texts: According to Catholicism, when a person dies, is that person's spirit/soul limited as to where it can be present?

texts: According to Catholicism, when a person dies, is that person's spirit and/or soul limited as to where it can be present?


texts:
My Mother in her 90s and in treatment for Alzheimers would frequently go into a state of trance and chant about going to jubilee.

Does "jubilee" or "going to jubilee" refer to heaven or eternity in Christianity?


texts: Is there any connection between minimum age for marriage in Catholic Church and tradition about Mary's age at Annunciation?

texts:
According to Canonic law, the minimum age for marryage to be valid for girls is fourteen (it can be and usually is higher for the marriage not to be illicit):

  Can.  1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age
  and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot
  enter into a valid marriage.

Since Mary gave birth to Jesus at similar age and is important enough to make an example of sort, I guess that tradition of her age at Annunciation may have played a role in forming of this law.

My question: is this role marginal, non-existent, or important? Are there any sources for it?


texts: How does Oneness Pentecostalism interpret Matthew 3:17?

texts:
Matthew 3:16-17 NIV

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how do they explain the voice from heaven?


texts: What is the biblical argument used by Protestants against the Catholic doctrine of Penance?

texts:
The Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of Penance.  As I understand it, this refers to various deeds prescribed by a priest to the confessing person that must do to make amends for his own sin, since mere confession is presumably insufficient.
Wikipedia says this about the doctrine of Sacramental Penance:

In a sacramental understanding of the term, "penance" applies to the
whole activity from confession to absolution. Generally speaking,
however, it is used to characterize the works of satisfaction imposed
or recommended by the priest on or to the penitent. Traditionally,
penance has been viewed as a punishment (the Latin poena, the root of
pen(it)ence, means "punishment"), and varying with the character and
heinousness of the offences committed...
Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction for' or 'expiate' his sins."

Protestants generally reject this doctrine.  So, what is the specific biblical argument they use to oppose the doctrine of Penance?


texts: What is the base of the bible as the unique source of revelation?

texts:
I'm interested in know from where come the fact that, in these times, the bible is the unique source of revelation, even when there are verses in the bible that explicitly says the oppose.
In John 16:12-13:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

What I understand is that Jesus says that there are things that need to be say and He doesn't say.
In 2 Joh 1:12:

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

Again, in this letter, John says that there are things that need to be said, but he prefers speak face to face.
I hope somebody may aclare my mind.


texts: Why did God enter humanity so silently on Christmas day?

texts:
I know it was not absolute silence. A few shepherds, a few wise men from a distant land and some close family witnessed the miracle. Also the new star even led to a mad search to hunt and kill the future King. However, this reason for the killings did not seem to have been published and basically the Jewish world at large, let alone the Gentile one, did not seem to notice that Messiah had come very much at all.  In fact there is almost no historical record of anything remotely suggesting the occurrence outside of the gospel accounts. Considering the size of humanity this small fanfare seems more like a little ripple around a pebble slipped quietly into the Ocean.

The question then is 'Why did Messiah arrive in such silence on Christmas day?'  Why not a more publicly proclaimed entry of the anointed King and only Son of God into the world? Does it make sense that Messiah would enter covertly and in such secret humility?


texts: Where can I find an English translation of St. Augustine's Questions on Heptateuch?

texts:
Where can I find an English translation for St. Augustine's Quaestiones in Heptateuchum VII (Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch)?
The passage I'm interested in has the following Latin:

Et cremabunt eam in conspectu eius. Puto quia concrematio ad signum pertinet resurrectionis. Natura est quippe ignis ut in superna moveatur, et in eum convertitur quod crematur. Nam et ipsum cremare de graeco in latinum ductum verbum est a suspensione. Quod vero additum est, in conspectu eius, id est in conspectu sacerdotis, hoc mihi insinuatum videtur, quia illis apparuit resurrectio Christi, qui futuri erant regale sacerdotium. Iam quod sequitur: Et pellis eius et carnes et sanguis eius cum stercore eius comburetur, id ipsum expositum est quomodo concremabitur: et significatum est quod non solum substantia mortalis corporis Christi, quae commemoratione pellis et carnium et sanguinis intimata est; verum etiam contumelia et abiectio plebis, quam nomine stercoris significatam puto, converteretur in gloriam, quam combustionis flamma significat

.


texts:
What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordination?

The CCC 1577 states that "...the ordaination of women is not possible".

What (in the Catholic view) would actually happen if a validly ordained Bishop attempted to ordain a female to ministry?

Would the Holy Spirit refuse to flow through and into the women, thus not marking her indelibly with the spiritual character of a priest?

Or would the spirit flow, but be disagreeable to catholic doctrine?


texts: Are there any denominations that accept the gap theory?

texts:
Some Christians have expressed doubt about a literal 24 hour day, before the sun and moon were created in:

  Genesis 1:16  KJV  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Advocates of the gap theory have based much of their argument on verses 1 and 2 of Genesis, because there was no light.

Gen 1:1 and 2

  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In Genesis 1:3 God created light:

  Genesis 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

However: the light was not separated from the darkness (and even I have a hard time imagining that even though I do not question it). Then in verse 4 Go does separate the light from the darkness.

  Genesis 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

In verse 5 God designates day and night, and calls the combination of the two the first day.

  Genesis 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Do any Denominations believe that up until verses 4 and 5 there was an indefinite period which had no specific number of hours, or days, or years by our concept of time?


texts:
The bible passages

Exodus 20:17

  You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

and

Deuteronomy 5:21

  You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

both talk about covet/desire. Also, every version of the ten commandments (at least the ones I came across) forbid in some sense the desire of your neighbor's property and/or wife.

In this context, is the desire forbidden or just acting upon the desire?


texts: How did Nathanael see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man?

texts:
In Jesus' encounter with Nathanael, Jesus concludes the conversation by indicating that Nathanael, as well as others, would see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.

  43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and
  said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city
  of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We
  have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote,
  Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can
  anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and
  see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him,
  “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48
  Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him,
  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw
  you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You
  are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to
  you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see
  greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”  John 1:43-51 ESV

So, in what manner did Nathanael "see the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of Man?"


texts: In light of the list found in Isaiah 11:1-3, why are there seven gifts of Holy Spirit and not six?

texts:
The patristic authors1 enumerate the following list of gifts or emanations of the Holy Spirit among other lists of moral virtues. According these authors, these qualities are completely demonstrated in Christ and are also demonstrated by believers in the Church. They are

Wisdom,
Understanding,
Counsel,
Fortitude,
Knowledge,
Piety, and
Fear of the Lord.

According to a number of sources, the list of these Spiritual gifts or virtues comes from Isaiah 11:1-3 (emphasis mine):

(KJV) And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;
And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

It appears that only six of the seven gifts listed above appear in this verse. Why is piety also included in the list to make seven gifts?

1. For example, see Victorinus, Commentarii in Apocalypsim Iohannis 1, 4: Septiformem spiritum in Esaia legimus '(Esa., XI, 2), spiritum' videlicet 'sapientiae et intellectus, consilii et fortitudinis, scientiae et pietatis, spiritum timoris Domini.' Authors such Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, and John Cassian all speak of the gifts with familiarity.


texts:
The LDS church uses the imagery of a beehive to represent the way the church [should] function. Notably lacking any sign of the cross or other usual Christian symbology in the temple, the main pulpit used in the venue hosting the General Conference is adorned with several beehive carvings. The meaning of this symbolism was explained during one of the sessions.

Where else in Christianity has this imagery ever shown up? Do any other theologocal traditions make use of it? Is it widely used in LDS decoration or is this just an isolated case?


texts: Can only the priest lead the ritual of washing the feet in Holy Thursday in the Catholic Church?

texts:
On Holy Thursday I watched a broadcast from the liturgy in a small religious community in Brasil. The liturgy was led by an elderly priest. Because of the pandemic, there were less than 12 persons to have their feet washed. A lay brother was doing footwashing and at the end, a girl who was helping was doing the footwashing to the brother who was washing the feet of everybody. Another year I saw another variation of feet washing ritual on Holy Thursday, whereas in very big congregation, about 60 lay brothers were washing the feet of all people participating in the liturgy.

Did it go "too far" at some point or there is no law which would forbid such practices?

Where the documents explaining the current position of The Catholic Church on this ritual are to be found?


texts: As a non-Christian, how to have best Christmas Day experience in Rome?

texts:
I'll be visiting Italy during holidays and will be in Rome with my partner between 20 to 28th December. I'd have already visited monuments, Vatican City and several popular cathedrals.

Being a non-Christian, I want to take care that I don't offend any locals. As most of the places will be closed on December 25th, what would be your recommendation for me to have the best experience of Rome offers with a religious perspective in mind for this day?

Post Script: This question was asked on StackExchange Travel community and people suggested me to ask the question on this site instead.


texts: GOD/JESUS - Greek - Yahuwah/Yashuah - Hebrew

texts:
Growing up having a Christian background, I was taught to use God/Jesus to refer to the Creator and Son.

Recently, I've come across some information stating that our Creator has a Name and that we should use it, the name referring to Yahuah/Yahsuah, which would be in original Hebrew.

Given that Jesus was a Jew and the original text was written in ancient Hebrew, would it be fair to say that instead of the more commonly accepted Greek version of His Name, that should we use the Hebrew versions instead?

Also, if I'm misunderstanding anything in my post, I'm all ears, I'm just trying to figure out if we've been generalizing the Name and sort of not receiving the full effect of being able to state our Creators name and benefit from praising Him in that way.

This, along with knowing that throughout history, things can get sort of lost in translation as we switch from languages. On top of the knowing that devil will do whatever it takes to twist and take the opposite approach of whatever the Creator does.

  In the Bible, God declares:

    I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else.

    Isaiah 42:8 - NWT

  “Jehovah” is an English translation of the four Hebrew consonants YHWH, which constitute the divine name. That name appears some 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is used more often than any title, such as “God,” “Almighty,” or “Lord,” and more frequently than any other name, such as Abraham, Moses, or David`


texts: Sponge in water vs water in sponge how to understand St. Teresa properly?

texts:
I've been reading on St. Teresa recently. She says:

  as water penetrates and is drunk in by the sponge, so, it seemed to me, did the Divinity fill my soul

Does that mean that God is present in the world as water is present in a sponge? (Because the world is present in St. Teresa as in any human being and God fills St. Teresa's soul therefore God is present in the world as water in a sponge)

That strikes me as a little bit non-Christian but rather and again demon-like Japanse style (see Totoro here). Does that mean that the mystics do not have Faith crystal clear but rather obscured by their mysticism and/or feelings? Because how a Lord can be water? How then can he come and judge and, more importantly, how can I then say I have no other gods but My Lord? Because water here is no different from water over there (or differences are not relevant).

Please help me understand.


texts: According to Calvinists, is each person "dead in sin" at birth, or only after committing a sin?

texts:
First I thought that there is no difference between OS (Original Sin) and TD (Total Depravity) in the Calvinist pov.

This is what I first thought : (OS = TD)
Cain/Abel/Seth (and their next generation including us and the future babies) are born spiritually dead.

But today I read this from this link :

  The unregenerate (unsaved) man is dead in his sins.

Assuming the word "dead" from the sentence above is "spiritually-dead" - it leads me to think that the sentence means :
spiritually-dead is the result of a person's sin, spiritually-dead is not the result of Adam's sin. So, a newly born baby is not spiritually-dead.

The other source says :

  We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners.
  —R.C. Sproul

From the sentence above leads me to think that it means :
a person sin because a newly born baby is a sinner.

So the question is :

A person is spiritually-dead WHEN : A. he/she is born sinner
? or   B. he/she did sin ?

To be honest, this is quite confusing to me.

If I choose A ....
A newly born baby is a sinner. A sinner is a spiritually-dead person. So, a baby is a sinner at the same time a baby is a spiritually-dead person.

But I think this choice negates the sentence in the first quote. Assuming that my interpretation of the word "dead" = "dead spiritually" is correct, I thought the first quote say that a person is spiritually-dead when after he/she did sin ---> This leads to the next conclusion which is : a newly baby born is not spiritually-dead. A newly baby born is not a sinner. Later when a baby become a toddler and do a sin, that's not because before hand this toddler was born a sinner. Choosing A is not "agree" with the first quote.

And from the second quote say that a person did sin because he/she is a sinner. If my interpretation from the second quote is correct which is : a person did sin because he/she was born a sinner. Then this second quote negates the first quote. A person is spiritually-dead NOT because he/she did sin (as the first quote mentioned) but because he/she was born a sinner (as the second quote mentioned). Choosing A is "agree" with the second quote.

On the other hand, if I choose B...
I think this choice is "agree" with the first quote. But this choice is not "agree" with the second quote.

If I "manipulate" it to become something like this :
a person did sin because he/she was born a sinner BUT he/she was NOT born spiritually-dead

Then it raise another question :
How come a sinner is not spiritually-dead ? Isn't it because a person is spiritually-dead that's why he/she did sin ?

Back to my original question.... so...

A person is spiritually-dead WHEN : A. he/she is born sinner
? (second quote)   B. he/she did sin ? (first quote)


texts: What is life in Heaven going to be like?

texts:
How is life going to be once you get to Heaven?

ie: What activities are you going to perform every day, for all eternity?

I am interested in responses that are backed up by verses from the Bible, of course.

(question inspired by this video: Why Would Anyone Want To Go To Heaven?)


texts: Calvinists: How to avoid justification from eternity?

texts:
I'm having trouble understanding how Calvinists avoid the doctrine of justification from eternity, which roughly states that the elect are justified either before the creation of the world or at the moment of the crucifixion rather than at the moment of personal belief. Because there is not a single Bible verse which clearly and unambiguously states that Christ died only for the elect, Calvinists typically attempt to prove their doctrine of limited atonement based on the double payment argument, basically that it would be unjust of God to punish the same sins twice. I don't understand how this argument doesn't backfire on the Calvinist unless he believes in the aforementioned 'justification from eternity', which most Calvinists thoroughly reject.

If Calvinists believe in effectual atonement (which includes the legally-binding expiation of sins in Calvinist theology), and the atonement was inarguably made at a specific point in time many years ago for all elect souls, then on what basis does the wrath of God fall upon the yet unsaved elect? How is God justified in expressing wrath and condemnation towards elect men who have already had their sins propitiated by Christ many years prior? What is their crime if their sins have already been effectually expiated in a strict legal sense?

If I put my Calvinist hat on, there's only two solutions I can come up with:

1) There is no wrath of God against the elect and forgiveness and reconciliation occur at the cross and not at the moment of personal belief (justification from eternity). This view would require some serious contortion of many clear Biblical passages not unlike what Calvinists do with the plethora of Bible verses that clearly state that Christ died for all men.

2) Even though the atonement was made at the cross, forgiveness and reconciliation don't become effectual until one believes. But then, this is the exact view of the atonement held by non-Calvinists. So, why do Calvinists argue that a universal atonement would necessarily imply a universal salvation (universalism) if they themselves believe that the application of the atonement is contingent on personal faith and does not follow immediately from the act of atonement itself?

Neither option looks good to me if I'm a 5-point Calvinist. Is there a solution that I'm missing? How have Calvinists traditionally avoided this predicament?


texts: Why did God create such complexity in man?

texts:
During Creation, God created man:

Genesis 2:7 KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Why did God created such complexity - down to cellular level, with so many organs and fluid - into man? Wouldn't things be much simpler if we were created with less complexity - and probably with the chance of reducing all the medical problems that we face today.


texts: Mark and Paul's view that 2nd coming would be in their lifetime

texts:
How do you explain how Mark (and Paul) thought that Jesus was going to come again (2nd coming) in their lifetimes, when this has not occurred even to this day?

  And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9

There are also references to how Paul says that there is no point getting married or that even the goods that you purchase are of no use (you won't have time to enjoy them) as the 2nd coming will happen in a twinkle of an eye.


texts: God won't give us more than we can handle?

texts: Does the Bible state that God will not give us more than we can handle? Is it stated anywhere in the Bible?


texts:
In Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, but they can eat from any other tree. The bible also apparently says that before sin there was no death.

So... Why the need to eat? If you are immortal, what purpose would eating have?


texts:
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete;
  and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13,
  NIV)

In the light of the Epistle to Hebrews, what did the author mean by "The First Covenant" and "The New Covenant"?

What is the First Covenant which is now outdated and will soon disappear?


texts: Why does church tradition teach that one third of the angels fell with Lucifer when no verse supports that

texts:
The verse used is Rev. 12:4, but the context takes place in the midst of the great tribulation and not before Adam sinned.  Daniel 8:10 seems to confirm that the  stars that the dragon flung down were good angels, as he trampled them.  Those are the only 2 verses in the Bible dealing with this question that I can find and both infer that the 'stars' were enemies of the dragon not his fellow angels.
Is there something that I am missing here?


texts: Do the LDS believe in the Hypostatic Union?

texts:
Well, this may seem like a dumb question, but a lot of heads have been knocked around over what is meant by the "Divinity of Christ".  To a Catholic, I don't think one can have the Divinity of Christ without a hypostatic union because it would mean that Jesus was, for a time, not God.

The hypostatic union is the doctrine that Jesus has two natures (at the same time) and was always and is always fully man and fully God.

So, my question is, do the Latter-Day Saints believe Jesus was fully God during His sojourn on earth?


texts:
According to some Catholic traditions, the Rosary was given to Saint Dominic in a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it was then promoted by Blessed Allan de la Roche.
But here I read

Saint Peter Canisius, a Doctor of the Church, who is credited with
adding to the Hail Mary the sentence "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray
for us sinners", ...

which means it wasn't part of the original rosary.
What was the exact form of the original rosary given by Blessed Virgin Mary and who added "now and the hour of our death"?


texts: Why did Clement and Eusebius believe that Paul was married?

texts:
In an answer to a related question (What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married?), I encountered the following quote from Eusebius:

  Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry." (Church History, 3.30, emphasis added)

I'm not aware of any biblical passage where Paul greets his wife.  The closest thing I can see, given the context, is 1 Corinthians 9:5:

  Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? (ESV)

But there's nothing here about greeting a wife, or having one at all.  Plus, two chapters earlier, he writes:

  To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. (1 Co 7:8, ESV)

So what gives?  What could Clement/Eusebius have been referring to?  A biblical text of which I am unaware?  Some early apocryphal work?

Is there any tradition, or scholarly opinion, of what text Clement of Alexandria is referring to?


texts: Was Modalism (or "modalistic language") ever considered to not contradict orthodox trinitarian beliefs?

texts:
I'm reading Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition, a History of the Development of Doctrine.

In this section called "The New Prophecy" in chapter 2 (page 104 in my edition), Pelikan discusses Montanism. Apparently, in the early stages of Montanism, it was focused on moral rigidity and did not try to alter the doctrine of the Church; Montanus probably did not view himself as the Holy Spirit incarnate. Regardless, in later Montanism, his adherents probably viewed him as the Paraclete (aka Spirit) and therefore attempted to alter the doctrine of the church.

I'm a bit confused about this passage, however:

  In other words, they would seem to have embraced the doctrine that
  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only successive modes of
  manifestation of the one God. In that case, the manifestation of God
  as Son in Jesus would have been followed by the manifestation of the
  one God as Paraclete in Montanus, each in turn. Such language about
  the Trinity was in itself quite acceptable in the second century, and
  even later; but when the church went beyond it to formulate the dogma
  of the Trinity, those Montanists who continued to use this language as
  a way of including Montanus in the manifestations of God found
  themselves heretical on this score as well.

To me this sounds like Pelikan is asserting that using the language of modalism to describe the Father, Son and Spirit was, in the second century and perhaps beyond, not inappropriate and not contrary to the orthodoxy of the Church.

Is this indeed factual?

Edit -

In the fourth chapter discussing the formulation of the Trinity, Pelikan mentions this:

  Although adoptionism is today more commonly called "adoptionist
  Monarchanism" or "dynamic Monarchianism," the label "Monarchian" seems
  to have been invented by Tertullian to designate those who, declaring
  that "we maintain the monarchy," protected the "monarchy" of the
  Godhead by stressing the identity of the Son with the Father without
  specifying the distinction between them with equal precision. In the
  same treatise, however, Tertullian admitted that "the simply people
  ... who are always the majority of the faithful ... shy at the
  economy," that is, at the distinction between Father and Son. He
  conceded that even orthodox believers could speak of the relations
  within the Trinity in such a way as to emphasize the monarchy at the
  expense of the economy. This judgement is substantiated by the sources
  ...


texts: When was the first recorded account of pre-tribulation teaching?

texts: I'm not looking for Biblical support of the doctrine, but for a post-Biblical teaching that clearly articulated a pre-tribulation rapture, as opposed to a post-tribulation or mid-tribulation rapture, or clear documentation that an early Christian group specifically held pre-tribulation views.


texts: What evidence is there that the Herodians were distinct from mainstream Phariseeism?

texts: During the New Testament era were the political and religious interests of the Pharisees closely aligned with the Herodians? Or did the nationalistic elements of Phariseeism make them allies?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that a living person may visit heaven or hell?

texts:
As you may know there are many books where people have said they had been in hell and in heaven, and that even Jesus guided them. And that sounds a lot like Divine Comedy.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, because there are several parts of the Bible that do not fit with their stories, and also I don't believe that God would like to make us experience Hell:

  For God so loved  the world,    that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not  perish but have eternal life.    For  God did not send his Son into the world  to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.    Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not  believed in the name of the only Son of God. — [John 3:16-18 ESV]

Anyway, the only one who had been in hell and heaven was Jesus; this is what he said to Nicodemus in all the gospels. Also in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham told to the rich man:

  He said to him, "If they do not hear  Moses and the Prophets,  neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." — [Luke 16:25 ESV]

So, what biblical passages are used to support the idea that living people can experience hell and heaven?

It would really be helpful if you can give some Bible verses that talk more about the subject. I have been using the Nelson's Bible dictionary to understand more about it, which I recommend because it gives a list of related verses.


texts:
What are some of the reasons for which mainstream non-Catholic Christians are against gender-neutral secular marriage?

I get that some churches won't acknowledge religious gender-neutral or same-sex marriage (GNM) and why they won't support GNM,

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

Besides homophobia (like with the Westboro Baptist Church and the sort) and possibly the arguments here, what are there?

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

I guess mainstream is:

Orthodox (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc...)

Roman Catholic

Protestant (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc...)

Historic Non-Chalcedonian Churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Nestorian, etc..)

Jehovah's Witness

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)

Seventh-Day Adventists


texts: What is the proper term for performing the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick on someone?

texts:
If you perform the sacrament of Baptism on someone, you are "baptizing" them. If you do the sacrament of Holy Matrimony on a couple, you are "marrying" them, or alternatively "officiating the marriage".

What is the proper term for a priest performing the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick on someone? "Anointing" them? Or some other term?


texts: In what way does God derive pleasure from us?

texts:
Philippians 2:13:

  For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

I understand that this question deals with infinite concepts and it's impossible for us to comprehend the mind of God as Isaiah 55:8 says:

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

Nevertheless, I feel I must seek an answer from which to base the purpose of my own actions.  I am looking for opinions from others supported by philosophical reasoning or historical references, not necessarily facts straight from the bible.

This question is in a way asking why god created life at all. I've seen this question answered with a simple "because it pleases him," but that just doesn't seem satisfactory to me.

My hunch is that God created as an extension of his loving nature.  1 John 4:8 says that "God is love", and I know of no other scripture where God is described in such a way.  It's clear to me that this love is referring to a love for others (rather than self-love) so that would be complete with the existence of the Trinity with no call for angels or man.  For this reason, I feel angels and man were created with the intent of us taking part in this love and also showing his love as perfect by redeeming us despite our rebellion.

As 2 Corinthians 12:9 says:

  And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness

TLDR: In what way does our ultimate existence please God?  My tentative theory is that we are used to show his love as perfect and to take part in that love.


texts: If you look across the Bible, there are many instances where oil is used. The anointing of Saul and David; Jacob pouring oil over the rock where he had his dream of the staircase to heaven(?); Maria pouring oil on Jesus, etc. Was oil expensive back then or something?


texts: According to the LDS, is Jesus "the Son" or "the Father"?

texts:
I was reading this other SE question about Mormon viewpoint on the Trinity, but it did not provide an answer to this specific question.

So for example 1 Nephi 13:40 says:

  40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou
  hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first,
  which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the
  plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and
  shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb
  of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the
  world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

The passage in Mosiah 15:2-4, on another hand, seems to also be talking about Jesus and says:

  2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God,
  and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the
  Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the
  power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the
  Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father
  of heaven and of earth.

And the passage in Ether 3:14 says:

  14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world
  to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and
  the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even
  they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and
  my daughters.

So since Mormons do not believe in trinity, in am curious on how these passages should be understood.

Is Jesus the Son or the Father? Or somehow both?


texts: How do Mormons view events like the Holocaust considering that they view Adam's fall as a move forward?

texts:
In Christianity in general, a common view of Adam's transgression has been that it was something bad that resulted not just in a loss of something good.

Among the consequences of Adam's transgression is also the current state of affairs among mankind with death, diseases, war and so on. Out of this short list of consequences warfare is the one that has changed most toward worse during the last two centuries.

Mormons however believe that Adam's sin was a necessary step forward.

For example the answer to this other question says that

  Life is an opportunity to learn to choose good over evil. This could
  not happen if there was not good or evil. (See 2 Nephi 2.)

  The sacrifice of the Son of God was planned from "the foundation of
  the world" (Revelation 13:8). So also was the Fall -- which
  necessitated the sacrifice -- known from the beginning. Mormons often
  describe the Fall as a fall downward, but also forward.

In this question I am just focusing on the negative developments after Adam's transgression.

Presumably things like the Holocaust would never had happened if the transgression would not have happened.

However Mormons view the transgression as a necessary part of God's plan without which humankind would not have been able to learn what they needed to learn.

Because of this do they also consider the subsequent events as somehow necessary on the larger scale of things?


texts: How are John 18:36 and Matthew 13:41 reconciled according to Protestants?

texts:
John 18:36:

  My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

Matthew 13:41:

  The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

In John he states that his kingdom is not of this world but in Matthew he talks about his angels weeding out of his kingdom all who do evil. So if his kingdom is not of this world, how are these two verses reconciled?


texts: Why do most Catholic Churches not say the Nicene Creed anymore and instead say the Apostle's Creed?

texts:
Through our Creed, we profess our faith.

My question:
Why do Catholics say Apostle's Creed more than Nicene Creed?

For example, we don't say Nicene Creed in Catholic Liturgical Mass or rarely do we say it. So why did this transformation take place?


texts: What is the difference between Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition in Roman Catholicism?

texts:
In an answer to another question, @PeterTurner wrote:

  Good answers from a Catholic perspective should be able to stand on all three legs of Sacred Scripture, Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition

What is the difference between the last two items, and can an example of each be given?


texts: LDS Church view: was the earth and all life on it created in six 24-hour days?

texts:
I was looking for information on whether, according to the LDS Church, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are literal 24-hour days or something else.

I found this article at lds.org (aimed at a younger readership though) which states that

  The Creation took six days and was done by Jesus Christ under the
  direction of Heavenly Father.

That seems to indicate that Mormons view those days as being 24-hour days.

Do Mormons view the creation days in Genesis chapter 1 as literal
24-hour days?
Or are they viewed as representing some other length of time?


texts:
I'm currently studying the parable of the Good Samaritan, and I'm wondering why it was chronologically placed in Luke 10 which seems to indicate the encounter with the expert in the law occurred before Jesus entered Jerusalem as king.

The question asked by the expert in the law is "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" and Jesus asks him what his interpretation of scripture is.

The expert replies - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and "Love your neighbour as yourself".

This is the same answer Jesus gave when asked what the greatest commandment was (Matthew 22:35–40 and Mark 12:28–34).

It seems to me there is a connection between the two stories.

In my mind I'd always thought Jesus was the one who originally summed up the whole of the Law in this way.

It makes more sense to me that the parable of the Good Samaritan should sit somewhere in Luke 20 when the authority of Jesus is questioned. It would line up with Mathew and Mark better.

Otherwise are we to assume that Jesus was quoting the expert when he gives his answer in Mathew and Mark?

Doesn't it make more sense that the expert in the law in Luke's good Samaritan had heard Jesus sum the law up in this way - but he wanted more clarification as to who his neighbour was... Therefore the encounter in Luke is more likely to have taken place in Jerusalem?

Or am I simply wrong in thinking there is a connection between these accounts?


texts: According to Catholicism, why did God create men as men rather than as angels?

texts:
There is some discussion about why God created man here. The answers go something like "God wanted to love us, share his perfection/happiness/life with us. Therefore, he created us."

Yet, God also created angels. Beside some fallen angels, most of them are in Heaven, already enjoying the beatific vision of God face to face. There was no salvation process involved. No sin. No pain. These are spirits (i.e. bodyless souls) created to be happy.

So, the question is, why did God create souls in the form of men, rather than creating these souls in the form of angels? The answers to the linked question do not address this issue.

The context of this question relates to the problem of evil. God sharing his life with us whilst respecting our freedom is a "classic" answer to the problem. However, this still begs the question of why God created man as man rather than as angel.

PS: there is a related question here but it is not denomination specific, and the answer does not really answer the question, imo.


texts: What is the relation between Christianity and Islam

texts:
There are some common points that exist between Christianity and Islam.
      What are the similarities and disagreement between Christianity and Islam?


texts: What was the intended meaning of the quotation marks around "sinners" in the old NIV?

texts:
Take for example Matthew 9:10-13:

  While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples.

  When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

  On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

My younger self thought of them as similar to sarcasm quotes, to be read while smugly preening over the blindness of the Pharisees. That seems entirely inappropriate for a Bible translation, though, and the only explanation I can come up with for them being there in the first place is to imply that the Pharisees did not consider themselves sinful, or to imply that Christ's dinner guests were not really sinful after all. And then that old saw that goes "well, we're all sinners" comes tramping into mind...

I notice that the NIV 2011 took them out, but have the translators (or anyone else) ever explained why they were there in the first place?


texts: What did the animals eat when they emerged from the ark?

texts:
Given that Noah had to rescue 2 of a kind of every animal and fit them all in the ark, and given that he would've had to feed them while they were in his captivity:

If after the flood there were only mating pairs of each species in existence, what did the predators eat? If they ate any of their natural prey, the prey wouldn't survive, to be followed shortly by starving predators.

So once he set them free, what did they eat?


texts: What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion?

texts:
I have seen a couple of articles that explain how the commonly depicted image of Jesus on the cross is not historically accurate nor physically possible.

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion
Was Jesus Crucified in the Manner Shown in Paintings and Movies?

What does modern Biblical scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion? Is there a broad consensus?


texts: In any of James's passages, does he agree to the law being cursed and abrogated?

texts:
From what I understand, early on there was a disagreement between James (who is said to be the brother of Jesus and the leader of the early Christian movement) and Paul, the latter saying that the law was cursed and it is not about works/actions but about faith and redemption.

In a story recounted in Acts 21:17-26, James and the Christian elders in Jerusalem wanted to show other Christians who were converted Jews, and who still observed the Jewish Law, that Paul still believed in observing the Law. They therefore told Paul to go and perform a ritual of purification and sacrifice in the Jewish temple, which he then proceeded to do.

According to James's words or any other scripture, did James eventually change his view of the Law and follow Paul?

Update

In James 2:10 he says:

  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is
  guilty of breaking all of it.


texts: Can you be a Christian and not go to church?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Do I have to attend church every Sunday?

Simply put, can you be a true christian and not go to church? Or is it a mandate to go to church on Sundays?


texts: Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall?

texts:
Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?


texts: Have any Protestant leaders in Korea expressly supported the destruction of Buddhist statues?

texts:
In its discussion of inter-religion relations in South Korea, Wikipedia states:

  Buddhist statues have been considered as idols, attacked and decapitated. [...] Such acts, which are supported by some Protestant leaders, have led to South Koreans having an increasingly negative outlook on Protestantism.

The text in bold is not currently cited.  What is the basis for it? Have any Protestant leaders in Korea explicitly expressed support for the criminal destruction of Buddhist statues?

I'm not interested in statements like "You should convert from Buddhism and destroy your idols."  Rather, I want to know if any Protestant leaders have encouraged Christians take it upon themselves to destroy Buddhist statues found in public places or that belong to other people.

Protestant leader is admittedly a wishy-washy term, and I don't know what the Wikipedia editor had in mind when the text was added to the article.  No criteria will be perfect, but I'd prefer someone who is known for something in addition to making these statements.  A pastor, leader of a denomination, etc., who is significant enough to have been quoted in periodicals (Christian or secular) on other topics as well, perhaps.


texts: What is the biblical basis for a pretribulation rapture?

texts: I am looking not for deductions, or interpretations that some preacher insists upon. I need a scripture which is irrefutable. Can anyone give me one?


texts: Does anyone know for sure after how long of being inactive is a Jehovah's Witness announced officially as being inactive?


texts: In LDS canon, is the Final Judgement before or after the resurrection?

texts:
I've always understood the Final Judgment to occur just before the resurrection because the judgement determines which glory you are resurrected to. The Gospel Principles lesson on the Final Judgement seems to imply that also. It makes sense because we are to be resurrected to a glory, but that glory is dependent on the outcome of our judgement.

However I was reading in 2 Nephi 9 this morning where it says that the resurrection comes before judgment.

  13 O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the
  paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the
  grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the
  body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible,
  and immortal....

  15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from
  this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal,
  they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel;
  and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according
  to the holy judgment of God.

There in verse 13 it says that the spirit and body are reunited (resurrection) and so we become immortal. Then in verse 15 it says that after we become immortal (resurrected) we will be judged.

So which is it? Does the judgment occur before or after the resurrection?


texts: What are the "signs of grief" for which a pastor should be on the look out?

texts:
So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that "everyone's grief process is different," and I have seen wide variation in this.  I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine.  I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss.

Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are "stuck in grief."  When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer.

While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – not just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is "stuck in grief?"


texts:
What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed? [see footnote regarding answers]

I understand this to be one of those scriptures that is meant to challenge our understanding, such as "drink my blood and eat my flesh"...yet I still can't see the purpose behind these words:

Isaiah 6:9,10

  “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
      be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10, Make the heart of this people calloused;
      make their ears dull
      and close their eyes.[a] Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
      hear with their ears,
      understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Mark 4:10-13

  10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him
  about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God
  has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said
  in parables 12 so that,

  “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
      and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]”

  13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How
  then will you understand any parable?

What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?

edit:

I've reopened the bounty. The entire bible is encoded in parables, and Isaiah 6 eludes to what the purpose of encryption-through-symbolism is needed in the word. Jesus applies it, but does not explain it's full necessity, and why it must be that way.

So we ask again - what is the meaning of "Keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?" a concept which contradicts the idea "I want to, be made clean...".

In spirit this concept contradicts the nature of God, who wants to heal and restore. Yet this says "Make it so that cannot happen". To a Christian, one would be confused the same as Jesus Jewish audience when he said "Drink my blood"...something that seemingly contradicted their law.

Hence we seek to explain the mystery and remove the supposed contradiction.

This mystery is so important to me I'd happily keep reopening the bounty, using up my points, until a conclusively accurate answer is given.

FOOTENOTE:

Of the answers given, three authors gave appropriate and correct answers from different angles, thus giving a very good understanding of the possible answer to this question.

@ShemSeger's answer was the first comprehensive one given, helping to understand the purpose behind the veiling of scriptures as it pertains to our human accountability. See the first paragraph see his heading "Understanding Parables". This was auto-awarded a bounty due to votes because I had sought more explanation on the issue. This answer, though, certainly gives a glimpse into what it means for our personal welfare.

@Trober's answer gives a very in-depth look at how this mystery pertains to God's justice and mercy, essentially giving everyone a chance to benefit equally at the right time from God's efforts to save and heal humankind. His answer addresses the answer from a prophetic aspect, citing very, very good examples in the scriptures to which this question pertains.

@Andrew's answer relies completely in the scriptures, and in it's own right very complete and elegant. It would have been assigned the "bounty" points, except many who are not trained in the scriptures might not see how these scriptures relate, although his outline is very authoritative.

Thus Trober's answer is given the bounty for the most harmonious and well explained answer. ShemSeger's answer elaborates greatly on our own responsibility, and its meaning to individuals. Andrew's answer solidifies these things with well chosen supporting scriptures.

The complementary nature of these answers reminds me of this scripture: 1 Corinthians 12:12-31


texts: God's foreknowledge according to the Calvinist?

texts:
I read from this link-1

  Romans 8:29 means that God “fore-loved” certain people, and
  predestinated them

And from this link-2

  1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the
  world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into
  the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving
  relationship with Him.

  The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans
  8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation
  of the world.

If it's Jesus - then it's easier for me to understand that "God fore-loved Jesus" as Jesus himself is eternal.

But from the second paragraph of link-2, that leads me to question :
Do the Calvinist believe a pre-existent person (with his/her own life before the creation) whom God love (other than Jesus) before the creation ?

I got the answer from GotQuestion site :

  Question: "What does the Bible say about the pre-existence of souls?"

  Answer: The Bible says nothing about the pre-existence of souls
  because this is a man-made idea with no basis in truth.

So the question :
(1a) Please explain to me of this sentence "Before the creation, God had an eternal, loving relationship with some non-existence people/soul"
(1b) In what verse which tell God-made idea that He foreknown = He foreloved ? that He foreknown = "Before the creation, God had an eternal, loving relationship with some non-existence soul"  ?

Next,
To me the explanation from those links doesn't match with the potter in Romans 9. God tell that the potter use from the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into, NOT from a lump of clay he love which causing him to make it as a jar for decoration and from a lump of clay he hated which causing him to make a jar to throw to garbage. The potter decide to make an object which he is going to love (for decoration) and an object which he is going to hate (throw to garbage).

(2) So how is the explanation from the Calvinist about this ?

From link-2,

  The “foreknowledge” view sees all of history as some great movie that
  God watched but did not create. He is therefore not sovereign.

(3) How God is sovereign if He Himself can't help but love some non-existence (lump) and He can't help but hate some non-existence (lump)? Compare with the potter, the potter is sovereign as he decide to make  an object for his decoration and an object for him to throw to garbage from nothing (lump). There is no cause on the potter's "election" of the lump of clay.


texts: In 1611, in the KJV, what did the words "ghost" and "spirit" mean?

texts:
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first appearance of the word "ghost" was in 1606, five years before the Authorized Version was released in 1611. The word "ghost" appears in the KJV 109 times in 108 verses. This is the first appearance:

  Gen_25:8  Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age,
  an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost

According to the same source the word "spirit" first appeared in 1608:

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

It occurs 505 times in 456 verses. This is the first occurrence:

  Gen_1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
  upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face
  of the waters.

However I notice that the Wycliffe Bible, from the 1300s uses the word "Spiryt" a few times. IE:

  Gen 1:2 Forsothe the erthe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on
  the face of depthe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borun on the
  watris.

The word "breath" only occurs 42 times in 42 verses. Here is the first occurrence:

  Gen_2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
  breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
  soul.

My question is, in 1611 when these words were coined and used in the KJV were "ghost" and" "spirit" simply synonyms of each other? IE: Are the KJV authors distinguishing "Spirit" from "Ghost" in this verse or just varying it up?:

  Joh_1:33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with
  water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
  descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with
  the Holy Ghost.

And what about "breath"? They seem to be used in parallel:

  Job_27:3  All the while my breath [H5397] is in me, and the spirit
  [H7307] of God is in my nostrils;

  H5397

  נְשָׁמָה neshâmâh nesh-aw-maw' From H5395; a puff, that is, wind,
  angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely)
  an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
  Total KJV occurrences: 24

  H7307

  רוּחַ rûach roo'-akh From H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, that
  is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger,
  unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance
  spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and
  functions): - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X
  quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind
  (-y). Total KJV occurrences: 378

So what did these words mean to the KJV translators? Were they all synonyms of each other? If so, why muddy the waters? Why translate as "ghost" sometimes and "spirit" at other times? Why not just retain "breath" as all other languages seemed to do prior to English translations of the scriptures?


texts: Why are certain Books Excluded from the Canon?

texts: I trust the current Biblical canon, but I was researching Biblical evidence against Purgatory when I came across a Catholic blog that used the book of II Maccabees as evidence. That got me thinking: why have the books in the canon been chosen? Any insight on this subject will be helpful, thanks.


texts: Is there a systematic theology resource based solely on the words of Jesus?

texts:
Numerous Bibles have a "The Words of Christ in Red Letter" feature. Understandably, there is some debate concerning which verses and words should be in red (but this question is not about that.)

This question is: What is a good resource on systematic theology that only looks at the verses in red -- i.e., instead of being based on the entire Bible, is based only upon the words that Christ says?


texts: Burial of remains following medical research

texts: I have an friend whose great aunt donated her body to a university for medical research purposes.  At the end of their research the science department had the remains cremated.  My friend wants to know if the Catholic Church teaches that the remains be interred in a Catholic Cemetery and or can the remains be co-mingled with other research remains and buried together?


texts: If Mark's gospel presents Jesus as servant, why does John say he's unworthy to loose his shoes?

texts: If Mark is the gospel which presents Jesus as servant, why did John the Baptist say in verse 7 that he was mightier than he and that he (John) was unworthy to stoop down and untie his shoes?


texts:
What is the current and historical viewpoint on universal salvation as a doctrine in the Catholic Church?

Is there any defence or reference to this doctrine in any of the current catechisms?  And what are the historical debates which have influenced the current day opinion of the church on the subject of apokatastasis?


texts: Why does God resort to genocide and destruction?

texts:
According to this answer, God does not want to destroy sinners. And yet, there are several accounts in the Bible of God doing just that. Sodom and Gomorrah is one example, another one is the flood or the numerous atrocities against the Egyptians in Exodus, just to mention a few.

Now, with God being omnipotent, and thus with presumably an infinite number of ways of dealing with these situations, why does he resort to the most cruel and barbaric methods like genocide and murder? It doesn't seem like something a god who loves everyone would do, especially one with the power to resolve these situations in more peaceful ways.


texts: Is it true that Luther intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28?

texts:
I recently listened to Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion testimony.  One thing that really jumped out at me was that Dr. Hahn stated that Luther purposely inserted the German word "allein" (alone) into Romans 3:28 despite the fact that it is not in the Greek texts.

  So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

Is this true?

Are there any writings from Luther that allude to his own translation of this crucial verse?


texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledge the validity a self-started Eucharists?

texts:
Let's say on some island in Oceania the locals one day found a King James version (or any other version in their own language) and believed into Christ, started having regular meetings, in which they would pray  and practice Eucharist with bread and wine.

Will the Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledge that kind of Eucharist as valid, that is, a true Eucharist?


texts: What is the origin of the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of the Old Testament law?

texts:
This distinction is often called tripartite division of the law.

I ran across this series of blog posts, which considers the division of the law into "moral", "civil", and "ceremonial" parts:

Introduction
Historical Overview
Analyzing Aquinas' arguments
Analyzing Calvins' arguments
Wrapping up with two more historical views
Entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption
Some final thoughts

The Westminster standards (and others), even go on to claim that the "moral" law is one and the same with the Ten Commandments. This sometimes becomes something of a hermeneutical key, e.g., when interpreting passages that point out that the law is overturned, asserting that the passage is referring to the ceremonial law.

That said, Confessional Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists are not typically considered Thomists, and yet find this principle as no minor point in their confessional documents. Aquinas's reasoning is usually rejected when directly addressed, but the essential division is held nonetheless. Is there some other supporting reasoning, or an alternative origin other than via Aquinas? Likewise, is there support for equating the "moral law" (which is said to remain on Christians) with the Decalogue?


texts: Was this (allegedly gay) marriage in a Catholic Church valid?

texts:
The Spanish newspaper El Pais wrote an article the other day (with an awful clickbait, I must say), where it told the story of two women married by the Catholic Church in 1901. The story goes that they were married by a local priest, with one of the woman disguised as a man (as one of her dead cousins, in fact). The priest did not know the situation, and hence the marriage received official approval. The article claimed then that this is "the first (and only) official gay marriage in the Catholic Church" (title of the clickbait), and which has yet not been annuled.

Two things come to my mind. First, the marriage act probably stated the name of the (dead) cousin, and hence, the two women were actually never married (i.e. they couldn't prove it, since they didn't have a certificate to the name of both women). Second, as one of the spouses was dead, the marriage was invalid. Thus, there was never a valid marriage anyway, and thus there is nothing to annul. Is this the case?


texts: Why did God kill Uzzah ? - 2 Samuel 6:6-7

texts:
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out
  and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The
  Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act;
  therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.

After reading those verses, I often think this was over-reacted. Maybe Uzzah wasn't thinking badly, maybe was he just taking care of the ark of God ?

So what are the deep/fundamental reasons God killed him ?

What's your opinion ?


texts:
The Hail Mary is very often called a 'prayer'.

Some Catholics like to distinguish between 'praying', which is only said to God, and 'asking' which is acceptable for the deceased saints.

So is the Hail Mary a prayer (even though it's offered to Mary) or something else? Answers from any perspective which uses the Hail Mary would be welcome.


texts: Why is the KJV frequently said to be the "true" translation?

texts: This question actually centers on the KJV translation itself. It's not hard to find a church in America (particularly in the south) where they believe that the KJV is the one true translation and that all others are inferior. Why is it the KJV in particular that has achieved this status? Is it because it was the primary translation used for centuries?


texts: According to Unitarians, to whom does the word הָאָדוֹן refer in Mal. 3:1?

texts:
Regarding the word אֲדֹנִי (adoni) in Psa. 110:1 (actually prefixed with -ל, i.e. לַאדֹנִי), translated as “my lord,” a self-professed Unitarian website states,1

  Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated “my lord” is adoni (pronounced “Adon nee” 1 ) in the standard Hebrew texts. This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God. (emphasis mine)

Now, the Hebrew word אֲדֹנִי is simply the lemma or base form אָדוֹן2 with a 1st person singular pronominal suffix appended (i.e., “my”). The question, then, should not be limited to whether אֲדֹנִי is ever used in reference to Yahveh (God), but rather, whether אָדוֹן and any of its suffixed forms (including אֲדֹנִי) are ever used in reference to Yahveh. After all, couldn’t “lord,” “my lord,” “his lord,” “our lord,” and “their lord” all refer to the same “lord”?

The lord said to Abraham and Sarah,...
Abraham said to his lord,...
Sarah said to her lord,...
Sarah and Abraham spoke to their lord,...
Sarah and Abraham said, “Our lord...”
Abraham said, “My lord...”

In this context, the “lord” is the same person, regardless of the pronominal suffix. Hence, limiting the discussion to “my lord” is both arbitrary and disingenuous.

I encountered the word הָאָדוֹן in Mal. 3:1. This is simply אָדוֹן prefixed with the definite article הָ, meaning “the lord” (i.e., “the master”).

The Hebrew text of Mal. 3:1 states,

  הִנְנִ֤י שֹׁלֵחַ֙ מַלְאָכִ֔י וּפִנָּה־דֶ֖רֶךְ לְפָנָ֑י וּפִתְאֹם֩ יָבֹ֨וא אֶל־הֵיכָלֹ֜ו הָאָדֹ֣ון אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֣ם מְבַקְשִׁ֗ים וּמַלְאַ֨ךְ הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֤ם חֲפֵצִים֙ הִנֵּה־בָ֔א אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֹֽות׃

which is translated into English as,

  Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he shall prepare a way before Me, and the lord whom you are seeking shall suddenly come to His temple, and/even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in. Behold, he comes," said Yahveh of hosts.

We note a couple of things during exegesis of Mal. 3:1:

Yahveh of hosts is the speaker.

“I am sending My messenger” evidently refers to Yahveh sending His messenger (cp. 2 Chr. 36:15-16; Isa. 42:19).
Thus, first-person pronouns refer to Yahveh, such as “My messenger,” “before Me,” etc.

However, note the acute analysis of Carl Friedrich Keil in his commentary on Mal. 3:1:

  “The Lord” ((hâ'âdōn)) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His temple, i.e., the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause “whom ye seek,” which points back to the question, “Where is the God of judgment?” (Malachi 2:17).

The question: How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1?

Footnotes

1 URL: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/psalm-110-1

2 meaning “master,” “lord,” “sir”

References

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Commentary on the Old Testament. 1900. Reprint. Trans. Martin, James. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. (458)


texts: Why do Salvation Army members wear uniforms in the church?

texts:
I have seen Salvation Army church members going to church in white uniforms. Here is a sample image  (source).

What is the role of uniforms in the Salvation Army?

Is it compulsory for them to wear uniforms in the church?


texts: Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?

texts:
According to the ancient historian, Mantheo, the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt were a people known as the Hyksos, literally the "rulers of foreign countries" or, as sometimes been translated "the Shepherd Kings."

These Hyksos were the rulers of Egypt roughly 1700 BC, were clearly not Egyptian, and centered in and around Goshen - all facts that line up with the time period and story of Joseph.

Still, scholars do not think this is archeological "proof" of Joseph.  Why is this the case?


texts: Can the gloria and sanctus be replaced at the Mass with some other hymn or song?

texts:
Can the gloria and sanctus be replaced at Mass with some other liturgical hymn or song?
Or can they be partially modified?


texts: Things that are common exclusively for Protestants and Oriental Orthodoxy

texts:
What things are common for absolutely all Protestants and Oriental Orthodoxy, yet cannot be found in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) and Roman Catholic Church (RCC)?

(In my question, by "Protestants" I mean all those who don't belong to EOC, RCC or Oriental Christianity, don't mind praying to Jesus in their prayers besides praying to their Heavenly Father, and believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. Therefore, those groups who may be called by others as "Protestants", but don't meet those requirements - for example, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses - are not included in my question).


texts: Best wishes for a good week at the end of the mass?

texts:
The concluding rites of the holy mass in the ordinary form are somehow like this:

  If they are necessary, any brief announcements to the people follow here.

  Then the dismissal takes place. The Priest, facing the people and extending his hands, says:
  The Lord be with you.

  The people reply:
  And with your spirit.

  The Priest blesses the people, saying:
  May almighty God bless you: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

  The people reply:
  Amen.

In several parishes, I attend or have attended mass in (in Germany), the priest wishes the congregation a good Sunday and a successful week (with only slightly varying wording). The people respond with "Thank you, the same to you!" (German: "Danke gleichfalls.")

This typically takes place directly before "The Lord be with you" and is so prevalent and so highly formalised that a lot of catholics I encounter think this is an normal part of mass like the blessing or the ite missa est.

My Question is:

1) How widely spread is this custom in other parts of the world?

2) Are there information of how this custom started and whether some (magisterial) voice explicitly condone or forbid it.


texts: Could you please help me locate this hymn?

texts:
I heard a sermon that was recorded in the 1980s.  The speaker was Dr. Paul E. Toms, who at the time was senior pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts.  In his sermon, Dr. Toms referenced a hymn, but he didn't mention the title.  My mother and I would really like to find this hymn.  We would be very grateful for any clues or ideas that you might have!  Here is what I know:

The hymn is about a man who lived and died.  At the gates of Heaven, the gatekeeper said, "On whose authority should I let you in?  The man replied:

  "I come in the name of Jesus.
  For me He bled and died."
  And the pearly gates swung open
  and welcomed him inside.

This was all that Dr. Toms mentioned about the hymn itself; unfortunately, he did not mention the title.  Dr. Toms did mention that a certain visitor to Park Street Church, "Bill Hoyt" (or possibly "Hoight" or similar; since I only have the sermon on audio, I don't know the spelling) sang this hymn at the church.  (But since I'm not sure if "Bill Hoyt" is a famous person or not, I'm not sure if this is a helpful bit of information.)

Unfortunately, this is all that I know.  We will be really grateful for any clues that you might have!  Thank you!


texts: According to Orthodox Christianity, did God die on the cross at Calvary?

texts: According to Orthodox Christianity Jesus was in his entire earthly life both God and man. I accept fully that Jesus the man indeed died on the cross, but did Jesus the God die also? Did, in effect, God die on the cross at Calvary?


texts: Does Exodus Ministries' about-face on "pray away the gay" signal a theological change?

texts:
Among those who have a conviction that the Bible frowns on same-sex sexual activity, there is nonetheless a diversity of opinion on issues like whether there is an unchosen orientation, and whether Scripture calls folks with the orientation to achieve a "re-wiring" through some sort of therapy.

The organization Exodus Ministries recently received attention in the news for changing its approach to reparative / re-orientation therapies.  Once an advocate of "pray away the gay," the founder of Exodus Ministries has now publically said that reparative therapy does not change orientation and apologized for the "trauma" inflicted on those who tried to seek re-orientation through it.

Q: Does this mean that there were any changes in their consensus on the theology of orientation.


texts: How does the ancient Jewish Wedding tradition foreshadow Christ and the church?

texts:
I remember something about the ancient Jewish Wedding Ceremony being a foreshadowing of Christ and the Church.  Kay Arthur authored a novel that illustrates this idea, entitled With an Everlasting Love.

So, what are the specifics of the ancient Jewish Wedding ceremony and how do they foreshadow Christ and the Church?


texts: What is the premise from which "the greater works" promise was made by Jesus?

texts:
If kenosis is the reason why the glory of the incarnate Son of God was veiled, is that also the reason why He made the statement of John 14:12?

  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father

His earthly works were magnificent and glorious, yet He presents for us to experience after His exit from the scene a greater works era.

Does that suppose that He just barely exhibited sufficient part of His divinity required just to effect our redemption?

The answers would be fitting if given in the light of these three scriptures;

John 14;12
Hebrews 10:19-20
Philippians 2:5-11


texts: How does Sola Scriptura understanding of the Bible affect the anagogical sense of the Bible?

texts:
A few times on this site, I've mentioned Jesus' commands that we should take Mary into our home when he tells John to 'behold his mother'.  This is based on the idea that much of scripture can also be interpreted for its 'eternal significance', not to say that John didn't know exactly what he was writing, but that the Spirit was moving him to write something that would be applicable to us today.

The senses of Scripture
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
... The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

CCC 115,117.3
I don't want to make any incendiary comments because I don't want this question picked apart as much I desire a historical analysis of Protestants either denying or affirming an anagogical understanding of Sacred Scripture. But, it seems to me as if Sola Scriptura presents only the literal and allegorical senses, but doesn't really lead anywhere.
Therefore it seems Sola Scriptura is opposed to the anagogical sense, because it is more of an understanding based on the application of the scriptures. This is what makes the rapture and Young Earth Creationism the only rational application of the scriptures to some who rely on literalism. Conversely it makes the gnostic understanding or 'bible code' understanding the only rational application to others who go rely on allegory.  But, I believe, these strict interpretations are not the norm for a majority of Protestants.
So what I would like to know is, to those who believe in Sola Scriptura, when do you decide whether or not to exclude interpretations based on the anagogical sense of scripture?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral?

texts:
The Catholic Church, as well as many other Christians, believes that abortion is inherently immoral, based on the belief that life begins at conception.

What is the biblical basis for this position?

I'm interested in the perspective of those who are Biblical literalists, whether Protestant, Catholic, or others.


texts: Which theory of the atonement did C. S. Lewis hold?

texts:
In C. S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (spoiler alert), the White Witch, the personification of the devil, says some interesting things:

  You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning.  You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill. [...] That human creature is mine.  His life is forfeit to me.  His blood is my property. [...] Unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.

In response, Aslan, the representation of Christ, says:

  It is very true.  I do not deny it.

Aslan then proceeds to give himself up to the White Witch, who kills him to appease the Deep Magic.

This portrayal of the atonement sounds to me most like the ransom theory of atonement.  Though the word "ransom" is not used, the Devil owns the sinner and gives him up only after justice is satisfied through a sacrifice.

Is this actually the model of the atonement that Lewis preferred?  It seems odd that a Protestant would adhere to a model largely displaced by others for the last thousand years.

Which model of the atonement did C. S. Lewis prefer?


texts: How did the Council of Nicea get such a bad rap?

texts: I’ve heard countless arguments from Atheists and Muslims that the 1st Council of Nicea banned books from the Bible, hid inconvenient truths, expunged Mohammed from the Bible and so on, we know that the council was dealing with the Arian heresy, so how did the Council get such a bad rap?


texts: Why didn't God omit non-essential information from the Bible?

texts:
In the Bible you'll find passages like -

  Exodus 37 Bezalel made the ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits
  long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high.[a] 2 He
  overlaid it with pure gold, both inside and out, and made a gold
  molding around it. 3 He cast four gold rings for it and fastened them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 4 Then he made poles of acacia wood and overlaid them with gold. 5 And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 6 He made the atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 7 Then he made two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 8 He made one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; at the two ends he made them of one piece with the cover. 9 The cherubim had their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim faced each other, looking toward the cover.

And then some others like -

  Genesis 46:8 These are the names of the sons of Israel (Jacob and his
  descendants) who went to Egypt: Reuben the firstborn of Jacob. 9 The
  sons of Reuben: Hanok, Pallu, Hezron and Karmi. 10 The sons of Simeon:
  Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jakin, Zohar and Shaul the son of a Canaanite
  woman. 11 The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath and Merari. 12 The sons of
  Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan had died in
  the land of Canaan). The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul. 13 The sons
  of Issachar: Tola, Puah,[a] Jashub[b] and Shimron. 14 The sons of
  Zebulun: Sered, Elon and Jahleel. 15 These were the sons Leah bore to
  Jacob in Paddan Aram,[c] besides his daughter Dinah. These sons and
  daughters of his were thirty-three in all. 16 The sons of Gad:
  Zephon,[d] Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi and Areli. 17 The sons of
  Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. Their sister was Serah. The
  sons of Beriah: Heber and Malkiel. 18 These were the children born to
  Jacob by Zilpah, whom Laban had given to his daughter Leah —sixteen in
  all. 19 The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. 20 In
  Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim were born to Joseph by Asenath daughter of
  Potiphera, priest of On.[e] 21 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, Beker,
  Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard. 22 These were
  the sons of Rachel who were born to Jacob—fourteen in all. 23 The son
  of Dan: Hushim. 24 The sons of Naphtali: Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and
  Shillem. 25 These were the sons born to Jacob by Bilhah, whom Laban
  had given to his daughter Rachel —seven in all.

Wait there's more -

  Nehemiah 7:7 The list of the men of Israel: 8 the descendants of Parosh   2,172 9 of
  Shephatiah    372 10 of Arah  652 11 of Pahath-Moab (through the line of
  Jeshua and Joab)  2,818 12 of Elam    1,254 13 of Zattu   845 14 of
  Zakkai    760 15 of Binnui    648 16 of Bebai 628 17 of Azgad 2,322 18 of
  Adonikam  667 19 of Bigvai    2,067 20 of Adin    655 21 of Ater (through
  Hezekiah) 98 22 of Hashum 328 23 of Bezai 324 24 of Hariph    112 25 of
  Gibeon    95 26 the men of Bethlehem and Netophah     188 27 of Anathoth
    128 28 of Beth Azmaveth 42 29 of Kiriath Jearim, Kephirah and Beeroth
    743 30 of Ramah and Geba    621 31 of Mikmash   122 32 of Bethel and Ai
    123 33 of the other Nebo    52 34 of the other Elam 1,254 35 of
  Harim 320 36 of Jericho   345 37 of Lod, Hadid and Ono    721 38 of
  Senaah    3,930

My question is why did God choose to include all this information in the Bible? How would the 760 men of Zakkai help anyone in this age or any past or future age, draw closer to God? Contrast this with how small the important narratives like the flood & Noah or the Crucifixion of Christ are.

This doesn't seem like God inspiring the Bible to communicate with men. This seems more like random writings of people about their society and culture put together in one book.

What is the reason for this?


texts: What exactly is the meaning of the text of Doxology in the concluding part of Catholic Eucharistic prayer?

texts:
With these solemn words, the priest ends the Eucharistic prayer at the centre of which is the event of the consecration.

  Through him, and with him, and in him,
  O God, almighty Father,
  in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
  all glory and honour is yours,
  for ever and ever.

What exactly is the meaning of this and what is the interpretation of this in Catholic theology?


texts: Origin of the Reformed "Marks of the True Church"

texts:
In Reformed Theology, "the marks of a true church" are often delineated, to the effect of:

Church discipline
Teaching/preaching
Administration of the sacraments

(These are the marks often denoted in systematic theology, but let it be noted that they are not intended to exclude other important marks such as suffering and love.)

A slightly altered formula is seen in Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25 Of the Church, paragraph 4:

  This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

I found something similar in Calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadoleto (available in Vol. III of Banner of Truth's Tracts and Letters Calvin volumes, and in a slim booklet edited by John Olin entitled A Reformation Debate, page 63):

  Since there are three things on which the safety of the Church is fonded, viz., doctrine, discipline, and the sacraments, and to these a fourth is added, viz., ceremonies, by which to exercise the people in offices of piety...

Calvin's letter of 1539 predates the Confession by a little over a hundred years, and is the earliest document that I have personally found this doctrine in. However, I find it unlikely that Calvin wrote any new doctrines in his letter to the Cardinal, so I'm wondering where the origin of this doctrine was.

Does Calvin have earlier writings on it? Did earlier Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli or Bucer discuss it? Were there pre-Reformation theologians who discussed it?


texts: The theologian Edward  Schillebeeckx described Christ as the primordial sacrament.  What does that mean?


texts: Do any Bibles contain the Book of Nathan the Prophet and/or the History of Nathan the Prophet

texts:
A possible reference to the Book of Nathan is described in 1 Chronicles 29:29:

  "Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer."

A possible reference to the History of Nathan the Prophet is described in 2 Chronicles 9:29:

  "Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet..."

I seek information on the whereabouts of these writings and whether they are considered to be authentic by either the Christian or Jewish religious community.


texts:
A skeptic said it is intellectually dishonest for me to believe in miracles in the Bible but not in the Qur'an. Is it?

What are some Biblical basis for not believing in every miracle, or that every miracle is from God?


texts: How would the four major eschatological views differ in their interpretation of Revelation 21:4?

texts:
Under "Christian eschatology," Wikipedia lists four contrasting beliefs pertaining to apocalyptic literature (and prophecy?) in the Bible:

Preterism
Idealism
Historicism
Futurism

How would each of these camps interpret the following prediction, which comes on the heels of the "new heaven and new earth," the "new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God," and a promise that God "will dwell among them":

  He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. -Revelation 21:4

What does this mean, and when did/will it happen? Please include a source to a teaching from each perspective on this verse if possible.


texts: From a Catholic perspective, why does Wisdom merely "infer" the things to come?

texts:
I'm confused about Wisdom 8:8:

  Or again, if one yearns for wide experience,
  she knows the things of old, and infers the things to come.
  She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles;
  signs and wonders she knows in advance
  and the outcome of times and ages.

If I understand correctly, Wisdom is to be identified with Jesus' divine nature. Why, then, would she know the things of old but merely infer the things to come? Doesn't she fully know the things to come?

The issue reminds me of Mark 13:32:

  But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If I understand correctly, the correct interpretation of Mark 13:32 is that Jesus' human nature did not know the day or hour. But his divine nature is omniscient, right? So this doesn't help resolve Wisdom 8:8.

The original Greek word which has been translated as "infers" is εἰκάζειν; the root word is εἰκάζω. The LSJ lists three meanings for εἰκάζω: represent by an image, compare, and infer. Only the last seems to fit at all. Of course the text doesn't specifically say that Wisdom does not know the things to come, but it seems to seriously suggest it. What is the correct interpretation of this verse, from a Catholic perspective?


texts: What is the origin of celibacy for Catholic Priests?

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

When and why did the Vatican decide that Catholic priests should take a vow of celibacy?


texts: What support is there in the Patristic writings for Marian Devotion?

texts: Specifically, I want to know if there is evidence in the early Church of Christians venerating Mary.  Evidence from the time following Mary's earthly life is preferred, though not required.


texts: How do Arminians interpret God's reserving of a remnant in Romans 11:4?

texts:
Much has been written about Romans 9 and the differing Calvinist/Arminian interpretations of it.  However, Arminians (and I consider myself an Arminian) usually argue that, read in context with the surrounding passages – 8, 10 and 11 – it becomes clear that what is being referred to in 9 is not individual election, but corporate, referring to Israel as a whole.

I note, therefore, Romans 11:4:

  But what saith the answer of God unto him?  I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (KJV)

The words "I have reserved to myself" do seem, at first glance at least, to represent the personal preservation of these seven thousand Israelites.  Could someone please explain to me the Arminian interpretation of this specific verse?

A general overview of the Romans debate between Arminians and Calvinists would also be welcome, as this is a matter of general interest to me at the moment.


texts:
In the Biblical account, Eve is the first to eat the forbidden fruit. Yet still the blame gets put on Adam and later on in the Bible it states that sin entered the world through one man.

Why is Adam considered the original sinner?


texts: What is the modern argument against obligatory head coverings?

texts:
1 Corinthians 11:4-6 gives these instructions about head coverings:

  4 Every man who prays or prophesies while having something on his head dishonors his head, 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head dishonors her head, for she is one and the same with the one whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her hair be shorn off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaved, let her cover her head.

This instruction is disregarded by many modern denominations as being only culturally relevant. Why is this argument applied to this particular instruction whilst in the same denominations it is not applied to most other instructions in the New Testament? I presume there must be something making this instruction unique from the perspective of the theologians in those denominations. However, I have been unable to find out how they argue this.


texts: Are sermons from The Second Book of Homilies still read in Anglican Churches?

texts:
In the 39 articles of faith, article 35 says the following:

  XXXV. Of the Homilies. The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles
  whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and
  wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former
  Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the
  Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the
  Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of
  the people.
  (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html)

Do Anglican churches still read the Homilies aloud as per the 39 articles? If not, how do they justify not following the 39 articles?

Related: What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith?


texts: What criteria do Catholics use to determine if an old testament character prefigures Mary?

texts:
I was at a Catechetical training seminar in my parish and the presenter on topic of the creed when touching on the Blessed Virgin Mary said that lots and lots of characters prefigure Mary in the old testament.  The same way that lots and lots of characters prefigure Our Lord.

What the criteria for 'prefigurement' is when it comes to Mary?  Clearly no one was all that great in the OT and still show us some aspect of Jesus.

Also, do only women prefigure Mary?


texts: What are the meaning of and the biblical basis for the practice of pleading the blood of Jesus in prayer?

texts:
I've heard people say this phrase in prayer many times. A simple Google search for the exact phrase "plead the blood of Jesus" confirms that this is the case, returning about 280,000 hits (as of April 2021). My superficial understanding is that people usually plead the blood of Jesus expecting some kind of special spiritual protection against the dark forces, maybe it has something to do with spiritual warfare, I'm not sure.
Questions:

What do Christians mean when they plead the blood of Jesus in prayer? Is there a canonical definition of the phrase? What do they expect will happen when they say it?

What is the biblical basis? Are there scriptural examples in which an apostle or a disciple pleaded the blood of Jesus for protection or any other purpose?


texts: Which Psalms did Wesley leave out in Sunday Service of the Methodists? and why?

texts:
John Wesley published a modified Book of Common Prayer under the name Sunday Service of the Methodists, in which he says in the preface:

I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England. And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it not only pure, but strong and elegant, in the highest degree.
Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, except in the under-mentioned instances:

Most of the holy-days (so called) are omitted, as at present answering no valuable end.

The service of the LORD's DAY, the length of which has been often complained of, is considerably shortened.

Some sentences in the offices of Baptism, and for the Burial of the Dead, are omitted; and,

4. Many Psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation.
JOHN WESLEY.
Bristol, Sept. 9, 1784.

Which Psalms did he leave out, and which parts of others for being "highly improper," and why are/were they considered "highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation"? Are these same Psalms and parts of Psalms still avoided by Methodists today in their congregational worship?