texts: What does Trinitarian Protestantism understand by salvation being in the name of 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth'?

texts:
Peter had the following words to say to the rulers, elders and scribes in Jerusalem regarding the healing of the lame man at the temple :

... the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth ... neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
[Acts 4: 10, 12 KJV]

What is understood by Trinitarian Protestantism that salvation is by the 'name' of Jesus Christ and, more specifically, by the name 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth' ?
Do Protestants understand that this is a matter of 'identification' possibly, or a matter of 'location', that is to say identifying and locating God himself in his manifestation in the Person of the Son of God ?
Is this, according to Trinitarian Protestantism, a matter of identifying and locating the one true God that one might call upon him (and him only) for salvation ?
It is noticeable that the apostle does not say 'Jesus Christ of Bethlehem', but 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth'. Does Trinitarian Protestantism have any light to shed upon this ?


texts: Have Jehovah's Witnesses always been politically neutral?

texts:
This is a follow-up that I wanted to ask after reading this other question.

When I was looking for information on Jehovah's Witnesses and Christmas, I found this article at wol.jw.org that explains why JWs stopped celebrating Christmas in 1927 (the article has a photo titled "The last time Christmas was celebrated at Brooklyn Bethel, 1926").

The answer to this other question however was mentioning political neutrality, saying that:

  Jehovah's Witnesses do not take part in this world's politics

So based on that they used to celebrate Christmas I wanted to ask if the political neutrality was something that also came later.

Edited to add two more questions:

Have JWs always been politically neutral, or did they in the past
e.g. vote in elections or support one party over another?
Does this political neutrality thing mean that JWs do not
meet with U.S. Presidents or other political leaders to discuss
policies, or have such meetings ever happened?
Does it mean that JWs do not sign national anthems such as "Star
Spangled Banner" as part of their church services?


texts: Do Christians receive the same inheritance as Messianic Jews?

texts:
I know that in Christ there is complete redemption for both Jew and Gentile but it seems as though God has made specific promises to the house of Israel and that God throughout the bible shows special affinity toward Israel.

The promise of Israel was that they would rule all the nations from Jerusalem and that all the material blessings of God will flow from Israel to the other nations.

God also refers to Israel as his firstborn among the nations and according to the royal pattern God has set, the first born always receives the largest inheritance among his siblings.

So in patristic perspective, do the Jews in Christ receive a particular inheritance while Gentiles also receive a great yet definitively different inheritance?

The Jews in Christ will inherit the land of Israel. Will Gentiles rule in Israel with Jews or will Gentiles inhabit / rule their own respective nations in Christ, i.e Russia, China, Central African Republic, Japan, Germany, India, etc.? What is the protestant view on this?


texts: What do the woman and the man child from Rev.12 symbolize, for diferent traditions?

texts:
In the book of Revelation, chapter 12, verses 1 to 6, we read a story about a Woman, a Dragon and a man child.

  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the
  sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
  stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained
  to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and
  behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven
  crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars
  of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before
  the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as
  soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to
  rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto
  God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where
  she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a
  thousand two hundred and threescore days.

  Revelation 12:1-6

Ok, at the verse 9, we are told that the Dragon is Satan, the Devil, the old Serpent. Therefore, no mistery about this character.

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil,
  and Satan [...]

The question

Once we know that the Dragon is Satan, I would like to know an overview of interpretations held by diferent christian traditions.

A good answer will contain at least one commentary reference per view.

A good answer may contain a list of diferent traditions observing the following pattern:

Tradition or denomination name

Woman: meaning
Man child: meaning

Explanation and commentaries, if needed.


texts: How was Moses able to speak to over 600,000 people at once?

texts:
This is a followup question to the question about Jesus speaking to crowds of 5,000 people without audio installation.
The book of Exodus says that Israelites had 600,000 men of fighting age. And often it has paragraphs like this:

Exodus 35:4
Moses said to the whole Israelite community, "This is what the LORD has commanded:

There are many, many more examples like this. Sometimes, when Moses says something, and then events happen that affect the whole community:

Numbers 16:31 (NIRV)
31 As soon as Moses finished speaking all of those words, what he had said came true. The ground under them broke open. 32 It opened its mouth. It swallowed up those men. In fact, it swallowed up everyone who lived in their houses. It swallowed all of Korah’s men. And it swallowed up everything they owned. 33 They went down into the grave alive. Everything they owned went down with them. The ground closed over them. They died. And so they disappeared from the community.

So, how was a community of at least 600,000 males able to hear Moses when he addressed them? That is 30-times more people than would fill Madison Square Garden.


texts: Does the Bible explain why God chose Israel?

texts: There are many nations in the world. And surely there were many in the times of Abraham and Moses. Does the Bible tell us why God choose only to lead the Israelites and not the rest?


texts: Why (and when) did the empty cross v.s. crucifix split happen?

texts:
Today, we have Catholic and Orthodox churches (and a few others) using the crucifix whereas most Protestant denominations make exclusive use of an empty cross.  When and why did the Protestant churches reject the crucifix as an icon?

I have read this, but the answer exclusively addresses the empty cross's preferential use in the the very early church.  I worry about Manichaeistic influences on that point, but, more importantly, I want to know why the modern Protestant factions do this, not why the very early church did this.  If the modern Protestant factions do this for the same reasons as the early church (from what I understand: fear of persecution, discomfort with bodily images of Christ, feeling that images of Christ's humanness lessens his divinity) having those reasons explained from a Protestant perspective nonetheless would be helpful to me.

I am making the assumption that it is the newer churches that have changed.  If this is incorrect, please point this out and explain why all of the older churches took up the crucifix after the Reformation.


texts:
There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

  Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
  Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
  Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men.
  The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
  The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images.

Top 5 Sins Against the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Why are the offenses against Blessed Virgin Mary are called blasphemies instead of sin?

Looking for Catholic Foundational Teaching and explanation on blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary.


texts: What Scriptures tell us what man having free will actually means?

texts:
I have been given many different opinions as to what having free will actually means. Some have said that it means only that we have a choice of whether or not to accept salvation, others have said it is the choice of whether to choose good or evil. Others tell me it is both. It seems that there are as many opinions as there are people.
So I tried to find out if there were some Scriptures which would answer that question, but so far there has not been any answer given me by the Holy Spirit.
So I have decided to ask if you can point me to some Scriptures which will clear this up.
All Scriptures quoted are from the King James translation.
These are the Scriptures I have already considered, and what I have discerned from them so far.

Genesis 1:29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

At this point God has not put any restrictions on what to eat, and so no free will is indicated.

Genesis 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

At this point; and I am unsure if this is the same as verse 1:29 or not; God has placed a restriction on what to eat and therefore man has a choice, however he does not at this juncture have the knowledge of good and evil.
That sort of leads me to dismiss the parts about choosing salvation, and whether or not to choose good or evil.
My consternation comes from the fact that if man did not have free will at this time, why would God place the restriction in the first place?
Then I considered that free will was just another way of saying that man had the ability make  choices. Choosing entails reasoning, and reasoning entails having knowledge. And not only does it require knowledge, but it requires that we have knowledge of more than one option.
So prior to verse 2:17 even though man may have possessed the ability to choose he did not have an option based on the fact that he had no knowledge that there were repercussions for eating from that one tree.
So; erroneously or not; I have concluded that free will is actually a process in which man is alternately infused with options and knowledge of consequences.
To this end I have come to believe that up until Jesus died on the cross and rose again from the dead, that man never had free will as far as salvation is concerned, and even now until all people are given the Gospel they do not have free will as far as salvation is concerned, and may be the reason God has not sent Jesus for the second coming, since Jesus said:

Matthew 24:14  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Are there any Scriptures which I have overlooked that would alter my conclusions.


texts:
I've heard a little bit about this passed around from our fellowship as well as a few of my friends. They explanations were hard to follow, and trying a Google search just got me a bunch of information about Britain and Palestine mandates, which appear to not be related whatsoever. From what I understand though, it's about praying for Israel and it's Messianic believers.

Is this all it is? Or is there more? I'd love some articles on it to read up on, so if the answer could source some that'd be great!


texts: Does Catholicism consider bisexuality and asexuality sinful?

texts:
I am curious: do Catholics believe that bisexuality and asexuality are sins?  I understand that they believe homosexuality is a sin, but I wonder about these orientations as well.

I ask this because of a specific incident where some Catholics I know told me that my asexuality is a sin and that they did not want to associate with me because of it. It seemed odd to me because all other Christians I know have no problem with it.


texts: What is the Catholic Church's explanation of its listing of the Ten Commandments?

texts:
From Decalogue in Exodus 20:2-17 (RSVCE) and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 (RSVCE) has the the Catholic Church explained in her history and Tradition how she settled on this list of the Ten Commandments?

One accusation against the Church is that they can then get away with making graven images.


texts:
I was reading the answers to How is original sin transmitted?, when it occurred to me: isn't this contrary to scripture? Specifically:

Ezekiel 18:20

  The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

How does this tie together with the idea of "inheriting" blame from The Fall?


texts:
(Note: This is in Holland)

A Catholic Charismatic woman desired to have her baptism blessed by immersion in water (she had been baptized as a child in the Catholic church).

She presumed that it was not possible for the blessing of her baptism by immersion by the Catholic Church. (This is not the problem)

Problem: So she went to a Evangelical church and they did baptized her by immersion; she not being aware of the consequences of her actions.

When the local Catholic priest found out about her action, he told her, in front of the whole congregation, that she was not allowed to receive Communion anymore. She, being a daily communicant, was of course devastated to tears.

Is this a correct answer?

As far as I have researched: She, having no knowledge of the law and of the
penalty means that she did not defy the authority of the Church. Through the sacrament of confession, if she repents for not knowing the penalty of her action, then she would be welcomed back to full communion in the Church and can receive Communion again. It is best to do this with the priest who first gave her the restriction. Is this a god response to send the woman? See the code of Canon Law 1312, 1358.

Is this a correct opinion?

In my opinion, the priest should also ask her forgiveness for his public tactlessness baptism for forbidding her to receive Communion during the Liturgy. He should have first talked to her in private.


texts:
I've watched a lot of horror movies and I can't help noticing Satan or any demons are often portrayed 'diabolically' laughing somewhere in the movie. But then, Satan is supposed to be our prosecutor* at the Last Judgement and a professional prosecutor would NOT laugh for other reasons. So, my question is - are there any facts in the Book or elsewhere confirming that Satan indeed laughs?

* I got the idea that Satan will be our prosecutor from the Book of Revelation but please also explain that imagery if my interpretation is wrong.


texts: Caesar Augustus' census in Luke 2 - is it a-historical? Fabricated story?

texts:
Luke 2 speaks of a census by Caesar Augustus that everyone should go to their town of birth to be counted/enrolled.

I recall, from a number curses on "historical Jesus", that there is a claim that no census of this type was ever recorded before, or since, that it was never roman way of performing a census, and that we ought to have records of such a massive movement of people as it would entail.

Argument of course is, that Luke 2 a fabricated story in order to prove Jesus royal lineage.

Does anyone know how much truth there is to this argument?


texts: What narrative purpose does the Flood story fulfill?

texts:
In the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth, the gods are rash, foolish, even weak.

Genesis copies most of the myth. And although it's sanitized quite a bit, some actions seem to be inconsistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God. God decides one moment that all animals must be killed 6:7, and the next that Noah must save them all himself 6:19–20. All humanity is evil and must be purged, except for Noah, but Noah is punished with spending the better part of a year on a tiny boat filled with polar bears. At the end God promises never to try the scheme again 8:21, apparently one step from an outright apology.

What higher narrative purpose does this myth fulfill, that it's included in the Bible despite its extremely subversive origins and troublesome implications?


texts: How was John the Baptist, as a child, protected from Herod's soldiers?

texts:
At Matthew 2:16 (RSVCE) we read:

  Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.

Now, the village of Ein Karem  (also Ain Karem) where John the Baptist is believed to have been born, is in the neighborhood of southwest Jerusalem. Naturally, his place would have also been targeted by Herod's soldiers. Are there any authentic writings, say in the collections of Catholic Church, on how the child John was protected from the soldiers?


texts: What did Jesus mean by saying "only a few find the narrow gate"?

texts:
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
  road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small
  is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few
  find it. (Matthew 7:13-14, NIV)

For any individual to enter the kingdom of God, it is necessary to use a gate. Why is it true that so few find this gate?


texts: Assuming young-earth creationism, could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?

texts:
I some times wonder when God made the garden, to beautify it, the trees for example must have been differing height and width.  Therefore, assuming a literal 7 day creation, if Adam were to cut a tree, the day after he was created, would he have found thick trees with several rings?

Would Adam really be able to determine how old the world was studying rocks, trees, etc.? Was science prevented from ever understanding creation by virtue of its incomprehensible design on day one?

Would a rock's radioactive print seem like a billions years old, when only one day old? How would a fully created universe seem like a day old? Would not some things appear to have started motion long ago to reach the place where they were created?

That is a lot of questions but it is really one: 'Could Adam calculate the age of the earth using science?'


texts: What are the differences between Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic?

texts: I've heard the terms Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic since I was little, but I have never understood what, if any, are the differences between the two.  Why the differentiation of the two?  What makes them seperate?  How did they come to be seperate?


texts: Like the title, does God love forever, unconditionally? I can't think of a being who is supposed to be more loving than God, so this is kind of a big question for me.


texts: How can I find a New York City (preferably Manhattan) church that holds to historic premillennialism (post-trib rapture)?


texts: a/pre/post Millennialism summarised with bible verses?

texts:
Is there a definitive resource that outlines the views and the bible verses they use to support those views? Or are these views so hopelessly broad that its impossible to clearly define them?

There seems to be so many books and internet resources it would take a millennium to read them all. Some short but seemingly inconsistent with each other, some far to long to be useful, and some providing general summaries of the views, but not showing bible verses that lead/support the views of that camp. Is it not possible to get a clear simple answer?


texts: If we want to know what the Bible says about an issue, what methods can help us to find all the relevant scriptures? Particularly if someone is looking for a "clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture" (source). A sola scriptura perspective is sought.


texts: Are Followers of Christianity Allowed to Love Whomever They Choose?

texts:
I'm new to this site and hoping to understand more about Christianity. I was taught some about Christianity in my younger years and try to leverage that to understand more about Christianity sometimes, but sometimes it leaves gaping holes in my knowledge and understanding. I think this may be one of those instances. I may be incorporating some misunderstandings from what I've heard so hopefully you can forgive me if I misspeak.

While talking with one of my friends about her future as a Christian, eventually the topic turned to her future family. She explained that since she was little she had always dreamed of falling in love and getting married to essentially prince charming. I feel like this is a pretty common dream among young girls. As her thoughts poured out though, she continued to share that perhaps that wasn't a possibility. Not only might it not happen like in a fairytale, but there were more complications. What if she fell in love with somebody who wasn't a Christian? What if she fell in love with somebody that wasn't going to live where God called her to live? I could go on, but you can imagine the flavor of these suppositions.

This made me really sad. I'd like to see my friend happy. That didn't seem to align with my understanding of a Christian God. My question is hard to ask, but I guess. Is that a possibility? She can't be the first person to ever face this, in fact I would bet it's frequent. So is it possible that God would ask his followers to walk away from love in interest of his plan? I understand it could be swept under as that "not really being love", but if that's going to be the answer, I don't think I can just settle for only that. I would hope for at least some context of why things had to be that way.

I realize that me disliking something doesn't change whether or not it's correct from a Christian standpoint, but I've found that understanding and learning more can help with these situations. I know you may not be able to give me a full answer, but I have no idea where to even begin looking for answers to this. I'm also not just asking for an answer to this without any work, but this is important to me and I feel completely lost.

So I guess to sum it all up:

are followers of Christianity allowed to love whomever they choose?

If not, are they called by God to leave those that they love?

EDIT

While I feel those are my questions I want answered, I see they are strongly opinion and interpretation driven (potentially). With that in mind, I guess I would redone my question to this:

I believe that people have likely struggled with the choices associated with love. What scripture (or other helpful insight) can I reference for guidance in answering these questions?

Thanks in advance, I really look forward to finding answers.


texts: When is the first time in church history we find a prayer ending with "in Jesus' name, amen"?

texts: It is commonplace in Christianity today to close prayers "in Jesus' name, amen".  I don't see any prayer in the apostolic writings prayed in this way.  When does this first emerge in history?


texts: Did Waldensians believe in unconditional election?

texts:
I have read about the history of the Waldensians. It appears they were largely honorable in their dealings; unfortunately it is hard to know exactly what they believed prior to their accepting Presbyterianism because their persecutors seem to have destroyed much of their culture.
Today I saw a sermon of Charles Spurgeon on election. In it he makes the claim that Waldensians taught that people were "chosen [for salvation] ... not for any attitude, faith, or holiness that He foresaw in them" which I understand to be equivalent to Calvinism's doctrine of unconditional election.
Here is the quote from the sermon:

I have copied from an old book one of the articles of their faith:
That God saves from corruption and damnation those whom He has chosen from the foundations of the world, not for any attitude, faith, or holiness that He foresaw in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ Jesus His Son, passing by all the rest, according to the blameless reason of His own free will and justice.

Can anyone confirm if Spurgeon's quote comes from a genuine Waldensian
document? Are there any clues at all that their belief in God's choice of the elect did not depend on the possibility or probability of faith that He foresaw in them?


texts: What are the differences in belief regarding Hesychasm between the Chalcedonian (Eastern) and Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental) Orthodox Churches?

texts:
I got into a discussion recently regarding the differences (or lack thereof) between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  I'm aware that the Oriental Churches are Miaphysites, while the Eastern Churches are Dyophysites.

My question is, has the above difference in Christology resulted in a difference in the understanding of the level of union with God a Christian can experience in this life?

A claim was made during the discussion I was in that the Oriental Orthodox Churches deny the it is possible for a person to enter into hesychastic prayer with God in which the mind, body, and soul are engaged in perfect, united prayer to God.  The Eastern Orthodox defend hesychasm as a central Tradition.

Is this claim actually true of the Oriental Churches?


texts: Early Christians who Defended Licitness of Non-Procreative Sex?

texts: Were there any early Christians who defended non-procreative sex as licit?


texts: What is the significance of transubstantiation?

texts:
During the Eucharist ceremony where the Priest says some words and then transubstantiation takes place, what is the significance of this event?

I realize this is derived somehow from the last supper verse, but what does it mean?

Transubstantiation means the wine and bread literally become the blood and flesh of Jesus.

What does it mean to drink the blood and eat the flesh of Jesus?


texts: What compelled the fishermen to "immediately" follow Jesus?

texts:
The Gospel of Matthew describes Jesus' call of Peter, Andrew, James, and John:

As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him. He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.
(Matthew 4:18–22, New American Bible; emphasis added)

Luke doesn't use the word "immediately", but he does say:

When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything and followed him.
(Luke 5:11, New American Bible; emphasis added)

Since the fishermen Jesus called were apparently busily occupied with work and family and presumably did not know Him, why were they compelled to "leave everything" and "immediately" follow Him?


texts: How do Mormon missionaries learn foreign languages so quickly?

texts:
Latter-day Saints who choose to serve missions enter a Missionary Training Center for just 2-10 weeks before they go out into their assigned areas for the remaining 18 or 24 months.

Since many serve in foreign countries, they learn a new language while in training, and many missionaries are fluent after about a year.

What techniques are used to teach LDS missionaries, and how to they get away with doing so in such a short span of time? Would the LDS church claim that it's related to the gift of tongues?


texts: Why is Christianity so despised in the World?

texts:
Since its inception, Christianity has been ill received through out the world. This is true not only of people, but of Governments as well.
It is easy to understand why the Sanhedrin was so opposed to Jesus, since he was messing up their little playhouse, but since the main themes of his teachings were peace and harmony, why are these ideas so abhorrent?

John 13:34  KJV A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Matthew 22:21  KJV  They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's
Matthew 5:7  KJV  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Are these precepts so opposed to the power struggles and quest for riches that most societies believe they must be eradicated?
What are the arguments used that vilify Christianity?


texts: What do Christians mean by "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross" and why?

texts:
Having a bit of holiday over Christmas and New Year I'm going over some notes I've made of topics I want to look at.

One such question regards the use of terminology such as "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross".

I've read a little and seen that there's a variety of perspectives (from perhaps "sickness is something that shouldn't affect Christians" to perhaps a focus on the full-application being in the future kingdom) that this statement could cover, but I'd be interested to see if anyone could give me the background texts to support such a statement (one would not have to agree with the exegesis to present the texts used to support the doctrine).

One commonly referenced text would be Isa 53:4-5 which concludes

  and with his wounds we are healed

I'm interested in seeing what is the range of ideas that "Jesus took our illnesses" covers and what key texts are used to build up that argument.

I hope that's reasonably clear!


texts: According to Protestants, what is the biblical basis of Jesus being "one substance with the father"?

texts:
The only place in scripture where the relationship of the substance of Jesus with the substance of God that I can find in the scriptures is To the Hebrews:1:3 which actually says that they are of similar substance:

  Heb 1:3  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint
  of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
  After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of
  the Majesty on high,

So where did they come up with the notion, according to "sola scriptura" Protestants?


texts: Is Tim Keller's view of idolatry Biblical?

texts:
I just finished reading Tim Keller's Every Good Endeavor. In it, he says that in Ezekiel, there is a part where it talks about idols within the heart, "which involves making good things into ultimate things". Also, in one of his sermons, he brought up the fact that Martin Luther says that the 1st commandment underlies all the other commandments, since not putting God first and foremost (even above the good things in life) is what causes one to lie, cheat, steal, etc.

I would like to know if this view of "idolatry" is Biblical (since I read some opposing views somewhere else). If so, could you please provide me with relevant verses from the Bible.

For my part, I can see what Keller/Luther are getting at, and it seems to agree, somewhat, with Paul's assessment that whatever is not from faith is sin. However, it seems to downplay the seriousness of sin as something violating God's Law.


texts: Does the Bible support slavery and (white) superiority in the context of American slavery?

texts:
Slavery existed as a fact of life in the ancient world, and the Bible mentions slavery in many places.

When the Bible speaks of slavery, is it supporting it, or merely describing it? Does the Bible encourage slavery, merely condone it, or is it actively against it?
What Scripture addresses the treatment of slaves, and how does this compare with how other nations in the same time period addressed their slaves?
Along these same lines, what was the role of Christians in the slavery debate? Since the status of Africans was in many ways the philosophical underpinning of their servitude, were there any particular denominations that were distinguished in their rejection of this prevailing attitude.

Put another way, are passages about slavery in the Bible prescriptive or descriptive in their treatment, and did the Bible have any discernible impact on the actual practices of Christians?


texts: Why are verses missing in the Psalms in my Bible?

texts: Today, to my surprise, I discovered that Bible in my native Georgian language is not complete. I have checked several sources and compared to English and Russian Bibles, and there are missing verses in Psalms.  For example, Ps 109 has 31 verses but in the Georgian one it has 7 verses only.  Other chapters have similar issues, but I haven't checked other books. Why is this so?  It can't be that they could not translate them.


texts: Besides JWs, are there other Christian denominations where meetings regularly consist of congregation-wide study sessions?

texts:
I have been in quite a few Jehovah's Witnesses meetings at their Kingdom Hall and am a bit intrigued about the meeting format.

All the Sunday meetings consist of a 30-minute talk (I take this would be referred to as a "sermon" in other denominations), given by an elder. This is followed by the Watchtower study which is like a question and answer session for the congregation on an article from the magazine.

Each magazine has about 4 study articles and so is used for during 4 weekend meetings. After that they go to the next magazine. The study articles in each magazine are on different biblical subjects, like faith/salvation/endurance, and so on.

For example last Sunday's Watchtower study was on the subject "Parents—Help Your Children Become “Wise for Salvation”", from this Watchtower magazine.

Below is an example of the questions that were discussed (from this page in the magazine). The easiest way to explain this format is by a video posted from another congregations meeting; this video of that meeting starts at the point where below paragraphs are discussed.

  7, 8. (a) How does one Christian father show patience in teaching his
  daughter? (b) How have you found the need for similar patience?

  7 Thomas, the father of an 11-year-old girl, relates: “My daughter
  might ask, ‛Could Jehovah have used evolution to develop life on
  earth?’ or, ‛Why don’t we get involved in the community—with
  elections, for example—to try to improve things?’ Sometimes I have to
  bite my tongue so as not to give a dogmatic answer. After all,
  conviction isn’t the result of one large chunk of truth. It comes from
  many small pieces of evidence.”

  8 As Thomas knows, teaching takes patience. Actually, patience is
  important for all Christians. (Col. 3:12) Thomas realizes that there
  may be a need for many discussions over a period of time. He needs to
  reason on the Scriptures so that his daughter develops conviction
  about what she learns. “Especially on important points,” says Thomas,
  “my wife and I want to know if our daughter really believes what she
  is learning and if it makes sense to her. If she has questions, that’s
  good. Frankly, I would worry if she accepted something without asking
  questions.”

Question:

Are there other denominations that have this kind of a question/answer study format as standard part of their Sunday meeting, or is this more like typical to Jehovah's Witnesses?


texts: How does the Catholic Church choose the patron saint of a parish church?

texts:
I’m Catholic, and have been since birth.  I attend parish of St. Francis in Bakersfield, California. I have noticed recently, that all Catholic Churches, for the most part are named after a Saint, i.e. Saint Francis, Saint Phillip, Saint Anne, Saint Stephen etc.

I’ve always wondered, how to they pick which Saint?

Is their a list of names to choose from or are they just chosen at random?


texts: What Bible translations are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?

texts: Is there is a list of which translations of the Bible are accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention?


texts: Does the latest Scofield Reference Bible delete or substantially alter any of the original notes?

texts: There's some controversy about differences between the original Scofield reference bible and the latest editions, which were edited by a committee after Dr Scofield's death. I'm wondering whether any of Scofield's original notes have been modified or deleted, and if so which ones and to what extent? Or is the new edition just an "amplification" of the original which adds more notes and maps and etc, but leaves the original text as it was?


texts: What's the difference between the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment?

texts:
The Bible speaks of the "Judgment Seat of Christ" as well as the "Great White Throne" judgment.  What is the difference between these two judgments and who will be at each?

  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that
  each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body,
  whether good or evil.  2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV

  "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from
  whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no
  place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God;
  and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the
  book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
  written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up
  the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead
  which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their
  works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life
  was cast into the lake of fire".  Revelation 20:11-15 ESV


texts:
What is the origin of the Christmas tree and is it accepted in all Christian traditions?

I'm certainly not aware of a "Christmas" tree appearing in the Christmas story, so I'm curious when it was associated with the holiday.


texts: The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ created under the direction of Heavenly Father and He did not create the world "out of nothing."

texts:
The following is what they say. "Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth (see Mosiah 3:8; Moses 2:1). From scripture revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, we know that in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world “out of nothing,” as some people believe.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/creation?lang=eng
If Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth under the direction of God the Father how do they reconcile this with Isaiah 44:24? "Thys says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."
Also, according to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it says, "He/God did not create the world "out of nothing," as some people believe but God "organized the elements that already existed.'
Notice that at Isaiah 44:24 it says, "I am the maker of all things." Would that not include the elements? That word "maker" literally means "Fashioner." The following site/Lexicon explains how the word is used.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3335&t=KJV
Then there is Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen WAS NOT MADE OUT OF THINGS WHICH ARE VISIBLE." I'm basically asking two questions? One, how is Jesus being directed in creating the heavens and the earth when God clearly says He created all alone and by Himself? Two, on what basis do you come to the conclusion that God organized the elements that had already existed? How do you know they already existed?


texts: What is the practical application of the story of the woman caught in adultery?

texts:
John 8:2-11 tells us the story of the woman caught in adultery:

2At dawn [Jesus] appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

It's a wonderful story of Christ's compassion on an obvious sinner... as well as a story of Christ's cleverness when dealing with the Pharisees.
But what is the practical application of this story?


texts:
When a Catholic dies and there are questions as to cause of death do they object to a coroners order of an autopsy?
If yes what reasons do they give?


texts: Is the highway mentioned in Isaiah a literal highway?

texts:
Isaiah refers several times to a "highway" that will be built.  Particularly, in Isaiah 35:8-10 (NASB) he writes:

A highway will be there, a roadway,
And it will be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean will not travel on it,
But it will be for him who walks that way,
And fools will not wander on it.
No lion will be there,
Nor will any vicious beast go up on it;
These will not be found there.
But the redeemed will walk there,
And the ransomed of the LORD will return
And come with joyful shouting to Zion,
With everlasting joy upon their heads.
They will find gladness and joy,
And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The commentary I'm reading assumed that this was a literal highway, but it seems like it could be a metaphor for Jesus, or perhaps Christianity:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." - John 14:6 (NASB)

Is this view supported by any scholarly work, and would a figurative interpretation of the highway fit poorly with other references to the highway by Isaiah?


texts: Was the first Christian community a model for Religious Orders?

texts:
Pope Francis:

“The Acts of the Apostles relate that ‘no one claimed private
ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in
common.’ This is not communism, but pure Christianity,” he said. Source

I heard a priest saying that this was to apply to religious orders who take a vow of poverty and not everyone or society as a whole.
Acts 4:32-35

32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one
claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had
everything in common. 33 With great power the apostles bore witness to
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them
all. 34 j There was no needy person among them, for those who owned
property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35
and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to
each according to need. Source

So my question is: Is this scripture applying to a religious community which would resemble nowadays Catholic religious orders i.e.: Franciscans or are we all meant to live like this?


texts: According to biblical inerrantists, are the apostles' recorded speeches in the book of Acts inerrant?

texts:
Evangelicals/fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrancy hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and contains no errors.1  This is typically understood to refer to the original autographs of texts that were written by or under one of the recognized apostles (twelve plus Paul).

There are a number of places in the Gospels where the words of the apostles are obviously wrong, such as when Jesus rebukes Peter in Matthew 16:22–23.  This isn't a problem to the inerrantist, because the record is inerrant, not the content of Peter's speech.

Does anything change when we turn to the Book of Acts?  That is, do those who believe the Evangelical/Fundamentalist view of biblical inerrancy also believe that the speeches made by the apostles are inerrant?

For example, an inerrantist would say that the Book of Acts is inerrant.  Thus, Acts 20 is an inerrant record of a historical event (which happens to include a speech by Paul). But, does the inerrantist extend this and hold that Jesus definitely, without a doubt, said the things that Paul attributes to him in that speech?

  Acts 20:35 (ESV)
  “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Or is it theoretically possible, according to the biblical inerrantist, that Paul was mistaken, or even lying, about what Jesus said?

I'm not specifically asking about this passage, but more generally about all the recorded speeches of apostles in the book of Acts.

A great answer would cite inerrantist scholars who deal with this question.  If there is disagreement among evangelicals, I'd like an overview of the positions.

1. For the purposes of this question, I'm referring to those who would sign the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.


texts: According to the bible, where did egypt arise from?

texts: How was Egypt created according to the bible? Was it started by descendants of Cain? The descendants of Seth started the Israelites and Canaanites if I'm not mistaken.


texts: Is there scriptural basis for feelings such as "electricity", "fire", "heat" or "burning all over" reported in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles?

texts:
Doing my own independent research, I've noticed a clear pattern of religious people reporting feelings and sensations that they usually describe with expressions such as "waves of electricity", "fire", "heat", "burning all over", among others. I've heard expressions like these mainly from individuals in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.
For illustrative purposes, here are some example video clips from individuals describing their first-hand experiences: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O.
Also, here is a quote from a very descriptive testimonial posted on Charisma Magazine:

[...] In an instant, the Spirit of God gave me a single word in tongues to speak out, and as I repeated it, more words erupted through me. The power of the wonderful Holy Spirit enveloped me as what seemed like waves of electricity and what I can only describe as God's love and power washed over me. It seemed as though a spotlight exploded out of my mouth as I spoke in tongues, with my arms and hands surging with tremendous currents of electricity as the waves of power washed over the rest of my body as I loudly spoke in tongues, feeling immersed in His Spirit. [...]

Source: https://www.charismamag.com/spirit/revival/32085-this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-holy-spirit-s-electric-power-sweeps-over-you (cached version)
Reviewing literature about these experiences in Google Scholar, I came across a paper published in 2014 by Julia L. Cassaniti and Tanya Marie Luhrmann titled The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences (https://doi.org/10.1086/677881). In this paper, the authors themselves acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon (although they attribute it to "adrenaline rushes", which I find unjustified):

The “Holy Spirit” experience, for example, is a concept often used to describe an event in which someone feelings an intense surge of power sweeping through their body like electricity, or what we would call the bodily affordance of an adrenaline rush.

These three phenomena—cataplexy, or the loss of muscle
control; adrenaline surge, as if electricity is shooting through
the body; and emotional surge, when someone experiences intense, overwhelming emotion—are examples of physiological phenomena that are common to all human bodies but unusual enough so that people can remember the moment
independent of a specific label.

So, given the abundant reports of these dramatic spiritual experiences allegedly attributed to the Holy Spirit, is there any scriptural basis for them?


texts:
At Mass this weekend, we heard part of Proverbs 31 which is nice and all.  But my wife always complains that, "they always talk about how wives should act, they should say something about how husbands should act for once."

Are there any Mass readings during the 3 year cycle (or even the 2 year weekday cycle) that talk about how men should act.  I can't think of any other than "Husbands love your wives".


texts: Can LDS women be Sunday School Presidents?

texts: From my understanding, women play a huge role in the LDS church, e.g. The Relief Society (which was established in 1842 and has about 6 million members). Even though they don't have the priesthood and as such don't serve as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., they still give talks and say prayers in Sacrament Meetings and are in charge of Primary, Young Women's, etc. But I don't understand why LDS women are not able to be Sunday School Presidents. They can be teachers, but not the presidents? What is the LDS doctrine behind that? Why must a Sunday School President be a priesthood holder if they are not overseeing priesthood ordinances? When anyone receives a calling in the LDS Church, they can receive inspiration for their stewards -- regardless of what their gender is, so I don't know why must a Sunday School President be a male, especially if priesthood activities are not involved. Is is mainly based on tradition? Or is their doctrine behind this?


texts: What's the difference between pastor, parochial administrator and parochial vicar in the Catholic Church?

texts:
I was looking through the list of appointments to a nearby parish and noticed that the Bishop is mixing things up, but not really changing much.  Two parishes in a nearby city are linked, with two priests taking care of souls at both of them.  They currently swap masses:

Here's an obfuscated version of the appointment:

Rev. Fr. Zack Nelson, to parochial administrator, Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville, per canon 539, from
parochial vicar, Saint William Parish and Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville.
Rev. Fr. Mario VanVleck, from parochial administrator, Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville, per canon 539,
remaining as pastor, Saint William Parish, Zanesville.

So from what I can surmise they moved both priests from the arrangement where they worked both parishes and gave Fr. Zack a new title.   But, it looks like St. Patrick Parish doesn't have a pastor in this arrangement (it is the smaller of the two parishes).

So what's the difference between the changes in status from parocial vicar to parochial administrator?  And what does it mean that St. Patrick does not have an official pastor?


texts:
In the beginning of the Book of Job we are presented with a scene in heaven. In Job, the heavenly host is said to have assembled before God:

  "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
  before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Job 1:6 (NASB)

Why was Satan allowed to stand in God’s presence or even assemble alongside the other angels?


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, is a person required to fast?

texts:
From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

  For members of the Latin Catholic Church, the norms on fasting are obligatory from age 18 until age 59. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal, as well as two smaller meals that together are not equal to a full meal. The norms concerning abstinence from meat are binding upon members of the Latin Catholic Church from age 14 onwards.

What do "obligatory" and "binding" mean in this context? Is a person who fails to participate in a fast required to confess and offer penance?


texts: For since the creation... men are without excuse

texts:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
  unrighteousness;
  19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
  his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when "they are without excuse" does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved?

The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing?

A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book "Radical" by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature.

But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all "without excuse" even if we have not heard about the gospel? Is there another way the gospel can be presented?


texts: In the Bible, have "good men" often set their hand against each other?

texts:
(King) David, Samson, and Gideon, among others, were all robust slayers of enemies of Israel, most of whom were "bad" men.

In at least one instance, David set his hand against a good man, Uriah, for the wrong reason (he coveted Uriah's wife Bathsheba).

Was this an exception? Did the biblical heroes often go against an "innocent" good man like Uriah? Or did they go against (formerly) good men turned "bad" (e.g. David or Samuel against King Saul)?


texts: What is the latest position of Catholic Church on the existence of Limbo?

texts: Catholics traditionally believe that infants which die before being baptized, go to a place called Limbo. It is not understood whether the belief comes out of a dogmatic teaching of the Church. My question therefore, is: What do the latest teachings of catholic Church say on the existence or otherwise of Limbo ?


texts: Is the Promise of Regeneration Enunciated in the Old Testament?

texts:
Regeneration of the human spirit is a cornerstone doctrine of the New Testament, taught in Jesus’ famous ‘born again’ discourse with Nicodemus. (John 3)  Likewise, St. Paul explains our restoration in scriptures such as Colossians 3:9-10.

  “You have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the
  new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its
  creator.”

Given that New Testament revelation finds its fountainhead in the Old Testament, was this experience explicitly promised by the prophets?  And where in the Old Testament is the source of the doctrine of Regeneration?


texts: When and why did blessing by the sign of the cross begin?

texts:
This post is a counterpart to this question: Is it known when and why Christians began to sign themselves with the Cross?.

Among the Christians who bless using the sign of the cross, is it known when and why imparting a blessing by tracing the cross over the ones being blessed began?

My thinking: Blessing and crossing oneself are two different things. Example: say in an audience with the Pope there are many journalists are attending of varied beliefs or of no belief at all. When the Pope imparts his blessing by tracing the sign of the cross, only those who cross themselves and who want to cross themselves will cross themselves. Meaning you can have one and not necessarily the other. My good guess perhaps it goes back to Christ himself or at least the Apostles.

And also there can be a blessing without tracing the sign of the cross.


texts: When might a Christians consider taking anti-depressants or psychiatric medications?

texts:
There seems to be a variety of views about Christian use of medicine. I am not looking for answers related to the extreme position that God heals everybody if you only have faith. This seems far removed from the church in which we live. I have assumed that a Christian might need psychiatric medication under some circumstances. I am asking this more along the lines of a real question that a Christian might have if their doctor recommends such drugs. The answer to the question is intended to help such a person in that situation. Any Biblical guidance?

Should they take it?
Is it possible to need these drugs for life?


texts: What is the meaning of the question Luther's companions shouted on his deathbed?

texts:
In Martin Luther's Biography, In his final hour, Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius who were his companions shouted loudly and asked this question:

  "Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in his name?"

Luther was known to say Yes to this question. How should I understand this situation?


texts: Did Jesus baptize or not in St. John's account?

texts:
John 3:22 (KJV)

  22 “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”

John 4:1-2 (KJV)

  1 “When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”

In John's account in chapter 3 we have Jesus baptizing whereas not long afterward John explicitly mentions that Jesus did not baptize. Why is this?


texts: Who titled the poem: "The Dark Night of the Soul"?

texts: Wikipedia claims that the Catholic mystic St John of the Cross did not title his own poem: "The Dark Night of the Soul". If St John didn't title it who did?


texts:
Do any people in the Bible self identify as atheists?

Or are they all theists, differing in which god they follow?

Apparently at least some atheists existed, since David had heard of them:

  The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1.


texts: What is the difference between Reformed and Presbyterian

texts:
I feel like this is a dumb question, but maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one confused by this.  Maybe if I'm willing to stick my neck out and look stupid, the answer will be here for those poor confused saps who come after me.

It seems like I often hear the terms reformed and presbyterian being used interchangeably.  When I'm speaking about the presbyterian church, or rather, the reformed church, or... I often stumble over my words because I feel like I'm probably saying the wrong thing.

I know that in a technical sense, reformed refers mostly to the theology and presbyterian refers mostly to the church government (or maybe I'm wrong about that too), but, in every-day parlance, what do you call a church who follows in the tradition of John Calvin?  Surely you can't go around calling them churches-that-follow-in-the-tradition-of-John-Calvin.  It's a bit of a mouthful.  If I call them Presbyterian churches, will someone think I'm foolish and think that I don't know what I'm talking about?  If I call them Reformed churches, will I be wrong?  Is it just a matter of only usually being right?  Does it depend on the denomination/association?

What do Christians who belong to such churches call themselves?  Do they call themselves Presbyterians?  Reformed Christians?  Calvinists?  All three?  None of the above?  Am I going to offend someone by using the wrong term?


texts: What is the Catholic understanding of the idea that Jesus descended into Hell?

texts:
The Christian understanding that everyone was born with origin sin, and then when Jesus/God was killed at the cross, and then he was resurrected from death after 3 days.

From what I understand, there is the idea of Jesus descending into Hell to free the spirits/souls of people.

Who were these people?  Was it everyone before his time that died?
Did it include the righteous and wicked people or prophets also?

Is this a creed based on belief only or is there scripture to back this up somewhere?


texts: What's the difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit' in this statement?

texts:
In the 22nd annual meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, they released a statement that said:

  Jews and Christians share the heritage of the biblical testimony of God's relationship with the human family throughout history. Our Scriptures bear witness to both individuals and the people as a whole being called, taught, guided and protected by Divine Providence. In light of this sacred history, Catholic and Jewish participants in the meeting responded to emerging opportunities and difficulties facing religious belief and practice in today's world.

Why, in the official statement above, signed by Catholic Church and Jews, is 'Divine Providence' used, and not 'Holy Spirit'?

Perhaps there is an ontological difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit'? If so, can anyone explain what the difference is?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for saying Lucifer is an angel?

texts: Where in the Bible does it say that Lucifer was one of the angels or an archangel?


texts: How many different Spirits do Biblical Unitarians believe God has sent or gifted to be in believers?

texts:
There are many names given in Scripture to a Spirit or Spirits sent to live with and, most especially, live within those who have received the salvation inherent in the Gospel.  This is not an exhaustive list but a representative list only and edited additions are welcome.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. - John 14:16-17

For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you - Matthew 10:20

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

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Romans 8:9

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own - 1 Corinthians 6:19

Just in these five verses alone we have 7 different names or titles for this "sending":  Helper, Spirit of truth, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of his son, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, and Holy Spirit.
Do Biblical Unitarians understand multiple names for just one Spirit, multiple names for several different Spirits, individual names of individual Spirits, or something else?


texts: How did James Orr's view of the inspiration of the Bible differ from B. B. Warfield's?

texts:
Two of the intellectual fathers of Christian fundamentalism, and ultimately evangelicalism, were James Orr and B. B. Warfield.  Both contributed to The Fundamentals, and are well known for opposing modernism and liberalism.

But recently I learned that they differed from one another on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. John Woodbridge and Frank James, in Church History, II, 21.II.D, write:

  [Orr] was unwilling to draw the circle so tightly even though he shared a deep commitment to the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, which as such requires our sincere obedience.  He argued that strict inerrancy is "a most suicidal position" that had the potential for destroying the "whole edifice of belief in revealed religion."

Interestingly, Wikipedia says that James Orr believed in the "infallibility" of the Bible, which to me is normally, for practical purposes, a synonym of inerrancy.

Thus it appears that I don't have a full understanding of the debate over inerrancy and infallibility in fundamentalism and early evangelicalism.  To begin to understand this better, I'd like to know, from the actual writings of these two men, where they differed on this doctrine.


texts: Did Jesus need to die, or would mere shedding of blood have been sufficient?

texts:
Originally: St. Thomas Aquinas on salvation by a drop of Christ's Blood

I heard on Relevant Radio a year or so ago something perplexing, I think it was a priest saying it, but it may have been a layman, regardless, he seemed very smart, and seemed to know a lot about the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Somewhere, I know not where, St. Thomas said that the Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled.

Where and why did he write/say this and what is the reason for this.  Is it accepted Catholic Doctrine and how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?


texts: What did Charles Hodge teach about theology as science?

texts:
John Owen says in the second chapter of his Biblical Theology (page 8 as published in English by SDG),

  As the subject matter of theology is largely God Himself, it is as infinitely far removed from the methodology of science as the sciences themselves are from nonexistence.

This is not a minor point to Owen, but is integral to his whole approach to theology. I was intrigued, then, when a friend of mine told me that Charles Hodge begins his systematic theology by asserting that theology is a science. Given that these two are both considered giants with Reformed theology, I was intrigued! I have not read any Hodge myself, but as someone with a background in linguistics and philosophy, I am not ready to assume that they meant the same thing when they said science, particularly since they were separated by several centuries.

Is it true that Hodge taught that theology is a science? If so, did he explain what he means by science, and did he cite any other theologians as teaching this as well? What was his argument for this conclusion? (As a bonus, I'm also interested in who among the Old Princetonians agreed with him.)


texts: What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's term "ecclesial community?"

texts:
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church uses the term "Church" for itself and the Orthodox Church, and "ecclesial community" for Protestants.

What are the reasons the Church applies the term "ecclesial community" and not "church" to certain Christian groups?


texts: Can someone atone for the sins of another, in the life after death, if they asked this grace from Our Lord before their own death in this life?

texts:
At 1 Peter 2:24 we read:

" He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. "

Of course,  one would be able to take up the divine punishment for somene else's sins while one is still living  on this earth. But, is it possible for a person to take up the divine punishment for someone else , say for the dying  mother of a prodigal son, in the life after death . To elaborate,  can that mother pray like this: " Lord, let me be given more time in purgatory , but spare my son of your divine punishment and let him be in heaven on the day of his death "

What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us of such a prospect ?


texts: What is the biblical argument against baptism by sprinkling/pouring?

texts:
What is the biblical basis for the idea that it is wrong or incorrect to baptize by sprinkling or pouring the water? Growing up as a baptist I heard this all the time.

Related, but opposite: What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling?


texts: Does the Bible command women to cover their breasts?

texts: Tribal women in Africa, South America and Papua New Guinea have gone around with bare breasts for countless generations. When Christian missionaries arrived they convinced the women to cover their breasts. What arguments did they use to achieve this? I see nothing in the Bible about God commanding women to cover their breasts.


texts:
This should be straightforward, as John the Baptist explicitly says that he isn't:

  John 1:19-21 (ESV)
   19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20  He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."

However, Jesus has something to say about the matter, too:

  Matthew 11:13-14 (ESV)
   13  For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.

So was he Elijah or not? Why do Jesus and John say such different things?


texts:
I am writing a Bible Memorization App. It will have no ads and have no cost. What versions of the Bible can I use? Obviously the entire Bible will be contained in the app but less than 200 verses will be used and only one at a time will appear on screen. Credits can be given for all versions used.

Right now I have KJV in xml form as part of the app. I want to make the app so it does not require the internet or data connection. So I will include internally the xml for each version I can use.

Can I safely use NIV, ESV, and HCSB or others without legal troubles? No money or solicitation will be made for the app (no ads and no cost).

Thanks for any guidance or suggestions.


texts: What is the history behind/Origin of the doxology that often gets added to the end of the Lord's prayer?

texts:
Quite often when I hear Protestants recite the Lord's prayer, they include a doxology on the end "For the kingdom the power and he glory are yours, now and forever".

I can't find this doxology in the Lord's prayer as recorded in scripture, so I find it amusing that protestants include it considering they are so insistent on doing things in accordance with scripture.

The reason I'm bothering to ask the question is because today I attended my first "New Testament Greek" class and we had to translate the Lord's prayer from the Greek. The Greek version that our lecturer presented did indeed include the doxology and I was a bit confused by that.

So my question in summary: what is the history behind this doxology? Where does it come from?

(I note that Catholics also say this doxology during their liturgy, however it is separate to the Lord's Prayer, which finishes with "and deliver us from evil")


texts: In heaven will we love God more than everyone else, or will we love everyone as much as we love God? (Catholic)

texts:
Catholic Church teaches that God will be the principal object of our love in heaven.

My interpretation of this is that by saying "God will be the principal object of our love in heaven", Church is teaching us that in heaven our love for every other heavenly beings will be derived from our love for God (i.e. in heaven we will love all others because we first loved God) - but I don't think this implies that in heaven we will love God more than how much we love every other members. My friend, however, thinks that if God is the principal object of our love in heaven, in heaven we will love God more than how much we love everyone else.

My view is that in heaven we will love each and every others with the whole of our being, just as we will love God with the whole of our being (i.e. we will love every other heavenly beings as much as we love God - "with the whole of our being"), even though our love for God is what occurs first and our love for everyone else is what results after as a consequence. Based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, is my view correct?


texts: What is the Arminian view of God's providence?

texts:
Disclaimer: This question is not intended to suggest that God is not sovereign under Arminianism. It is simply a question for clarification, as I haven't really found a detailed description. Also, I have read this question but it's not quite what I'm asking.

When I ask "What is the Arminian view of God's providence", I am not referring to soteriology (specifically, at least - it would be included) but to how God brings about His plan, or any given part thereof. Say God decides he wants to bring X about - how does he 'arrange' things to achieve the desired outcome?

For example, a Reformed Christian might say that God determines things and need not take into account free will so can easily bring about X, while a Molinist would say God arranges the circumstances so humans will freely act in a way that brings about X. Is this within the scope of Arminianism? What level of detail do Arminians say God's plan has? Does it include individual human actions? I realize that's several questions but they all fit within this one/are details that I would hope to be included in the answer to the main question.


texts: Did Martin Luther effectively teach that our justification is like white snow covering over dung?

texts:
Over the internet I have come across posts like this that say

  Luther stated that our sinful state is much like the piles of manure.
  It is ugly, repulsive and offensive. There is nothing in it that would
  commend it to anyone, especially God – but justification is like the
  first snowfall in winter. It covers the sight and smell of the manure
  piles with a blanket of pure white. The pile is still inherently a
  manure pile, but now it is covered.

And others variants of it e.g.

  Martin Luther described God's forgiveness as Christ simply covering
  over our sinful souls, like a blanket of snow covering a manure heap. - cf. @Verbum's post in On Jesus' blood covering sins | Catholic Answers Forums and 2nd to last paragraph here.

Is there a reference that would show that Martin Luther did in fact state or teach this? If he didn't say this, what did he actually say that may have led to this re-stating?

If he did teach this, how does Lutheranism or those understanding or agreeing with this perspective reconcile this teaching with Scripture that God in his Christ does actually take way the sins of the world1 and not just cover them over (i.e. when we have been justified by Christ, God looking down sees only the white snow but not the dung underneath that still remains)?

1. John 1:29 (RSVCE), Heb 9:22-24 (RSVCE), etc.

Please see also Christians are doomed to hell? | C.SE. It turned out that what has been claimed that a community taught, has actually never been an official teaching of that community.


texts:
Why do adherents in laestadianism consider watching television and listening popular music as sin? Is this true?

I don't know, but I got that idea from this Travel Guide.

  Especially younger Finns speak usually excellent English due to the
  policy of subtitling foreign language movies and TV series instead of
  dubbing them. However, particularly in Northern Finland there is a
  strong religious movement (laestadianism) which considers watching
  television and listening popular music as sin. This may explain why
  English is not as widely spoken in Northern Finland as it is in the
  south of the country.


texts:
According to the Roman Catholic church, what is the status of someone who was baptised as a baby and left the church as a teen? Does it matter if he had Confirmation? Does it matter if he claims no religion or if he converted to another one?

I've heard that "once a Christian always a Christian", but I've also heard that people who die not in a state of Christian grace are in trouble. What does the church teach about a person who leaves?


texts: Was the full Sign of the Cross prevalent in entire Catholic Church?

texts:
As a member of the Syrian Rite Catholic Church, I was taught to make a full Sign of the Cross while entering the church, while  starting a long prayer etc. While the sign made is similar to the one  made by the faithful at the commencement of the Gospel-reading in the Holy Mass (Latin rite),  the prayer that accompanies the sign is different. It can be roughly translated as:

" By the sign  of the Holy Cross, save us from from our enemies, our Lord, in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. "

I wish to know if the said custom of making the Sign of Cross during which one makes cross-signs on one's forehead, lips, chest and shoulders, while reciting the prayer, was prevalent in the entire Catholic Church , and whether it was later substistuted with the smaller Sign of the Cross .


texts: Why did the slave girl at the gate stop Peter but not John?

texts:
At the time when Jesus' trial was to commence before the High priest, John readily went inside the courtyard because he knew the high priest well, whereas Peter was relatively unknown in the place. Yet Peter was stopped at the gate and John was not.

  John 18:15-17 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) But Simon Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.”

The fact that the slave girl allowed John inside and not Peter is a bit puzzling. If John was well known to the High priest, then how is that they did not know that he was Jesus' disciple? What could be the rational reason, that they allowed John inside and not Peter?


texts: Why didn’t the disciples baptize using a Trinitarian formula as commanded in the Great Commission?

texts:
If the Mathew 28:19 (and the Great Commission therein) is considered an authentic verse, why aren’t there any instances in the NT where the apostles actually baptized someone using the Trinitarian formula (i.e., “in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”)?

  19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, NKJV, 1982

I'm looking for explanations given by defenders of trinitarianism.


texts: Are there any known Eastern Catholics who have received the stigmata?

texts: Just curious. I wonder whether there are any Eastern Catholics to whom God gave the grace of receiving the wounds of Christ (stigmata) or did only Latin Rite Catholics ever receive them? I know of Croatian priest Zlatko Sudac, but I think he's a Latin Rite Catholic too.


texts: If I am a Christian does this mean I need to support the modern state of Israel?

texts:
*note: please do not mistake this question as necessarily reflective of my personal option.

Where this question comes from may not be obvious to some depending on where you live, so let me explain. Here in the Southern part of the United States of America, my parents' church (evangelical, Assemblies of God) will hold, from time to time, a pro-Israel rally. At these rallies, up on stage, as well as members of the audience will wave American and Israeli flags together during a worship service. Prayers are offered up supporting Israel and afterwards a sermon is delivered explaining why it is so important for Christians to support Israel.

It is not typical, as far as I know, to actually hold rallies in support of Israel, but the general feeling among Christians here is that they should be in full support of Israel (and by extension, support policies of the USA that support Israel).

The argument generally goes something along these lines:

God has blessed Israel and therefore is guiding them, in general, in the correct direction, and we should support this.
Based on the Old Testament, God has promised this land to the Israelis, so it is their right to have it.
The modern state of Israel is the embodiment of many of the end-times prophesies (see Hal Lindsey’s "Late, Great Planet Earth")
That Israel is the only true democracy in the region, and as Christians we should support democracy, especially in a region such as this.
That Israel is surrounded by Muslim dictatorships/extremist who would like to see it destroyed. As Christians we are against Muslim dictatorships/extremist (esp. here in the last 10 years) and therefore should support Israel.

My question: is this a legitimate viewpoint? Should we as Christians support the modern state of Israel? If you think these are legitimate reasons, then please expand. Otherwise, why not?


texts: Are there any accidents (philosophical term) in God?

texts: Accident being defined as an attribute or property contingent upon the existence of something else, from the Latin word accidēns, or the Greek word συμβεβηκός (symbebēkos). Do accidents exist in God?


texts: In Roman Catholicism, how far back in history does the process (Sacrament) of Confirmation go?

texts: Does the Sacrament of Confirmation go back to the early Church?  Also, has it always occurred around the age 14 (except in situations where it would occur later, such as conversions)?


texts: How is the Christian Jesus different from the Muslim Jesus?

texts: Obviously they refer to the same human being, however what are some beliefs that Christians hold about Jesus that Muslims do not share.  I ask this question in sort of an apologetic spirit so that I can explain it to others.


texts: Are these assertions about Christ correct?

texts:
I heard Fr. Rick Walsh say in this excerpt: "we are Christ", "Christ is a woman", "Christ is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer" and "in Christ I am lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer" (link to the whole homily)
But I only have heard the statements: we belong to Christ, we are of Christ or we are in Christ. And that Christ is our new identity.
Are these conclusions in the homily correct?


texts: Does the Lutheran view of pope as AntiChrist stem from doctrine of justification?

texts:
I've heard popular retellings of the Lutheran view of pope as Antichrist that range from:

a delusion that Pope Leo X was the incarnate figure of prophecy, to
a slur (like calling George Washington a communist), to
a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of
justification: no one is "ante" (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation

A previous question focused on the role of prophecy in the idea.  But my question is to what extent this concept is not a mere slur but rather a necessary consequence of the doctrine of justification. Both bases may offend, but one is unavoidable consequence of there being two different denominations.   Quotes from Reformers and prominent Lutheran theologians are of interest.


texts: How is theistic evolution and the fall of man compatible?

texts: All scientific evidence suggests evolution did happen, or something very similar. Of course, every theory has its flaws, including evolution, but how is the fall of man conpatible with evolution? Even if it is interpreted metaphorically, there would have been death before humans were around, so how can the fall of man be compatible with the theory of evolution?


texts: What does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow in the New Testament?

texts:
I have seen Noah's Ark listed one of the "types" in Scripture -- something that occurred, but that also foreshadowed something else that would come later.

What exactly, then, does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow?


texts: Who believes the incarnation and resurrection wouldn't have happened without Mary's faith?

texts:
A group called the Steering Committee for the National Consecration of Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is, as the name suggests, seeking the consecration of the nation of Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In their FAQ, they say (in the answer to the last question):

  Some theologians teach that without Mary’s free fiat of “Let it be done to me according to thy word” God would not have worked the incarnation and others go as far as to say that without her perfect faith at the foot of the cross He would not have worked the resurrection.

Who are these theologians, and how generally accepted is their teaching in the Catholic Church? I'm curious whether there are important Catholic theologians who disagree - basically, whether there's a debate about it.

For the second part specifically - do these theologians suggest that in this case, Jesus would have simply died and not been resurrected? Do they believe that Jesus would have died, and yet our redemption would not have come about?

(I thought we had a past question which touched on the Annunciation part, but I can't find it right now. In any case, I'm pretty sure the second part is new.)


texts:
I am confused. Since I know salvation must be attained through the sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus Christ, what were the consequences of the actions taken by Pontius Pilate, for Pilate himself. Did the actions he took leading to the crucifixion of Jesus lead him to heaven or not?

Are there any major, recognized commentaries about this,and if so, what do they say?


texts:
During the lifetime of Jesus, there were three major festivals that took place each year : Passover (around April) is an 8 day celebration, the Feast of Weeks (around May) is another 3 day celebration, and the Feast of Tabernacles (around October) is 7 days long.

It was expected for all faithful to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to attend these festivities.

Nazareth is about 150 kilometers from Jerusalem. If I'm doing my math right, someone walking 4.5 km/hr for about 8 hours a day and stopping for meals will take about 5 days to make the trip, each way.

I'm curious how families in Jesus' time could do this? They'd be out of work for without pay for at least 2.5 weeks for the festivities themselves, and then maybe another six weeks out of work traveling. 8.5 weeks out of work, total.

How did contemporary families in Jesus' time handle the festivals? Did they only go to one per year? Save up to make it every few years? From the text, I get an impression that many families made every festival, every year, but the economics of it don't make sense.


texts: What are the Gnostic Gospels and why are they not part of the Bible?

texts:
Lately, I have been hearing a lot about the Gnostic Gospels and their more (relatively) unorthodox references to Jesus and a believers relationship to God.

What are the Gnostic Gospels and why are they not part of the Bible, since some of them seem to be written by the same people who wrote passages in the New Testament?


texts: Is it ever revealed that Paul released those that he imprisoned?

texts:
So Paul (previously Saul) became a believer and an effective advocate for Christ, but only after he had imprisoned several believers.

  Acts 8:3 ESV But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Is it revealed in scripture anywhere that he went back and got those people out of prison? I would assume he did--I'm just curious if it's stated anywhere or implied or if there's a tradition about it.


texts: What were the three miracles that St. Stephen performed to be canonized?

texts: Why was saint Stephen canonized? I know that you have to perform three miracles   to be canonized, but I don't know what his were.


texts: Which Christian groups believe that Christianity is not for all humans?

texts:
In some religions, it is permissible for non-members to continue being non-members. An example would be Judaism, where non-Jews only have to follow Seven Laws of Noah. In other words, for Jews, it is okay for non-Jews to not practice Judaism as Jews do.
In contrast, Muslims believe that the entirety of their religion is universal and should be followed by all humans. I am currently learning about Christianity. From what I have read, Christians also believe that every human being should be Christian. What are the major Christian viewpoints?


texts: Are God, Son (Jesus) and The Holy Spirit Same?

texts:
I wonder whether God the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are actually the same?

If the answer is "yes", why we can't we have our spiritual communication only with Jesus Christ?


texts: Does the Protestant Bible mention Satan punishing non-believers after death?

texts:
I have always heard people say that when you die and haven't accepted Christ and go to hell, that you're going to be punished by Satan, and we have this great plethora of contemporary culture showing a red horned devil with a trident forcing people to punishment in hell, but where does the Protestant Bible say that this is the case?

If it doesn't say this, where did this belief originate amongst Protestant faiths?


texts: Who was the owner of the house where Jesus and his disciples had the Last Supper and why did he consent

texts:
To clarify, by host I am referring to the owner of the house in which the Last Supper took place.
As is related in Luke 22, Jesus sent His disciples to seek out a man carrying a jug, follow him to a certain house, and to ask the owner of that house where He and disciples were to eat the Passover.
I'm curious to know how the owner's consent to this was obtained. Did he recognize the disciples as being Jesus' followers, or was it the custom of people with room to spare to allow guests to eat the Passover in their houses?
I'm especially interested in contemporary records that can shed some light on this.
If history is silent on this question, that is an acceptable answer as well.


texts: What is the process of removing an automatic excommunication?

texts:
If a baptised Catholic committed sins which would have excommunicated him from the Church, what would be the method for getting back?

Receiving communion would not be allowed without reconciliation. Would a priest forgive those sins if they were all Mortal?


texts: Was the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of "works" or "grace"?

texts:
In Exodus 20 (but all of Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy as well) we read of what many refer to as the Mosaic Covenant - enacted at Sinai, where God gives the Ten Commandments (and later the rest of the moral/ceremonial/civil law) to Israel.

At first glance, this seems to be a law covenant - after all, it's Ten Commandments, but when we consider the gracious aspects of the sacrifices and the understanding of the "three uses of the law" as under grace, it gets confusing.

So what's the nature and implication of this covenant? Is it a "law", bilateral covenant, like the Covenant of Works in the garden with Adam? Or is it a unilateral, "grace" covenant like the Covenant of Grace to Adam through Christ?

Does it matter?


texts: Are there any Catholic sects which disagree with the sinlessness of Mary?

texts:
As a protestant, the concept of the sinless state of Mary is one of the hardest aspects of Catholicism to swallow. The historical account of the adoption of this doctrine doesn't lend any credibility to the view, either.  It thus seems incredibly likely that there are a large number of Catholics who also take issue with this belief (not to mention other beliefs on which Catholics and protestants traditionally disagree--transubstantiation, etc).

So my question is:  Are there any sects, movements or other formally recognized groups (as opposed to dissenting individuals) within the Catholic church who do not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, and if so, how are they recognized and treated by the rest of the Catholic church?


texts: How could David enter the congregation of the Lord when he was descended from Ruth the Moabitess?

texts:
I want to ask a question about Ruth the Moabitess and King David.

  Deuteronomy 23:3
  An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

And Ruth was a Moabitess, AND, the great grandmother of King David.

  Ruth 1:22
  So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

MY QUESTION IS

Logically, how can David be lawfully accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord' (let alone, be selected by the LORD to be King of Israel,) when he was clearly only 3 generations away from Moab heritage?

I am searching for any scriptural explanation, which would justify David being accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord', taking into account the clear "even to their tenth generation" prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3.

And, doesn't Jewish heritage follow the mother?


texts: Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church?

texts:
I cannot find in the New Testament an obligation on Christians to tithe 10% of their income. Instead I read that it is up the individual to decide:

  2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV1984)
  Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Is there a church tradition established by the early church to encourage everyone to tithe 10%?  What was the early church's view on tithing?


texts: How was the idea of homoousion developed, and when was this term used prior to the Nicean Council?

texts:
According to the Nicean Creed, Jesus Christ is said to be:

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same being (ὁμοούσιον) of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο

How was the idea of homoousion developed, and when was this term used prior to the Council of Nicea?


texts: What process was used to translate the KJV?

texts:
Who were the translators that created the venerate KJV translation and what guidelines did they use? What "kind" of translation was intended and how is it generally categorized today?

Note that there is a separate question for the historical motivation and context so this question is just about the linguistic style and translation methodology employed in the making of the text, not the historical context.

Full disclosure: I believe the KJV was a landmark translation as far as quality and impact and am thankful for it, but don't believe it to be inerrant or more guided by the Spirit than other scholarly translations and that it is showing it's age because English is not the same as it was 400 years ago. I'm not asking if it should be revered or discredited, only what went into the making of the text.


texts:
In the letter to the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3, John writes concerning the synagogue of Satan and those who claim to be Jews, but are not.

  Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9 ESV)

What group was it that claimed to be Jews and were not?  What was it about them that made them the synagogue of Satan?


texts:
Falsifiability of a theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Which is a requirement in the field of scientific methodology for a theory to be regarded valuable. As by Karl Popper's "falsificationism", there is a problem of demarcation (distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific), which he solves exactly by introducing falsifiability as the demarcation criterion. So, anything not falsifiable can not be proven, and is therefore not even (scientifically) worth examining, and thus has no scientific value. As far as I can recall at the moment, creationism is NOT falsifiable??

A similar matter is Occam's Razor; which actually does seem to work in favor of creationism.

Does anyone have an answer on this?

Thoughtbox (Possibly second question): I'd say that God is prevailing through nature (i.e. it's creations) and thus all science or governing laws (thermodynamics, gravity, magnetism etc.) should lead us to learn about His Excellence. So, I'd say that we learn about Him, but to what extent does nature show His existence? That is, once his Existence is accepted, nature plays a very different role so as to reflect what God does and how He acts. But if not accepted, would nature lead to Him??


texts: Is there a punishment for apostasy (leaving Christian faith all together) according to the Catholic faith ? If yes, what's the punishment ?


texts: What is the difference between immediate judgment after death and the final judgment, according to Catholicism?

texts:
According to this site, adapted from the United States Catechism for Adults,
"Our Church teaches that immediately after death, our soul separates from our earthly body and we stand before God for judgement. We then enter heaven, Purgatory or hell."
but then
"At the end of time, our Lord will come again to judge the living and the dead. All souls will be rejoined with their bodies, and those in Purgatory will be joined to the blessed in heaven."
From an individual's perspective, what is the difference between the first, immediate judgment (for those who have died before the 'end of time') and final judgment? Is it solely that the souls in purgatory are 'judged' ready for heaven?


texts: Why is so hard to find a print version of ASV bible?

texts: I started to study the bible recently, and I wanted to buy a print copy of the American Standard Version. The bible is available online but I wanted a print version as a backup. To my surprise the bible is out of print. I looked online for print copies and only found one or two sellers. Why is this bible not widely available in print form? Is it because of the expired copyright? The KJV is in the public domain outside of the U.K and is available in print form. It is difficult to find a second hand copy as well, even though I understand that millions of copies were printed in the past.