century church keep the Sabbath?
And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?


texts: How can Jesus rule the earth during the second coming, if he is only in Jerusalem?

texts: I don't understand, how Jesus comes down in the clouds and rules on the mount of olives, how can the people in other countries see him? I know the clouds all will see him, but once he actually steps on earth, how will I see him or be with him? Do we all go to Jerusalem?


texts: When and where did Pope Paul VI say the "Mass is the most perfect form of prayer"?

texts:
I was trying to source this quote,

  The Mass is the most perfect form of prayer - Pope Paul VI

but the Google, in her wisdom, seems to think I only want to see what my fellow zealous Mary lovers have to write in their circa '96 tabular/framed web pages.

Usually when someone attributes something to a Pope, they say, "at such and such an audience on the feast of St. So and So" but not this quote, it's just left out there.

What I really want to know is, if the Catholic Church considers Mass to be a Prayer.  I've always heard, and taught, that Mass is the greatest prayer and the Rosary somehow eeks out Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction for the #2 spot (although that logic is troublesome).

I can't find this tidbit in the Catechism, and my personal collection of wonderful Catholic texts are somewhat older that Pope Paul VI, so please, if anyone has his breviary wherein he scrawled this magnificent truth, please let me know!


texts: If you believe that Messiah Jesus is a human being what logic you have to guess that he could be a God or son of God?

texts:
The Messiah Jesus is son of Maryam was a human being. He was born from a woman, he ate and drank, got up and went to sleep, suffered pain and wept… and God (Allaah) is far above all of that, Allah is far than biological characters such as sexuality so how could he be God or son of God?

Note: My Goal is not to argue or to get votes but my goal is to try to understand what is the nature of the logic which works in christianity!


texts: From where did the Book of Abraham come and how did it become part of LDS Scripture?

texts: According to the answers to this question, the Pearl of Great Price contains a work of antiquity called the Book of Abraham.  Where exactly did the Book of Abraham come from and how did it become recognized as Scripture by the LDS Church?


texts: Did the original reformers believe in a Magisterium?

texts:
I have seen the original reformers referred to as the "Magisterial reformers" a couple of times over the past few years, and I'm only now wondering what the significance of that phrase is.

Does it imply that the original reformers (eg Luther and Calvin) believed in a Magisterium? That is, did they believe in an official teaching office of the Church that has the power to proclaim binding dogmas? (In the Catholic system this is the Pope and all the Bishops who are in communion with him)

Another reason I ask is directly related to this: I've read that the original reformers had a very different view of "Sola Scriptura" when compared to modern day protestant evangelicals. Apparently they didn't believe in the "private interpretation" which is common in the protestant church today. This leads me to wonder, if they didn't believe in private interpretation, then did they believe in submitting to official church teachings instead, like Catholics do?

(Of course if they did indeed believe this, they presumably didn't identify the church with the Catholic church of the day, but instead identified it with their own new and unique denominations)

I've also read that during the reformation, Calvin ruled Geneva theologically and politically, almost as if he were a bishop or Pope of his own new version of Christianity. I understand that he subscribed to sola scriptura, but he was the only person in Geneva who was permitted to actually study the bible and come to theological conclusions  (This is my understanding; I'm open to further information/correction).

The reason I bring this up is that it seems to indicate that Calvin regarded himself as an alternate, authoritative Magisterium of the church.

Final note: I have always been utterly baffled by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as presented by modern evangelical protestants.  It has always seemed fundamentally broken, incoherent and illogical to me. It is impossible to infallibly recognise the canon of scripture when you deny Church authority (This was a deal breaker for me and caused me to convert to Catholicism).

However I think I'm finally seeing the light. I can understand Christianity following a doctrine of Sola Scriptura provided that there is also an authoritative Magisterium which is operating according to this doctrine. By this I mean, there is still an official church authority who can proclaim dogmas, resolve disputes, recognise the canon of scripture, etc, however this church authority must make sure that everything it teaches can be explicitly proven from scripture.

In this way you would have a Christianity which embraces both Sola Scriptura and has an authoritative Magisterium.

Is this what the original reformers were trying to do?


texts:
Given that:

Life of man continued in eternity in Eden
During this time the tree of knowledge was present
At any given point in time, man had the free will to make the choice: I will eat the forbidden fruit

it seems like a mathematic inevitability that the probability of eating the fruit = 100% as time → infinity?

I might be thinking of this too naïvely or simplistically but it seems like regardless how figurative or literal you take the account, the core issue still stands?

Unless 1. is not as simple as it seems and eternity is a more complex notion than simply time continuing indefinitely as we understand time now? Or 2. is debatable, i.e. the tree could have only been a one-time test which would not have continued into eternity?


texts: Can a priest validly celebrate a mass without anybody else present?

texts: Say that a priest for whatever reason wanted to do a mass by himself. He does all the parts of the liturgy, including the consecration of the Eucharist. The only thing is, he’s completely alone; nobody else is present. Would this mass be valid? Or does there have to be other people (by which I mean “participants”, usually lay people)?


texts: Where do those who say Noah's flood was an actual event say the water went?

texts: According to those who say Noah's flood was an actual global event, Where did the flood waters go when they subsided?  Myself and others have researched this and could not answer it honestly and completely. We have thought that it went to the middle of the earth but there is only metal according to research.


texts: Which Roman Catholic figure(s) has/have accused the Church of Mariolatry?

texts:
I seem to remember hearing that an early R.C.C. leader had accused the church of falling into Mariolatry—the worship of Mary. Have any popes or other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in early church history, come forth with these accusations?

*He may not have been an R.C.C. leader, but he was R.C. It seemed like it was a Pope, but I just can't remember.


texts:
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and
  create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.

  Isaiah 45:7

Why did god create evil and then punish people for doing evil when he made all this things possible (such as creating evil in the first place, and making humans able to do evil things)?

Can anyone clear this up?

This question was not answered yet. I'm clearly asking here WHY did God create evil, and I'm not asking if he created evil.. because the verse I sighted already is claiming that God Created Evil.. I'm just asking for any biblical sources of reason why would he create evil?


texts: Why does transubstantiation refer only to communion?

texts:
Why does the doctrine of transubstantiation consider Jesus’ words regarding the bread and wine of communion to be literal while considering these other similes used by Jesus to be metaphorical?
Alleged Literal

Matthew 26:26-27 ESV  Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Alleged Metaphorical

John 15:5 ESV I am the vine; you are the branches.
John 1:29 ESV The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 6:35 ESV Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 8:12 ESV Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 10:7 ESV So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Matthew 12:50 ESV For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.
Acts 4:11 ESV This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.

This question is directed towards those that accept the alleged literals/metaphoricals listed above. That would be Catholics, some Lutherans, etc.


texts: How do parables communicate the inspired word of God?

texts: I'm curious as to know how parables can communicate the inspired word of God. Other literary forms in the bible such as myths and psalms are able to somehow communicate it but I want to know how parables can communicate it as well. I'd like to know specifically how the parable of the sower can communicate the inspired word of God.


texts: According to Roman Catholic doctrine, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was born without sin?

texts:
In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as her Savior.  According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life.

So, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one).

  And Mary said:

  “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my
  Savior.  For He has had regard for the humble state of His
  bondslave;  for behold, from this time on all generations will count me
  blessed.  For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy
  is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward
  those who fear Him.  He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has
  scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He
  has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who
  were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away
  the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant,  In
  remembrance of His mercy,  As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and
  his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)


texts: Is there anything in Scripture or Hebrew historical documents that says for whom Proverbs was written? Did Solomon expect his sons to read them or were they for the people of Israel? Please provide verses or documents to support your claims.


texts: How are people who were not approved by Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23) still able to expel demons?

texts:
In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said about a future situation as follows:

  21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom
  of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in
  heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not
  prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your
  name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I
  never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
  (emphasis added)

These people in this situation who refer to Jesus as "Lord" apparently believed in both their exorcism and that they were doing his will (or, rather, his fathers will as he stated in verse 21).

But these are people who at least verbally put faith in Jesus but yet are not approved by God.

My question is, how are they able to drive out demons if they are not approved by God?


texts: Do Mormons believe that we currently live near the time when Jesus would return?

texts:
According to some Christian denominations, we are currently living near the time when Jesus would return to gather those selected to heaven and/or to destroy earth or the unbelievers/wicked.

Do Mormons believe that we are currently living near the time of Jesus' return?

If they do, what passages in the Bible or the Book of Mormon do they base this on?


texts: Which is the book in the Protestant Bible containing most quotes of verses from other Bible books?

texts: It'd be just interesting to know this as a fact. Also, to have an objective criteria, what will be the answer if we consider the percentage of verses in the corresponding book that are quotes(instead of the number). The later will allow to compare short and long books in this regard.


texts: Why was the name of St Joseph not mentioned at Luke 2: 19?

texts:
At Luke 2:15-19 (NRSVCE) we see:

  When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.”  So they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the manger.  When they saw this, they made known what had been told them about this child;  and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart.

My question is: Why was St. Joseph who was also privy to the happenings around Infant Jesus,  left out of mention when Luke wrote about St.Mary pondering over the incidents ? What do the Catholic teachings say about that ?


texts: A while ago, I read this academic paper by Casey Schutt. Although the entire paper was about evangelism ethics in the workplace and how self-identified evangelical/born-again Christians go about doing that in contrast to the religiously pluralistic workplace environment, I got a little interested in how Casey Schutt could just visit a Baptist church and teach 3 different classes. What are the requirements for a teacher in the Baptist church? How trained are they? Do you have to be baptized under the right formula to teach?


texts: Why do LDS use water and leavened bread in communion when the Jews used wine and unleavened bread?

texts:
I recently read somewhere that in the LDS observance of communion, water and leavened bread is used.  The practice of communion comes from the Jewish Passover ceremony where wine and unleavened bread was used.  Wine is the fruit of the vine and leaven, or yeast, represents sin, so the bread, which represents Christ's body today, was without leaven, or sinless.

Most Christian denominations still follow this pattern today, even though many use grape juice as a non-alcoholic substitute for "the fruit of the vine".  So, I was quite surprised to learn that Mormons do not follow this pattern.

Is it true that LDS Churches use water instead of wine or grape juice and leavened bread instead of unleavened bread?  If so, where does this practice come from and what is the theological basis for it?


texts: Why the difference in depiction of the cross between Catholics and Protestants?

texts:
As I understand it, Roman Catholic crosses have Jesus hanging on them, but Protestant crosses do not. I understood that Protestant crosses do not because they want to focus on the Resurrection, not the death of Jesus.

Is that correct? Why the difference?


texts:
Who was Luke and to whom was he addressing and what messages was he sending to the recipient/s
When and where was the book written and hat was the source of his message?


texts: What is the Biblical evidence that Jesus' mother was one of His disciples?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church venerates Mary as not only having been blessed to be the mother of Christ, but also as having been born without sin (Immaculate Conception), and to have been a perpetual virgin. Protestants do not believe the former, and most do not believe the latter either.

What is the Biblical basis for presuming that Mary was one of Jesus' disciples, i.e. a Christian?

Note - this is not meant to cast aspersions on any particular belief, and only looks for evidence of her conversion and belief in her son's work on the cross, not whether she was born without sin, or was a virgin after Jesus' birth.


texts: Would Calvinists classify themselves as determinists?

texts:
One of Joseph Arminius' arguments against Calvinism was that God's exhaustive foreknowledge does not require a doctrine of determinism.1

My question here is pretty straightforward: Do Calvinists actually consider themselves determinists?  In other words, Is Joseph Arminius disagreeing with Calvinism here, or is this a strawman / caricature of Calvinism?

(I know there are a whole slew of different views amongst those who call themselves Calvinists; I'm mostly just interested in the views of John Calvin and strict adherents to T.U.L.I.P.)


texts: How do Protestants explain the relationship between justification and the works of the servants in the Parable of the Talents?

texts:
This is not the question 'What does the Parable of the Talents mean according to Protestantism,' but a question specifically regarding the nature of the 'wicked' servant, and how it corresponds to his justification.
Here is the Parable:

Matthew 25:14-30 (DRB)
14 For even as a man going into a far country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods; 15 And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. 16 And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. 17 And in like manner he that had received the two, gained other two. 18 But he that had received the one, going his way digged into the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19 But after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reckoned with them. 20 And he that had received the five talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents, behold I have gained other five over and above. 21 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained other two. 23 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. 25 And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine. 26 And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. 29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I'm going to assume at least a few things are not disputed:

A talent was an enormous sum of money at that time (cf. NIV, "bag of gold"). According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, a talent was equivalent of 3000 shekels, or $6000.

Entering into the joy of the Lord refers to Heaven.

Entering the exterior darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth is Hell.

Given this background, how do Protestants explain the fact that the Lord entrusted an abundance of his goods, which I'm going to assert is grace (and I don't think Protestants dispute this, but correct me if I'm wrong; cf. Eph 4:7-8; Mt 25:14-15), to his "servant" (not someone 'unsaved'),1 and depending on how he makes good with what is entrusted to him, he is judged to either heaven or hell.
Question
That is, how isn't the justification of Jesus' servants spoken of in this Parable? And if it is about justification (again, which I believe heaven and hell as the respective outcomes necessitate), how, on the basis of negligence can you "receive the grace of God in vain," and go to hell, if justification is not contingent at all upon our works done by Jesus' grace?
Thanks in advance.

1 There are only two categories in this parable: both kinds of servants: those who go to hell for ill conduct, and those go to heaven. The servant who is "assigned" a place in hell was beforehand just a servant, and his conduct seems to determine which kind of servant he is. The word "assigned" necessitates this.


texts: Which are the parts of the Old Testament that point to Jesus?

texts: I'm aware of the prophecy in Genesis about someone who will crush the serpent's head, as well as the parts of Isaiah, especially the Suffering Servant. Which other parts of the Old Testament point to Jesus?


texts: Is there an appropriate response to "Jesus Loves You"?

texts:
For Catholics we've got a lot of cool call and response stuff built into our liturgies that can easily translate to everyday life.  So if someone in a truck shouts at me "Dominus Vobiscum", I know to say "Et cum spiritu tuo”.

I was wandering around down in the southern US a few day ago and someone in a truck yelled at me "Jesus Loves You".  I thought that was wonderful and it really cheered me up.  I waved and said "thanks".

Is there a cool thing that Protestants say (like "ping" - "pong" on IRC or that cool sign Harley guys do)?  I know Bill Cosby thought it was cool that Protestants say "Amen", but I don't think that's an "Amen" moment.  I want to say "Thanks for remembering me, Jesus loves you too!",  I don't want to say "I know, ain't I cool".

Also, and this may be pertinent information to the question at hand,  I really did look like a hobo at the time.  I was walking from a Motel 6 to a Wafflehouse wearing 3 shirts, a jacket, a scraggly beard a stocking cap and carrying a mug and I'd just been camping for the weekend, the fact that I left my sleeping bag and over-stuffed backpack in the hotel room didn't seem to improve my appearance.


texts: According to Hebrews 6:13-16 God swears by Himself an oath to Abraham, but at Genesis 22:15-16 why does it say the angel of the Lord swore the oath?

texts:
According to "The Jewish Encyclopedia," it describes the "Jewish Law of Agency." The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person.
The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluach or sheliach (one that is sent); the relation of the former to the latter is is known as agency (shelichut). This principal is enunciated thus: A man's agent is like himself.
Genesis 17:1-2 states the following. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him. "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless, Vs2, And I will multiply you exceedingly." God appears to Abram and says He will multiply Abram descendants.
At Genesis 22 God test Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son, his only son Isaac. At vs10, "And Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Vs11, BUT the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
Vs12, And he said, (the angel said) Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." At verses 13-14 the Lord provides a ram for Abraham to sacrifice.
Vs15, "Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, vs16, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son." Vs17, "indeed I will greatly bless you and multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies." Vs18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because you have obeyed My voice."
So getting back to my question? "Can an angel swear an oath on behalf of God Himself?" Would the Jewish Law of Agency be applicable here? I ask because Hebrews 6:13-16 says, "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could not swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, vs14, saying, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you."
Vs15, "And thus, having patiently waited he obtained the promise. Vs16, For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute."


texts: "Spirit"of God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

texts:
Biblically there's is a phrase for the Spirit of God the Father and the Spirit of Christ the Son. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

How about the "Spirit" of the Holy Spirit? Looking at it, it seems that, the thing called "spirit" do not point to the Three Person in the Triune God. The phrase would mean as if the Triune God has a "spirit" that animates the three person namely, Father Son and the Holy Spirit.

God is a Spirit, how come God who is a Spirit also has a "spirit"?

Comparing to a created man who is composed of body and soul. The soul animates the body and the spirit animates the soul.

Is God who existed in eternity as Spirit animated by "spirit" too?

What is the logical and biblical understanding of the "spirit" of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

Catholicism is preferred but a Christian biblical understanding is also welcome.


texts: Are there any parallel Russian / Slavonic – English prayer books for Orthodox Christians?

texts:
I have a copy of the Jordanville prayer book that is getting worn out, and I would like to know if a parallel Russian (i.e., Church Slavonic—Russians call it "Russian") and English prayer book exists, particularly one containing morning and evening prayers, prayers before Communion, and possibly some of the other wealth of the Jordanville prayer book.

Simply put: Are there any Orthodox prayer books that are parallel Russian-English and offer similar features as the Jordanville prayer book?

For what it's worth, I searched both Google and Amazon for any prayer books at all with Russian and English parallel. Try searching the topic—it's dry. There is an Old Believer prayer book according to the Old Rite that offers parallel Slavonic and English; beyond that I have yet to find a second.

For those not familiar with Orthodox and Old Believers, there is a comparison somewhat like the comparison to be made between Mennonites and Amish. Historically, Old Believers distinguished themselves (the loose Protestant analogue would be the Article By Which the Church Stands or Falls) by adamant persistence in the old arrangement of fingers in crossing oneself when there was historically a change in properly Orthodox practice, and dug in enough to make a separate community; there are or have been Old Believer communities in Latin America that have been persistently unchanged enough that they are more like 19th century Russia than anyone but Old Believers in Russia.


texts: Why is "fornication" used to describe the actions of "Babylon the Great" in Revelation 18?

texts:
For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”—Revelation 18:3 (NWT)

I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain, in what way(s), "Babylon the Great" engaged in "Fornication"?


texts: Protestants, why do some Christians suffer so much more than others?

texts:
Yes, we all have our own trials, but there are a few Christians who, very obviously, suffer so much more and much more often too (I am not talking about "bad choices" either, so please do not even bring that up).
Are these tormented Christians cursed by God? Does satan just have a major vendetta towards them? Are they not "truly" saved? Is God punishing them for small sins, hates them, or what?
Not sure how else to ask this, so if any of the Stack Exchange contributors have any suggestions, please let me know.


texts: What role do the people of Rome play in the election of a pope?

texts:
Everett Ferguson, in Church History, I, 20.I, describes the process for papal election set down in the Lateran decree of 1059 (In nomine Domini) as follows:

  The election of the pope was to be by the cardinal bishops, confirmed by the cardinal presbyters and deacons [...], and ratified by the people of Rome. [emphasis added]

I'm wondering what that "ratification" looked like.  Was it a formal process by which the people of Rome had ballots and a voting booth?  (I assume not)  Was it just assumed that if a bunch of people were cheering nearby that the people had ratified the election?  Or does "people" have some technical meaning here?

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the election should not be understood as a "popular vote of the Romans," but I'm not sure if the process has changed over the years.

What role did the people of Rome play in papal elections, according to the Lateran decree of 1059, and do they play the same role today?


texts: Where did viruses come from, according to Young Earth Creationists?

texts:
Viruses are quite nasty germs. Whereas bacteria serve many useful purposes and we need them, I wonder what the purpose of viruses in God's creation could be. Does Young Earth Creationism address what role viruses have in the world?

I'd like to hear the YEC view on the following points:

Where did viruses come from?
What is their purpose?
Were viruses created? If so, by whom?
Does the Bible say anything applicable?

If the Old Earth Creationist view is significantly different, please notify me. I expect them to be similar, but might ask another question focused on OEC if relevant.


texts: How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle?

texts:
One of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics is the Uncertainty Principle.  This principle is not an assumption, but rather is derived from assumptions made with regard to the structure of nature. The basic statement of the Uncertainty Principle, however, is that it is impossible to know the values of certain characteristics to within an arbitrary accuracy.

If the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental aspect of the universe, one could argue that God cannot be omniscient. So far, every experiment ever tested on matter has born out the practical implications of this principle and yielded the predicted results.

What does Christianity do with these results and how does their belief in an omniscient God fit into the picture?


texts: According to Calvinism, if Catholicism might lead to salvation, why to remain a Calvinist? (Henry IV story)

texts:
In his 1786 book, "The History of Heresies and Their Refutation", (saint) Alphonsus Liguiri wrote:

I think the danger of eternal perdition, by dying separated from the Church, should be a sufficient motive to convert every heretic. It was this that made Henry IV [of France] forsake Calvinism, and become a Catholic. He assembled a conference of Catholics and Calvinists, and after listening for a time to their arguments, he asked the Calvinistic doctors if it was possible a person could be saved in the Catholic faith; they answered that it was; "Then," said the King, "if the faith of the Roman Church secures salvation, and the Reformed faith is at least doubtful, I will take the safe side and become a Catholic." (p.634-5)

The logic in the above story is simple: If Catholicism is true, Calvinism leads to perdition; If Calvinism is true, Catholicism might lead to salvation. Ergo, statistically speaking, it is more convenient for salvation to be Catholic.

Naturally, the above is valid if and only if:
1. According to Catholicism, Calvinism leads to perdition:
In my understanding of this, before the Second Vatican Council, the interpretation of the phrase "there is no salvation outside the Church" (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was that non-Catholic Christians could not be saved. This is surely in line with the argument of the story, and what Alphonsus believed. However, after the Second Vatican Council, and without a change in the dogma itself, the interpretation of the phrase allows for non-Catholics (e.g Calvinists) to be saved. In this sense, the argument of Henry IV, from a Catholic perspective, falls apart.
2. According to Calvinism, Catholicism might lead to salvation:
As I read online, the key doctrine about salvation in Calvinism is that of predestination. Besides the seemingly divergent understandings of what this means, at least from what I read, predestination is surely open to Catholics. Or, to say the same, it is not closed to them merely because of being Catholic. In this sense, the "Calvinistic doctors" of the story were right.
Please indicate in the answer if this is not the case (i.e. that according to Calvinism there is no salvation in the Catholic Church).

If point 2 above is correct, then it is just natural to ask: would it be more sensible for Calvinists, from a probabilistic sense, to adopt Catholicism as their faith, just as Henry IV "did?" Or, to put it differently, what is the counterargument in the above story? Why is it sensible from a salvific point of view to remain a Calvinist?
PS: a quick glance at Wikipedia suggests the story of Henry IV might not be true. But that's beside the point.


texts: Is this age the only opportunity for salvation?

texts:
The majority of mainstream Protestant churches in the U.S. proclaim this age is the only opportunity for salvation.  There's a prominent minority, mostly non-denominational, that claim the period after the second resurrection is another opportunity for salvation.

The implications today concern evangelism efforts.  My experience with Baptist churches are they need to reach people before they die in THIS age, otherwise they are lost forever.  My experience with the non-denominational churches (who believe otherwise) are many simply are not called in this age (e.g. John 6:44), they will be given a chance for salvation in the second resurrection (e.g. Rev 20:5, barring the obvious that those who've received, then rejected Christ, are impossible to redeem thereafter, e.g. Heb 6:6).

Although I was reared around the Baptist and Methodist churches, I don't know their scriptural basis for their belief if you die in the life never knowing Christ you are lost forever.  The churches proclaiming that is not the case point out a lot of scriptural support.

Some examples:

the Lev 23 Holy Days, an annual reminder of the milestones in God's annual plan of salvation for mankind.  For example, TO THE DAY Christ was crucified on Passover, TO THE DAY the Holy Spirit was made widely available to mankind on Pentecost.  To come: Trumpets (Christ's return), Atonement (Satan's binding), the Feast of Tabernacles (1,000 year of Christ on earth), and the Last Great Day (8th day of Tabernacles, is the Great White Throne Judgement).
birthright and firstfruits theme throughout scripture.  This is way too long to post here.  But, I'll reply if requested.  But, it is throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelations.
lots of scripture showing God is not calling everyone in this age, even causing them to be spiritually blind and deaf so that they cannot respond to the gospel.
and various other scriptures supporting this, e.g. Isaiah 49:8's proper translation is "a" day of salvation, not "the" day.

and more.

My question: what is the Baptist/Methodist/same Protestant scriptural basis the age we are currently living in is the only age for salvation?


texts: Which persons of the Trinity are attached to which noun in John 1:18

texts:
No one has ever seen God[1]; the only God[2], who[3] is at the Father's[4] side, he[5] has made him[6] known. (John 1:18 ESV)

I have always had trouble understanding what this verse is actually saying, partially because I can't determine which person of the Trinity each noun is associated with.

I've tagged each eligible noun with a number. Please explain which person of the Trinity is associated with which noun and your reasoning for thinking so.


texts: If a person undergoes an emergency baptism, then recovers, do they need a "non-emergency" baptism?

texts:
If a person receives an emergency baptism, but then recovers from that danger, is that considered valid for the rest of their life? Or would they be expected to undergo a "non-emergency" baptism in the future?

In other words, is emergency baptism temporary or is it permanent?


texts: Is there any evidence in the Roman catacombs that the Early Church had a devotion to the Virgin Mary?

texts: Is there any archeological evidence in the catacombs of Rome that the Early Church had any (particular) devotion to the Virgin Mary? If so, what are the sources that support such a devotion?


texts: Are there any surviving Acta Diurna copies mentioning Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life?

texts:
I recently learned about Acta Diurna, which are official notices created by Roman authorities describing legal proceedings and the outcome of trials. It occurred to me that the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and his later crucifixion, would probably have wound up on Acta Diurna, as well as surrounding events such as Pilate freeing Barabbas (part of a yearly tradition).

The article on Wikipedia (sadly lacking sources) notes that no originals survive, but that scribes sometimes made copies and sent them to provincial governors. Have any copies of these Acta Diurna referring to Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life survived? If not, are there any surviving works that reference such copies?


texts: If heaven is not monotonous why would this world be monotonous if God willed to happen in that fashion?

texts:
I have a question that I have been thinking about for a long time now.

Here it is. Heaven is the place where good people will end up. There are two types of evil.  Natural evil like volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, drought etc. And there is Volitional evil which is the consequence of human actions. Like unjust wars and genocide. God gave us free will and we can choose. If God rewarded all the good people for good acts and punished the bad people for bad deeds or stop the Natural disasters from occurring then the world would be monotonous and predictable and won't follow the natural order.

But then in heaven everything is orderly, has unwavering and everlasting joy and felicity and is not monotonous for a single day.

I am not challenging God's judgement. I believe in God. I just like to know  Him better. In heaven there is no evil and life is not boring for a single day. If heaven is not monotonous in any way why would this world be monotonous if He had willed to remove all the evil from the face of the earth? After all God is ominous and almighty. He can make everything possible on earth and in the universe.


texts: What's a list of theological terms to describe how one approaches the bible?

texts:
I know people who believe the bible is true and authoritative, and insist you get best meaning from King James Version. At the same time, I've heard a pastor quoted as saying, "You can trust the bible, just not the one you've got," implying it was true and authoritative, just not necessarily in the English versions we carry around.  Further still I've met theological-liberals who say things like "Bible contains the Word of God." I'm not interested in debating the merits of any approach.

What are the terms used to describe the main schools of thought? I'm particularly interested in the flavors of "literalism", if there are any objectively-describable differences in camps here.


texts: Was Luke an eye-witness to the crucifixion?

texts: Is there any reference that Luke was at the crucifixion of Christ?  Or if he had met Jesus face to face?  Or was his account of Jesus' life written by research or listening to reliable sources such as Paul?


texts: Why does John the Baptist decide upon water and baptism as the form of repentance (Catholic viewpoint)?

texts:
I'm a convert from Judaism to Catholicism. Overall, I find the congruence from a theological perspective to be 80-90%. Especially, from my perspective, considering the "Jewish version" of the Trinity: God, the Spirit of God (Ruach Eloheem, appearing as early as Genesis 1:2), and the Messiah, whose prediction appears early in the Prophets. (This is oversimplified, but whatever).

It is my understanding that John the Baptist was related to Mary (from Luke). The exact relationship isn't that important, rather to say one would assume he's Jewish.

Jews have two forms of repentance, both are fairly painful, and the penitent feels cleansed. The 10-day period between the New Year and the Day of Atonement--Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, respectively--is a time of contemplation of one's trespasses against God and man. It culminates in a 24-hour period of a no-food-no-water fast. About half is spent in prayer with the cantor petitioning for forgiveness on behalf of the congregation. Water fountains are covered because otherwise you'd drink from them without thinking, and one might be in a wool suit in late summer. It is a decidedly psychedelic experience; especially once the cantor starts blowing the ram's horn (shofar) at the end.

For serious screw-ups, and this probably differs from rabbi to rabbi, the sinner might be asked to perform the Teshuvah: an oral, public admission of guilt.

Considering this, baptism seems an unnecessary invention unless the motive was to provide a method of atonement for the gentiles. Which is understandable, and Matthew 3:5-6 supports all in the area around Judea headed his direction. However there is no description of why this was necessary to absolve sins or why he chose this method.

Can anyone shed some light on why John the Baptist, a Jew, would create a whole new form of repentance?

One possible answer, which doesn't really fit in my opinion, are all the examples of "unclean" things in Leviticus, and the dirtied should bathe in water even for just touching something unclean.


texts: How would Jesus have addressed St. Joseph?

texts:
At Luke 2:48 we read of  St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for giving them a scare, by `getting lost'at the Temple:

"His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

We see Jesus addressing Mary as `woman' on two occasions viz.  At the wedding of Cana and on the Cross (Jn 2:4 and Jn 19:27).

We do not see any occasion in the Gospels where Jesus directly addresses St. Joseph. He, however, addresses God the Father as Abba (Mk 14:36).

Be that as it may, I am eager to know how Jesus addressed  St. Joseph. Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the possibility of Jesus having addressed St. Joseph as Abba?


texts: Does a Catholic bishop appoint the Canon priests of his cathedral?

texts:
I hope to learn whether the Prebendary Agustín Fernández de San Vicente became Canon of the Durango Cathedral because he was appointed by Bishop Castañiza of Durango or for some other reason.

Fernández was previously chaplain of the naval company at San Blas and before that, priest of Tamazula, Nueva Vizcaya.


texts: What is an overview of interpretations of the concept of "Sabbath-rest" presented in Hebrews 4?

texts:
Hebrews 4:1-11 (NIV) says:

4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let
us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2
For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did;
but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did
not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed
enter that rest, just as God has said,
“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world.
4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words:
“On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”[c] 5 And again in
the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”
6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and
since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not
go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day,
calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke
through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”[d]
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later
about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the
people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from
their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make
every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by
following their example of disobedience.

What is this "Sabbath-rest for the people of God" that everyone should make every effort to enter, as Hebrews 4 indicates? What does this rest consist of, in simple and concrete terms? How does one enter this rest? How does one exit it? Are we to experience this rest during this life or in the afterlife? Is it temporary (e.g. every seventh day) or permanent (i.e. every day)? Are there rules/conditions governing it (in terms of things one is expected to do/not to do during the rest)?
In light of the previous questions: What is an OVERVIEW of the main interpretations the concept of "Sabbath-rest" is given in Christianity?

(**) Note: the multiple questions above are just suggested guidelines to explain the concept of "Sabbath-rest" which different denominations may interpret differently. Think of them as points to keep in mind while writing your overview, i.e., you don't have to answer each one explicitly, feel free to structure your answer as you see fit.


texts: Where did the "theology" behind the Cherry tree carol come from?

texts:
I love playing this carol on the piano, but it makes me wonder if I'm not being the least bit heterodox.

Here are the assumptions that seem to me to be contrary to thriving tradition:

  When Joseph was an old man, an old man was he

Why is St. Joseph old in this carol?

  He married Virgin Mary, the Queen of Galilee

Why is Our Lady the Queen of Galilee? *

  There were cherries and berries, as thick as might be seen

Do they even have cherry trees in the Holy Land?

  Then Joseph flew in anger, in anger flew he,
  Let the father of the baby gather cherries for thee!

When did St. Joseph get a snarky and angry attitude?

  ‘And upon a Wednesday my vow I will make,

I thought it was a Thursday (at least recognized as such in the west), is the carol saying that the Passion started on Wednesday?

I did a little bit of research on the wikipedia and the googles but it's still a bit lacking, apparently there are 4 versions of this carol (the version quoted here comes from Wikisource).

* (not that I don't think the Queen of the Universe is also the Queen of Galilee)


texts: According to Catholic Teaching: Why is God allowing COVID-19, when there seems to be no physical or moral good resulting from it?

texts:
According to Catholic Teaching: Why is God allowing COVID-19, knowing that many deaths are involved and many, many more are constantly getting sick.
No moral or physical good seems to be resulting from the Coronavirus? Even vaccines are probably being produced from aborted fetuses.
If we could talk directly to God, would He tell us that He created the natural order of things, and that COVID-19 emerged from the natural order of things?
Or would He say that humans have invaded animals' natural habitat and COVID-19 was a natural consequence of that?
My stumbling block with all of this is the death and illness of so many innocent people. Certainly, a benevolent God couldn't have sanctioned COVID-19. So if not, then what?


texts: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife on the birth of Jesus?

texts:
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. - Mark 2:7

Swaddling clothes are narrow strips of cloth wrapped around an infant to restrict movement, and also to give it a snug feeling. Usually , the work of cleaning the new-born baby and clothing it , is done by the mid-wife , who could either be hired (Gen 35:17; Gen 38:28; Ex 1:16 ) , or be a close female relative of the expectant mother . Mary is traditionally believed to have  been a teenager when Jesus was born to her.
Notwithstanding the fact the Joseph and Mary were travelling, they could have taken along a close lady relative to take charge when the time would arrive. My question therefore is: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?


texts: What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?

texts:
From my limited understanding of this matter, some people believe that Jesus was in some sense separated from the Father. This has come up in the context of discussions of the indivisibility of the Trinity, so this seems to me like a very unorthodox view at best, perhaps even a heresy at worst, since it seems to contradict the Athanasian Creed:

  ... we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.

And the writings of Lactantius (Divine Institutes, 4:28–29):

  when we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father

Perhaps there is no contradiction. For example, I understand the first two of the following senses of "separation" to be perfectly orthodox:

The Persons are distinct, in that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. So in that sense, the Son and Father are "separate".
The Father was not conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Father did not die on the cross, but the Son died on the cross. So in that sense, the Father and Son are "separate".

The persons were separated: not "in a sense", but actually separated in such a way that the indivisible Trinity was, without qualification, separated.
The Trinity is not indivisible, but is instead divisible, and was separated.
The substance was divided.
The Father was God, and Jesus was God, but they were, without qualification, separated.
The Son and Father were divided in Spirit: the Spirit of the Son was separated from the Spirit of the Father.

I do not think that these first two senses of separation are what is meant, though I could be wrong. However, I suspect that the last five senses (3-7) are also not meant. Though again, I could be wrong. I do not actually know, and I don't see where to place this view among the views that I am familiar with.

What exactly is this view? Have I listed it above, in one of the numbered lines? What is meant by "separated"? Would those who profess this view deny the Athanasian Creed and the Divine Institutes, and certain other works?
What is the origin and basis of this view among those who hold it? If the source of this view is the fact that Jesus quoted Psalm 22 when he died, how did this interpretation arise? Do those who hold this view claim that Jesus was professing separation, and reject the idea that Jesus was confirming the fulfillment of prophesy? If possible, which denominations actually hold this view? And why and how did the word "separation" end up being used for this?

In particular, I am in this case looking for an answer that is well-sourced: not an explanation of personal views, nor a personal interpretation of scripture, but something "relatively well established", according to our best standards of "relatively well established".


texts: Relationship between God's power and God's will

texts:
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states that "In God, His will, power, essense, and wisdom are all identical".

Does this statement mean that for everything that God can't do, God doesn't will them also? (Ex not only that God cannot sin, but God is also not willing to commit sin; not only that he cannot create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it, but he is also not willing to create such rock, etc)

I guess the starting point is to divide the stuffs that God can't do into two categories - one category being anything that goes against God's own nature, and the other category being any illogical statements...

would it be true to say that for anything that goes against God's own nature, God does not will them also, but in the case of illogical statements that God is unable to perform, God neither wills them nor doesn't will them because illogical statements are nonsensical?

Thanks,


texts: How to learn to chant the Liturgy of the Hours?

texts:
I went to solemn vespers for the first time in my life last Friday and it was super awesome.  I brought my liturgy of the hours book with, thinking I might need it, but they provided a card with the whole thing on it.  Complete with some sort of music part where one word was underlined and it corresponded to what note to change  to.  So it was like "Lord come to my assistance" and "assist" was underlined because the pitch changed there.

So, my question is, since my breviary doesn't have that cool stuff in it, how does one learn how to do it?  For both personal recitation and for leading small groups in it?  Are the pitch changes solely based on the meter?  And why do we switch people intoning the words every other line? When doing small group Liturgy of the Hours, we usually break it up into the paragraphs.


texts:
We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have
  no right to eat.

  Hebrews 13:10 (NIV)

Catholics interpret Hebrews 13:10 as talking about the Eucharist (source).

  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
  raise them up at the last day.

  John 6:54 (NIV)

Catholics interpret John 6:54 as talking about the Eucharist.

Hebrews 13:10 and John 6:54 seemed to be contradictory in Catholic interpretation.

Some people have no right to eat the Eucharist.
Anyone who eats the Eucharist has eternal life.
Some people have no right to have eternal life (per Heb. 13:10)

How do Catholics explain Hebrews 13:10 and John 6:54?


texts: Has the distinction of the human and divine natures in Jesus Christ been established?

texts:
I heard that in the main stream Christianity there is such an assertion: In the Holy Trinity The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct, but not separated. I also heard this: the divine and the human natures in Jesus Christ are joined, not separated, and not intermixed.

What about the distinction of those two natures in Jesus Christ? Has it been asserted anywhere (in any counsel or any document) in main stream Christianity that the two natures in Christ (divine and human) are clearly distinct (just like the Three are distinct from each other in the Trinity)?


texts: Why are Catholic bishops styled as archbishops?

texts:
In the British Isles, bishops of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Churches are all styled "Right Reverend"; archbishops are "Most Reverend":

  The Rt Revd John Smith, Bishop of Salisbury
  The Most Revd Martin Jones, Archbishop of Liverpool

However, in other countries, Roman Catholic bishops are Most Reverend, even where the a Church in the Anglican Communion has a fairly substantial presence (like the United States). In the United States, bishops and archbishops of The Episcopal Church [Anglican] follow the British model, whereas Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops are all "Most Reverend".

How is that difference (between the custom in the British Isles and that in other Bishops' Conferences) explained?

I guess that the similarity between the Churches within the British Isles is a hangover from the Reformation, and it would appear to indicate that the distinction existed in the pre-Reformation Church and was carried into the Church of England. In which case, why is there no difference between Catholic bishops and archbishops outside Britain now? When were bishops elevated to archbishops' style?

Or, did the nascent Church of England separate the styles (so the Roman styles outside Britain are historic) and then the emancipated Catholic Church simply fall into line when the hierarchy was re-established in the United Kingdom?

I don't know where to look for an accurate telling of the history.

(I'm British. The question is occasioned by finding an American bishop styled as "Most Reverend" and thinking "But he's not an archbishop!")


texts: How can I tell the difference between the Moral law and other laws in the old testament?

texts:
Many Christians believe that there are three kinds of law in the Old Testament:

The moral law that declares how man should live.
The civil law that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.
The ceremonial law that declared how ancient Israel was to worship.

Covenant theology teaches that the moral law still applies to Christians.  How can I tell the difference between the moral, civil, and ceremonial law?


texts: Is there any Biblical answers to what condition our bodies will be in after the resurrection?

texts: I hear a lot of people claiming that our bodies will return to the state where we were at our best. Like for example, a woman with bruises from abuse won't have her bruises. Is there a Biblical basis for this, or is this just a common 'misconception?'


texts:
This may be in the wrong forum but I’ll try. I google searched this at length yesterday but my search terms must be lacking something as the mystery got worse not better. We’re there more than one city or town in late 2nd Temple period called Caesarea? Caesarea, Caesarea-Philippi, Caesarea Maritimia? The geography is confusing as well as the names/descriptions.

I know we have well credentialed experts here somewhere so while you’re chuckling at the dumb question pls help me


texts: Have there been any Christian writings on the genetics of Jesus?

texts:
Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin.  From a scientific perspective, this means that he would have had no genetic material provided from a male parent.  So my question is, have there been any Christian writings on how this worked genetically, i.e. what we would find if we had a DNA sample of Jesus?

One possibility is that God might have arranged Jesus to be genetically like what a biological son of Joseph and Mary would have been like.  Are there any Christian writings that suggest that Jesus physically resembled his adopted father Joseph?  Or did he only bear a resemblance to Mary?

Note that I don't want speculation, I just want to know what Christians have already said about this subject.


texts: Is theodicy considered an open problem or a solved one, according to catholicism?

texts: Do catholics consider the problem of theodicy (Why God allows evil on this world) an open question, or is it "solved", seeing that so many people have tried to answer it. If it is not solved, what is the reason?


texts: Is baptism by water necessary for salvation?

texts:
John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

If the Kingdom of God is inside you (Luke 17:21), does this mean that one cannot have true inner peace with God unless he is baptized by both water and the Holy Spirit?

And does this mean that a person cannot receive salvation into the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism in both water and the Spirit first?


texts: What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage?

texts:
I've seen a few things lampooning John Boswell's interpretation of adelphopoiesis as a quasi civil union between men. However, I've not seen much on his side other than it being used by Christian gay rights activists as evidence that homosexuality used to be more accepted within the church than it is today.

What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage as Boswell understood it i.e. as a parallel to modern constructions of sexual identity?


texts: According to Catholicism, if someone receives last rites, is everything forgiven?

texts:
So you've killed dozens of people, cheated on wife, destroyed families blah blah. Then before dying the priest administers you the last rites. Is everything forgiven? Will you go to heaven because you confessed?

I'm confused at this; what's the incentive to be good throughout life?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?

texts:
Today I was tasked with answering the above question, but having spent a lot of time searching for information, I’m not even sure I fully understand what it is.  Here is a brief overview:

Feminist theology is an American-based movement whose particular hope to empower women and maintain a healthier planet by overturning patriarchal attitudes and social structures that oppress women and threaten the natural environment.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711520?seq=1

Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Feminist philosophy of religion is a recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies...   And because it is feminist, it must promote the elimination of gender inequality and take into account the multiplicity of human bodies, desires, and differences that are mapped onto the site of religion.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/

Feminist theology is a movement found in several religions, including Sanatan Dharma (old form of Hinduism), Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and New Thought, to reconsider the traditions, practices, scriptures, and theologies of those religions from a feminist perspective. Some of the goals of feminist theology include increasing the role of women among the clergy and religious authorities, reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, determining women's place in relation to career and motherhood, and studying images of women in the religion's sacred texts and matriarchal religion.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology

Christian feminism is an aspect of feminist theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women morally, socially, spiritually, and in leadership from a Christian perspective...  These theologians believe that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically determined characteristics, such as sex and race.  Their major issues include the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, recognition of equal spiritual and moral abilities, reproductive rights, and the search for a feminine or gender-transcendent divine...  The term Christian egalitarianism is sometimes preferred by those advocating gender equality and equity among Christians who do not wish to associate themselves with the feminist movement.  Women apologists have become more visible in Christian academia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology#Christianity

Given my ignorance on the subject, I would like to focus on just one issue that is relevant to the Church today.
What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic:
Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women.  The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.


texts: What kinds of things are mutable in Latin Rite Catholic Liturgy?

texts:
I got this email excerpt from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church emailed to me today.

Is everything immutable in the liturgy?

In the liturgy, particularly in that of the sacraments, there are unchangeable elements because they are of divine institution. The Church is the faithful guardian of them. There are also, however, elements subject to change which the Church has the power and on occasion also the duty to adapt to the cultures of diverse peoples.

What are some examples of the "elements which are subject to change" and how have they done so over the years?  Has this change increased or remained steady since Vatican II?


texts: Should Christians be against the death penalty?

texts:
Christians go to great lengths to get the government to outlaw abortion--something that I personally would support. Though I see support from Christianity against abortion almost as unwavering, the support of death row inmates right to live seems to be a more contentious issue.

So my question is if Christianity holds human life to have intrinsic human value should this not apply to the death row inmate as well as the unborn baby?


texts: Does any version of the Anglican church associate 'confirmation' with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost?

texts:
I know the question may seem weird, but I was reading an old history book the other day and the author seemed to be an old high Church Anglican that put a lot of weight on ceremony and I was very surprised to see that he equated 'confirmation' with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  What I am wondering is if this was just an old idea entertained by some, or is actually a popular understanding by any modern Anglicans?

Here is the sort of thing this guys was saying (funny I think he was the brother of the famous writer William Wordsworth);

  "Certain it is that the ancient Fathers speak of Confirmation as ministered by Bishops—as successors of the Apostles—for the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost on the baptized." (CHURCH HISTORY to the COUNCIL OF NICÆA
  A.D. 325 by CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.p67)


texts: What problems, if any, do Oneness Pentecostals have with the Apostles' Creed?

texts:
As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Oneness Pentecostals disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how notable Oneness Pentecostal theologians view the creed (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Swedenborgians.


texts: Priestly hiring competitions in the Catholic Church

texts:
In the Archives of the Archbishopric of Durango (Mexico) there are a number of documents about concursos de curatos, or priestly concourses, which were used for hiring into vacant parishes and cathedral positions. I read a blog post about another concurso that required two days of analyzing Church documents in Latin, translating and commenting on them in Spanish. It looks like a formalized, competititive hiring process.

When did these competitions run? Who chose the winners?


texts: From a trinitarian perspective, how do you biblically reconcile Jesus dying and Jesus being God?

texts:
I've heard non-trinitarians say, "The Bible says God can't die, therefore Jesus isn't God.

First of all, does the Bible even say that God can't die (I assume it does, or at least it implies it). I believe that God can't be snuffed out of existence. If it does say it or imply it, in what sense is the word "die" or "death" used, and what evidence or reason do you have for your answer?

I know that Trinitarians distinguish Jesus dying (biological death of His body) and God hypothetically dying (being snuffed out of existence), but how do we prove this difference biblically? I hope that's a coherent question. To clarify, some non-trinitarians would say that distinguishing meanings of death in the Bible is just ad hoc or grasping for straws. How do we prove that this difference in meaning is biblical and not ad hoc?


texts: How did the second Vatican council (aka Vatican II) address the concept of limbo?

texts:
I've heard that the second Vatican council eliminated the concept of limbo. Or maybe that it never existed to begin with.

Was limbo part of "official" Catholicism before Vatican II? What changes were made at Vatican II regarding limbo?


texts: Who was the first major Christian figure to popularize a figurative interpretation of Genesis?

texts:
I assume that the church for a majority of its existence has assumed a plain interpretation of Genesis. However it's easy to see the church of the last 50 years adopt a more figurative interpretation of Genesis, presumably to coincide with popular scientist's standpoint that everything was created slowly and that human's are an evolved species.

I'd consider these to be tenets of a literal Genesis view:

God created the heavens and the earth in 6 literal, sunrise-sunset days
Birds, land-creatures, sea-creatures, plants, etc...were all created within this time frame
Adam and Eve were the first created people, created on the 6th day, and are the sole parents of humanity.

So it seems like the new popular tenets are these:

The "days" in Genesis 1 represent longer periods of time.
God guided evolutionary process.
Adam and Eve were 2 of many existing humans at the time and were evolved from a common ancestor to apes.

Can anyone pinpoint the person(s) or event(s) within the church that caused it to accept a more figurative view? This is not a question as to whether a figurative Genesis interpretation is right or wrong, but simply to see from where the normalcy of that belief came. I assume it would have happened in the last 200 years so it shouldn't be too hard to find the flagship for this.


texts: What are the different uses of "heaven" in scripture?

texts: In English, heaven is used through both testaments, but is often referencing different locations. What are the specific uses for this word?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for gluttony being a sin?

texts: Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. What is the scriptural basis for it being a sin at all (much less a severe enough sin to be a deadly one)?


texts: God is eternal and everlasting; "omni" word for this?

texts: God is omnipotent, which is all powerful, and omniscient, all knowing. He is, of course, other things too; I just gave these as examples of omni- words. Omni, in Latin, I think, means all. Is there an established omni- term for "everlasting" or "eternal"?


texts: As a Christian but not a Catholic, can I confess to a Catholic priest?

texts: I am not a Catholic, but I am a Christian. I do not feel any desire to become a Catholic. I have been out of church for many years, and am not actively seeking a church to attend. However, I want to confess my sins.  Would I be able to go to Catholic confession?  I believe I would feel better if I could confess to someone who loves God and can be trusted to be discreet. God knows that I repent, but I still feel incomplete.  Maybe a I need a spiritual advisor rather than a confessor?


texts: What has the LDS Church (Mormons) historically taught about the Curse of Cain and dark skin?

texts: I have heard that people with black skin had been denied certain things in the Mormon Church until the past 30 years or so and that this has something to do with the Curse of Cain.  What has been the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the Curse of Cain and dark-skinned people?  What are the references in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon Scriptures that address this issue?


texts: Did God create man to worship and praise Him?

texts:
I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like "Praise the Lord" and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the main purpose of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from Genesis 1:28 is to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.

Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God?


texts: Did the congregation have input into leader selection in the early church?

texts:
The way I've always seen it, leaders are to be chosen first, and then appointed as leaders. I guess this could be compared to an inauguration. The biblical leadership model in my mind, was in some ways an indirect democracy insofar as the people choosing their leaders.

The confusion I had thought I saw was that the "choosing" and "appointment" were mixed up, and therefore church leaders choose and appoint leaders themselves.

The only New Testament scripture I can go by is Acts 6 and Acts 14. Acts 6 mentions both the selection and appointment, however Acts 14 just discusses the appointment. Many leaders  I know just go by Acts 14.

Here are the scriptures I'm referring to:

Acts 6:2-6

  2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said,
  "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to
  serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men
  of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint
  to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the
  ministry of the word." 5 And what they said pleased the whole
  gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy
  Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and
  Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before
  the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

And Acts 14:23

  And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

There's a good article about it here which discusses the verbs used.

My question is, what does the Bible tell us about the way leaders were chosen in the early church?


texts: How does Oneness Pentecostalism interpret Matthew 24:36?

texts:
Matthew 24:36 (NIV)

36“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If the Father and the Son are expressions of the same God, how come the Son does not know "the day or hour" but the Father does?


texts:
When we are making decisions in church group, rather charismatic people will say things like

  I feel we should...

which they sometimes connect to be input of holy guidance like the holy spirit.

Because I'm not convinced most times that my thought is that of GOD's input, I'll say I think... instead because I consider it very dangerous how some people act as if God had to tell them what to do.

The move for an own option to become a godly input seems to be quite fluent with some people. But just because we have the Holy Spirit living in us, does not mean most of our options are direct input by god, does it?

I mention this, because they will see themselves to be guided by God in the simplest of things like how do move banks in the church....

Would God not leave such duties to ourselves?

Edit:

How can we determine the difference between the leading of the Holy spirit and our own opinions?


texts: Who sent John the Baptist to baptize with water?

texts:
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, the following account of John the Baptist's introduction of Jesus is given:

  29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of
  whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was
  before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came
  baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And
  John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove,
  and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent
  me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit
  descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34
  And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”  John 1:29-34

John specifically states that the one who sent him to baptize with water was the one who informed him that he would be able to recognize the one for whom he himself was the predecessor.  The indicator would be that John would see the Spirit come down and remain on him.

So, my question is, "Who was it that sent John to baptize with water and who told him how he would be able to recognize Jesus?"  Is there anything in church tradition or elsewhere in the Bible that informs us who this was?  An angel?  God Himself?  Another prophet?


texts: What was the name of the Pharaoh during the time of Moses?

texts: In the Bible it never mentions Pharaoh's name but every other king/queen is mentioned by name. Did I miss it? What's his name?


texts: Why does no one know what Jesus looks like?

texts: Jesus came to Earth or was born roughly 2000 years ago. At least 500 years earlier, there were civilizations in the Middle Eastern / Near Eastern region that could carve the faces of their kings and queens on stones. So, why does no one know what Jesus looks like?


texts:
Why are a Catholic bishop's Coat of Arms green and not purple?

The Canadian Conference of Bishops tell us that the galero and tassels on the Coat of Arms for a bishop are green. Cardinals' galero and tassels are red.

  What does a Bishop’s coat of arms look like?

  The coat of arms is the emblem of the Bishop, which is used on letterheads, documents and other official publications. It consists of a shield bearing symbols representing the person for whom it was conceived. Around it, elements indicate his dignity, rank, title, jurisdiction and more. A scroll or banner on which is inscribed a motto or guiding principle usually sits beneath the shield.

  The shield of every Bishop is unique. The symbols featured relate to many influences in his life: these may include references to people, communities, places and events that have had an impact on his spiritual leadership.

  The crest and supporters of the coat of arms are common to all Bishops. A green galero (ecclesiastical hat) sitting upon a gold processional cross form the crest. A number of tassels on either side, determined by rank, make up the supporters (Bishops have six, Archbishops 10 and Cardinals 15). On a Cardinal’s coat of arms, the galero and tassels are red. - Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Coat of Arms of Bishop Zarama the sixth bishop of the Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina.

The silk cord for the pectoral cross of an archbishop or bishop is green and gold and a cardinal is red and gold. The pope wears a gold silk cord for his pectoral cross.

  In choir dress—that is, when he wears a cassock, rochet and mozzetta—the pectoral cross is usually suspended by a cord of silk. This cord is green and gold for an archbishop or a bishop, and red and gold for a cardinal and gold for the pope. An abbot makes use of a black and gold silk cord while an abbess and canon would use a black silk cord. Formerly, protonotaries apostolic wore a pectoral cross on a purple silk cord when celebrating in pontificals. -
  Pectoral cross (Wikipedia)

Why are these insignias in green and not purple? After all bishops and archbishops don purple cassocks.


texts:
Why did Jesus said there is no marriage in Heaven?

Mark 12:25 NIV

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage;
  they will be like the angels in heaven.

Is it because Heaven's better than even joyous things like marriage?  Or is it because marriage is to procreate and sex is, well, a bit too 'earthly'?


texts:
Revelation 14:12 (KJV)

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

I've seen Sabbatarians bring up this verse of Revelation as evidence that true Christians should keep the commandments of God, including the Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). In fact, in a related question posted on Hermeneutics.SE, the most upvoted answers tend to agree that Revelation 14:12 at least includes the 10 commandments (but possibly more). If that's true, then the Sabbatarian has a solid point here.
How do non-Sabbatarians interpret Revelation 14:12?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that it has the authority to change what is morally right and wrong?

texts:
I know this will be controversial, so I'm going to ask for answers to remember that the scope of this question is not "Do they have the authority to change what is morally right or wrong", it's "does the Church TEACH that it has that authority?".

This is prompted by this article, which states:

  Pope Francis realises that a number of the Church's strict teachings
  are at odds with the lives lived by many of the faithful in the
  developed world.

  'There's a strong sense in which on this whole question of sexuality,
  marriage and family, the Church stands out against contemporary mores
  – and some people don't like to live in that tension,' Austen
  Ivereigh, a Catholic journalist and author of an upcoming book on Pope
  Francis, called The Great Reformer tells the Financial Times. 'But
  what conservative cardinals are saying is that if you concede ground
  on this, you are conceding to the culture, and that it is a slippery
  slope.'

  Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, a close ally of the Pope, has
  proposed allowing the divorced and remarried to take Holy Communion,
  something presently banned in the Church.

  The Church does not recognise divorces dispensed by civil courts and
  thus regards people who have remarried as adulterers.

  However, conservative Catholic officials are totally opposed to this
  move believing that it is a threat to the principle of the
  'indissolubility' of marriage. U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal
  Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,
  Australia's Cardinal George Pell, the current Prefect of the
  Secretariat for the Economy and Germany's Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the
  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are all
  opposed to any change in who can take Communion.

"'indissolubility' of marriage" seems to be a moral central doctrinal principle.

The Catholic Church teaches that God is immutable.

So, the logic follows, if God never changes, it seems to follow that what God sees as right or wrong would never change, so is there a doctrine that allows the Church to say that something that's currently considered "wrong" at one point in time can be considered "right" at another?


texts: Do the reformed theology adherents believe that a believer should not "converse with" or "pray to" or worship the Holy Spirit?

texts:
I was in a Reformed house church and heard them making a statement of faith after the meeting. In that, they wrote that only the Father and the Son are to be worshipped and prayed to. They believed that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God himself but insisted that He should not be worshipped or be prayed to. Is that the reformed doctrine?

I found it strange because Paul says:

2 Corinthians 12:8 Three times I begged the Lord for this, that it might depart from me.

and

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Also, it says in:

Acts 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

So the Spirit speaks to Peter, but is it only one-way communication? Is the believer not supposed to speak or pray to the Holy Spirit?

Answers also welcomed from non-reformed people about such exempting of the Holy Spirit.


texts: Is there such a thing as Orthodox Lutheran Christian?

texts: I was talking with my buddy the other day. He said he is Orthodox Lutheran Christian. Is that a real thing? I don't think so.


texts: Is the Gospel book censed, or the reader, or both?

texts:
I attended a service of the Episcopal Church (USA) which happened to come from a more high-church tradition than I'm used to. During the service, quite a lot of incense was deployed at various times - over the celebrant and his assistants, the altar, etc. Before the reading of the Gospel, the thurible was also swung towards the deacon who was holding the Gospel book. It was not clear to me whether the intention was to cense the reader, the book, or both. (The thurifer was rather enthusiastic about her mission, and I was grateful that the chain looked sturdy.)

Can anyone explain what was happening? It would be helpful if answers could mention why incense is used at all, and then explain the specifics here with reference to that general pattern, rather than only quoting a rubric.

(If the answer is the same for Catholics, Orthodox, etc. as for Anglicans, then answers from those perspectives are welcome.)