texts:
If I understand "Total Depravity" from Calvinism -- apart from God's grace, there is nothing good within us -- we are miserable, evil creatures.

In light of this, I have some questions about the rich man in Luke 16:

  Luke 16:27-28 (NIV)
  27  “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28  for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

Why does he wish well for his family (rather than an attitude of: I don't care about anyone, if they go to hell, they go to hell)?
Why does he wish well for heaven (the heaven rejoices whenever a sinner repents])?
Why does he still have what appears to be compassion despite having not been elected?


texts: Identify this story about the end times from the Desert Fathers

texts:
I heard a story similar to the following at some point, but for the life of me I can't find an authoritative source. I believe that it's one of the Desert Fathers, but I'm not certain of that, either. Here it is, paraphrased from memory:

  A novice asked to the father whether the fathers of ancient days were greater than the ones of today. And the father said, "Those who came before us did greater works than us, and those who follow us will be weaker still. And in the last days men will not be able to do any kind of spiritual labor at all, but those who endure to the end will be saved."

Any help?


texts: Do any church fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages?

texts:
One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages.  For example, C. Norman Sellers, in Biblical Tongues, writes:

  The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages.

Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea (Acts 10:45–46) and Ephesus (Acts 19:6) in Renewal Theology (II, p214).

In light of this disagreement, I wonder – did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was not a "real" human language?  Here are some clarifying parameters:

I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus.  I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group.

From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly.  But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting.

By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer goes beyond the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages.

Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it  indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language.  I want more than that.


texts: Mary as the road that we must travel in order to reach God?

texts:
According to Pope Francis:

Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him.

How do catholics explain this in light of John 14:6 (NASB)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me?


texts: Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with dove?

texts:
John 1:32 reads:

  And John gave this witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit coming down from
  heaven like a dove and resting on him".

Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with a dove?

Why is the dove considered a special bird? Is this related to its use in the peace logo?


texts: Is there a compilation of Biblical words in which the Holy Ghost teaches with?


texts: How was Judas Iscariot, as the son of perdition, able to work miracles and cast out demons?

texts:
The Scriptures describe Judas Iscariot in terms that certainly indicate that he was never a true follower of Jesus:

The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.  Matthew 26:24 NASB
But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.  John 6:64 NASB
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.  John 6:70-71 NASB
While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12 NASB

At the same time, however, Judas was sent out by Jesus with the others to proclaim the good news, work miracles and cast out demons.

These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.   Matthew 10:5-8 NASB

So, if Judas really was the son of perdition, a devil, and one who did not believe, how was it possible for him to work miracles?  How could the Holy Spirit work through him?


texts: Is a radically sanated marriage a true marriage without subsequent marital intimacy?

texts: Supposing that a couple had a putative marriage which was consummated but was in fact invalid according to Church canon law. If the couple's marriage undergoes a radical sanation, but for some reason one of them refuses subsequently to engage in marital intercourse, are they indeed married?


texts: According to the Calvinist, how to choose which one is the meaning when the word Thanatos ---VS--- Neukros appear in a sentence?

texts:
verse-A (Romans 5:12)

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
  through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all
  sinned

verse-B (Romans 5:10)

  For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through
  the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we
  be saved through his life!

The word [death] in the two verses above in Greek is [thanatos].

In verse-A, it seems many Christian interpretation of the word [death] there is a spiritual-dead condition.

But if I go consistent, then it sounds weird if [the death of his Son] means  spiritual-dead in verse-B. I think it's most likely means [physical-dead] in verse-B.

on the other hand :

verse-C (Matthew 28:7)

  And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead

verse-D (Ephesians 2:5)

  even though we were dead because of our sins

The word [dead] in the two verses above in Greek is [nekrous].

In verse-C, logically the word [dead] means physical-dead. But if I go consistent with this, then it sounds weird if [we were dead] means [we have been physically-dead] in verse-D. I think it's most likely means [spiritually-dead] in verse-D.

I've tried to think like this :
the word [thanatos] in verse-A and the word [nekrous] in verse-C is about future time, which is [a second death, physically].

So, if there is no Jesus - the next generation will taste the second death at the end of times because all sinned. (verse-A).

If there is no Jesus, we will taste the second death at the end of times because of our sins (verse-D).

But of course is only logical not biblical :).
So, how is the correct way to understand a verse like those above according to the Calvinist ?

Thank you in advanced.


texts: What is the modern origin of the phrase "hell is the absence of God"?

texts:
I'm familiar with debates about the theological implications of the statement "Hell is the absence of God" (see here for instance), but I have not been able to find a source for the phrase nor in what context it has typically been used. Most references seem to assume the reader is already familiar with the concept, or simply refer to it as a common saying. Eg:

  These days Christians rarely assert that hell is a place where people get burned alive. It’s become de rigueur for Christians to instead say that hell is “the absence of God.” We’ve all heard that a million times; Christians — especially of the emergent/leftist/progressive persuasion (my peeps!) — fairly love saying it.

Was there an observable shift as described here, and if so, among what groups? I have occasionally seen "separation from" instead of "absence of", but in general the wording is extremely consistent - when did this specific phrasing become prominent?


texts: Can more recent revelation from LDS prophets nullify or change official Mormon scripture?

texts: When an LDS prophet speaks, if what he says is different than canonized LDS scripture, do the words of the prophet take precedence?


texts: How do we reconcile the futility of Ecclesiastes with the reward of heaven?

texts:
There's no question that Christianity believes in heaven.  We have a tag here heaven filled with questions about it.

Having said this, there are many places in the Old Testament that speak of the futility of life and show that death is merely nothingness (Sheol).

Here's on place in particular:

  Ecclesiastes 9:3-6 (NIV)Emphasis added
  3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope—even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!

  5 For the living know that they will die,  but the dead know nothing;
  they have no further reward,  and even their name is forgotten.
  6 Their love, their hate  and their jealousy have long since vanished;
  never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.

Here's another verse that shows that there won't be a reward or punishment after death:

  Ecclesiastes 9:2 (NIV)
  All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.

  As it is with the good,
    so with the sinful;
  as it is with those who take oaths,
    so with those who are afraid to take them.

With all this in mind, how do we reconcile the passages in the Old Testament with this understanding of heaven?

I'm seeking a Protestant viewpoint on this and am interested in any Protestant exegesis or doctrine or any historical facts regarding this issue.  Please support your answers.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses have one Saviour or Two?

texts:
Jehovah's witnesses firmly believe that Jehovah and Jesus are separate beings and that Jesus is NOT God because Jesus is an angel.  What do JW's say about their Saviour?  Specifically,

Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21 emphatically declare that Jehovah is the one and only Saviour and "besides me there is no Saviour"

Yet we also read numerous references in the New Testament that Jesus is the only name by which we can be saved and that Jesus is the Saviour of the world.  Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11.

Therefore, do Jehovah's Witnesses have one saviour or two?


texts: Genesis 28:18 Where Did Jacob Get the Oil?

texts:
Genesis 28:18 New International Version (NIV)

  18 Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his
  head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.

Do you have any scriptural references on where did Jacob get the oil? During those times he is a wanderer, he is exhausted. Why would he bring oil along?


texts: MLV (Modern Literal Version) translation: How reasonable is their "open source" claim?

texts:
The Modern Literal Version of the Bible (MLV) is described at their website. It claims to be based on the ASV, modified to agree with the Byzantine Greek text. They claim it has been proofread and corrected by a large number of people, also that there is a translation committee including scholars, and they describe it as being "open source". It is copyrighted but they are free with permissions to reproduce. There is not a true "open" license.

I am wondering if there is a way to verify their process. I don't see a repository with an edit history. Are they indeed "open" in their edit process, and can someone readily find past versions, preferably with an edit history?

From their site:

  The Modern Literal Version was created for those who truly want to
  know what God's Koine Greek Bible says but cannot read it directly.
  The largest Bible project in English history, over a million possible
  proofreaders. The MLV is not owned by a publishing company, a
  government, foundation, bible society or a church. Open Source as in
  you (yes, you) can submit any correction that is not "Thus saith the
  Greek."  We want to be "Error-free."

Wikipedia article


texts: Could a Catholic justify remaining an active member of the Catholic Church if the Pope permits homosexuals to receive Communion?

texts: If the current Pope, or perhaps a future Pope, were to permit [active] homosexuals to receive Communion, could a [heterosexual] Catholic legitimately justify his/her remaining an active member of the Catholic Church, since it would seem that such Papal permission would be an act that teaches contrary to the deposit of faith?


texts: How can Evangelicals link baptism and circumcision without practicing infant baptism?

texts:
This question is a follow-up to this answer. In this particular answer the biblical basis for baptism being non-requisite for salvation is given. Essentially it is a defense of the doctrine that you are saved by faith alone; baptism seen as an act outside of saving faith. The part of the answer that is the subject of this question is this:

  what applied to circumcision (it follows salvation, which is by faith) applies to baptism

Colossians 2:11-12 is given as the basis for thinking of circumcision as foreshadowing baptism.

So my question is if what applied to circumcision applies to baptism, why are infants not baptized? If the answer is that infants can't be confirmed to be saved before infant baptism, then why is circumcision linked to baptism?

In order to be on topic this question must be directed at a specific group. So I ask this question of Protestant Evangelicals specifically since the article quoted in the answer that raised my question  appears to be written by a Protestant Evangelical Christian (Matt Slick). Besides, most high church Protestants do practice infant baptism, so I think this question is confined to PE churches.

I did read some of the article by Mr. Slick, but I couldn't find an answer to this question there.


texts: What is the biblical basis for free will?

texts:
I have seen several responses to theodicy questions revolving around the concept of "free will."  I am not familiar with any self-contained biblical basis for this belief (that is, no extra-biblical support is required to defend the position).

I am aware that there are several variations of the doctrine of "free will," so I would like to limit answers to "free will" defined as:

the ability of people to make their own choices (no predestination)
applicable to everyone (not limited to groups such as the redeemed)
applicable throughout time (not just before the fall; still applicable today)


texts:
In some places, the Bible uses wording like "children of God" or "sons of God". One example of this use is Genesis 6:2, and another is Galatians 3:26:

26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus.
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, [alternate translation]

I understand that many of these uses might be symbolic. Does the Bible clarify?
According to the Bible and Christian teaching, was Jesus the only Son of God?


texts:
So it is certain that you cannot remarry in Church before getting an annulment as divorce is not recognised.

But what if you never got married in Church to begin with. But instead only did a civil marriage. Then the marriage broke down and you get a divorce.

Now on the new civil marriage certificate it will show as divorcee.

So now, can you get a Church marriage done for the second marriage??


texts: What are the practical applications of "two will become one flesh"?

texts:
Mark 10:8 (NIV)

  and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What does this mean for a marriage?  What are the practical applications of this?  Obviously, this is an analogy, but what is it trying to signify?  Does sex play a role in this "becoming one flesh"?

a hint:

Does this mean that the needs of one will become the needs of the other?  Or that the happiness or sadness of one will become the happiness and sadness of the other?


texts: According to Emanuel Swedenborg, will a good person who rejects Jesus go to heaven?

texts: According to Emanuel Swedenborg, or the New Church, can a good person go to heaven if he or she rejects Jesus? If all religions are inherently good, it would mean the a good person who believes only in Allah but refuse to believe or mock the idea that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, will still go to heaven? How does the whole thing work?


texts:
Assuming the doctrine of original sin is true, how exactly is original sin passed down to the rest of mankind? Was the nature of man changed? If so, what exempted Christ from sin but allowed him to remain 100% man?

Is there a genetic inheritance of some strand of sin DNA?

What does the Bible say about this? What does Church history have to say?


texts: How many died because of immorality in the wilderness?

texts:
Why does 1 Corinthians 10:8 say that 23,000 Israelites fell in one day for committing fornication, while Numbers 25:9 gives the figure as 24,000?

1 Cor 10:8 NWT

  Neither let us practice sexual immorality, as some of them committed sexual immorality, only to fall, 23,000 of them in one day.

Num 25:9 NWT

  Those who died from the scourge amounted to 24,000.


texts: Confession and Penance in the Catholic church

texts: Why must Catholics go to a priest to confess, and then do "penance"? I don't see it anywhere in the Bible. The Bible is THE authority on God"s requirents of His people.


texts:
2 Kings 2:11 say

  And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

But John 3:13 say

  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Did John forget about Elijah?


texts: Are there any Protestant denominations or churches that reject penal substitution?

texts:
I come from a background in Protestant/Evangelical churches. The trademark salvation message in those churches is that Christ bore the wrath of God for your sins to satisfy his justice that we have offended by our sin; it's basically a teaching of the penal substitution theory woven into a call to repentance. John Piper also seems to declare the theory as gospel in his books.

Since becoming a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox church I have rejected this theory as an acceptable way to explain salvation. It is my opinion of most Protestant/Evangelical churches that they teach the theory as fact (perhaps less so in for high church Protestants).

Are there any Protestant denominations (or individual churches) that explicitly reject the penal substitution theory, and more generally the idea that Christ's death was needed to "pay" or satisfy God the Father?

For reference, the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church sometimes uses the ransom theory of atonement to explain Christ's death being a ransom paid to death. However, that is just one teaching that can help a Christian who is meditating on the meaning of His death.


texts:
I have a leather jacket that just picked up from a girl who was selling it and I didn’t notice that it had a Chimera on its back.
Truthfully, the image disturbs me a bit. I don’t want to curse my household neither my family by keeping it.
It has a lion head with a goat’s body and a serpent head at the end of its tail. I know the image of the serpent represents Satan & goats could represent unbelievers & maybe the lion could represent the enemy roaring like a lion. Please help me understand this further.
Are there any Christian traditions on this Chimerical imagery to indicate if it represents something particularly un Christian, or if it is linked to the occult?


texts:
Did Jesus command His Disciples to Worship Him?
Any verse from the Bible proves that?


texts: (Catholic view) Why do we pray for God's Kingdom to come if good people go to heaven when they die?

texts:
Here I wanted to find the Catholic view as to why we are told, e.g. in the Lord's Prayer (from Matthew 6:10) to pray for God's Kingdom to come when, on another hand, our immortal soul will end up in heaven (if we have been considered "good") when we die.

What is the purpose of God's Kingdom to come when the faithful anyway end up in heaven and the rest end in hell? What do we need the Kingdom for in this case?


texts: Why was Martin Luther attempting to change the canon?

texts:
While researching an answer to a different question, I found that Martin Luther attempted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible.

What was his purpose in removing these four books? Was it a doctrinal stance against these four books? Do these four books contain doctrines that we should, per Martin Luther, not believe?


texts: Where did Augustine say "It is certain that few are saved"?

texts: I've noticed on several sites Augustine is quoted as having said "It is certain that few are saved." Does anybody know the source? I find the quote curious because he ascribes certainty to his conviction.


texts: Would the bible draw parallels between the spies returning from Canaan and modern biblical criticism?

texts:
When the spies returned from Canaan, to verify the kind of land God was going to gives them, all but two said, among other problems, that there was 'big strong men' there. Therefore, if they tried to take the land they would be killed.

Not only did these spies doubt but the whole camp wanted to stone the two spies that had faith, as they hated their blind confidence on being able to destroy those 'big men'.

God himself says:

  “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them? (NIV Numbers 14:11)

In light of all this, I am wondering whether we can draw the similarity that many who are exposed to Christianity and feel certain 'doubts' they have are 'too big' to kill are really no different then these faithless explorers (assuming these doubts keep them from faith. ) Is it fair to say biblically that such cases are just modern intellectual honesty, or would it be reasonable to say biblically it is contempt of God, as in the case of the spies? Where does intellectual honesty turn into wicked contempt from a biblical perspective?

I am only looking for answers that are made from the scriptures. Is this a fair biblical comparison, or would the Bible not draw these parallels?


texts: What's the Protestants' view on the purpose of sacraments?

texts:
Once an orthodox priest told me that Protestants themselves don't know what they need the sacraments for. He said that since they deny the doctrine of transubstantiation and have separated themselves from Apostolic succession of the universal Church, they don't experience the partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) through sacraments, especially through Eucharist.

He also said that Protestants' assertion that the sacrament of Eucharist is only needed as a reminder is rather ridiculous as "anyone can be reminded of that through hearing a sermon or through reading the Word". He said he doesn't deny that Eucharist has a function of a reminder, but there are some way deeper things pertaining to Eucharist that Protestants completely miss out on.

Honestly, he kind of needled me by that.

However, I am asking this question not so as to argue with him in the future, but to find out what Protestants themselves have to say on this regard - how do they view the purpose of sacraments.

I address this question to all Protestant Christians, in other words to those Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the very God Himself as God the Father is, and who also believe that there couldn't be one man who would solely be a representative of God to the Church, and those who also believe that the Universal Church can be spread and grow through merely sharing and hearing the Gospel, regardless of whether or not the one who shares that Gospel belongs to the Apostolic succession.


texts:
In the following Scriptures Jesus refers to my soul:

Matthew 26:38  KJV

  Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Mark 14:34  KJV

  And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

John 12:27  KJV

  Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

In Genesis chapter 2 we are told that man became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.

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.

Succeeding generations apparently become living souls when their nostrils receive the breath of life.

In Genesis chapter 18 it appears that a pre-incarnate Jesus spoke with Abraham, since no Angel would be able to modify orders for the destruction of Sodom.

Genesis 18:26  KJV

  And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

Since Jesus the deity was there before creation Jesus the man certainly was not referring to that as his soul.

So I have wondered if a soul was formed for the human part of Jesus when he was born of Mary, or is there another Scripture I have overlooked, or some writings on this that I do not know about.


texts: Are there different views on the nature or/and understanding of the Trinity among Trinitarians?

texts:
I think I've heard people describe the doctrine differently, maybe because they do not fully grasp the so-called "mystery". I've heard someone make an argument for the Trinity while maintaining the superiority of the Father, however others would maintain the "coequal" concept.

For instance in the view on tribulation, there are pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib...

So are there established categories (so to speak) of Trinitarians?


texts: What theological problem in the Henoticon triggered the excommunication of the Patriarch Acacius, by the Bishop of Rome in the fifth century?

texts:
As I read through Oman's treatment of the Dark Ages, I am struck again and again by his references to Catholics (which seems in a contextual sense to mean Christian orthodoxy writ large) and what I read as the seeds of the Great Schism of 1054.

Before the Iconoclast dispute, the Henoticon seems to have created an uproar.  I am at a loss to understand why, beyond the usual problems of counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.   As I understand the document, it was an attempt to heal the rift between the Monophysites and the rest of Christian orthodoxy at the time.

On what theological basis did the bishop of Rome excommunicate the Patriarch Acacius, for assisting Zeon in drafting the Henoticon?


texts: How can one "buy" oil and "buy" gold, garments, and eye salve if these things can only attained by grace?

texts:
From the account of the 10 virgins in Matthew 25, and from the exhortation to the Laodicean Church in Revelation 3:14-22,  What is meant by the instruction to "buy" oil, gold, garments and eye salve? It is my understanding that these all represent items that cannot be purchased by man, but instead were already purchased by Christ's death on the cross and given to man upon acceptance of His sacrifice?

Matthew 25:1-9 (NASB):

  “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’”

Revelation 3:14-22:

  “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”


texts: How does a lamb take a scroll and break its seals? (Revelation 5)

texts:
Revelation 5 describes a vision of a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns, appearing to stand as if slain. It takes the scroll, and then goes on in chapter 6 to start breaking the seals of the scroll.

When one tries to picture this in their minds eye, how does one literally picture this? Traditionally how do people understand what John saw?

Are we imagining a human (Jesus) that is described symbolically as a lamb? Or perhaps we are imagining a lamb with seven eyes that has human like features? Or perhaps a lamb that transforms to the appearance of a man?

NB: It's worth pointing out before someone else tries to, that how a Christian pictures this in their minds eyes is likely unrelated to a Christian's theological understanding of the passage. Hence this question is not about how we understand the passage theologically, but how we envisage the vision described to us through the ancient greek language.


texts: Can a priest make disclosure of sin a part of penance?

texts:
Let us imagine that a priest is hearing confession and that a penitent confesses to a major crime, such as murder.

Can the priest tell the penitent to turn himself in as part of the penance?


texts: Why did Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet?

texts:
I don't really understand this part of the story in Luke 7:38. Why would Mary Magdalena use her hair to dry Jesus' feet? I have some clues, but I don't want to guide the replies.
I'd like to know both, the symbolism, and the spiritual meaning (what does it teach to us).

As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
(NIV)

.


texts: Please help my daughter find a childhood song from Sunday school

texts:
My daughter has only a short time left on the earth.  A very happy time of her childhood was spent with the Salvation Army as a child.  A part of her life we didn’t share.
She is consumed by a song that she sung at a talent quest at Sunday school and would love to hear it again.  I just have no idea of how to find it.  I’ve googled the lyrics and searched everywhere to no avail.
If anyone knows who sung it or where I could download a copy I would be so grateful.
Here’s what she’s singing
Dear god why is your book full of thous and thees
Do you hear my prayer when I bend my knees
Do you live in a steeple or with some other people
These are things that I’ve been wondering
Do you have to squeeze to get in my heart
If you ever sneezed would I fall apart
Is heaven full of money or just some milk and honey
These are things that I’ve been wondering
Can you answer all my questions
Even if I’m not grown up
Can you give me some suggestions
How to get as smart as you are.
Dear god.  Sometimes I just wonder about stuff like this
That’s as far as she can remember and it’s driving her dotty.
I would so love to be able to finish it for her.  She’s in her 20’s so I imagine it would be an 80’s or 90’s song.  The doctor says she has six months at best and is going downhill fairly fast.
Mothers can satisfy their kids with most things but this has me stumped.  It sounds like a silly question I know but it would mean the world to my daughter who is regressing quickly.
Please put your thinking caps on and try and help.
Thanks so much
Xx


texts: How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?

texts:
Scripture refers to an unpardonable sin in Matthew 12:31–32, Mark 3:29–30, and Luke 12:10, as well as Hebrews 6:4–6.

There's also "sin that leads to death" (1 John 5:16–17).

Given the Protestant understanding of sin, what is an overview of the doctrines they develop from these passages?  To Protestants, what is the unforgivable sin?

Related, but not tradition-specific: What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?


texts: What does "the old is better" mean in Luke 5:36–39?

texts:
36 "No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one... 37 No one puts New wine in old wineskins ...   39 no one wants the new ... THE OLD IS BETTER." (NIV)

What is this referring to?  Seems that Jesus is saying the old is better, but the OLD what?


texts: Who is the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51?

texts:
In Mark 14:51-52, there is this reference to a man:

  51 A young man, wearing only a linen cloth, was following Jesus, and the people also grabbed him. 52 But the cloth he was wearing came off, and he ran away naked.

Who is this guy? Why is he mentioned? Does he have anything to do with the current situation?


texts: Why does Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of Man"?  This is similar to Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person?, but I am specifically looking for an explanation of the "Son of Man" references.


texts: For those who deny the Immaculate Conception, why did Jesus not have original sin?

texts:
The Westminster Confession (8:2) says Jesus is of the substance of Mary:

  The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.

Calvin gives his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:22 in Institutes book 2 chapter 1 section 6:

  Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of the expression, “in Adam all died,” is, that he by sinning not only brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself fell, he infected his whole seed.

If Jesus is of the substance of Mary and Mary (a seed of Adam) is infected by Adam. How can Jesus have no sin?


texts: Did any Church Fathers believe that angels could still choose to become demons?

texts:
The Scriptural teaching regarding the nature and origin of the devil and demons has been summarized by the Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazanski:

  According to the testimony of the word of God, the origin of sin comes from the devil: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning (I John 3: 8). The word “devil” means “slanderer.” Bringing together the evidence of Sacred Scripture, we see that the devil is one of the rational spirits or angels who deviated into the path of evil. Possessing, like all rational creatures, the freedom which was given him for becoming perfect in the good, he “abode not in the truth” and fell away from God. The Saviour said of him: He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8: 44). He drew the other angels after himself into the fall. In the epistles of the Apostle Jude and the Apostle Peter, we read of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation (Jude, v. 6; compare with II Peter 2: 4).1

The Chalcedonian doctrine of the devil and demons was summarized by John of Damascus (676-749):

  He who from among these angelic powers was set over the earthly realm, and into whose hands God committed the guardianship of the earth, was not made wicked in nature but was good, and made for good ends, and received from his Creator no trace whatever of evil in himself. But he did not sustain the brightness and the honour which the Creator had bestowed on him, and of his free choice was changed from what was in harmony to what was at variance with his nature, and became roused against God Who created him, and determined to rise in rebellion against Him: and he was the first to depart from good and become evil. For evil is nothing else than absence of goodness, just as darkness also is absence of light. For goodness is the light of the mind, and, similarly, evil is the darkness of the mind. Light, therefore, being the work of the Creator and being made good (for God saw all that He made, and behold they were exceeding good) produced darkness at His free-will. But along with him an innumerable host of angels subject to him were torn away and followed him and shared in his fall. Wherefore, being of the same nature as the angels, they became wicked, turning away at their own free choice from good to evil.1

Given the premise that angels became demons by their own choice at one time, did any Church Father prior to the 4th Ecumenical Council (451) or any subsequent Chalcedonian Church Father  in the first millennium ever expound a belief that additional angels could also choose to become demons in the future?

1. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.; St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005), p.153
2. The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith in Book II, ch.4


texts: If a priest makes a major mistake during confession, can he later talk to the person to correct themselves?

texts:
Say that a person comes to confession and the priest gives bad advice or otherwise makes a major mistake during confession. To give a very clear example, say that a confession went like this:

Penitent: Father, I've murdered someone.
Priest: That's not a sin, don't worry about it.
Penitent: Really? Thanks Father!

Only after reflection did the priest realize he misheard the penitent and didn't realize he was confessing a mortal sin. The dilemma here is that he is under the seal of confession, but he made a major mistake and now the person thinks that it's okay to commit a mortal sin.
A more subtle example might be a priest hearing a confession that he was unsure was sinful, but after reflection, research, and prayer, he realizes that his spur of the moment words was incorrect.
Would the priest be allowed to talk to the person after confession, or during future confessions, in order to correct himself?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus' Human Nature was created?

texts:
I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God.  But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul.

So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?


texts: What is the basis for ascribing any fiscal policy to Jesus?

texts:
In the United States, specifically on the Right, many Republican / Tea-Party, Evangelical Christians have very little problem in ascribing a moral motive for a tight fiscal policy which restricts "wealth redistribution."   On the left, evangelicals such as Jim Wallis (Sojourners), have promoted the opposite ("What would Jesus Cut?").

While I understand the kernels of the arguments on either side (on the Right, it is unfair to redistribute wealth; on the Left, there is an extension of the "Blessed are the Poor" theology), I'd like to understand how it is that any fiscal policy is supposed to have the imprimatur of a "Biblical" theology.

Specifically, does anyone have a reference for the first religious argument on whether the United States government's budget should be larger or smaller?  Is this a product of the "Culture Wars" of the 80s, or does religious justification for fiscal policy predate this?

In other words, who is responsible for injecting Jesus into discussions of taxation and other fiscal matters? And, once we've established who conflated the two, what was the biblical rationale for doing so?


texts:
There are countless saints in the Catholic Church, and while many of them have been celibate, some have been married (e.g. Thomas More, Elizabeth Ann Seaton).

Have any married couples been canonized at the same time? Specifically, I'm looking for saints who:

Were formally canonized by the Apostolic See, rather than a local authority (so anyone following Ulrich of Augsburg in 993 AD)
Were not recognized as a saint before that time (so Mary and Joseph don't count)
Were not automatically classified as saints due to their martyrdom alone (something that is not possible under the current rules established in 1983)


texts: What 'cubit' did the Lord refer to in Genesis 6:15?

texts:
Original: Genesis 6:15, 'the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits':

According to King James Bible, Genesis 6:15, when the Lord told Noah to make an ark of gopher wood, He specified that

  'the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits'.

Romans, Egyptians, Sumerians, and Persians at least all have different measurements for a "cubit." Is there an explanation regarding how Noah known what God was talking about?


texts: Why was it necessary for some people to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands and others just received it after believing?

texts:
Some people never received the gift of the Holy Ghost until Paul gave it to them through the laying on of hands. Others it appears received it just by believing or at least it is not mentioned that they had hands laid upon them first. Is there a difference between the two types of receiving the Holy Ghost?

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

The author states that "through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given". This gives us an answer as to how some people received the Holy Ghost. Why did others receive it in some other way? Is there a difference between the Holy Ghost as it was given by Paul (through the laying on of hands), and the spirit felt by the people in the other circumstances? Both came from God, but were received differently.


texts: Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?

texts:
Christian fundamentalists argue against abortion on the grounds that fetuses have souls.  The argument starts with two premises: that people have souls while animals do not, and that the right to life goes with possession of a soul.

It proceeds by asserting that the developing fetus must acquire its soul at some instant; and because no point after conception is special enough to be that instant, it must happen at conception. (It takes hours for an egg and a sperm to unite, but they could choose some brief part of the process as the crucial "instant".)  Therefore, the argument concludes, the fetus has a soul and the same rights as a grown human.

The fetus at any given time either has a soul or it doesn't.  There is no intermediate state, no way to change gradually from soul-absent to soul-present, so the change must be instantaneous.

It is normal in quantum mechanics for an object to change gradually from state A to state B, even though there are no intermediate states between A and B.

Take for example, an electron's spin can either point up or down (along whichever axis you choose for the measurement); there is no possible intermediate value it can have.  Yet in the proper conditions can reliably and gradually convert spin-down electrons into the spin-up state, over a predictable length of time. What changes is the probability you will find State A vs State B moves gradually from 0% to 100%.

So my question is, When does the Fetus Acquire the soul and is it an instantaneous event or a continuous event.  Can someone explain this?


texts: Evidence for the authenticity of relics relics such as the True Cross?

texts: I'm wondering if there is any evidence for the authenticity of various relics such as pieces of the "true cross".


texts: Do Mormons view the LDS Church as a pure restoration of first century Christianity?

texts:
Based on the accepted answer to this question, it looks like Mormons believe that

A wide-scale falling away from first century Christianity (the
"Great Apostasy") had happened before Joseph Smith's time, and that
Instead of directing Joseph Smith to join one of the denominations
available during his time, God directed him to found a church

Based on this, do Mormons believe that the LDS church is a pure restoration of first century Christian liturgy and beliefs?

(I want to emphasize "pure restoration" as I am curious if Mormons view the church as having the same liturgy and beliefs as the first century Christians.)

Or is the LDS church a modification of the first century Christianity because God wanted some things to be done differently?

Or has the LDS church accepted man-made additions (out of necessity, tradition, or other reasons) that were not part of first century Christianity?


texts: Does a Christian have a responsibility to participate in government?

texts:
I have heard it said many times that it is the responsibility of Christian to participate in their government, specifically that every Christian has the responsibility to vote. Is there some biblical justification for this belief? I know that the government of the US is dramatically different than what existed in Biblical times, but is there some precedent set forward by scripture that would validate this?

I am wondering about the US system of government specifically, as it is largely based around citizen participation, and as an American.


texts: Why does an omnipotent God allow evil to flourish on his earth?

texts: The most common answer here will be: evil must be allowed to have free will. This is simply not true. If we are speaking of an omnipotent God that created the entire universe and any extra dimensional space we can't observe, then couldn't he have come up with something better? If not and this was the only way free will could exist, then why have it when having it means horrible things will happen to your people? Babies being raped to death, mass genocide, beheadings, starvation etc. Wouldn't a God that cared about his people realize that free will is not worth the mass destruction caused by the human race? Not to mention such atrocities as disease, which is not a necessary component for free will's existence, that also flourishes in this environment here on earth. What is its purpose? The questions asked here are rhetorical, the main question stands.


texts: What is the scriptural basis for believing that God wants us to know an action is morally, objectively right or wrong?

texts:
As a Catholic I believe that God wants us to know with certainty if any given action is morally, objectively right or wrong and that He reveals this to us in various ways.

I would like to know what scriptural evidence supports this concept.  Answers should not be concerned with mitigating factors specific to an individual's circumstances.  Only with whether God desires for us to know what is objectively right and wrong with certainty.


texts: What is the purpose of the Tree of Life according to YEC?

texts:
According to Young-Earth creationism, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life?  Genesis 3:22 says that it would make whomever were to eat from the tree immortal. But according to Young-Earth theology, all creatures, Adam and Eve included, were already immortal prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  And as soon as they did so, God banished them from the garden, at least in part, to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life.

So why create this tree in the first place? What is its purpose?


texts: Did Pope Francis declare that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church capital punishment is intrinsically evil?

texts:
The Internet is full of news that Pope Francis has amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church to forbid capital punishment under all circumstances.

One thing remains unclear for me, however:

Did Pope Francis indeed declare the capital punishment to be intrisincally evil, that is, sinful under any and all circumstances, even if / when effective incarcerination is impossible?
Or did he (merely?) state that since in contemporary times effective incarcerination is possible, it should always be used instead of capital punishment?

That second interpretation seems to be hinted by these words:

  Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

However, these words seem to hint the first interpretation:

  the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”

The distinction seems to matter because the question whether in contemporary times the States can, in all, even most extreme cases, effectively protect the lives of their citizens without capital punishment seems to not belong to the scope of "morals and faith", which is the scope of the teaching of the Church. In particular, I feel, this seems dubious in states where there is war or where the influences of organized crime are beyond control.

Context that I still feel belongs to the question: The way I used to be getting this (maybe wrongly) the Church was teaching that physical violence, while undesireable, was a rightful response to someone's unjust aggresion, whether the threat posed by this unjust aggression was immediate (as if, someone is shooting at innocent people) or recurrent (as if, an enemy state is preparing an invasion against us - hence even preventive war may be morally acceptable in certain cases; or as if a Mafia boss cannot be guaranteed to be succesfully imprisoned for a prolonged time because of his out of control influences, so the State sentences him to capital punishment before his men rescue him from prison or a corrupt judge frees him, either would most likely happen if he hasn't been executed already).

However, I have feeling, in many cases, including this one, Pope Francis amends this part of the teaching of the Church, saying that physical violence may only be permissible as a response to immediate threat, but never to a recurring threat. Which is why it may still be permissible for a police officer to shoot down a Mafia hitman if in any other case this Mafia hitman would shoot down the police officer instead; but it is not permissible to sentence said hitman to capital punishment even if because of the ongoing war with Mafia rebels he cannot be effectively imprisoned for a prolonged time. Is this interpretation correct?


texts: What is the biblical basis for a continued illness indicating unforgiven sin?

texts:
Jesus says in Mark 2:9-12 [Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed
  man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and
  walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on
  earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, “I tell you, get up,
  take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in
  full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God,
  saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”]

  Paul says in 1Corinthians 15:56-57[“Where, O death, is your victory?
  Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the
  power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory
  through our Lord Jesus Christ.]

I am not a native english speaker and am not sure how to put this accross...

From Mark 2:9-12 we may presume that when sin is forgiven the associated illness is also healed.

From 1Corin15:56-57 and related verses we could assume that sin is the cause of almost all(John 9:3) illness and ultimately death.

Say if I have an illness which i think is caused by a particular sin of mine. I go confess my sin and receive forgiveness for my sin and stop repeating that sin. Could this mean that my illness will be healed? However if the illness still remains, would it mean that my sins have not been forgiven? Are there other verses in the Bible that supports this assumption?


texts: What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Go and sin no more’ if sinlessness is impossible?

texts:
I came across these two instances in the New Testament when Jesus told someone to "sin no more."

  John 13:15 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well!  Sin no more,  that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

The second instance is in the account of the woman taken in the act of adultery.

  John 10:11 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

From the standpoint of sinlessness being impossible, what exactly did Jesus mean by saying this?


texts: Was Jesus two separate individuals in one body?

texts:
I have always been told, and I thoroughly believe that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man.

Since there are multiple occasions in the Bible where pre-incarnate Jesus apparently appeared to people, and yet we know that Jesus was  also born in human form to Mary, I feel that there had to be both a man Jesus and a deity Jesus occupying that same human body.

I hope that no-one will think that that is in any way Heretical and I certainly am not questioning the Deity of any part of the Trinity.

I have pondered that for quite some time and included the following in trying to come up with an answer.

When God created man he breathed the breath of life into only the man he created from dust. He has not breathed the breath of life into any others including Eve, and yet man continues to have the breath of life in posterity even to today.

Does this indicate that we are still sharing the same breath of life that God breathed into the first man?
God told man that when he partook of the knowledge of good and evil that that life would be demanded back for hs disobedience.
Since God is eternal is not the breath of life also eternal?
When Jesus died on the cross was it that same life given to original man that he sacrificed?
If that were so then it would fulfill the demand of God that man must surely die.
When we surrender to Christ are we too sacrificing that same breath of life given to original man.
That would tend to further explain why Jesus death on the cross gives us forgiveness for our sins.
That also helps me to understand the following scriptures:

Matt 10:39:  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my     sake shall find it.

Matt 16:25:  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose    his life for my sake shall find it.

Matt 19:17:  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good     but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luke 14:26:  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and    wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot    be my disciple.

John 5:24:  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth  on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation;   but is passed from death unto life.

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

And it causes me to believe that not only do we become a new creature when we accept Christ, but that he gives us a new eternal life.

  John 10:28 (KJV)
  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither
  shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

  John 17:2 (KJV)
  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal
  life to as many as thou hast given him.

Do any Theologians or denominations share those beliefs or am I just off my rocker?


texts: How many covenants has God established with humanity and are any of them everlasting?

texts:
I found this interesting partial quote from today’s Morning & Evening devotional by Charles Spurgeon.  It’s about the “Covenant of Grace”:

  Jesus is the representative head of His people. In Adam every heir of flesh and blood has a personal interest, because he is the covenant head and representative of the race when considered under the law of works; so under the law of grace, every redeemed soul is one with the Lord from heaven, since He is the Second Adam, the Sponsor and Substitute of the elect in the new covenant of love.

Then I found this interesting snippet which, speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Mediator, suggests that from eternity the covenant settlements of grace were decreed, ratified, and made sure forever.

My curiosity has been piqued.  Is the expression “covenant of grace” about the Abrahamic covenant established by God?  Or is it about the “New Covenant” introduced by Jesus?   Is this “an everlasting covenant”?

I invite answers from Protestants on this topic, mainly because Spurgeon was a Baptist minister.  I would appreciate a short overview (links to articles would suffice) of all the covenants established by God and whether any of them are everlasting.

Edit: As suggested, this question is about Covenant Theology


texts: Do both Godparents/Sponsors have to fulfill all the requirements?

texts: What if one of the godparents is confirmed and the other is not, but both are Catholic? For instance, what if one potential godparent is confirmed, has taken all of the sacraments so far required, and so on, but the other has only been baptized and is mildly handicapped? According to Catholic Canon Law, can they still both serve as godparents?


texts: Is it true that if we make a good confession and receive the sacrament of Eucharist on the following Sunday of Easter all our sins will be forgiven?

texts:
Did Jesus Christ promise to St. Faustina that if people make a good confession and receive Holy Communion at mass on the second Sunday of Easter they will have a fresh (forgiveness of sins and the remission of all temporal punishment due to sin) start all over again?

Or if I am wrong what was that promise that Jesus made to St. Faustina about this?


texts: how does the bible WORD FOR WORD say that homosexuality is wrong?

texts: I'm just really curious and trying to put down some speculations my friends and I have.


texts: Are there any texts that mention viruses or dinosaurs or black holes or electricity or chromosomes or explain that the stars are suns etc?

texts:
From what I've understood, there's a lot more literature than just the Bible. So does anyone know if there are texts that mention anything about viruses, dinosaurs, electricity, magnetism or life on other planets or rainbows or the function of the heart (which even 16th century medicos didn't know) or anything about the universe as we know of it today? The Old Testament mentions a lot of people who had access to God. Theoretically, any heavenly interaction with God or angels should have revealed more about the universe. Since it is believed that statements from the Bible were misinterpreted, leading to Galileo's words not being accepted, perhaps there would be texts that could have contained more information.
People talk about dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible (behemoth and leviathan), but we know that humans didn't exist at the same time as dinosaurs.
Some people point to yeast etc. to say that the Bible does mention microbes, but it does not actually explain anything about the microbes or viruses or bacteria or amoeba etc. It just describes phenomena that were commonly known, without understanding the reason behind it.
I know the scriptures are not meant to be scientific texts, but are for a more spiritual connection to God. All I'm asking is, whether there are any texts that mention any specific details (not general details, even if the wording does not match the words we use today) that God or any heavenly being who visited Earth, told humans? I'm pretty sure that curiosity would've been there. Every conversation won't have been about "how can I reach heaven?".
For example, an answer to a question could have been as simple as:

"...that person is sick because there are creatures so tiny that we
cannot see them. Those creatures attack the body internally and the
body raises its temperature to try and kill those creatures"

... or while looking toward the sea, people could've been told about how the moon exerts a force on the water, causing the tides...or an explanation about just the basics of how volcanoes or earthquakes happen...or at least the basic explanation that the sun is a star...which if it was explained, we wouldn't have had the nursery rhyme "Twinkle twinkle little star. How I wonder what you are?".


texts: Will Elijah return before the final judgement?

texts:
I just read this passage and had never heard of this prophecy regarding Elijah.

Malachi 4:5-6 ESV

  “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and
  awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers
  to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I
  come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

Taking account of this passage in Malachi, will Elijah make a re-appearance on earth at some point in the future, specifically, as it appears from the passage, at the time of or around the time of the final judgement?
Was this a fulfilled prediction of the transfiguration prior to Jesus's execution?
Was this prophecy fulfilled at some other point in the past?
Is Malachi literally talking about Elijah coming back to earth or was he speaking metaphorically?
How is this prophecy regarded or interpreted in dispensationalism (if at all). How so in Catholicism, or any of the other major Christian groups?
Also, Does this passage inform the beliefs of the people at the time of Christ, when they were confused about his identity.

Mark 6:14-15 NIV

  King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.
  Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and
  that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

  Others said, “He is Elijah.”

Mark 8:27-28 NIV

  Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea
  Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

  They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still
  others, one of the prophets.”


texts: Why was Jesus not welcomed and carefully tested by the Jews if they were (and are) actually waiting for Messiah?

texts:
I have tried to understand these things all my life. A lot of the Bible stories make no sense to me, which probably means I'm missing something. One of the biggest questions I have is this:

If the Jews were (and still are) waiting for Messiah, why did they become angry instead of overwhelmingly happy/excited from Jesus' arrival?

Let's assume that there had been numerous false Messiases prior to Jesus coming along. OK. But they are still waiting for Him, right? So why did they not have some kind of well-defined test which must be passed for them to believe that whoever claims to be Messiah truly is Messiah? Why wasn't their reaction: "Oh! Yes! Welcome, potential Messiah! Please just prove it to us right here and now and we will believe you and accept you as Messiah! If you cannot, you will be asked to leave and stop wasting our time!"

And then the person claiming to be Messiah would either fail or succeed, and then they could be either happy or angry after that point.

Why instantly assume that Jesus was a fake Messiah, before allowing him (and others) to prove it (or fail to do so before their eyes, giving them proof that it's a fake Messiah)? I don't understand it. Is the real Messiah said to arrive in some specific manner, and that's the reason why they became so furious when Jesus claimed to be Messiah? What if he had actually been Messiah, and they just crucify him like that?

Maybe this is a naive question, and I'm lacking a lot of information, but I really don't like it when I feel as if crucial information is being kept from me when these stories are retold over and over.


texts: What is the difference between lust and sexual desire?

texts:
How can two people possibly have a sexual relationship without each objectifying the other to some degree, which is lust? I was taught that lust is "excessive or unrestrained sexual desire" — assuming that I also truly love her, how much can I desire my wife before I am sinning?

I would prefer an answer that reflects the Mennonite position.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of Eternal Security?

texts:
The Doctrine of Eternal Security (also called the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that once a person truly experience salvation, that person's eternal destiny of eternal life is immutable.
What is the biblical basis or biblically-based argument for this doctrine?


texts: Did Samuel act as a priest on top of being a prophet?

texts:
Thinking about the life of Samuel, you can see that in some ways lived like a priest on top of being a prophet, despite being from the half-tribe of Ephraim.

One, he was brought up in the temple by Eli and thus lived out his life in priestly service together with the sons of Eli.

Two, he performed some duties that were traditionally assumed to be for priests. For example, by appointing leaders and offering sacrifices. In Numbers 27, it is Eleazar the high priest who commissioned Joshua. However, it was Samuel who anointed both Saul and David. In regards to offerings, in 1 Samuel 13 we see Saul waiting for Samuel to offer the burnt offering and peace offering. According to Leviticus 1, priests and the offerer were the only ones involved in making the sacrifice.

So in regards to this info, did Samuel act as a priest?


texts: Can seeking arguments against Christianity strengthen Christianity?

texts: Some take the position that some knowledge is the work of Satan.  Some take the position that critical analysis can strengthen good ideas and weaken bad ones.  Should Christians seek out information that is antithetical to their faith?


texts: Why did St. Martin give half of his cloak, and didn't give the whole?

texts:
There was a saint called St. Martin, from the city of Tours (France)
He gave half of his cloak to a poor he saw, because he felt pity for him, it was cold, and the beggar was more or less in rags.

I see the lesson in this story, but what I wonder is why he only gave half of his cloak, why not the whole coat?

I wonder if it was a real act, or an allegory (sharing when you have very little), but giving the whole wouldn't have been even more generous?

What is the (Catholic) Church's opinion about this story? Is this story known outside the Catholic Church?


texts: Does original sin have an impact on Jesus?

texts: Was Jesus subject to original sin or because he was born of the Holy Spirit and of Mary he was not born with a sin nature?


texts: It's my understanding that a Jew or even an atheist can perform a baptism if they use the proper form and matter, with the correct disposition, which is, to do what the Church intends. How can an atheist have the right intention if they do not even believe that Original Sin exists?


texts: Why do Baptists even baptize in water at all considering their "spirit baptism" views?

texts:
It is common for Baptists to take the position that any passage in scripture that sounds like its saying baptism is required for salvation is referring to "Spirit baptism." [Examples, Acts 2:38, Gal 3:26-27...]

If this is really their belief, why do they even administer the "ordinance" (their term) of "Water baptism" at all?  I mean if all references to baptism are really "spirit baptism" why even waste your time baptizing in water, and why make your beliefs about immersion and credo-baptism a distinctive to the point of calling yourself "Baptist" (and with a capital "B" to boot) if you don't think the baptism that is administered by men has any real relevance to salvation and that its only "spirit baptism" (which obviously can only be administered by God) that matters?

[Knowing my own perspective may help in formulating an answer I guess: I also believe in immersion and credo-baptism, and I believe that spirit baptism takes place in water baptism, never separate, neither before or after but always at the same time; the only exception being in Acts 10 when God diverged from the normative order to show Peter that Gentiles are acceptable candidates for baptism and not just Jews. Its possible, I suppose that Baptists mean the same thing(?) and so I guess knowing I believe this could help answer the question.]


texts: What are the reported effects of a pilgrimage to Saint James of Compostela?

texts: In Catholic traditions, pilgrimages are sometimes undertaken with a view that specific effects may adhere to the pilgrim.  For St. James of Compostela, are there specific traditions about what a pilgrimage to this site in particular can expect to happen that would be different from other pilgrimages?


texts: Jewish traditions regarding the Sabbath at the time of Jesus?

texts:
What are some of the Jewish (mishnaic) traditions regarding keeping the Sabbath, that were not specified in Torah? I am interested in knowing the traditions especially prevalent during the time of Jesus. Kindly cite either the scripture or authentic Jewish sources.

An example would be the "Sabbath Day's Journey":

  KJV Acts 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

I have heard that this is a tradition described by the Jews as a lawful distance that can be traveled on Sabbath. But don't have any Jewish sources.

Edit 1: By Mishnaic I meant the traditions that were in existence during the time of Jesus. I gather that Mishna is a compiled written form of these traditions that were created during the time intervening between Malachi and Jesus.

Further clarification:

This question is particularly relevant here at Christianity, as I am interested in traditions that the Jews accused Jesus of breaking, especially regarding those on Sabbath.
I am not interested in just Sabbath Day's Journey - but others like it. So it is not a duplicate.


texts: Creed, Encyclical, Decretal, Canon, Bull, etc - What's the difference?

texts: In Catholicism, what is the difference between a Creed, an Encyclical, a Decretal, a Canon and a Papal Bull? Are there any other decrees or formal or informal outlines of official church doctrine used by the Catholic church and  are any excluded from or exclusively used for inerrant revelation from God by the Pope?


texts: Did Mary and Joseph become rich with the presents given to them by the magi?

texts:
Scriptures tell us that the magi gave Mary and Joseph gold, frankincense and myrrh as presents. Although we do not know the amount given to them, it might not have been just a symbolic amount (e.g. 100 grams), as the magi were, apparently, representative of kings, if not kings themselves. As such, they were wealthy (and are traditionally represented as wealthy).

Is there any Christian tradition or author (e.g. Church Fathers) arguing that Mary and Joseph became rich with these gifts? Perhaps arguing what they did with these gifts? For example, maybe donated to the Temple?


texts: According to the teaching of the Reformed Church do we contribute anything to our salvation or is it all of grace?

texts: According to Reformed Theology if we need to willingly desire salvation to be saved do we contribute willingness, or receive it?


texts: How do Catholics support transubstantiation?

texts:
As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine literally* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change.

I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic.

*In the literal sense of "literally".


texts: Have any noteworthy church councils denounced Full Preterism as heresy?

texts:
Full preterists believe that all prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, including those related to the final resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment.

I have met some Protestant preterists who believe that their beliefs are in accord with the ecumenical creeds, despite language in the creeds that seems to imply that the Second Coming and other eschatological events are yet to come.

Do any Roman Catholic or Protestant councils or creeds specifically state that full preterist beliefs are heretical?


texts: Interpretation of the scripture "One Lord, one faith, one baptism?"

texts:
Ephesians 4:5 states there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Some Christians interpret this to mean that a single denomination (with its beliefs, doctrines, and practices) constitutes the "one true faith." Other Christians interpret this to mean that a group of denominations (with their collective beliefs, doctrines, and practices, which are sometimes different or even contradictory) constitutes a collective "one true faith."

What are the respective arguments for these two interpretations of the scripture?


texts: What were the editions to the KJV since 1611 and who did them and when?

texts: So the King James Bible came out in 1611 with the authorized version, then in 1769 with the standard version.  Supposedly, there were some minor spelling corrections made in the late 1800's and in 1900.  Is there anything that documents these things?  Does anyone print the standard edition any more as it was in 1769?


texts:
I have a vague notion of a quote that says something about offering everything freely, but reserving some small part as absolutely off-limits.

I seem to recall the phrasing was short and sweet. I can't put my finger on it, but I'm quite sure I've seen allusions to this used as a literary device, perhaps humorously. Is there something like that in the Bible? How does it go and what was it about?


texts: Why is the Ark always depicted as a ship?

texts:
All the depictions of Noah's Ark picture it in the shape of a ship. However, the Ark had no need for navigation. And the first known ship shaped vessels were those of the Vikings, who had harnessed the wind to make navigation possible, prior to sailing there was no bow or stern, an certainly no rudders.

Depictions of the Ark do not have sails, but do most often depict a bow, and sometimes a rudder of sorts.

The Ark only needed to float:

  Genesis 7:17  KJV  And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.


texts: Does the Bible ever mention atheism and where?

texts: Not necessarily the actual word as such. Mostly people are described as chasing after other gods. What about no gods?


texts: In the bible, who saw the light and was blinded?

texts:
I heard a quote somewhere that described a biblical character who "saw the light" and was "blinded" and "crawled" his way through a certain location.

Who is this referring to?


texts: Why doesn't the Catholic Church support female priests?

texts: Understanding that the Catholic Church has its foundation in Judaism, which is a male based religion, how does she justify the fact that women cannot administer religious rites?


texts: Isn't Israel the firstborn Son of the Lord?

texts:
We read in Exodus 4:22 that the people Israel are God's firstborn son:

  "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My
  son, My firstborn. (NASB)

So now, how can Jesus be the firstborn Son of God, let alone the only Son?

Several of the "prophecies" about Jesus mentioned in the Gospels refer to what is in fact a statement about Israel the past and present. For example Matthew describes the family of Jesus leaving Egypt and says:

  "He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what
  had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I
  CALLED MY SON."" - Matthew 2:15 (NASB)

The Prophet referred to in Mathew 2:15 is Hosea, who says:

  When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
  2 The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept
  sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols." - Hosea 11:1–2
  (NASB)

The problem I have with such interpretations of Jesus' actions as fulfilments of propecy are that they were 1) about Israel 2) statements about the past rather than predictions and 3) the behavior being described is hardly matching the character and actions of Jesus in the gospels.

How do Christians reconcile the logic of Jesus being God's firstborn son or even the only son, with the actual words of God in the Old Testament about the nation of Israel? I don't mean metaphorically, but what is the actual reality? How are the later verses in the Gospels interpreted? On the one hand they seem as "additional" interpretations of the "original" verses about Israel, but read "in the light of the Gospel". But that can't negate the original meaning, can it? In reality, which is it?


texts:
The rose together with the cross is the sign of the Rosicrucian Order as seen below:

The cross symbolizes Christianity and the rose often symbolizes secrecy (Sub Rosa).  Martin Luther's seal is also the rose and cross united (but differently):

It would be difficult to imagine that the Rosicrucians were not aware of Martin Luther or Martin Luther of them (whoever came first) and even more difficult that the similarities would happen by chance.  Therefore is there a link between the Rosicrucian Order and the Protestant Reformation?


texts: What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: "Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us"?

texts:
In 1906, Pope Pius X approved a prayer which says “Mary, Virgin Priest, pray for us.” However, a Holy Office decree of 1916 forbade the use of any image that had Mary wearing vestments – some say for fear of the possibilty of an argument for women’s ordination, others that Mary as a priest was a metaphorical image taken too far. -The Priesthood of Mary

NOTE: There is a related thread on this question but the accepted answer is Mary Virgin Priest is not a ministerial priesthood.
Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest?.
QUALIFIER
For those who believe that Mary Virgin Priest is a valid expression , what kind of priesthood does Mary possessed? Is it similar to the Sacramental Order of the ministerial priesthood instituted by Christ or is it a unique concept associated with Mary at the foot of the Cross.
SPECIFIC QUESTION
What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion;
Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us?


texts: What is the biblical basis for interpreting "born again", "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit" as different experiences?

texts:
In the New Testament we find expressions such as being "born again", being "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and being "filled with the Holy Spirit". I can't pinpoint specific denominations, but in conversations with Christians I've noticed that some of them interpret them as having different meanings. For example, some claim that all Christians by definition are born again, but only a few are baptized in the Holy Spirit, whereas others think that all Christians are baptized in the Holy Spirit at the moment of conversion. Likewise, some claim that being baptized in the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit are interchangeable expressions, whereas others affirm that these expressions indicate completely different experiences. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about: 1, 2, 3, 4.
What is the biblical basis for interpreting the expressions "born again", "baptized in the Holy Spirit" and "filled with the Holy Spirit" as different experiences?


texts: If Jesus was Emmanuel why was he named Yeshua?

texts: It was foretold that a virgin shall give birth and the new born will be named Emmanuel then why was Jesus named "Yeshua". (Isaiah 7:10) Please explain...


texts: Does the Bible list any "miracles" specifically accomplished by the Devil?

texts: Also, could you consider the Devil moving Jesus to the top of the Temple as such?


texts: Why are there differences in events within the Gospels?

texts: Why does the gospel of Matthew claim that it was Mary Magdalene who annointed Jesus's feet with oil and Luke claim it was an unnamed woman?


texts: What is the earliest Christian use of a worship leader?

texts:
Music directors existed in Old Testament times (see these 56 references). But was there such a thing as what we now call a worship leader in Christian (New Testament and early church) times? Or is it a modern (re-)invention?

Additional information: we know that hymns were sung in Biblical times, including by Jesus and the disciples. And we know there were gatherings of thousands. These two facts suggest to me the early church may have worshiped in large groups, which would imply someone coordinating it. But I have no idea if that resembles a modern worship leader.


texts: Jehovah's Witnesses's teaching on the Church

texts:
I just read a wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses, visited their official website, and was quite surprised that in the list of their believes there is a striking absence of the definition (or at least description) of their concept of the Church.

According to what I can see at the moment, they are only using the word "church" or plural "churches" in reference to the numerous religious groups in the main-stream Christianity (which they consider all to be in apostasy), while they themselves prefer to speak about the Kingdom, rather than the Church.

Is it a result of their special translation of the Bible (in which many words were translated quite differently from the way it is done in the majority of Bible translations, for example, in many places the word that is translated in other translations as "fellowship" in their translation is rendered as "sharing") or am I simply missing out on something here?

What's their concept of the Church? What's their teaching on the Church? When did it start? How long has it been around? Has it always existed since it was started or, perhaps, it was over at some time and then re-stated again?


texts: Why is dividing 'event' versus 'process' driven views of justification important to separate Catholic and Protestant theology?

texts: In studying Roman Catholic theology it took me so so long before it dawned on me that justification is not viewed as an event as it is in Protestant theology. Why is this single concept so critical in dividing Catholic from Protestant theology?


texts: Are couples with secular marriages not allowed to serve in their Catholic parish?

texts:
Are couples who are not married in the Catholic Church, but are married civilly, really not allowed to serve in their parish?

What I mean by "serve" is to act as a head of a particular parish organization or even as a lector.

Kindly give me the exact law on this.


texts: What does Western Catholic infant baptism and confirmation involve, especially with regard to being identified as a Catholic?

texts:
My son’s grandmother was Roman Catholic and she wanted us to have him baptised without delay.  However, given we did not intend to bring him up in the Catholic faith, that would not have been possible.  I found lots of information in this article: Infant Baptism.

I am also aware that confirmation takes place later, at around age 7, the age of discretion.  Source: Confirmation

Since then, I have wondered if baptised infants of Catholic parents are identified as being a member of the Catholic Church.  Is a baptismal certificate given to the parents, and, if so, what does it say?  Or does a child not become a recognised Catholic until after confirmation?  And what obligations and responsibilities does that confer upon the child?


texts: Is it hypocritical for Paul to circumcise Timothy in Act 16:3?

texts:
Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)
   1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

The answer could be right here 'because of the Jews who were in the those parts', however, it seems hypocritical especially given other texts like Galatians 5, where he is harshly admonishing the Galatians who were even thinking about getting circumcised, presumably (and similarly) because of the Jews as well.

  Galatians 5:2 (NIV)
  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be
  circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.


texts: Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination?

texts:
Assuming that one believes in an almighty Lord, why should one choose a particular Christian congregation or denomination?

For example, why should one choose to serve God by helping the poor through the Salvation Army instead of doing so through the Opus Dei, or through Baptists, or through the Catholics?

As long as one lives in a moral fashion, why would God care that our money, faith, efforts and time go through a particular human congregation or another?

It seems to me that there is no particular reason for preferring one denomination over another, and most of them are quite similar, so maybe it's also OK to choose any church to be saved.

To be more specific, I don't care why I should choose denomination or congregation A over B, but why I should choose one at all.


texts: Does Jesus's name lose authority in other languages? (Catholic)

texts:
The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language
  originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a
  rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישוע), also having the variants Joshua
  or Jeshua. In a religious context, the name refers to Jesus, the
  central figure of Christianity.

Luke 1:31

  You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him
  Jesus.

The angel actually said,

  you are to call him Yeshua.

What is the Catholic explanation for translating Jesus's name? Jesus's name should be original because that's what the angel said his name is.

In my native language, we don't say "Juraj Krik". Do you know who is Juraj Krik? No! It's George Bush. Nobody actually knows him under the translated name either. Everyone knows him under his English name.

Why is it ok to translate Jesus's name? Doesn't the translation diminish the authenticity or even the authority of his name? Or what really matter is the person's individual attitude towards the name? Well, from the history we can see that it also matters when it comes to how we use the form, not just the content.  We can also see that during exorcisms, I think they mostly use the Latin translation.

Note: Adam & Eve stayed the same almost in all languages. So if Jesus is new Adam, his name should be the same in all languages too.


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses exclude pagan influences from their doctrine?

texts: To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses try to exclude pagan influences from their practice.  Whether or not they do, what is their reason for doing this?


texts: What vehicle did God use for Jonah to receive this word?

texts:
The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
  3 But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the Lord. (Jonah 1:1-3. NIV)

It does not say in the text how the word was delivered to Jonah. Can someone explain to me how he received the word. Was it through a vision, dream or direcly from mouth of God?

Are there any Christian Traditions that explore this subject.


texts: Why is "being created" considered an imperfection?

texts:
I've seen the uncreated God contrasted many times to the created angels, Satan, and humans, and etc. Being created is counted against the latter category as a mark of imperfection which God does not bear.

However I don't really see why being created is an imperfection.  Surely something can be created and be created perfectly, right?  To become perfect?

Is there a way to understand this through the bigger picture of what perfection is?  Or is this something that must be understood on its own?


texts: New Testament terms for the people of God

texts: I commonly hear Christians refer to themselves either with that terms, "Christians," or as "believers". However, when I read the New Testament, particularly Paul's epistles, these do not strike me as the foremost terms that are used to refer to the people of God. In the New Testament, and particularly from the Acts of the Apostles onwards, what terms are used to refer to Christians, and with what frequency? Which are most prominent? I am particularly interested in the relative frequency of "Christian," "believer," and "saint," but an inclusion of other titles would also be helpful.


texts: Was "love your enemies" ever included among the evangelical counsels?

texts:
In Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin accuses his scholastic opponents of considering the commandment "Love your enemies" to be optional. Specifically, he says that they call it an evangelical counsel, to be kept by monastics but not Christians in general.

  The scholastic doctors made simple "counsels" of the commandments in which our Lord told us not to seek revenge and to love your enemies; they say one is free to obey these counsels or not. They have said that it is only monks who are obliged of necessity to keep them - monks to whom they have ascribed a more perfect righteousness than to other Christians - because monks are obligated to keep the "evangelical counsels", as they call them.  1

Similar language had appeared in the Augsburg Confession (1530), article XXVII.54:

  They hear that it is an evangelical counsel not to seek revenge; therefore some in private life are not afraid to take revenge, for they hear that it is but a counsel, and not a commandment.

  Audit consilium Evangelicum esse de non vindicando: ideo alii in privata vita non verentur ulcisci, audiunt enim consilium esse, non præceptum.

I thought that the evangelical counsels were limited to chastity, poverty and obedience. This is certainly the case today, according to Canons 598-601 of the Code of Canon Law.

While the whole topic of "precept vs. counsel", or supererogation, has been a divisive topic, I am curious about the specific example, rather than whether it's a valid distinction at all.

Was there a contemporary group of scholastics that taught this, or were Calvin and the others simply incorrect about Catholic doctrine?
If they were wrong, did anybody point that out at the time?

1 This is from the 1541 French edition, translated by Elsie Anne McKee (Eerdmans, 2009), in chapter 3, "On the law", p161. In the 1599 Latin edition, the corresponding text is in Book II, Chapter 8, paragraph 56; the Latin uses just consilia instead of consilia evangelica.


texts: Does God feel and appreciate the resiliency of our suffering?

texts:
First of all, this is not meant to be a personal posting. I just want to know how God feels about the intense suffering of others who really love and care for Him in the midst of their utmost suffering. So this witness to suffering and this posting. I want to know what the Bible says on this topic.

If a person is psychologically ill with 6 different illnesses and has been suffering for over 22 years, went through 3 MRIs, 2 CAT scan, 1 endoscopy, 2 CT scan, 3 ECG, 1 EEG, myriad blood, urine, and stool sample testing, 11 times to emergency section of all the hospitals in the city, have personal problems, housing problems, financial problems, other burning problems, tested all the meds in the pharmaceutical market and current one suits him best but made him intellectually inferior, created concentration problem and lethargic behavior, when he uses subway or bus or any transit system he has intense headache because of his illnesses and he is still upbeat and resilient about it, does God appreciate his honesty and resiliency?

Does God know how much he cares about Him and how much he loves Him that he accepted all these suffering in his life looking at the cross-section of two lumber bars?

He eats healthy and works out every day. Go to the doctor's office every week. Go to therapy sessions. He is trying hard to harder to hardest after every single new day to get better. He doesn't care if God will return his health, wealth, life and job back like Job in the Bible, but this he knows he loves God very much. He loves Him so much that still he laughs and smiles amid his intense pain, suffering, and torment. He doesn't feel miserable or asks for pity at all.

Instead, I want to know where in the Bible it has been stated that God feels the suffering of that man like that distressed man does and appreciates his strong resiliency against all the vice in his life?

“We are hard-pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:8–9)

St. Paul It is in our suffering that we find strength.


texts: Biblical support of a Quadrichotomous view of Man

texts:
There are two common views of the Nature of Man - the Dichotomous, and the Trichotomous.

However, a Quadrichotomous view can also be drawn from Jesus' answer to the challenge of what is the greatest commandment (Luke 10:27)

  And he answered, "You shall 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 your neighbor as yourself."

or (Mark 12:30)

  and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

What other verses/teachings support the four-fold view listed in Luke and Mark? Is this a valid view, or is it something akin to a Hebraism using repetition to enforce a point?


texts:
Today, while reading Exodus, I noticed a possible link between communion as defined in the New Testament, and priests eating the flesh of sacrifices as mentioned in the Torah.  I haven't studied this in depth, so my question is: Is there a basis in the Mosaic Law for Communion?

Here is the passage in Exodus (with more details in the rest of the chapter):

  You shall take the ram of ordination, and boil its flesh in a holy place; and Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram and the bread that is in the basket, at the entrance of the tent of meeting. They themselves shall eat the food by which atonement is made, to ordain and consecrate them, but no one else shall eat of them, because they are holy.

  Exodus 29:31-33 (NRSV)

It appears that the priests were supposed to eat the flesh of the sacrifice and the bread, the food by which atonement is made.  In communion we eat bread that represents Jesus' flesh, who was our sacrifice, and atoned for our sins.  As Christians, we are holy and priests and are therefore allowed to partake in communion.

A follow-up question would be: Why do we drink wine representing Jesus' blood when drinking blood was absolutely forbidden by the Mosaic Law?