texts: Is there a need for Christians to believe in Christianity at all, if they don't believe in Resurrection and Salvation through Christ alone?

texts:
My question is directed to professing Christians who don't believe in any of the key doctrines held by evangelical churches, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and Jesus Christ as the only path to salvation. If you believe in the evangelical doctrine of salvation, this question isn't for you.

I come from an evangelical background, which taught me to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and that Jesus is the only path to salvation. I understand that there are some Christians who don't believe in these things, which I think are the pillars and the cornerstone of Christianity, without which Christianity has no reason to exist. These Christians are commonly identified as "liberal Christians." You can read more about the view of this group of Christians here, and read a conservative theologian's response to their views here.

Back to my main question:

If one doesn't believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation, what is the "selling point" of Christianity? Why should people bother to become Christians at all? It would be equally okay to be an atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist who believes in Jesus as a great teacher and religion leader, but nothing more.

By the same token, as I see it, if liberal Christians think that Bible is just another book, written and compiled by mere humans with human errors in it, then it is no longer infallible, and there is no reason to pay attention to Biblical teachings on any subject. So what is the difference between liberal Christians and non-Christians? Non-Christians can draw inspiration from the Bible in the same way as these Christians do. They believe in exactly the same thing!

I am curious: On what basis do liberal Christians identify themselves as Christians?


texts: What are some of the benefits of going to church?

texts:
This question struck me last Sunday at church.  People usually talk about the abstract benefits of prayer and proving things etc, but I'm asking this question because over the many years I've been attending the same church I have realized a few things that aren't obvious if you aren't in the practise of going to church.

What are some of the things that you find are benefits from going to church regularly?


texts: What is the difference between a professing and a non-professing Christian with regards to their faith, beliefs, etc?

texts:
I have come across these terms many times but didn’t really come to understand the difference between the two.

Is it that a non professing Christians stopped believing in Christianity or is it that they have some other view from mainstream Christianity?


texts: In Catholicism, in case of emergency Is it valid to baptise a large assembly of people with a fire hose?

texts:
In an emergency is it possible to baptise a large group of catechumens (around 100 or more) with a firehose or some other "group baptism" method, such as walking outside during rain? The catechumens would presumably consent to being baptised.

I imagine that if a group was baptised with a firehose, the Trinitarian formula would only be pronounced once, but I have a hunch that who ever is doing the baptising has to pronounce the Trinitarian formula each time for every individual in the congregation, but I'm not sure: it seems inconvenient, inefficient, infeasible and impractical in an emergency situation because it would take too long to baptise them all individually. It seems to be that a "group baptism" would be the most effective thing to do in an emergency, assuming that it is allowed.


texts: Why was David disqualified from building the temple?

texts:
In 2 Samuel 7, King David seems to have a heart to build a temple for God.  However, he seems to be disqualified for some reason, but his son is identified as the one who will build it instead.
What was it about David that disqualified him in particular from building the temple?  He was a man of war, of course, but why would that preclude his involvement in the building of a place of worship?

After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”
3 Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.”  4 But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying:
5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’  2 Samuel 7:1-7


texts: What is the purpose of the Penitential Rite in a Catholic Mass?

texts:
The Mass in the Roman Catholic Church includes a Penitential Rite, where a Penitential Act is effected. However, as the Roman Misal states (page 55):

  After this, the Priest calls upon the whole community to take part in the Penitential Act, which, after a brief pause for silence, it does by means of a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the Priest’s absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance.

This is, such act is not equivalent to the Sacrament of Confession. As this other entry in Wikipedia about the mass states,

  Confession (Penance or Reconciliation) is the only sacrament not celebrated within a Eucharistic framework and for which therefore no Ritual Mass is provided.

I wonder then, which is the purpose of such penitential act? Is there somewhere an "official" or authoritative analysis of this? Maybe by a Church Father?


texts: Was there a reason Jesus came at the time he did?

texts:
Concerning what the Bible says, and what might be said in commentary from prominent church leaders, is there a particular reason Jesus came 2000 years ago and not at some other time. One would think the earlier, the better.

If the question seems too broad, then just give me biblical support.


texts: Why is it more difficult for a Mormon woman to control whom she is eternally sealed to?

texts:
The USA Today newspaper has an article titled "Mormon doctrine leaves potential for 'eternal polygamy'" (reference) that makes the following statement:

  Decades have passed since male members of the mainstream LDS Church
  were allowed to marry more than one wife at a time, but the church
  still allows a man to be “sealed” to another woman in the temple if he
  remarries following the death of a first wife, according to an essay
  at lds.org. However, a woman whose husband has died cannot be sealed
  in the temple to a second man after remarrying.

So based on that paragraph, a Mormon man can be sealed to another woman (if the previous one is deceased) without having to break that sealing but a Mormon woman can not be sealed to another man (even if the previous one is deceased).

An exception to this is if her sealing is broken (a subject in my older question here). But while that is on one hand not a particularly straight-forward, it is also something that is not required from Mormon men.

Because a Mormon man can get eternally sealed to multiple women, there is always the risk for a Mormon woman that in the end she was not the only one sealed to her husband.

My question is:
What is the reasoning (from LDS canon) behind why it is comparatively more difficult for a woman to control whom she is eternally sealed to?


texts: Who were the Celebrants of the Eucharist in the Early Church?

texts:
Someone who was knowledge told me years ago, that during the Eucharist that all participants are the celebrants and that the priest presides over the liturgy. Additionally, I have participated in small group Eucharistic liturgies where all said the Eucharistic prayer together with an understanding that that was how it was done in the early church.

In my research on the Internet I’ve found little that might confirm that this was true in the early church except what Paul F. Bradshaw, on the subject Christianity, Rituals, Practices, and Symbolism in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia said:

  Although at first insisting that they were not a religion like others around them—indeed, they were regarded as atheists by their contemporaries—they ultimately came to adopt the language, images, and terminology of standard  religious discourse once their persecution had ceased and the Church had emerged as a cultus publicus in the 4th century.  This also coincided with a shift from an understanding of worship as an essentially corporate action presided over by its appointed ministers to one where those ministers were seen as carrying out its liturgy on behalf of the people.”

Early Christian Worship - Paul F. Bradshaw

Was early church worship “essentially corporate … presided over by its appointed ministers?”


texts: 100 Year Anniversaries? - Sacred Heart of Jesus

texts:
May 13, 2017 will see the 100th anniversary of the Apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima at Fatima, Portugal. Many of the prophecies may or may not be fulfilled according to how an individual interprets them. This is not of any concern to me in this question.

As the anniversary of Fatima is drawing near , I noticed that Our Lord appeared to St Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690), between the years 1673 and 1689. What was interesting to me was the fact that on June 17, 1689 Our Lord wanted France to be consecrated to his Sacred Heart:

  Our Lord also told the saint to tell the Catholic King Louis XIV that France must be solemnly consecrated to His Sacred Heart. This command, too, was ignored by the king and also by his heirs and descendants. As a result, France – first daughter of the Church – was not "triumphant over all the enemies of Holy Church" when France was besieged by the “enemies of the Church.” - The Example of the King of France

What was interesting in all this is the fact that on the 100th anniversary of this particular apparition, Louis XVI of France lost his crown:

  Exactly one hundred years later, on June 17, 1789, the reigning Catholic king of France (Louis XVI) was stripped of his kingly power and authority by the godless “Third Estate” of the French Revolution. Thus the Reign of Terror went into full motion.

My question is this: Are there any Catholic authors that have written of the possibility of other Catholic prophecies being connected (fulfilled) to exactly one century intervals (date to date) from the date of any other particular apparitions or prophecies mentioned?


texts: What is the scope of gambling prohibitions for JW's?

texts: I know that gambling is forbidden for a Jehovah's Witness. Would this include a phone in competition on the radio, for example to win money or a holiday?


texts: Did Jesus have many mansion while on earth? I heard a teaching from T.V that he preached from his many mansion? It just does not sound right,am I wrong?


texts:
When considering if angels really have wings, I have decided to read some comments on Christianity SE and came across lots of users assuming that cherubim and seraphim are angels:

• Lesley:

  There are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that
  have wings - cherubim and seraphim  [read full answer here]

• Narnian:

  The Bible actually does indicate that angels have wings, as both cherubim and seraphim are angels.  [read full answer here]

I know that they are all spiritual beings, but can we assume that cherubim and seraphim are angels?

I came across a similar question, that only addresses seraphim but it seems that there is space for discussion and further clarifications.

In the meantime, to further discuss what is a seraphim and how do they relate with cherubim I have opened this thread.


texts: What is the theology of the Semi-Arians?

texts:
What I know from history books is that Semi-Arians held to the neutral theological position of homoiousians against both strict homoousians and anomoeans.

However, I found a very scant knowledge about their theology and these are what I want to know:

Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is eternal or not?
Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is a creature?
What do they believe about the Holy Spirit?


texts: Is brethren a currently used plural for brother (monks)?

texts: General use of brethren as meaning is considering archaic and not used. Is it in current usage in the Christian world?


texts: Is anyone aware of an Akathist to St. Lawrence, Martyr and Archdeacon of Rome?  I have akathists to other saints, but not to Lawrence.


texts: Why in the Roman Catholic Church does the sixth commandment differ between languages?

texts:
I noticed that in the Roman Catholic Church, in English, the sixth commandment is "You shall not commit adultery" but in Spanish it is "No cometerás actos impuros" which translates into "You shall not commit impure acts". The Catholic Church as far as I know is the same in English and Spanish so I'm pondering why this difference as my guess is that the same concept should be in all languages, but the concepts of adultery and impure acts are different.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that "No cometerás actos impuros" also appears in the official Catholic Church catechism here in the Spanish version, towards the end of the page.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that God likes or feels affection toward us?

texts: To some people, and even to Christians at times, it seems difficult to believe that the all-powerful Creator of the Cosmos likes or feels affection for humans personally. This was the topic of a recent question addressed to the Catholic perspective. I would specifically like to ask: what is the biblical basis for the belief that God's love for people includes a genuine individual affection?


texts: What do Reformed Christians understand by God's foreordination?

texts:
The reformed, Westminster Confession of faith, reads in chapter three:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His
own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass

Does foreordained mean God wanted certain historical evils like wars to happen? And that there is nothing we could have done, for those events not to happen, since God, from all eternity, willed them?


texts: Is there an instance of parents lying to their children that was approved by God in the Bible?

texts:
Is there any instance in the Bible in which:

Parents lied to children, and
God approved of it?

There is an instance in 1 Kings 22:22 in which the Lord is said to put a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets, but that appears to be God -> spirit -> deceive a king, which seems different from parent/child relationships.


texts: Is Any New Testament Book Undisputed In Its Authorship?

texts:
It seems as though every time I turn around, I find that "the majority of scholars" doubt this person wrote this gospel or letter. It seems as though no book of the NT is immune to this doubting and disputation. Doubting every single one of the books seems a bit beyond the pail to me, and suggests a real bias against giving validity to the new testament.

Is there a new testament book or letter whose authorship and date are undisputed and accepted? If not, which one has the strongest argument for its authenticity?


texts: Was Christ's suffering unusually harsh for the standard of the Roman times?

texts: I can understand the political reasons behind His execution. What I can't really understand is why did the Romans go through such a lengthy and gruesome process. I know crucifixion used to be a somewhat common penalty at the time but every time I read the accounts of it I am overcome with a sense of exaggeration, of unbounded excess. Was it so important for the rulers to make an example?


texts: What did Paul mean when he wrote 1 Corinthians 14:22 in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:23-25?

texts:
We see in 1 Corinthians 14:22 that tongues are a sign for unbelievers and prophesy is a sign for believers, yet in the latter verses it appears to indicate the opposite, that tongues are  sign for believers and prophesy a sign for unbelievers. What did Paul mean when he said this?
I included verse 21 because it seems to indicate that the speaking in foreign tongues like what we see happen at Pentecost is descriptive of how tongues are a sign to unbelievers, naturally a foreigner speaking your tongue will serve as a sign from God. I've heard the interpretation that tongues means two different things in this passage but I don't see that as justifiable since it talking about tongues in such a close proximity without any distinction.

1 Corinthians 14:21-25
21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.


texts: How would a Reformed theologian distinguish his or her view of atonement?

texts:
The term 'limited atonement' has been used, and I wonder how the Reformed is differing by definition from the Evangelical view of atonement. Further, what Scriptures do the Reformed base this view upon?

(I have attempted to answer some questions Biblically, having been brought up mainly in the Evangelical tradition, to find that my answers are dissatisfying for someone seeking the particular view of the Reformed or Calvinist.  I am interested in learning what some specific differences are between the two traditions, having only a general understanding at present.  This question is in that vein.)


texts: Christian Position on the meaning of Faith

texts:
We are told, 'The just (upright) shall live by faith.' So I have a question for the Christians here. How do you understand faith? This does not have to be strictly biblical (since the scripture does not interpret itself, except where it really explicitly does so) but can also use anecdotal, philosophical or logical proofs/reasons for your explanation.

A good definition an agnostic gave me once was, 'A strong trust in someone or something'.

Consider the following two sided propositions:

Does faith refer to a blind acceptance?

We are often told, no, and consider the case of Gideon, but --
Job is told he does not understand -- he is expected to accept the goodness of God without an explanation he can grasp

Is faith rational?

In some cases, we are told yes, consider the phrase, 'a reason to believe'... but --
Abraham is asked to do something wrong on orders from God; that he really will go through with it is met with 'Now I know that you are faithful.'

Does faith itself save a person?

John 3:16 suggests this, as do some of Jesus' words, but --
We are repeatedly told, 'Those who endure until the end shall be saved.'

Is faith a work?

In some traditions, faith is contrasted against works, but --
James the Just tells us 'faith without works is dead' and in another place equates Abrahams faith and works ('see how he was justified by works...') and indeed many passages where we have the word 'faith', it is really 'faithing', i.e. trusting, meaning something active: a work.

Is doubt a sin, or at least, the lack of faith?

Jesus warns against doubt as does James the Just, but --
The Apostle Thomas is in our tradition lauded for his doubt ('the precious doubt of Thomas' it is called) and we are also confronted with a contradiction where the man in the Gospels says, 'I believe, help my unbelief' - suggesting doubt and faith can coexist.

Is faith a source of knowledge?

Paul suggests so 'evidence of things not seen'
But we have numerous examples where faith itself is only a substitute for knowledge (for example, Abraham's case.)

What is the 'faith of Christ' (pisteis Christou)?

Some suggest it is Christ's faith, i.e. his personal faith, but
The verbiage is vague, and may be interpreted as 'faith in Christ', i.e. believing in him.

We use faith generically, but is this even correct?

Is having faith in Christ the same as having faith that space aliens exist?
or does our definition of 'faith' implicitly include the object of that faith?

Is it possible to overemphasize faith, as opposed to questioning?

On the one hand, we are told we must enter the Kingdom as little children: that's radical acceptance
We are also told that false Christs will come with false signs and to test all of the spirits. That seems like pretty radical skepticism there.

You may either answer personally or for your tradition, or for another person's interpretation. But most of all, I'm hoping to find a consensus on some if not all of these points. It does not have to be either/or, it can be both/and, but if so, why?


texts: According to Biblical Unitarians, Did Jesus know that he would succeed?

texts:
Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus was only a man and that he was given the gift of the holy spirit at his baptism in order to help him resist sinning and complete the purpose for which God the Father sent him.  As near as I can understand BU believe that Jesus had his own will which was sometimes different and even at odds with the will of God (for example, "nevertheless not my will but your will be done").
I think BU would agree that God knew beforehand that Jesus would succeed as evidenced by the large quantity of prophecies given to that effect.  Here are just a couple of examples:

Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.- Isaiah 52:13-15

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. - Isaiah 53:10-11

Jesus knew the Scriptures very, very well (to say the least) and he both knew what they said about God's Messiah and also that he was that very Messiah:

And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” - Luke 4:17-21

He knew ahead of time that he would be handed over to the Gentiles by the Jews, mistreated, killed, and rise from the dead:

for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” - Mark 9:31

In keeping with all of the Levitical prescriptions for sacrifices, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is proof that he was successful in offering himself as a sacrifice without any spot or blemish of sin:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. - 1 Timothy 3:16

I have seen BU content stating that Jesus, since he had a merely human will and was tempted in every way like we are, certainly could have sinned.
Given that Jesus knew he would justify many by rising from the dead and that this resurrection on our behalf required his death in a sinless condition:

Do Biblical Unitarians agree that Jesus must have known ahead of time that he would live a sinless life?

If yes, in what sense can it be said that Jesus "could have" sinned?


texts: In Romans 7 is Paul talking about before or after he was saved?

texts: In Romans 7:15 Paul said "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." and in Romans 7:11 Paul said "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." So it may seem that Paul was talking about having a sin problem BEFORE he was saved. Is Romans 7:17-34 talking about before Paul was saved or after Paul was saved? This is important because some believe we sin after we are saved and some believe we don't sin after we are saved and this is a key passage in discussions on this topic.


texts: How did Jesus get heard by 5000 families at once?

texts:
When I attend a meeting of more than about 100 people, the speaker's voice is normally amplified using a microphone and speaker.

Jesus spoke to 5000 families at once. And at other times he spoke to multitudes.

How did He get heard by so many without amplification?

Ideas that I've heard include that He could be heard when:

He was physically higher than His audience.
His voice could be projected across water.

Is there any other, general rule for how He could be heard?


texts: How will Jesus be recognized at the time of "Second Coming"?

texts: All major Christian denominations await the "Second Coming" or the "Return" of Jesus the Christ. How will he be recognized by Christians at that time? What are the criteria to be fulfilled? Surely, not just any claimant can be believed to be Jesus.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what is to become of a family when the married couple discovers they are brother and sister?

texts:
The scenario

A brother and sister are separated at birth and grow up not knowing of each other. Years later they meet and unbeknownst that they are brother and sister, fall in love, marry, and have children.

The question

Later, perhaps due to a search in family medical history, they discover this fact in their past.

According to the Catholic Church, what is to become of a family upon this discovery?

An answer may include a real life example.


texts: According to Preterism has Jesus already delivered the kingdom to God?

texts:
1 Corinthians 15:22-25 (ESV)
  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

I assume this refers to when Christ destroyed death, the last enemy, which is in the past.

So do Preterists say that after 70AD "the end" came and Jesus ceased to reign so that God might be all in all?


texts: According to Catholicism, is it sinful to drink alcohol in order to get drunk?

texts:
Say you drink and you know if you drink more you might get drunk, or you simply drink to get drunk.  You will become drunk and you know it, and no one is forcing you to drink.

Is that a sin, according to the Roman Catholic Church?


texts: Where does the Catholic church procure most of its Bibles?

texts:
I was recently doing some research on Bible publishing and distribution in order to compose this answer over on the Skeptics Stack Exchange site. In spite of the result being well received, I have a nagging doubt that I might have missed something. The one I'm wondering if I under-estimated is related to the Catholic church.

I realize the United Bible Societies specifically prints Bibles in many languages that include the Deuterocanon and works with both Catholic and Orthodox groups for distribution. What I was unable to determine is if this was the primary source for Bibles in Catholic circles around the world. If not, the sheer size of the Catholic church must place a pretty high demand on some other publisher.

I found some references to a Catholic Biblical Federation but didn't find any evidence that they were a major player in print or distribution of Bibles. A related article in Newadvent talks a lot about Protestant Bible societies and historical movements but doesn't specifically mention the role Catholic church. Are primarily Protestant societies listed because that was the point of the article or because that's primary what is out there?

Does the Catholic church have any in house publishing operations or an independent publishing/distribution source that handles high volume in any worldwide region or do they typically piggy back on the regional Bible societies that are summed up under the UBS umbrella?


texts: What is the status of Catholics who reject Vatican II? Are they considered heretics?

texts: Are Catholics opposing Vatican II considered heretics (by the Roman Catholic Church)?


texts: What explanations have scholars proposed for the rejection of the Didache from the Canon?

texts:
The Didache (full text) is an early Christian document giving advice on various "practical matters" such as how to baptize, when to fast, how to celebrate the Lord's Supper, etc.   It's hard to date, but generally scholars think it was contemporary with at least parts of the NT.  And it claimed apostolic authority.

Although the Didache enjoyed high status in the second-century church, the document ultimately did not make the Canon of the New Testament.  There doesn't seem to be a documented reason for the exclusion in the writings of the Church Fathers, so I imagine it is mostly speculation on what caused its decline in popularity and ultimate failure to make the canon.   Nonetheless, what reasons have scholars cited as possible reasons for its exclusion?

(Although I do consider "the Holy Spirit didn't guide believers to preserve it" a valid reason for exclusion, that isn't what I am looking for here.)


texts: Why are there differences in the "Greeting" of the Mass?

texts:
This website lists three options for the greeting recited by the presider of the Mass.
After the following:

Priest:  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  [All together make the sign of the cross.]
All:  Amen.

Then, one of three options:

Option A
Priest:  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
All:  And also with you.

Option B
Priest:  The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
All:  Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
or All:  And also with you.

Option C
Priest:  The Lord be with you.
[or Bishop:  Peace be with you.]
All:  And also with you.

Why are there three options?
Which authority determines which option to use? Is this the presider's choice alone, or does one in authority above the presider make this determination?


texts:
Recently I had a small discussion with some of my catholic friends: some of them refuse the idea that the Confession act, as it is known in present day - as  the acknowledgment of one's sins given in the verbal form towards a priest or a bishop with the subsequent remission (forgiveness) of sins - wasn't present at the Apostolic times (i.e. in the early Christian Church).

I personally think, that even if the form of the confession could be different (like public confession of sins), but as the result it was forgiveness given by bishop/priest, i.e. essentially the same sacramental act.

I wondering, are any:

1) Official Catholic doctrine regarding this subject,

2) Any authoritative historian researches about this subject.


texts: How do Aquinas and Hooker differ in their doctrine on communion?

texts:
In The Screwtape Letters (1942), C. S. Lewis records the words of the devil Screwtape on church shopping and factionalism (letter 16):

  The real fun is working up hatred between those who say "mass" and those who say "holy communion" when neither party could possibly state the difference between, say, Hooker's doctrine and Thomas Aquinas', in any form which would hold water for five minutes.

What is the difference in doctrine on mass / communion, between Thomas Aquinas and Richard Hooker?

Please ensure answers will hold water for five minutes.


texts: Does liturgical abuse make a mass invalid?

texts:
This question is strictly referring to the Novus Ordo.

If there is a change of the wording of the mass, abuse of sign of peace (talking out loud and laughing, waving at others during mass), congregations in Orans posture for Our Father and holding hands, secular bands playing modern hymns, the faithful in immodest dress, etc...does this render the particular said mass invalid?  Thanks, I am struggling with this.  Having attended the Tridentine rite for many years, I am going to new parish that offers Novus Ordo.  I can't seem to resign to the fact that it is the same mass spiritually!  Please help!


texts: Is tithing something necessary under the new covenant?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say about tithing?

Before you answer please remember that tithing and giving are not the same thing.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the doctrine that salvation cannot be lost?

texts: Not much to add to the title. How do Christians who advocate the "once saved, always saved" doctrine back it up with Scripture? How do they commonly defend their interpretations against rebuttals from critics?


texts: Refutations of, or Thoughts on How Jesus Became God (Bart D. Ehrman)

texts:
Are there any published, written or recorded (audio or video) responses to the claims Bart D Ehrman makes in  How Jesus Became God?

I'm currently reading this and Misquoting Jesus as part of an ongoing examination of what I believe and, as someone raised in the Christian tradition, I am finding Ehrman's arguments to be both eye-opening and disturbing.

I want to make sure that my research includes information from a diverse range of source material so that I can make informed decisions, which is why I pose this question


texts: Prominent Theologians' answer to: What is "The Parable of the Shrewd Manager" about?

texts:
The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (full text below) is perhaps one of the hardest parables to interpret. At first glance it seems to be about rewarding dishonesty!
What lesson is Jesus teaching His followers with this parable? Has any prominent theologian (eg Matthew Henry, NT Wright) explained this parable?

Luke 16:1-14
Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’
“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg. I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
“‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’
“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.


texts: Who are the Nicholaitans mentioned in the Book of Revelation, and what are the works Jesus and the believers in Ephesus hate?


texts: Can a practicing Catholic be an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church Monastery?

texts:
Stephen Colbert's wikipedia bio states:

  Colbert is a practicing Roman Catholic and a Sunday school teacher and an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church Monastery.

These two (bolded) things, according to various media reports and the blogsite of the Universal Life Church Monastery are factually correct, so I'm not asking if they are possible, but whether according to official Catholic doctrine the two are reconcileable?

By way of background information:

  The Universal Life Church Monastery (ULC) is a non-denominational, non-profit religious organization famous worldwide for its provision of free, legal ordinations to its vast membership over the internet. The ULC, recognizing the importance of maintaining open hearts and minds, embraces any individual, no matter his or her spiritual background, who wishes to become a member of this family of faith. Since its founding, the Universal Life Church has ordained more than 20 million ministers. - www.themonastery.org/aboutUs

The Picture is of Colbert officiating at the wedding of Mike Cassesso and MaiLien Le using a licence granted to him in the state of New York on the basis of his ULC credential.

Clearly Colbert was not officiating as a priest in the Catholic sacrament of marriage, but do his actions in conducting a non-Catholic wedding violate any particular Church teachings? If so, would it be regarded as a venial sin or a mortal one?


texts: Is it possible to receive the full effects of the Catholic Spiritual Communion if one is being distanced from the Communion due to being gay?

texts:
The liturgical practices during Covid-19 pandemic bring into spotlight the ancient Catholic practice of doing a Spiritual Communion in order to obtain graces.

My question is - there is man who is not Christened, who is gay (and in-and-out of the relevant relationships), who tries to bring into order his professional life and career, who has desire for God and for leading life of good man (he attends mass once a week, reads theological literature and journals, says daily prayers, including rosary), but of course, he can not go to the communion because of his private life. The talks with priest is out of question - priest can not do miracles and change the conditions of life. So - the Spiritual Communion is the only way to receive the Eucharist for him. Question is - is he receiving the full effect of Eucharist in the Act of Spiritual Communion? In everyday life and during the Covid-19 pandemic?

P.S. - I am reading the article entitled: Truly Human Sexual Acts: A Response to Patrick Lee and Robert George, from the Jesuit theological journal "Theological Studies" and I feel that the Church if live despite some others who is saying opposite.


texts: From an LDS perspective, what is an Unclean Spirit?

texts:
From an LDS perspective, what is an unclean spirit?  What is its history?  Where did it come from?

From the scriptures, I gather that unclean spirits want to inhabit mortal bodies.  My guess is that unclean spirits once lived on earth in a mortal body.

Some might say an unclean spirit is the same as an evil spirit and is the same as the third part of the host of heaven which fell in the pre-mortal existence.  I would be happy to know if this is correct or if an unclean spirit is different than the other two.


texts: What does the Nicene Creed mean when it says that the Father and the Son are of the same substance?

texts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed says:

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father
  [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of
  God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being
  of one substance with the Father;

How are the Son and the Father different? In the Nicene Creed it seems that they are separate persons but sharing the same substance.

Do Catholics believe that there is a substance out of which God is made? What is the "substance" being discussed here?

We cannot say that Jesus is God in the sense of identity, because then Jesus is God and the Father is God so Jesus is the Father, which contradicts the doctrine.


texts: Do Pentecostals disagree with women preaching?

texts:
On whether or not women can be preachers, know several who disagree: Voddie Bauchman, John MacArthur, Norman Geisler, John Pipper, Albert Mohler, Yago Martins (from "Dois Dedos de Teologia"), etc.
Considering their background are Calvinist, Baptist and / or Presbyterian, is it perhaps one of the things that distinguishes them from Pentecostals? Or are there Pentecostals too that disagree with it?


texts: Did J. Gresham Machen consider joining an existing presbyterian body before founding the OPC?

texts:
J. Gresham Machen is best known for his battle against theological liberalism in the northern Presbyterian church in the US (the PCUSA), first founding a seminary (in 1929) and then an independent missions agency in 1933.

This latter action in particular was swiftly condemned by his denomination, and after a couple years of trials and appeals, he was defrocked in 1936.  Not long after, he founded a new denomination – the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

I'd like to know if it's documented anywhere that Machen seriously considered joining another Presbyterian body in the US prior to creating the OPC.  At the time, there weren't nearly as many Presbyterian options, but others did exist, such as the PCUS (in the South), the ARP, and the RPCNA.

Do we have any evidence, particularly from his writings, that Machen considered joining another Presbyterian denomination instead of founding a new one?


texts: "You are dust and to dust you shall return" versus resurrection of the body (Catholic perspective)

texts:
In the Ash Wednesday mass of the Catholic Church, the priest puts a cross made of ash in the forehead, whilst saying:

  You are dust and to dust you shall return

I understand the literal and (I think) the spiritual meaning of these words. Yet, in both the Apostle's creed and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed state:

  I believe in ... the resurrection of the body

According to the Catholic Church, how are these two statemets/beliefs reconcilable?


texts: Who were the non-gentiles implied in Matthew 6: 32?

texts:
In Matthew 6: 32 ("For all these things the Gentiles seek.") it seems as if Jesus divided the world into gentiles and non-gentiles.
Who were the non-gentiles implied in the verse?


texts:
Why do some Christians wear crosses? What is the purpose of wearing the cross? What is the point of wearing the cross with a tiny Jesus on it? Is wearing a cross with or without Jesus a violation of one of the commandments of the Decalogue? How do Christians-who-wear-crosses justify their wearing crosses?

I think this demands a cross-denominational answer, because I at least know both Baptists and Catholics wear crosses, and many priests and pastors from various denominations would wear a cross about their chests.


texts: Why didn't God decide where the temple should be built during the exodus?

texts:
I thought God is omniscient. So how come He doesn't know the place he will be worshiped during the exodus?

Notice the Bible says the place God will choose, not the place God will reveal.

  there will be a site that God will choose as the place dedicated to
  His name. It is there that you will have to bring all that I am
  prescribing to you as your burnt offerings, eaten sacrifices,
  [special] tithes, hand-delivered elevated gifts, and the choice
  general pledges that you may pledge to God.

Later, the Jews believe that the place is Jerusalem and the Samaritans, never being told where the place should be, just picked their own place.

Was God still undecided where the place of the temple would be, during the Exodus?

He didn't know what he would choose?


texts: Is there a reason why the story Bel and the Dragon is included in the Book of Daniel by some churches and not by others?

texts:
The story of Bel and the Dragon seems disjointed and like a strangely put together fairy tale, yet most churches include it as apocryphal literature and others believe it to be canonical.

What were they thinking?


texts: What is the difference between the Jewish celebration of Passover and the Christian celebration of Easter?

texts: What are some of the main differences between the Jewish celebration of Passover from the Christian celebration of Easter?


texts: Of what date is the oldest inscription of Yahweh found?

texts: Is it true that there is an inscription of Yahweh found that is older than when Moses was revealed the name of God in the Bible?


texts:
As mentioned in this question, this commentary mentions one "Theophylact" who was apparently a contemporary of Athanasius. Wikipedia only provides a list of figures who lived well past Athanasius's time, and in my research, I've only found information about the people on that list. Here's the quote from that commentary:

  Some (for instance, Theophylact) understand this "as it were" to signify that the expression, "drops of blood," was simply parabolic; but it is far better to understand the words in their literal sense, as our Church does when it prays, "By thine agony and bloody sweat." Athanasius even goes so far as to pronounce a ban upon those who deny this sweat of blood.


texts: How can a non-physical God create a physical universe?

texts: I was just curious on how God could create a universe of physical matter when God is a non-physical being to begin with. How can a non-physical being create physical matter? Thanks if anyone can answer this question ;)


texts: Did Paul actually report anything about the life of Jesus?

texts:
In a clip from the movie The God Who Wasn't There the narrator says that Paul knew largely nothing of what we call the story of Jesus. That he only reported Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and that he did not place any of these events on Earth.

Is this claim supportable from primary evidence?


texts: Are there any accounts of the wise men story outside of scripture?

texts:
The wise men were educated and would have documented their experience in detail. Also, they would have shared the Christmas story with everyone they came in contact with on their trip home. Once they were back in their home land their story should have spread far and wide.

Outside of scripture, are there any writings telling of the wise men story? If they indeed were educated, respected, and had influence and integrity, there would be non-biblical accounts. Have any been found?


texts:
I'm reading Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives" and he indicates how Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the evening. Also Gabriel appears to Daniel (Dn 9, 21) at the same hour:

  As I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man, Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly, touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice.

Now, I can't confirm that Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the evening sacrifice, because there apparently were two "incense sacrifices in a day", one in the morning and another in the evening. But it would make sense if it was in the evening.

Things get more interesting. We only know of Gabriel because of the book of Daniel and because of these two apparitions in Luke. Two of them apparently happened in the evening. What about Mary? Benedict XVI doesn't say as far as I've read but he points out to Psalm 141, 2:

  Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight; the lifting up of my hands, as evening sacrifice.

The question therefore is: Do we know of any biblical text that says if Mary was praying before Gabriel's apparition? What about any interpreters, commentaries or traditions that made a case for it?

Thank you all and God bless you.


texts: Is there a twelfth word to be added to the eleven of the angelic host?

texts:
After the individual angel spoke to the shepherds keeping watch in the field, Luke 2: 8-12, the multitude of the heavenly host appeared, praising God, and they spoke. I would suggest that their recorded words are a summation of all that was said at the time.
That summation is precisely eleven words in the recorded Greek, given by Luke in chapter two, verse thirteen:

δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια
doxa en upsiotois Theo kai epi ges eirene en anthropoi eudokia

This can be rendered in exactly eleven English words (see Young's Literal Translation):

Glory in highest, Godward; and on earth, peace: among men, goodwill.

One would have expected twelve words (the number of covenant), given that this is the inauguration of the New Testament.
Is there a word which is expected to be added. On our part, to these heavenly words of the angelic host?


texts: Who is the John Owen that translated Calvin's Commentary on Romans?

texts:
I'm reading John Calvin's commentary on Romans, in English, and it has this inscription on the title page: "Translated and Edited by the Rev. John Owen."

Oh, wow, I thought, That's interesting; John Owen translated this; but I was thinking of the the Owen who lived 1616 – 1683. As I began to read the "Translator's Preface," it was clear that I had the wrong Owen in mind; he referenced a commentary on Romans by Charles Hodge (1797-1878), and as it went along it became clear it wasn't a different Hodge.

However, I have not been able to find out who this later Owen was or learn anything about him. It's evident from the commentary that he was British and contemporaneous with Charles Hodge. Who was he? Was a Presbyterian or an Anglican minister? Did he translate other works of Calvin?


texts: How do Catholics describe "eternal generation"?

texts:
It seems to me that "eternal generation" is an oxymoron:

  "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel
  kindness); broadly :  something (as a concept) that is made up of
  contradictory or incongruous elements"

It seems to me that "generation" requires at least a single step:

  a :  the action or process of producing offspring :  procreation b :
  the process of coming or bringing into being  c
  :  origination by a generating process :  production; especially :
  formation of a geometric figure by motion of another

Do they say:

God and Jesus both existed eternally with Jesus "describable" as a son, begotten, etc. but with no actual, literal birthing having occurred?
the begetting of Jesus occurred so long ago as to be for all intents and purposes to still be considered "eternally so"?
it is a "mystery beyond human comprehension" (as the Trinity in general is often described)?

Or do they simply use the term without explanation of the contradiction?


texts: Are the contents of the Jehovah Witness website dogmatic?

texts:
Is the content of the Jehovah Witness website final and binding?

For example, is the Bible Study guide definite and binding to all the Faithful? Or is it a usefull study guide that is open for the Faithful to critique.


texts: According to Catholicism, why does the Creed mention only the role of Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus?

texts:
We read an account of the Annunciation at Lk 1:30-35 (NRSVCE):

30 "The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God

We see the reference to the Most High being made twice - first at Verse 32 and secondly at Verse 35. Throughout  the Gospels, we see Jesus witnessing, communicating with and praying to God the Father whom he fondly calls Abba Father (Mk 14:36). That implies that by the term the Most High, the angel meant God the Father. Verse 35 also points to the role of the Most High in the promised conception of Jesus . Now, the Creed says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, apparently ignoring the role of the Most High. One wonders why the Church limits the conception of Jesus to the power of the Holy Spirit in the Creed . My question therefore, is:  Why does the Creed mention only the role of Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus ? What explanation does the Catholic Church offer for the same?


texts: Texts in Eastern services expressing ideas about the role of woman in child development

texts:
I have quite a specific question about the view of ancient Christians on the development of a child. I always assumed, that since the Ephesus Fathers considered being born of human woman as a paramount proof for Christ being truly human, that they must have considered the role of woman as important. On the other hand most ancient natural philosophers tended to diminish the role of woman, claiming that she is only the nurturer of male sperm.

My question is: are there liturgical texts about Theotokos that would somehow reflect the views of contemporary Christians about this? I vaguely remember some mention of the role of blood of Mary, but I can't recollect if it was Octoechos or Menaion and what was exactly stated there.


texts:
Amongst many evangelicals, there is at least a question around inerrancy, such as is expressed by some in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

The issues regarding Joseph Smith's translation of the Golden Plates would offer an interesting test case, in that while the original manuscript (aka the plates themselves) are no longer available, Smith's first translated notes are.  That said, there are known revisions and edits to the current text.

Does there exist within the LDS spectrum groups that hold to the inerrancy of Smith's original manuscripts? And, if so, are there any significant doctrinal issues that such groups would hold as a result?


texts: What is the origin of holding hands when praying around a circle before a meal?

texts: My impression is that, among many Christians, people around a table saying a prayer thanking Jesus for a meal hold hands with one another. What is the origin of this practice, and are there any reasons for it given in reliable sources?


texts: Was Jesus superior to man when he was in flesh?

texts: I was asking myself this, while reading the Pauline epistles, was Jesus on earth able to do miracles or he was a man like us with our limits and depending only on God?


texts: In Genesis, how did the first language come to be?

texts: How did Adam, and then Eve, learn to speak?


texts: What does "to pray" mean in Catholicism?

texts:
The general usage of to pray in non-Catholic religious settings seems to indicate worship of God, raising one's heart to God, and forms of reaching out or responding to God. However, we often hear that Catholics pray to saints, though Catholicism firmly asserts that it does not condone worship of any being other than God.

Is "praying to Saint So-and-so" a mis-use of the verb to pray? Are worship and/or God not inherent to religious prayer? Or, is are they both correct uses: Are other modes or meanings to the verb intended in certain Catholic uses of it?

It's also notable that Catholics identify several forms of prayer: vocal prayer, meditation, and contemplation. Do those fit within the "general Christian" understanding of prayer?


texts: "As it is written in their Law"—A Prophecy?

texts:
There is a well-known 'Bible-difficulty' in John 15:25:

John 15:23-25 (DRB)
He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.

This is seen as strange, since Jesus ought to know that this phrase is found in the Psalms, and not the Torah. Indeed, it's nigh impossible, according to any view of Jesus, however unforgiving, that Jesus would confuse something in the Psalms with something in the Torah—assuming by 'Law' He meant the 'Torah.' It's also not possible that Jesus would refer to 'the Law' as 'their Law' if He meant the Torah.
However, something in what Jews themselves identify as the Oral Law, the Talmud (which Jesus could definitely be imagined to have—Cf. Mt 15:9—deridingly called 'their Law') in 'The Day [of Atonement]' (Yomha 9b) could be what He is referring to... prophetically:

מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב? מפני שלשה דברים שהיו בו: עבודה זרה, וגלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים. . . . אבל מקדש שני, שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות: עבודה זרה, גלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים
Why was the First Temple destroyed? Because of three evils in it: idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed . . . But why was the Second Temple destroyed, seeing that during the time it stood people occupied themselves with Torah, with observance of precepts, and with the practice of charity? Because during the time it stood, hatred without cause prevailed. This is to teach you that hatred without cause is deemed as grave as all the three sins of idolatry, sexual immorality and bloodshed together.

Now we know that Jesus pretty openly taught that the destruction of the Temple/punishment of the Jews was because of their killing of Him:

Luke 20:9-19 (DRB)
And he began to speak to the people this parable: A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: and he was abroad for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. Who, beating him, sent him away empty. 11 And again he sent another servant. But they beat him also, and treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty. 12 And again he sent the third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out. 13 Then the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be, when they see him, they will reverence him. 14 Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come, and will destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others. Which they hearing, said to him: God forbid. 17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone, shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
19 And the chief priests and the scribes sought to lay hands on him the same hour: but they feared the people, for they knew that he spoke this parable to them.

Question
Could Jesus have prophetically been tying a prophetic Psalm (Ps. 69) in with a prophecy of His own: that the Jews would even write this in their own Talmud?
Thanks in advance.


texts: If faith without deeds, or actions, is dead, then what are these concrete actions?

texts:
I have been very concerned lately with James 2, starting with verse 14, especially with actions related to faith:

  What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone?
  Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, "Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well"—but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?

  So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.

  Now someone may argue, "Some people have faith; others have good deeds." But I say, "How can you show me your faith if you don't have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds."

  You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.
  How foolish! Can't you see that faith without good deeds is useless?

  Don't you remember that our ancestor Abraham was shown to be right with God by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see, his faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. (James 2:14-22, NLT-SE translation)

I would like an overview of how published Bible commentaries have addressed the following questions in reference to this passage:

What specific action or actions show one's faith?
Are these actions required for salvation, or simply evidence of living a Christian life?

The motivation for this question is that I want to become a Christian and not just believe in Christ. I would like my actions to speak by themselves as a testimony of Christ in me. My end goal is to build a list out of your answer, so if possible please quote verses.


texts: Who first understood the "authorities" in Romans 13 as spiritual, not secular, authorities?

texts:
In his forthcoming book, Freedom's Progress, libertarian Gerard Casey describes several different ways of interpreting and applying Romans 13:1–7.  One approach in particular I had never encountered before:

that the "authorities" (ἐξουσίαις) of verse 1, often rendered "governing authorities," should be understood as spiritual or ecclesiastical authorities
that the "sword" (μάχαιραν) of verse 4, usually understood to be a physical sword, actually should be understood spiritually, as in the "sword of the spirit" (cf. Ephesians 6:17)

Here I'm not focused on the relative merits of this interpretation, but on its origin.  While not all in the early church were particularly pro-government, I haven't found anyone interpreting Romans 13:1–7 in the way Casey describes here.  I've also checked The Politics of Jesus by Anabaptist John Howard Yoder, and his treatment of Romans 13 doesn't match this either.

Who then first interpreted Romans 13:1–7 in this way, seeing the "authorities" and "sword" as spiritual in nature?


texts: Jesus said no one had gone into heaven except the Son of Man, but what about Elijah?

texts:
I've found two verses which seem to be contradictory, so I'm hoping someone can explain how they can be reconciled.

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. (John 3:13, NIV)
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. (2 Kings 2:11, NIV)

Jesus was well-versed in the Old Testament, so why would he say what he did in John 3:13?
Is it possible that this was just a nasty tornado and Elijah was just not to be found (or elaborate metaphor for a "whirlwind" of an attack, ripping up dust like fire, from enemies and he was killed or kidnapped and killed)?
Note that the NLT adds "and returned":

No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. (John 3:13, NLT)

But I don't know warranted this addition is, as no other translations have it.


texts: What is the most basic Biblical understanding of the nature of the firmament?

texts: Going back to original Hebrew texts where possible, what is the most basic understanding of the firmament (the substance/realm/space that God supposedly stuck between heaven from earth)?  I've read a lot of literature theorizing about the antediluvian world, creationist texts and such, postulating (guessing about) different natures for the "firmament".  But looking only at the texts, what could be learned about the Biblical/ancient-Hebrew understanding of the stuff?


texts:
Spiritual communion is a prayer one can pray if they can't receive the Eucharist at Mass and it's a good prayer to pray if you're making a visit to a tabernacle outside of Mass.  Sacramental communion can be conferred in extraordinary circumstances outside of Mass, and I would think that the same graces conferred through reception of the Body and Blood of Christ during Mass would be conferred outside of the Mass setting. (Is conferred the right word?)

But what graces are not conferred on the pray-er who asks for spiritual communion?  Or, less specifically, what is found in sacramental communion that is not found in spiritual communion?


texts: Christ and the Believer Icon (Companion Icon) origin?

texts:
I was in Taize and besides finding it to be a rather interesting place, I found a lot of refreshing symbols there. Particularly the (based on Taize page) Christ and the Believer Icon (or the companion icon translated to my language):

I always found it quite inspiring (and I assumed it was an orthodox icon), but I found it rather hard to find documentation about it. Besides some theological and iconographic debates around it that describes it as being Christ with someone that can be any of us, as the name suggests.
Does anyone know the origin/history of this icon? Or any official source for it?


texts: What is the role and significance of Zion in Christianity?

texts:
The meaning of Zion is uncertain. There is a  hymn related to Zion. The refrain part says,

  We’re marching to Zion,
      Beautiful, beautiful Zion;
      We’re marching upward to Zion,
      The beautiful city of God.

What is the role and importance of Zion in Christianity?


texts:
John 8:6-8 NIV

  6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
  But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as
  though he heard them not.

  7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
  unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
  stone at her.

  8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Do we have any information on what he was writing?


texts: People often talk about spiritual gifts, like tongues and prophecy. What spiritual gifts are mentioned in the Bible? Please provide references.


texts: What explains the similarities in appearance between Jesus and a certain angel?

texts:
The primary physical description for Jesus is Revelation 1:13-15. I noticed that this physical description is essentially identical to the angel in Daniel 10:5-6 (unnamed, maybe Gabe).

Each is/has:

Clothed in a long garment, gird in gold
Fiery eyes
Brazen extremities
Many-voiced

The main difference being that the angel’s face is beryl-colored (yellow or blue/green) while Jesus’s face is white

What is at the root of the similarities? Do these features derive from some template of heavenly visitation? Do the individual features have meanings which would have been more clear to a reader in antiquity? Is there any elaboration of the authorial intent here?


texts: What does the Bible say about the justice of God? Is He just?


texts: 1 John 5:16 "you don't need to pray for that"?

texts:
1 John 5:16

  If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he
  shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do
  not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say
  that one should pray for that.

What I mean is like this :

One day, Mr.X say that "my brother committed sin that leads to death".
Then the following condition is interested me, which is : "then we don't have to pray for that"

This question raised because (to me) it seems human won't ever be able to decide that someone committed sin that leads to death ---> the result then there never and have ever occurred when someone tell someone not to pray for any kind of sin.

In fact,
A. I think a faithful and loving person - will never give up to pray for someone (let alone this someone is his brother) no matter how "crazy sick" sin this someone committed.

But reading the verse above,
B. it seems the verse do teach to just give up to pray about it when he/she sees that his/her brother/sister committed sin that leads to death.

My point A contradict point B.

Based on point-B, I need to correct my point A. Which becomes :
C. Although someone is a faithful and loving person, there is a limit where this someone doesn't need to pray if he sees his/her brother/sister committed sin that leads to death.

But still, it seems point-C is useless. Because (I think) it seems impossible that human (let alone the faithful and the loving person) dare enough to decide "oww... he/she committed a mortal sin !".

The question is :
Am I correct to think that the verse encourage "yes... you can decide if it's a mortal sin or not".

If I'm wrong, how is the Christian interpretation of this verse regarding my description above ?

Thank you.

PS : I don't put my question to a specific denomination yet. If it can not be answered then I will edit it.

Based from Sola Gratia answer, I have a new verse :

Matthew 18:15

  If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just
  between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Me : in this stage, it's not useless to pray for him

Matthew 18:16

  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses

Me : in this stage, it's still useful to pray for him.

Matthew 18:16

  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they
  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan
  or a tax collector

Me : in this stage, this brother committed mortal sin. It's useless to pray for him. In other words, there's no need to hope that God will forgive him - no need to hope him to repent.

So... based on Sola Gratia's answer, does 1 John 5:16 means something like the above situation when a faithful and loving person needs to give up praying for someone ?

Please CMIIW.


texts: Am I a party to the covenant of atonement?

texts:
Jesus prayed (Jn 17:21) that “they may be one in us as you are in me and I am in you.” (Easier to comprehend if in means in union with.) This is the original sense of at-one-ment. “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Ro 5:11; KJV uses atonement)

Our sins have put us on a path different from God’s. “Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” (Isa 55:3a,b). "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:33) God certainly takes the initiative, but if atonement brings God and me together, it is I who must change, not God.

Paul alludes to at least 10 different aspects of God’s activity in the atonement. Three major theological attempts to explain it involve Jesus and the Father; one even involves the devil. But none involve me, and the picture they suggest of the Father does  not fit the image that Jesus gives us. A fourth explanation, first proposed by Peter Abelard in the mid-1100s, is sometimes called “emotionally responsive”. Abelard declared that God, Jesus, loved us so much that He called us through the compassion of our hearts, from the position of an innocent man dying an unjust death. He phrased it: “Love answers love’s appeal.” I don’t know how to explain this to someone.

A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties. If I am not involved, am I still a party to the covenant of atonement? Verses like “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex 4:21, 9:12) make me wonder, did God soften my heart? Without my cooperation? I can think of three verses, other than Paul’s, to ponder: “Go and sin no more”, “Love one another as I have loved you”, and “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Mica 6:8)

What verses (or wisdom) from the Bible might support the idea of a continuing covenant, with my involvement, rather than a one-time event, without my participation, with regard to the atoning death of Jesus?


texts: How does repentance fit into the doctrine of sola fide ("by faith alone")?

texts:
Sola fide (Latin for "by faith alone") is a defining doctrine of Protestantism. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

  The doctrine of sola fide asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works". All mankind, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus), grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received solely through faith.

How does repentance fit into this doctrine? Is it possible to be unrepentant of sin (whether for some sins or all sins that one has committed) and yet still receive pardon for those sins? Is repentance considered a "work" in that it is ultimately unnecessary for justification?


texts: Why the word "REgenerate" according to the Calvinist?

texts:
I've search in the internet :

  RE- a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with
  the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or
  with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or
  backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert.

I mean, if it's Adam or Eve - it's easier to understand as it's still logical to think that Adam / Eve was generated at the first time of their existence. So, after they sin, the word regenerated make sense ---> for example : God generate Eve again.... or God generate Eve back to her condition before.

But what about for other people, who were created under the power of original sin and spiritually dead? Why is it still "REgeneration" for them, according to Calvinism?


texts: What does Paul intend to say in 1 Corinthians 5:5?

texts:
To be more clear, how can the person be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ by delivering such person (sexual immoral) to Satan for the destruction of the flesh?

  1 Corinthians 5:5 (NKJV)
  5  deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


texts:
The Apostle Paul famously made an extensive series of missionary journeys around the eastern Mediterranean (in various company, and stopping off in some places for months or years, also getting shipwrecked at one point). These are described in Acts and in the letters.

I am curious about the rough financial cost of these travels, in terms of the means of typical first-century people. Basically, how wealthy would you have to be in order to make these trips (assuming you're paying for it all yourself)? How much support might therefore have been required from other Christians in order to finance the voyages?

I'm not after exact numbers - just an estimate of where these trips fall on the scale of "Paul could easily have paid for the whole thing out of his own money" to "this was a major outlay for the whole church community".

Image from Wikimedia Commons - JWooldridge CC-BY-SA


texts: Is the Book of Mormon in English as authentic as in the original, or is Joseph Smith's translation imperfect?

texts:
It is commonly held in religion that the authenticity and authority of Scripture is highest in its original text, since human translators can introduce errors and misunderstandings not present originally.
However, in the case of the Book of Mormon, the translation is a bit unique given that:

We don't have a copy of the original Reformed Egyptian
Joseph Smith made his translation not by his own linguistic knowledge, but with divine aid and under direct instruction from an angel (who presumably is not subject to the ordinary flaws of human translators)

Given this, does the English text Book of Mormon have just as much authority as, say, the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel or the Hebrew text of Genesis?  Or does Joseph Smith's translation have the same ordinary flaws we would expect from any translation of original Scripture?


texts: Would an actual Christian (in the 1920s or today) actually make a "prayer sign" like this in this context?

texts:
In the Charlie Chaplin film "The Kid" (1921), there is a scene where his character, who is apparently supposed to be Christian, is being threatened with violence by a thug. As he walks backwards, dodging the swings from the thug, they appear under a sign that says "BEDS 10 CENTS".
When the thug swings at Charlie's character underneath the sign, it starts swinging back and forth from its hinges. Charlie's character notices this and makes the Christian "prayer hands" sign while looking up at the sign.
Here is the YouTube video clip showing it: The Kid, Charlie Chaplin fight scene one of the funniest scenes in kid.
Can this be explained somehow, other than simply being a fun visual gag? I mean, is it based on something? Would a Christian make such a prayer sign at a sign because it swings? Because the thug missed him? As if God saved him from the punch hitting him?
Is that "prayer sign" with the hands against each other something that Christians do/did to basically say: "Thanks for saving me from that danger, God!"?


texts: How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.


texts:
I answered this question calling adoration and veneration honor given to God and the saints accordingly.

If you look at the edits for my answer, I think I had some confusion as to the terminology which is popping up again and I still don't know what to do about it.  I can repeat the old maxim, "we adore God, we venerate Our Lady and the saints." But then, if asked to define those terms I'd have to say, adoration is worship due only to God and veneration is worship due to those in Heaven who are not God.

If I couldn't call them both worship, then I couldn't accurately compare them and people would say that I couldn't pray to both.  If I call both worship, then I take a great step into the land of idolatry and ancestor worship.

This is a Catholic questioned aimed at answers that teenagers would be able to grasp, but all reasonable answers will be considered reasonably :)


texts: In Galatians 4:19, what is the meaning of "Christ formed in you"?

texts:
When Paul is speaking of Christ being in the Galatians, what is the true meaning of that phrase, "Christ formed in you"?  Does it relate directly to salvation?
In the context of the letter, he speaks of the woman Hagar who represents condemnation under the law and the free woman Sarah whom by Faith receives the blessing of God.  Paul writes that when the Galatians place themselves under the law they are condemned and not in Christ.  So, is the meaning of this condemnation purely earthly or is it also spiritual (hell vs heaven)?
I want to clarify what this means before taking the next step of, "does this scripture mean we can lose our salvation?"

(KJV)  My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be
formed in you,
(ESV) my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

(emphasis added)


texts: Biblical basis for non-practice of Kiss of Peace

texts:
The "Kiss of Charity", "Holy Kiss", or Kiss of Peace is instructed several times in the New Testament, for example:

1 Peter 5:14 (KJV): Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.
2 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV): Greet one another with an holy kiss.

But as far as I can tell, this is not widely practiced in Protestant denominations. I find some (mostly historical) references to Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anabaptist practice but not much elsewhere.
Is there a basis in Biblical interpretation for Protestant rejection of this instruction as globally applicable? Or is it simply something that fell out of practice due to cultural differences?
Further background:
Catholic Encyclopedia entry:

at the present day the Pax is only given at High Mass, and is hardly anywhere communicated to the congregation. The celebrant kisses the corporal spread upon the altar (he used formerly in many local rites to kiss the sacred Host Itself) and then, placing his hands upon the arms of the deacon, he presents his left cheek to the deacon's left cheek but without actually touching it. At the same time he pronounces the words Pax tecum (Peace be with thee); to which the deacon replies, Et cum spiritu tuo (And with thy spirit). The deacon then conveys the salute to the sub-deacon, and the subdeacon to the canons or clergy in the stalls.

Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia entry:

...the "conservative" conferences such as Old Order Amish Mennonites, Old Order (Wisler) Mennonites, Church of God in Christ, Mennonites (Holdeman), Reformed Mennonites, and Conservative (Amish) Mennonites maintained either an absolute or a greater relative separation from all other groups and influences... As the Christian salutation it was practiced almost universally among all members, lay as well as ministers, except in the Conservative (Amish) Mennonite Conference where it was only practiced between brethren and ministers at the invitation of the ministers.


texts: How can Christians be assured they are truly saved and that Jesus won't say "Depart from me I never knew you." on judgement day?

texts: In the Bible, it says God knows everything about us- intimately. So, if He KNOWS us, how could He NOT know us and tell us to depart from Him? I'm so confused. I thought I was saved, been to church, pray, speak to Jesus and pray to Him CONSTANTLY. But lately I've been feeling abandoned by Him and it has caused me to completely lose faith in Him. Feels like He couldn't be farther from me and like He doesn't love me. I have been so hard on myself and really spent a lot of time in introspection trying to figure out what I could be doing wrong. I'm not perfect, but I've left so much of my sinful ways behind. I also wonder if I truly am saved. Do Christians absolutely HAVE to be baptized? Maybe that's my problem- maybe I need to get baptized(?) I just don't understand why I'm feeling this way. I hope someone can give me answers to all my questions because I'm desperate for answers. TIA and God bless.


texts: Is there any evidence to support a preference for second-career pastors coming disproportionately from IT?

texts:
Anecdotally, I know a lot of bi-vocational and second-career pastors who came from IT. At seminary, I saw a lot of them, and 2 of the 4 pastors at my current church have this background.

I remember reading William Willimon who essentially said there were really only three kinds of professionals who had to read texts closely: lawyers, IT folk, and pastors. That has stuck with me, and led me to see a natural flow from IT to the pastorate.

My question is - do I just notice this because of my own IT background, or is there any sort of statistical evidence that would bear this out? Where could I find a good data source to see first careers of second-career pastorates in the United States?


texts:
Probably the most common Catholic title for Mary, mother of Jesus, is "The Blessed Virgin" or "The Blessed Virgin Mary". But "Blessed", in Catholic hagiology, is typically used to denote people who are not saints yet:

  Blessed is the title for someone who has been beatified. ... an earlier step in the process toward sainthood.

(US Conference of Catholic Bishops, How To Cover The Catholic Church)

Catholics consider Mary the holiest of all human beings:

  By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and... wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 967, quoting the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 53 and 63)

This being the case, why is it that Mary is not—or at least not usually—given the (apparently highly appropriate) title "St. Mary"?


texts: Do the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16:9-20 disprove the inerrancy of the Bible?

texts:
I have encountered a few instances when Bible critics and Muslims have tried to use the Adultery Pericope (John 7:53-8:11) and the extended ending of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to disprove the inerrancy of the Bible and claim that the Bible has been corrupted. While I do agree that there's a lot of controversy surrounding these two parts of the Bible, there also seems to be strong arguments both for and against retaining them in the Bible, hence no one seems to be able to state for sure if these should be retained or removed from the Bible.

I don't intend to start a discussion as to whether they should or should not be retained in the Bible, but what I'd like to ask are these:

What is the best definition of 'inerrancy of the Bible'? What is meant by 'corruption of the Bible', if at all it is?
If at all the Bible is errant and/or corrupted, what constitutes an element or portion in the Bible that would render the Bible errant and/or corrupted?
In light of the answers to Questions 1 and 2, are the arguments of the Bible critics and Muslims justified when they cite the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16 controversies as evidences of the Bible's errancy and corruption?

I know not all Christians subscribe to the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I do, and I'd like to hear from others more learned than me who also believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God with regards to the above questions.


texts: How many people did Moses bring out of Egypt? How large was the area of the Promised Land?

texts: I want to know if they had enough space in which to live. The Bible mentions that there were many places they did not obtain. Could the Israelites feed themselves?


texts: I am now older than what my father was when he passed away in 1967. Granted that both of us meet in heaven face to face, will his soul look younger than mine ? Is there any teaching available from the side of Catholic church to show that there is no eventuality of such ' embarrassing situation' in the life after death of the faithful ?


texts: Do divorced non-Catholics need an annulment to marry in the Catholic Church?

texts: Here's something I've got no idea about. In the case where one party is married in a Baptist Church but divorced and the other party has no encumbrances. Barring quarrelsome arguments I can't answer concerning grounds for annulment, is the first party even required to do anything to prove that their first marriage is null and void?


texts:
In a short time a new conclave for the election of the new Catholic pope is taking place.

I was wondering if we will have a new pope in a short time. I don't konw much about the previous popes in history and I don't know if there have been some long long conclave (months? weeks?).

So my question is: is there a time limit for the conclave?

Can we expect that before Easter we will have a new pope?


texts: Are some people pursued by the "enemy" relatively more than others?

texts:
My pastor made a general statement (or whole sermon;) and said something to the effect that the more the enemy knows you are in alignment with God the more he tries to knock us off course.

So, more specifically: does Christianity make any distinction, observation, mention, intention or concept that some people (anyone - believer, non-believer) may be pursued by the enemy more than others - and if so what are the conditions, in what way and how?

Thank You .


texts: How were the books of the New Testament chosen?

texts:
I'm interested in finding out:

what the process of choosing the books of the New Testament was,
when did it occur,
who did the choosing, and
what are the supporting evidences


texts: What is the difference between "person" and "substance"?

texts:
According to the answer here:

  St. Thomas Aquinas explained the preceding definition [of person] in terms that practically constitute a new definition: a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others (Summa Theologica, III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).

According to trinitarian theology, the triune god is said to be "three seperate persons" consisting of "one substance".

Does this mean the triune god is "three separate substances, each existing apart from other substances, consisting of one substance"?

In other words, what are the key differences between a "person" and a "substance"?


texts: Is civil divorce OK for Catholics, are there mitigating circumstances?

texts:
This is not a pastoral advice question, I'm happily married.  I just really don't know the answer to this question to help a friend, so I guess it's pastoral pastoral advice, but I definitely don't want a 'try to work it out' answer, just the facts please.

Sacramental marriage cannot be undone by civil divorce, that much is clear from scripture and Church teaching. However, what does civil divorce mean for the sacramental marriage?

If it is OK, what factors should a person take into account when forming their consciences to up and leave (for instance there could be a case where the laws in a particular region require someone to serve divorce papers in order leave their spouse with their kids and not be accused of kidnapping them) and if it is not OK then what recourse does one have to protect themselves and their children against their spouse, that does not constitute a grave sin?


texts: Is the receipt of the Sacrament of Confirmation a requirement before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony?

texts:
I'm contemplating of getting married. However, I haven't been confirmed yet.

I need to know if it's actual Catholic law or if it's simply tradition to receive Confirmation before getting married.

Thanks!


texts:
As with reference to the verse Matthew 5:13

  13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how  can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Why did Jesus refer to people as salt?  Why it is so important as many more valuables are available in this world?


texts: Are there any common themes in the dreams so many Muslims have that prompt them to come to Jesus?

texts:
I understand that a good number of believers, who were once Muslim, became Christians after having a dream where Jesus appears to them and tells them to follow Him.

Examples are recorded in books like I Dared to Call Him Father and others.

Are there any common themes in these dreams?  Does Jesus Himself always appear?

Also, is this common for people in any other religion like Hinduism, Taoism, or anything like that?


texts: Life is so busy and there are so many things to do, so many problems to deal with. But I don't want to walk with God just 'sometimes', I want to see Him in everything, not just in church or when I am reading the Bible. Is there any way to that?


texts: How would a Calvinist interpret Matthew 13:37-40?

texts:
(37) He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
  (38) The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the
  kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy
  who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and
  the reapers are angels. (40) Just as the weeds are gathered and burned
  with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.

Here is my personal interpretation of this passage:
1. Jesus is the one who sows the sons of the kingdom
2. Devil is the one who sows the sons of the evil one
3. God let the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one live together

4. At the end of the age, the sons of the kingdom are sent to heaven and the sons of the evil one are sent to hell.

Assuming that my interpretation above is correct, I am facing a "dead end" in an effort to connect it with the election before the beginning of the age.

If in the beginning there were already two different beings who sow and two different kinds of seed, how is this consistent with election?

for example like this illustration :

There is a box.
There are two people placing balls in a box, Mr. X and Mr. Y. From Monday to Saturday, Mr. X places white balls in the box while Mr. Y places black balls in the box. Mr. X lets the white and black balls sit together in the same box. On Sunday, Mr. X burns the 90 black balls and play with his 10 white balls.

I am confused on how to apply a kind of election event before the "filling the box with white balls" event take place, but I can apply it on Sunday ---> On Sunday, Mr. X choose the white balls from all the balls in the box.

Assuming my interpretation above is consistent with Calvinist theology, how do Calvinists reconcile it with unconditional election?

I found a new verse, John 8:44

  You belong to your father, the devil

So Jesus is saying that the devil claimed them before they were created. Jesus informed them that they never came from God and they are certainly going to hell.

Based on my own understanding, the parable in Matthew means something like this :
1. In the beginning there are two beings, God and the Devil. Each of them has their own children. God's children are the sons of the kingdom, the Devil's children are the sons of evil.

After the creation, God "sows" His good seeds (the sons of the kingdom) into the world - and the Devil (God's enemy) also "sows" his weeds (the sons of the evil) into the world. God let the weeds grow together with His good seeds.
At the end, God separates his wheat from the Devil’s weeds. He keeps the wheat and burns the weeds.

I do not see how 1 could have occurred before creation without 2 and 3 also having been planned before creation.

Let’s go back to the ball illustration. Mr. X puts his white balls into the box for 6 days, but before he began putting balls into the box, he developed his plan:

He determined that Mr. Y will put black balls into the box over the same six days.
He will allow both kinds of ball to mix together.
On Sunday, he will remove the white balls from the box.

Is this how the Calvinist thinks of election with regard to the parable in Matthew? Thank you.


texts:
I was born and raised in the Catholic religion. In the beginning I was, as far as I can judge, a good Christian.

But I never felt any connection to God while praying. It was like talking to myself. Nothing special happened. I’m not talking about God granting me anything earthly, but a little sign, maybe the feeling that he was watching would have been enough.

As time passed, I started to doubt more and more and eventually lost all interest in religion.

Now, several years later, I have a good (material) life. But it seems empty—no sense to it. People who believe appear happier.

I can understand why God would not want to manifest himself to me now. I've sinned a lot.
But why didn’t he talk to me when I was younger and sinless? I didn’t need anything fancy like a bush on fire, but just a few words to keep me on the right path.

What do you think?


texts:
When I was in Utah, I found myself consciously avoiding the term "Mormon," in favor of "LDS."  While I understand the term "LDS" means "Latter Day Saint," what I don't know is either the provance or connotation of the term 'Mormon.'

So, first off, why and how did the term "Mormon" come denote members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, and secondly, is it at all offensive to use the term?


texts: Early scientists thought that the age of the earth is proven by the genealogical tables in the book of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Other than this observation, is there any reference to the direct age of the earth noted anywhere in the Bible?


texts: What happened to the two trees in the Garden of Eden?

texts:
In Genesis 2, we are told that there were two named trees in the Garden of Eden--the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life.

When Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this was a sin against God, since He had commanded them not to do so.

After this, God indicates that they should not be allowed to eat again from the Tree of Life, since doing so would allow them to live forever, presumably in a state of separation from God.  Consequently, God placed an angel to guard the way to the Tree of Life.

So, what happened to these two trees--and the Garden itself for that matter?  Did these trees eventually die as well, perhaps at the time of the flood?

  Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Genesis 2:9 NASB

  15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”  Genesis 2:15-17 NASB

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.  Genesis 3:22-24 NASB