texts:
How does the Church define reason?
Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church give a definition? Fides et Ratio did not have a definition even if it is a encyclican on the subject.

I find this a bit strange.


texts: How does the revelation of Blessed Emmerich harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy in Mary's Assumption?

texts:
Pope Pius XII proclamation on the Dogma of Mary's Assumption in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus) was silent on how Mary's death description was.

Eastern Orthodox believed in dormition.

There are also some who believed that the death & assumption occurs simultaneously.

However, Blessed Catherine Emmerich's visions and revelation provide a good theme for filling in the light needed to harmonize the teaching of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

My question is based on Blessed Catherine writings: How does her narration harmonize the missing description of the Church when it proclaimed the 4th Marian dogma of the Assumption? (as Pope Pius XII left description of death unclear).


texts:
In the book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God author John C. Lennox puts forward an unorthodox 'third view' of Christian origins.

He suggests that perhaps the Earth is 4 Billion years old, and that geology and evolution ran their course as the scientific evidence tells us. He then posits that God intervened in scientific history to insert human beings 5000 years ago.

Interestingly enough - this lines up with scientific evidence and Biblical Genealogies.

To me this idea should have a category so we can compare it to other ideas and critique it. But I can't find the name of this idea.

My question is: What is the name of the view that the Earth is 4 billion years old, but God inserted human beings 5000 years ago?


texts: How can incorrect information on a Catholic baptismal record be corrected?

texts:
My mother was baptised Catholic in 1923 but the baptismal record has a few mistakes on it not least the mother's name.

Is it possible to have a baptismal record corrected and what forms of proof do I need to do so?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Why does Judaism celebrate Sabbath on Saturday and most Christians celebrate Sabbath on Sunday?

First-of-all i would like to say That i am A Seventh-Day Adventist.

I would Like to know (your opinions) why do some Christians not choose Saturday as "their" Sabbath?

Is it not the 4th Commandment that thou should "Remember the Sabbath" and keeping in mind that God said Remember knowing that we would forget.


texts: Are the Jewish people the chosen and if so why?...My uneducated Grandmother always said the the Jewish people were the chosen because they were the only people who kept God's laws at that time..such as, feast of the tabernacle, fest of unlevened bread..etc..I am confused. If not born Jewish, are the rest Gentiles? And if the Jewish are the chosen people why are they blinded to the first coming of Christ?


texts: What role does the Gospel Music Association have in standardizing what is played on Contemporary Christian Music stations?

texts:
The wikipedia entry for Christian Metal says that some of the stations which do play said genre:

as a whole these larger stations generally maintain a GMA-prescribed format.
Christian metal (Wikipedia)

That would seem to exclude metal since the GMA's mission statement apparently is:

Founded in 1964, the Gospel Music Association serves as the face and voice for the Christian/Gospel music community and is dedicated to exposing, promoting and celebrating the gospel through music of all styles including pop, rock, praise & worship, black gospel, R&B;, hip hop, southern gospel, country, and more.

I guess it says all styles "including" and not to the exclusion of.   But what is the connection between GMA and the many Contemporary Christian Music stations around the country and what, exactly, would be likely to not meet their seal of quality?


texts: Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ?

texts:
We know from Apostle’s times that Jesus claimed that an attack or persecution to the Church member’s is a direct attack on Himself what more to a Vicar of Christ.
The Road to Damascus

"As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him,“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” “Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.(Acts9:3-5)

And more importantly, St. Peter the 1st Vicar of Christ is shown in the Book of Acts as filled with the Holy Spirit guiding and empowering his thoughts,words & actions being the visible head of Christ founded Church..
Acts 5:3-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”She said, “Yes, for so much.”
Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. (Acts5:3-10)

The “lies uttered to St. Peter concealed with evil intentions” is abominable to God, thru the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding and inspiring the actions of the Vicar of Christ.
The Vicar of Christ is the mouthpiece of God as Jesus said;
Luke 10:16 New King James Version (NKJV)

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”(Luke10:16)

And for Ananias & Sapphira uttering lies to St.Peter  the Vicar of Christ “face to face” suffered Godly wrath immediately thru physical death.
Ananias & Sapphira suffered death is a testament to the wording of the 4th Commandment.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.(Exodus20;12)

Ananias & Sapphira’s days were ended when they lied infront of the Holy Father,St. Peter the Vicar of Christ.
My question is in light of the continuing attacks & disrespect on the dignity of Pope Francis being the Vicar of Christ daily if not hourly receiving unkind, harsh, foul & blasphemous words in the light of experienced of St. Peter during Apostolic times and teaching.
Is there a recorded accounts in history on anyone attacking & disrespecting the dignity of any of the 266 Popes by “uttering lies with evil intentions” that suffered God’s visible wrath like the one of Ananias & Sapphira?


texts: Is Gertrude the Great's mariology considered erroneous in modern Catholicism?

texts:
Gertrude the Great (1256–1302) was a German nun who is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, but was never formally canonized.  I don't know if it's related, but apparently her views on the veneration of Mary were outside the norm compared to her contemporaries:

  Of special interest at a time when devotion to Mary was so strong is Gertrude's concern that veneration was being given to Mary that properly belonged to Jesus Christ, who, possessing maternal as well as masculine characteristics, left no need for a feminine expression of deity. (Everett Ferguson, Church History, I)

Ferguson goes on to say that Gertrude still highly regarded Mary, and was concerned that Mary found her devotion to Christ displeasing.

Much more could probably be said about Gertrude's mariology.  But Ferguson's brief summary makes me wonder: does Catholicism today consider Gertrude's mariology in line with its teachings, or not?  And if not, is there reason to believe that this divergence prevented her from being formally canonized?

Note that I'm not limiting my question specifically to whether anything contained in Ferguson's summary would be problematic.  I'm asking about Gertrude's mariology more broadly.


texts: Are there eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ written during (or closely after) his lifetime?

texts:
In recent times, it has come to my understanding, that the New Testament was written in its entirety only after Jesus Christ has died.

I ask for in the search of documents which date to Jesus' lifetime(or closely after) and which give us account from people who have seen the Lord with their own eyes.


texts:
I came across below two verses when I am reading through my bible(Telugu language).

To me, these two statements seem to contradict each other:

Acts 21: 29

  But Paul said, "I am a man who am a Jew of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and I beseech thee, suffer me to
  speak unto the people." (empahsis added)

Romans 11:1

  I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

Doesn't the first passage mean he is from the tribe of Judah?.

Which tribe did he belong to: Judah or Benjamin?


texts: How can a supplicant offer "the first wounds, the first pains and the first bloodshed"?

texts:
Having just encountered this question Can a devil use one prayer to prevent us from praying a different one

I encountered The Twelve Year Prayer of S. Bridget of Sweden

The first verse of the prayer is as follows: -

  Our Father.  Hail Mary. Eternal Father, through Mary’s unblemished
  hands and the Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer to Thee the first wounds,
  the first pains and the first bloodshed, as atonement for my & all of
  humanity’s sins of youth, as protection against the first mortal sin,
  especially among my relatives.

I am confused, how is a supplicant able to 'offer' these things? Surely they belong to God in the first place?


texts: Does sin hinder one's ability to speak God's word?

texts:
A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God.

According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?


texts: Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert?

texts:
In Matthew 4:1-13 and Luke 4:1-11, Jesus was in the desert for 40 days and tempted by Satan. Of particular interest is the first temptation.

  Luke 4:3-4 (NLT)

  3 Then the devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become a loaf of bread.”
  4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”

Satan full well knew who Jesus was! There couldn't have been any doubt in Satan's mind as to Jesus' identity, as opposed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who simply refused to believe. No, Satan isn't really asking Jesus to prove Himself. Rather, he has some other motive...

What was Satan's motive in asking Jesus for a sign of His identity?

I consider myself non-denominational, but I grew up Wesleyan, so the closer answers are to that, the better. I won't turn away Catholic or Orthodox answers though.


texts: What does "anointed" mean? Is there a difference between the Old Testament definition and the New Testament?


texts: Why doesn't faith heal like it did when Jesus was alive? Aka, "yes-no-wait"

texts:
Throughout the Gospels, people suffering various ailments would come to Jesus to ask for healing. Almost always, Jesus responds by (1) praising their faith and (2) healing the person.

Of course, many Christians today (particularly in non-Western culture) believe God still heals. But the "Sunday school" response to how God answers prayer (at least my Southern Baptist Sunday school as a kid) is with either "yes, no, or wait". That answer sounds reasonable, but was that ever Jesus's response when He walked the Earth? Or is this the only explanation for people who don't have "faith as small as a mustard seed" and thus "can't move mountains?"

This assumes that the request is in God's will, which I think is a safe assumption for healing (?).

Bottom line: As long as a request is (1) made by one with faith and (2) in God's will, doesn't God promise to deliver on it?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have a standard instruction on placing crosses on the altar?

texts: Many oriental rites of Catholic Church have the plain cross signifying the Risen Lord, on their altar, whereas others use the crucifix signifying the Redemption. Of course, these days one sees churches of even oriental rites using the crucifix. My question therefore is: Does the Catholic Church have a standard instruction on placing of crucifix or plain cross on the altar of its churches across the world?


texts: How do Theistic Evolutionists reconcile that Eve was called the "the mother of all living?"

texts:
What is the Theistic Evolutionist's interpretation of these passages that seem to indicate that Eve was the first mother, and therefore the mother of all humanity?

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Genesis 3:20 ESV)

The instinctive answer is, "It's a metaphor." But what is the metaphor supposed to allude to? And how does it couple with Luke 3 where Jesus' genealogy is listed as coming directly from Eve (Adam's wife).

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:23, 38 ESV)
And Adam knew [Eve] again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him. (Genesis 4:25 ESV)

I'm aiming this question at TE's who assume that the Bible is authoritative scripture.


texts: According to Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are "the enemies of Christians?"

texts:
From Luke 1:68-79 (RSVCE), Catholics have a prayer that is termed CANTICLE OF ZECHARIAH (the Benedictus [cf. Traditional Prayers — Common Prayers | liturgyoffice.org.uk]). In it there is a section:

  [...]

  Through his holy prophets he promised of old that he would save us
  from our enemies, from the hands of all who hate us. He promised to
  show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant.

  This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to set us free from
  the hands of our enemies,

  [...]

From Catholic teaching that is biblically supported, who are these enemies of Christians because obviously applying this passage to Christians, the traditional enemies of Israel - like the nations they battled - may most likely not apply to Christians.


texts: In the USA today are there congregations who still follow in the footsteps of J C Philpot?

texts:
I hope, God willing, to visit the USA sometime and am looking for congregations who follow J C Philpot and J K Popham 'even as they followed Christ' (I Corinthians 11:1). These men denominated themselves 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptists' in the UK during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Are there gatherings in the USA which would be similar?

I am aware of the Wikipedia entry which notes only three affiliated congregations (Montana, Michigan, Wisconsin) but I was also interested in any wider following (as there is in the UK) which is not, necessarily, affiliated as such.

Note : I am specifically mentioning JCP and JKP because the present day 'articles' of that which is denominated have changed considerably since their time.


texts: Does a comprehensive list for apostolic succession exist?

texts:
I'm actively studying apostolic succession and am trying to make a website (with API) that would try to make a timeline. However, finding the links between two bishops/priests is very hard to do.

I've tried using Catholic Hierarchy but the results don't show whose consecrated who, and thus the link between them gets a bit iffy.

Of course, what I'm asking for might be something that I still don't yet understand entirely, but any help is appreciated. :)


texts: What was Paul referring to by the "thorn in the flesh"?

texts:
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul references a thorn was given to him in the flesh:

  So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.

Does anyone have any insight on what this might be? Also, I am unsure as to why he was given this?


texts: According to Catholicism, what did St Paul mean by "a thorn in the flesh"?

texts:
We see St Paul writing at 2 Corinthians 12:7 (RSVCE)

  And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.

What exactly was St. Paul referring to here ? Was he telling an idiom of his time in order to show that he was undergoing some painful medical condition ? Or, was he referring to the temptations of flesh? Are there any authentic interpretations from the side of Catholic Church on the saying of St Paul?


texts: How did Oneness Pentecostalism spread and grow during the 20th century?

texts:
Oneness Pentecostalism is a movement within the broader Pentecostal movement which rejects the Trinity and is essentially a revival of Modalism. Oneness Pentecostalism arose shortly after Pentecostalism itself. In the USA in 1916 the newly formed Assemblies of God fellowship officially affirmed the Trinity, and "a third of the fellowship's ministers left to form Oneness fellowships".

Throughout the twentieth century Pentecostalism spread quickly throughout the world, so that there are now close to 300 million Pentecostal Christians, 13% of all Christians, and 4% of the world population. Oneness Pentecostalism is much smaller, with only an estimated 24 million adherents, but there are still a lot of Oneness denominations: based on stats from Barrett, Kurian, Johnson's World Christian Encyclopedia there are at least 414 Oneness Pentecostal denominations.1

What is an overview of how Oneness Pentecostalism spread and grew during the twentieth century? What sort of mission strategies did the movement have? Did the American Oneness churches start foreign mission efforts immediately, or only after some time? Were there united mission agencies, or did each American denomination work independently from the others? Did they generally focus on evangelising to non-Christians, or did they also aim to convert Trinitarian Christians to the Oneness doctrine?

1. Their methodology counts each counts each country's denominations separately, so that there are 242 Catholic "denominations" and 168 Anglican "denominations", so all such denomination numbers may seem much larger than expected.


texts: "Holy man / saints" in the point of view of God according to the Calvinist?

texts:
I was in the middle of a discussion in a Christian Forum, where the Calvinist member say that : "holy man / saint" can only exist only after Jesus died. Before Jesus died, all the OT people are neither holy nor saints, they are sinners - even soon after they died they are not holy/saints because they haven't been freed from their sins and their original sin by Christ's blood.

  2 Chronicles 23:6 But let none come into the house of the LORD,
  save the priests, and they that minister of the Levites; they shall go
  in, for they are holy: but all the people shall keep the watch of the
  LORD.

  Psalm 34:9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to
  them that fear him.

  Deuteronomy 33:3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in
  thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of
  thy words.

  Ezra 8:28 And I said unto them, Ye are holy unto the LORD; the
  vessels are holy also; and the silver and the gold are a freewill
  offering unto the LORD God of your fathers.

It's the same question which I ask to the Calvinist member in that forum, but I don't get a satisfying answer from them as their reply starts to going around and around, jumping here and there.

So... my question is:
From the verse above - how come they are being said as "holy" or "saints" if according to the Calvinist, OT people are not holy/saint yet because the blood of Christ hasn't cleanse them yet ?


texts:
Ignatius Theophorus's answer to this question about the assumption of Mary states:

  In addition, there is an ancient document which actually relates the death of Mary and the assumption of her body.

When I heard about the Catholic belief that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven, I thought the two beliefs fit together well since death is a consequence of sin.  However, if it is taught she did die (or even would have died), how is this reconciled with "the wages of sin is death"?


texts: How does the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America handle heresies?

texts:
As far as I know, I am aware, from a simple Google search, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, considers the twofold rule of God theology a heresy - or at least a misuse of it. Okay. In such a case, or another case in which a person (layperson or clergy) wilfully follows unorthodox beliefs and practices, how does the ELCA deal with them?

I am aware that individual Lutheran congregations are governed by synods. So, what does synod say?


texts: Has 'Affirmation 2010' been adopted, generally, by those called 'Reformed'?

texts:
A few years ago, I was given a booklet called 'Affirmation 2010' in which several signatories, standing as 'Reformed', added their names to a list of doctrinal elements which sought to 're-affirm' certain stances of doctrine.

The website for Affirmation 2010 can be read here.

I wondered if the document was generally accepted, or not, amongst those to whom it was, generally, addressed.


texts: Do any Christian groups regularly practice the "lifting up of holy hands" during prayer?

texts:
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy
  hands without anger or quarreling  (1 Timothy 2:8)

Are there any groups in Christian circles that take the part about "lifting holy hands" as an admonition or command for how to pray, and therefore practice this regularly?
If so, do they also make a distinction between men and women doing so (by the fact that the first part of the verse may be seen as being addressed directly to the men)?
And finally, is it known whether lifting hands during prayer was just a common tradition at the time Paul wrote to Timothy, in which case the emphasis might not have been on the "lifting hands" part, but more on the "holy...without anger or quarreling" part?


texts: Did Adam and Eve understand death? What did death mean to them?

texts:
This answer says that the serpent convinced Eve to eat the apple to avoid death by saying "surely not die".

Since they are described as the first people that existed, what could death mean to them?


texts:
There's wide consensus: The quality and applicability of homilies/sermons vary widely from parish to parish.

This is something that all Christian churches need to take seriously because people will invariably drift from a faith and drift from a formal religious assemblage if they can't connect the message at Mass with their own lives.

So here's my question:
- How can a Christian seek out the best Homilists/Preachers?


texts: Are there any differences between Jesus's commandments and God's commandments?

texts:
I always read about Jesus's commandments as something new in the bible; those commandments changed the way Christians see the Moshe writings.

The bible  commentaries in this page of Rev 14:12 don't explain about the commandments of God, where saints keep them and have the faith of Jesus, nothing about  Jesus's commandments. So, there are any difference or are the same?


texts: How would miaphysites approach the question of monothelitism versus dyothelitism?

texts:
I realize that monothelitism arose in the context of Chalcedonian dyophysitism, and that non-Chalcedonians have not been forced to deal with the distinction of monothelitism versus dyothelitism historically.

According to this answer the heresy of monothelitism according to the Catholic church may essentially be attributed to making our Lord Jesus only appear human, in effect similar to monophysitism.

I only recently started to learn about the history of the church, and lack formal education in the matter, but I wonder if dyothelitism does not risk becoming similar to Nestorianism. Simply put "two wills" sounds to me like it necessitates two separate persons. The Catholic church clearly disagrees, since they do not consider themselves Nestorian (note that this question is not about why the Catholic church disagrees).

On the other hand miaphysites have traditionally considered Chalcedonian dyophysitism as Nestorian heresy. According to this answer and what I have been able to find elswhere, the difference between dyophysitism and miaphysitism is however smaller than one may initially be led to believe, lying mainly in how the full humanity and full divinity of our Lord should be considered.

Would miaphysites consider dyothelitism an expression of Nestorian heresy in dyophysitism, when confronted with the question in theory? Since, to my knowledge, no corresponding issue has been raised within miaphysitism, I suppose there is an (oriental) orthodox view. It seems reasonable to me that since in Christ the divine and the man exist unseparably without blending, diluting, or diminishing; there should be one will that is an expression of this perfect union. Is this correct according to miaphysites?


texts: According to Catholicism, what is wrong with Luther's doctrine of ubiquity?

texts:
One of John Calvin's arguments against transubstantiation and consubstantiation was that the body of Christ, as a human body, could not be in more than one place at a time.  His view of the Eucharist was thus one of spiritual presence, not real presence as understood by Catholics.

Luther argued that Jesus's body could be in multiple places at one time, thanks to its divine properties, and that this allowed for consubstantiation.  This, as I understand it, is known as Luther's doctrine of ubiquity.  As a Calvinist with relatively little exposure to Catholicism, I assumed that Catholicism took the same approach on this issue, as transubstantiation seems to similarly require a doctrine justifying the idea that Jesus's physical body can be in multiple places at once.

But Ludwig Ott opposes my assumption in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

  [Luther] explained the possibility of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ by the aid of the untenable Ubiquity Doctrine, according to which the human nature of Christ by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, has a real share in the properties of the Deity, and thereby also in the omnipresence of God. [372, emphasis added]

So, I'm wondering—how do Catholics view the distinction between Luther's doctrine of ubiquity and whatever solution Catholicism uses that allows Jesus's physical body to be present in more than one place at one time?  What makes Luther's view "untenable" in their eyes?

(Apologies if the question is crude; I'm no expert on transubstantiation.  If those answering keep that in mind, I'd be grateful!)


texts: Biblical reference that if someone is saved through someone else, that creates a "reward" or "treasure" in heaven?

texts:
So, I'm trying to find a passage which I believe exists somewhere in the Bible (possibly written by Paul, but maybe not), where the writer rejoices in those who have been saved through his works (teaching/preaching) and goes on to say that it will be credited to him. I have tried many combinations of phrases but I'm starting to think my memory fails me on that.

Can anyone guide me to the passage or authoritatively say that it doesn't exist?


texts: Do Mormons in European countries also sing patriotic American songs?

texts:
The answer to this question says about the hymnbook used by the LDS church in USA that:

  The patriotic songs in the hymnbook include America the Beautiful, My
  Country, 'Tis of Thee, The Star-Spangled Banner, and strangely enough
  God Save the King.

  Mormons have a unique feeling of US patriotism because they believe
  God founded the country to provide a free place for him to restore his
  church (the LDS church).

In those European countries, where English is not the native language (such as Germany and Russia), do Mormons sing translated versions of these American patriotic songs?

Or do they perhaps use their own local patriotic songs, or no patriotic songs at all?


texts: Are these historical records about Jesus' appearance accurate?

texts:
All says that Jesus has a blonde hair and blue eyes.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/evidence.html

Various sites report that.

How credible it is?
Sample:

  This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
  Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the
  Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

To Tiberius Caesar:

  A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was
  apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the
  Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke
  rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed
  in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against
  a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This
  I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him
  and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard
  gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30
  years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance.
  What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards
  and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I
  continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and
  listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the
  works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings
  of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious,
  so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to
  speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom
  provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was

  having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with
  an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a
  guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring
  this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling,
  nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that
  there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that
  elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning

  these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into
  wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy
  seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said,
  we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God!

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate

Note: I am looking for answers along, how credible gospel of Pilate is, etc.


texts: Which has greater authority to Mormons: Book of Mormon or the Bible?

texts: The question says it all: Which book has more authority to Mormons - the book of Mormon or the Bible?


texts: Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming Jewish children since the Savior's incarnation?

texts:
I mean we still have a lot of men named Mohamed in the Muslim community. Is it the same with the name "Jesus" in the Jewish community? Do we have any evidence of Jewish men named Jesus that have lived since the birth of Christ?

So, the main question is: Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming children since the Savior's incarnation?


texts:
Is a marriage between a transman and transwoman in accordance with Roman Catholic canon law?

The transman and transwoman can still engage in intercourse to make babies, but the transman would be the one to get pregnant, assuming that they still have functional sex organs.

I am asking this question, because I am not sure whether transsexuality itself is a sin or whether the act of going against procreative sex is a sin. I believe the answer may reflect how the clerics will handle a case where the participants involved in the wedding are one transman and one transwoman.


texts: What's the main contribution of William of Ockham?

texts:
I heard a Catholic Bishop talking about William of Ockham (Robert Barron) but I'm still not quite sure of some things:
What is the contribution of William of Ockham to the Church? What would sum up his work? And how does it help us today? Also (for Catholics) how is he seen in the Catholic Church today?


texts: Why did Stephen have authority to ask God to forgive the sins of his nonbelieving executioners?

texts:
Consider the following verse related to Stephen's stoning:

Acts 7:60
Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin
against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Clearly a Christian can forgive another person and, in fact, we are commanded to do so. But to wipe that sin off The Lord's books, my understanding is that's something only the individual sinner can do through true repentance via God's grace. The justification occurs between two parties: God and the sinner. The third-party victim of the sin can't act as a mediator.
Jesus proactively canceled others' sins on a number of occasions, most notably at the cross where He said, regarding his executioners, "Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do." But I had assumed that was something that only He could do; He's God, after all. But why was Stephen able to request that God forgive the sin of others? What authority did Stephen have to make that request of God and further, do we as Christians have that same authority?
Example: Let's say a non-believer is caught stealing $50 from you. You grant him forgiveness but he's still guilty of the sin before God. Do you then also have the authority to ask The Lord to forgive him for the theft, despite that he's a non-believer who doesn't fear God, nor feels any need of repentance whatsoever?
This question is being asked from a Protestant evangelical perspective.


texts: Is there a specific purpose in placing a hot coal to your lips?

texts: I read the lyrics for Kutlass' song "Take Me In" and the particular lyrics:"take the coal, touch my lips, here I am". Was there a significant purpose for that action or was it symbolic?


texts: Can the belief of Jesus' listeners be considered belief unto salvation?

texts:
During my daily study of the book of John, I've come across several statements like this one from chapter 8:30, which says:

  "As he was saying these things, many believed in him."

Is there any biblical, or even logical, argument to conclude that this belief was unto salvation, or anything that could be used to cast credible doubt on this?


texts: Why didn't the universe fall apart when Jesus died?

texts:
In Colossians 1:16-17, it talks about how the world was made by Jesus and for Jesus. But it also says that "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together", so why didn't we all die and the universe, fall apart when Jesus died as it says that "in him all things hold together". Does this mean that Jesus's death wasn't fully death?

It's alright if you aren't a Protestant and you answer the question but it would be preferable to hear an answer from a Protestant.


texts: What is the Scriptural support for the Catholic Church's "depositum fidei"?

texts:
What is the biblical basis that there is a thing which the Catholic Church terms as "depositum fidei"?

Depositum fidei, i.e the Sacred deposit of the faith that consists of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition that was mentioned in this answer and this.


texts: Are Catholics married in a civil ceremony still permitted to receive communion?

texts:
A couple was married in a civil ceremony.  They attend Catholic Church and are Catholic.
Are they permitted to receive Communion at Mass, per Catholic Church teachings?


texts: According to Calvinism, what should one do if one doubts their election?

texts:
What does the reformed church teach in terms of what to do, or pray for, if one begins to suspect that they are not predestined for salvation.

And if they are in fact not elected by God, does the church have a process for them to discover this about themselves, or are they to continue in hope even though there is no chance of salvation?


texts: In LDS teaching, do gods and goddesses produce spiritual offspring forever?

texts:
I understand that the LDS Church teaches that some men will progress to godhood in the afterlife, have a wife or wives, and produce spiritual children with spirit bodies, which later must inhabit physical bodies as people on their planet reproduce.  This is apparently how it is on this planet as well.

My question is regarding how long the god of a planet and his wife or wives produce spiritual children.  If it is eternally, then is it only one planet.  It seems that a planet will not last forever.  Does the reproduction in heaven cease after the planet is no longer inhabitable.  Does the god create a new planet or a new universe and then continue to produce spiritual children forever?

So, basically, is reproduction by a god of a particular planet and his wife or wives temporary or eternal?  Do all their children inhabit bodies on a single planet?  Do LDS believe that planets last forever or do they believe new planets are created?


texts: Do any Christian groups sell all their possessions as it seems the Early Church did?

texts:
In Luke 12:33 (NIV) Jesus says:

  Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

He doesn't say "all" possessions here, but that seems to be what he told the rich ruler in Luke 18:22 (NIV):

  When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

In Acts 4:32-35 (NIV) it looks like that's what the Early Church did as well:

  All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Are there any denominations or other groups in the world where the congregation (not monks, nuns etc.) actually does this? If so, can you please give some details on how the practical aspects work (sharing homes etc.).


texts: Why did the Pharisees need Judas to betray Jesus?

texts: I quite don't understand this whole thing. Jesus and his disciples are hanging around the city all the time. Why can't the Pharisees arrest him at their leisure? Why do they need Judas to tell the soldiers which one Jesus is?


texts: How does the Catholic church view Freemasons?

texts: What are the historic and current views of the Catholic Church concerning Masons?


texts:
Melchizedek ("King of Justice" in Hebrew) is mentioned in Genesis 14 as receiving the dime from Abraham, and breaking bread with him:

  18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he
  was the priest of the most high God.

  19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high
  God, possessor of heaven and earth:

  20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine
  enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Psalm 110:4 depicts Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek:

  4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Paul mentions Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and associates Jesus to him again:

  1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
  who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
  him;

  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
  interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of
  Salem, which is, King of peace;

  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
  beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;
  abideth a priest continually.

  4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch
  Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

  5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office
  of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people
  according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out
  of the loins of Abraham:

  6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of
  Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

  7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

  8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them,
  of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

  9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes
  in Abraham.

  10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met
  him.

  11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for
  under it the people received the law,) what further need was there
  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and
  not be called after the order of Aaron?

  12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
  change also of the law.

  13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,
  of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

  14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
  Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

  15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of
  Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

  16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after
  the power of an endless life.

  17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
  Melchisedec.

  18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before
  for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

  19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better
  hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

  20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

  21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath
  by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou
  art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

So who is Melchizedek? Is he Jesus?

If he is not, how could there be priests of God before God chose himself a nation and defined priesthood after the Hebrews left Egypt?


texts: Why does the Catholic church not sanction the KJV translation?

texts:
One of my favorite Bible translations has always been the King James (I suppose because of the medieval feel), but I have always been fascinated by the much longer history of the Catholic Church and I recently was informed that the KJV is not considered a valid translation in Catholic canon.
This sparked curiosity on my part I was wondering in what ways the KJV was different from a traditional Catholic translation, and can the differences be chalked up to slightly different translations of ancient Greek? Or was it fundamentally changed to fit a Protestant perspective?


texts:
Peter says that Sarah called Abraham "lord" (i.e., master) and that it was a good thing.

When did she do this? And how does Peter know this? I can't find it anywhere in scripture.

  1 Peter 3:5,6 ESV For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.


texts: Why does God ask Abraham to walk blameless?

texts:
This question is an offshoot from this question and it’s comments.  The question is:

Why does God remains silent for 13 long years after Hagar gives birth to Ishmael and then suddenly commands Abraham to walk blamelessly before Him. Was God annoyed with Abraham for some reasons?


texts: How did Luther's view of Mary change after his new birth experience?

texts:
The question is as simple as the title. Did Luther have a minor alteration in his view of Mary, or a major one after being born again?

Note: By the way Luther did use the term 'born again' for some reason people think it is a new term.


texts: Why should Christians strive to live long lives? At what lengths should they go to do so?

texts:
I understand that we are called to spread the gospel, but why should we (or should we at all) cling to physical life with white knuckles? I have known believers to go to extreme lengths to prolong their lives in the face of a terminal illness.
During such an unfortunate occurrence would it not be a better witness to our faith to peacefully get your affairs together, spend time with loved ones while expressing your joy in your hope to be with Christ soon?
Also, as medical tech advances at an amazing pace will there ever be a point in which it is imperative for a Christian to turn down life extending technology if it makes death a rare occurrence? (Think all genetic disease cured, cancer cured, worn out organs replaced with organs grown from your own stem cells. All of which might not be so far fetched in the next few decades.)


texts: On what basis did Mary Queen of Scots first reject the Scots Confession?

texts:
The history of the Scots Confession seems to have some amusing interludes. Having been drafted in just 4 days by 5 guys all named John, it went on to serve as the primary confession of the Church of Scotland for almost a century. The only snag it seems to have hit was when Mary, Queen of Scots, refused to ratify it even after Parliament signed off on its representation of the desired reforms.

What was it about the confession that didn't suit Mary*? What was her justification for rejecting it?

* It's possible that this is a historical question more than it is doctrinal. I think it is on topic here because I want to know specifically if there were any doctrinal points in the Confession that proved to be a hindrance to its ratification by the state at the time. At the same time, the primary reason might turn out to be a variant of "Mary, Mary, quite contrary".


texts: Does "Being in schism" merely imply mutual excommunication? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
In the answer provided to the following question:
Explanation of the bell, book, and candle ritual of excommunication the author states that it is a common misconception that excommunication implies someone has been kicked out of the church, it merely means that they have been barred from the sacraments. In other words someone who has been excommunicated is still part of the church.

I was wondering how this applies to large-scale excommunications, such as the great schism, where the West excommunicated the East and vice versa? Does this mean that the West and the East were actually still the same "undivided" (in a sense) church, but that the West considered Eastern Sacraments illicit and the East considered Western Sacraments illicit?

I ask because this would have interesting consequences for ecclesiology: From the Catholic perspective, other Christian bodies are still within "the one true church", however they are "excommunicated" which simply means that they are barred from the sacraments. In the case of the Orthodox churches, their sacraments are valid, but due to their "excommunicated" status they are illicit.

If this is true, it actually puts my mind at rest in terms of the whole "we are the one true church" position that both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches hold, because it allows them to both be correct: there are not two Churches claiming to be the one true church, there is only one, but there are excommunications at play within it that make it seem as though there are two (or more)

Scoping this to Catholicism.

PS: Potentially the word "anathema" has some role in all of this. Is an anathema different to an excommunication? Does receiving an anathema imply that you have been kicked out of the church?


texts: What did Jesus mean by "whoever believes in me will do greater works than I do"?

texts:
In John 14:12, Jesus says:

  “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father." [ESV]

One may do a miracle similar to Jesus. But how one can do a miracle greater than that of Jesus? What did He mean by this?


texts: Looking for a resource discussing the Biblical principles on how to avoid a victim mentality

texts:
Beyond the obvious of:

Jesus died on the Cross and drank down God's wrath, what do we have to complain about?
All things that happen were things allowed by God to sanctify us.
Read the book of Job

what are some deep theological works on avoiding/fighting the victim mentality?

This is definitely a reference request in that I'm unable to extract this knowledge out of the Biblical verses myself, so I'm looking for a great theologian who has -- and reading their work.

In particular, I'm looking for something scripture based. I'm not looking for the prosperity gospel notion of "God wants you to be happy! To have your best life now! Smile! Be Happy! Yay! :-)!" rather I'm looking for something deep -- something that takes the "victim mentality", reduces it to the fundamental sins / thoughts that gives rise to the "victim mentality", and shows how to over come it.

Certainly, people like Martin Luther, David Brainerd, Dietrich Bonehoeffer, and others ... must have at times been tempted with "victim mentality" -- and surely some must have written about how they overcame it.

Lastly, if anyone had a right to claim to victim mentality -- it'd probably have to be Christ, who lived a perfect live and became the sacrificial lamb. Thus, if there's work on how Christ avoided the victim mentality, that'd be great too.


texts: How many Christian missionaries are sent by the "global South"?

texts:
I understand from this answer that the number of Christians in Latin America, Africa, and Asia has grown dramatically in comparison to North America and Europe.  My question is, has this shift in Christian populations to the "global South" resulted in a shift in where Christian missionaries come from?

That is, how many Christian missionaries today are sent from countries in the global South?  How has that number changed recently?  Ideally, I'd like data by major faith traditions, like Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Other/Non-Nicene (for example).

For the purposes of this question, we can define "global South" as Latin America, Africa, and Asia.


texts: How to pray for a corrupt government involved in drug trafficking?

texts:
Venezuelan government/regime is destroying the country through corruption, drugtraffiking to the USA and Europe, murder, kleptocracy, unjustified imprisonments. The government palace is full of symbols and objects of demon worship and "santero" altars.

They are starving the population of the country without water, electricity, gasoline, security, health care, justice, etc. Venezuela seems to be the pre-apocalyptic laboratory!

Should I consider them as the authorities imposed by God, in order to pray for them and not against them?
How should I pray?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the position that embryonic stem cell research is immoral/sinful?

texts: Many churches teach that embryonic stem cell research is strictly wrong, while adult stem cell research is alright.  What is the biblical basis for this teaching and why are the two distinguished?


texts: What is christian suffering like in a 1st world country

texts:
In 1 Peter 1:6-7 he talks about suffering being necessary in a Christian's life which at the time, I believe, was prison or death and in the time of Nero suffering for being a Christian was a very real fact.

Today however, in first world countries being a christian in some places gives the person a high social status, while in other first world countries the worst form of persecution is online mockery. That's not to say that there isn't any suffering or pain but to say that there isn't one that's caused by being a christian.

So my question is, as a christian living in a first world country am I doing something wrong? Is the absence of suffering (at least anywhere close to the one received by first century christians) indicates that I am not living as a christian should live?


texts:
This is a question one of my Catechism students asked.  We were playing a Bible based board game where if you don't know the answer you look it up in the Bible.  That's pretty great, if you know how to find verses in the Bible.

But, given a standard super thick, thin paged Bible with no tabs and characteristically ignoring the index page like one would expect an eighth grader might, what mnemonic and memorization devices do people use to find the relative position of certain books in the Bible?

(I'd prefer Catholic answers using Catholic Bibles, but any wisdom is appreciated)


texts:
According to Genesis 19:7-8 (NASB), Lot offered his virgin daughters to the men of the city so they would not sodomize the visiting angels:

  7 “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Now behold, I have two
  daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring
  them out to you, and do to them whatever you like..."

However, Genesis 19:14 (NASB) implies they either had husbands or were pledged to husbands:

  "Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his
  daughters..."

Am I missing something?


texts: Are foster children considered covenant children in Presbyterianism?

texts: Foster children are on the one hand a part of the household but on the other hand not legally adopted and may be ultimately reunited with their birth parents. So do Presbyterians of a confessional variety, like PCA or OPC, baptize foster children?


texts: What is the origin of the Evil Eye in Christianity?

texts:
My family owns several charms—such as necklaces, bracelets, and small stones—with the Evil Eye symbol on it.

My family is Christian, and if I remember correctly the Evil Eye is of Turkish origin. This would imply that the Evil Eye has Muslim roots.

What could possibly explain why my Christian family owns items of Muslim origin? The artistry of the piece is indeed something that would warrant owning it, but my mom has spoken to me of it religiously, in that it "wards off evil spirits."


texts: What is the basis for the belief by some groups that a Christian can live a sinless life?

texts:
I understand that there are some Christian groups that believe that it is possible for a Christian to live a life entirely free from sin.

What is the nature of this belief and what is the basis for it?


texts: Were the islands/countries discovered by Hispanic explorers named after Mozarabic feast days?

texts: The Spanish and Portuguese normally named newly discovered countries and islands after the feast days they were discovered, especially during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. It always seems to be assumed these discoveries were named according to the liturgical calendar of the Roman Church. This therefore provides the means of determining the actual date of discoveries, which are often celebrated to the present day. However, especially during the period of Muslim occupation, the Hispanic countries tended to practise Mozarabic rather than Roman Catholic rites. Mozarabic rites seem to be based on the liturgy and rites of the Eastern Church which celebrates many feast days on different dates from the Roman Church. My question is this: How does anyone know whether the countries and islands discovered by Hispanic explorers were found on Mozarabic rather than Roman Church feast days? In other words, might the dates marked today for the discovery of these places be wrong? Incidentally, I would also be grateful to know whether anyone knows of a source of the Mozarabic liturgical calendar so that a comparison can be made against Roman Catholic feast days.


texts: What can be said when applying ashes during Ash Wednesday Mass?

texts: For the first time in my life the minister in the town where I go to Mass while I'm at work said something besides "Remember your are dust and to dust you shall return" when administering ashes.  He said "Repent and believe in the Gospel" which is a good message, but makes me question 33 years of Ash Wednesdays, were we just being told 70's (because it conjures up Kansas' song "Dust in the Wind" in my mind at least) or what is the appropriate Ash Wednesday "thing to say"


texts: It seems like such a basic question: what does the Father do? It is said that the Holy Spirit is the life-giver and speaks through the prophets and everything is made through the Son, Jesus, and Jesus is also the way by which we are saved and will judge the world. According to Trinitarians, what is the role of the Father?


texts: If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are patriarchs, then what are Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Noah?

texts:
If I understand correctly, the people in Genesis 12-50 are known as patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc...), but not the people in 1-11 (Adam, Enoch, Noah, etc...)

Is there a term that refers collectively to these primeval/pre-history type characters from Genesis 1-11?


texts: Does the Bible provide any passages that might help in understanding how Satan became sinful?

texts:
Although, I might already now have a provisional indirect answer to my original question ("What Caused Satan's Unbelief ...?") I have tried to reword that question, while simultaneously trying to maintain the original paragraph structure as much as possible.

I am a Christian, and I am aware of the grave theological dangers of "playing the Devil's Advocate" in the literal sense of the expression (and of attempting to defend sin and evil before God). However, I'm having difficulty avoiding perplexity about the cause of Satan's unbelief and pride. I know that it makes little sense to blame God (The Sovereign Creator) for the sins of His creatures (because sin is, by definition, disobedience of The Creator's [moral] Laws, and because there was no higher authority than God to overrule His decision to create anything). But Satan was originally created as a good (i.e., sinless) being who only entertained good thoughts. So, does the Bible offer any passages that might shed light on how we might discover the origin of Satan's unbelief in God's dictates?

By the way, I already read this question (posted at What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?) and the answers provided in that post don't address the issue that I am raising here in this post. I'm not asking why Satan (having already reached the point of indecision about whether it is rational to sin) would consider it prudent for him to proceed toward a state of actual sinfulness. My question goes further, and inquires about the origin of any deviation within Satan from his original state of sinlessness.

John


texts: Question on John 4:13-14 - How do we drink of the water from Jesus?

texts:
I've been struggling with this passage for a while:

  Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
  John 4:13-14 (ESV)

How does one drink of the water from Jesus?


texts: From an Evangelical perspective, why didn't the resurrected Jesus appear to those who doubted that He was the promised Messiah?

texts:
In Matthew 27:42, we read:

  "He saved others," said the chief priests and elders , "but he can't save himself! He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him."

Had the resurrected Jesus appeared to the same chief priests who wanted to see him come off the cross and prove his messiahship , and sent the New Covenant through that route, no Jew would be skeptical of His resurrection (Matthew 28:15). Thus, every Jew would have believed in Jesus!

In light of the above insight, from an Evangelical perspective, why didn't the resurrected Jesus appear to those who doubted that He was the promised Messiah?


texts: Is there a German version of the Message Bible?

texts: Is there a German translation of the Message Bible?  I've read other German versions, but I can't find something as vivid and contemporary.


texts: What is the origin of the idea that Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't mention Lazarus in order to protect him?

texts:
As discussed in another question, on why Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't mention the raising of Lazarus, this miracle is only related in John 11 – the Synoptics, though they presumably knew about it, didn't include such an apparently spectacular and pivotal miracle.

A number of explanations have been provided, but one in particular has been around a long time: that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written during Lazarus's (second) lifetime, and that they did not want to expose Lazarus to persecution from the Jews (cf. John 12:9–11).

Two Methodist commentators, Adam Clarke and Daniel Whedon, offer this as their primary explanation for the silence of the Synoptics.  Adam Clarke attributes it to Hugo Grotius, a 17th century theologian.  But Whedon seems to go further:

  The ancient reply is, (and perhaps no better can be given,) that the other Evangelists wrote while Lazarus was still living, and from delicacy, or for safety, avoided exposing him to notoriety and danger from the hostile Jews. [bold added]

In the context of church history, the word "ancient," at least to me, indicates the early church period – ending around the 6th century.  However, I've not found any reference to this theory in the several early commentators I've checked – Augustine, Chrysostom, Eusebius – or in Aquinas's commentary on John.

What is the origin of this particular explanation of the Synoptic silence on Lazarus?  Does it have truly "ancient" origins, or is Hugo Grotius its originator?


texts: Is there any historical evidence for the practice of "foot washing" during the first centuries of Christianity?

texts:
Is there any historical evidence for the practice of “foot washing” during the first centuries of Christianity?
My question to the practice of foot washing based on John 13:

John 13:12-17 (New International Version)
12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.


texts:
In Luke's gospel, we read about Mary's consent to become mother of Jesus.
The question:was it a free decision? If so, what is the authoritative statement of the Church. What council or pope addressed this topic explicitly?
Attempts so far:

Each person has free will.
The presence of sin reduces the freedom. Thus, Mary's will is even more free.
Jesus has a human free will that is subordinated to his divine will in Gethsemane. So was the teaching of Maxim the Confessor. If Mary would be without free will, then Jesus from Nazareth would have a non-human formation.


texts: What is the biblical support for the original sin being an infinite sin?

texts:
I have heard a few times recently things like "an infinite sin debt requires an infinite Savior".

What is the biblical basis for coming to the conclusion that Adam's sin was infinite?


texts: Has the Episcopal Church ever identified "patriarchy" as a sin?

texts:
I was listening to a Minnesota Public Radio program entitled "Female faith leaders preach #SilenceIsNotSpiritual" (Feb 21, 2018). One of the guest speakers was author Rachel Held Evans, who is an Episcopal. During her discussion, she said this (emphasis mine):

Something that's been especially meaningful to me has been revisiting those stories of the women from scripture who were the victims of—what are sometimes called the "texts of terror"—the stories of rape or violence against women or, you know, assault against women.
And using those as a way to honor them and to honor the women who continue to be victims of patriarchy and violence against women. And to sort of memorialize them and also to let their stories be a reminder that we…for how long the sin of patriarchy and violence against women and the subjugation of women has been a part of our human story […]

Has the Episcopal church ever identified "patriarchy" as a sin?


texts: Are you unguilty of sin if you never heard the gospel?

texts:
Jesus says that if he had not come and proclaimed the gospel, that those hearing would not be guilty of sin.

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty
of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22
If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they
would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me
and my Father. John 15:24

What is the belief held by the various churches over this matter?


texts: What is the Catholic view of what it meant for Jesus to be "called" Immanuel?

texts:
Matthew 1:23 (NIV) says:

  “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us”). (Matthew 1:23, NIV)

But, nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus addressed as Immanuel—directly or indirectly. It appears to me that that the word with its literal meaning implies more of an attribute than a name. So, what is the Catholic view on Jesus having been given the name Immanuel?


texts: What is the mental representation of God during prayer?

texts:
In the Bible, we find an internal representation of God, who is within us. For example:

  “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the
  kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

but there is also an external representation of God. For example:

  39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in
  heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. Deuteronomy
  4:39

It appears in today's (western) culture, people pray and "look up to the sky" or have a mental representation of talking with a human form of God (praying to the human Jesus).

In addition, we also believe that God is Omnipresent.

Question:
During prayer, what should the mental representation of God be?

Should it be a representation of God as the spirit within (so we are focusing inside of our-self during prayer - closing out all the external), to the more external ambiguous God "in the sky", to a human form (to Jesus) or to something that is more like a "force field" (omnipresent)?


texts: Is Cain saved or he will go into the eternal perdition?

texts:
This question is about speculations that might have taken place in Christianity on the matter of Cain's destiny - whether he will be in the kingdom of God (which means that he is saved) or he will go into eternal perdition.

Have there been any speculations on this matter in Roman Catholic, Orthodox or main-stream protestant Christianity (by main-stream protestant Christianity I mean those who believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God - the same God as God the Father is - but don't consider themselves to be a part of Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy)? If yes, can you, please, share them here.

Cain was the first murderer in the human history.

The following verse speaks not in favor of Cain:

  From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished
  between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be
  required of this generation (Luke 11 :51)

However, I don't see any verse in the Bible pronouncing clearly that Cain will go into the eternal perdition. Or, perhaps, I am reading the New Testament in to the Old one here?


texts: How do Continuationists discern between genuine and made-up interpretations of tongues?

texts: When someone claiming to have the gift of interpretation of tongues interprets someone else's tongue speaking, how do Continuationists (e.g. Pentecostals, Charismatics, etc.) go about determining whether the interpretation is genuine or made-up? How do they tell whether someone's tongues are genuine and someone else's interpretation is also genuine? What is the biblical basis for their "discernment procedure", if any?


texts: How can panentheism be reconciled with Satan?

texts:
Some Christians hold that the universe or creation are part of God (panentheism). More often than not, God is said to be both immanent and transcendental in relation to the universe. How can those be accepted if Satan is to be treated as a real entity? While immanence may allow you to say that God pervades being but is external to it, panentheism allows no such move. It would imply there is no "other" in relation to God, only but God and parts of God. And as soon as you introduce parts, you immediately wreck the supposed simplicity of God.

I find the idea of Christian panentheism problematic because I can't see how Satan, a part of creation, can exist if he is encompassed by God, implying that God is privated in some way.

Please be careful not to confuse PANtheism with PANENtheism. Both are very different. Pantheism identifies the universe with God (like Spinoza) while panentheism situates the universe within God, as it were (a bit like immanence, but without being fully distinct). That the universe is created does not contradict panentheism necessarily. The reason I bring this up is because a number of theologians such as Peacocke and Zycinski (the last of which is an archbishop of the RCC) do propose a panentheistic understanding of God because they reject not revelation but neo-scholasticism.

They also wish to account for God's immanence in the world given the current science. I'm not sure I agree with them (I can imagine other ways God could be immanent), but this is what's been put on the table. Here's a link to more information.


texts: According to Catholicism, is Adam or Eve more culpable for original sin?

texts:
From a Catholic perspective:

Is there a shared culpability between Adam and Eve for original sin, or is only Adam or Eve ultimately responsible?

Please, link answers from Catholic sources.

(You can comment the question with non Catholic perspective, as it will be interesting, but it's not my main question)


texts: How do those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture explain that not everyone who remains will believe?

texts:
According to pre-tribulation eschatology, after all the Christians are raptured, why do only some of those who remain believe (during the tribulation)?

It would seem that if all the Christians vanished from the earth, all the remaining people should go "Oh my!! What happened?! We should take this Christianity thing seriously!"


texts: What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets?

texts: Is there any verse in Bible that says something about being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian? I know God set human beings above the other creatures, but what does it say about whether we can kill them?


texts: Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all?

texts:
When Jesus spoke about his future suffering it did not seem to register properly.

For example:

  (Matthew 16:22)
  Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

This raises the question: Did the Jews push the suffering of the servant Messiah (Isaiah 53) to the background of their mind, or was there no expectation that Messiah would suffer at all?


texts: Is there a mentioning about the wisdom of a crowd in the Bible?

texts: In the Bible is there any mention of how smart or stupid large groups of people are?


texts: What is the basis for believing that 40 lashes would be deadly (especially in Roman law or jurisprudence)?

texts:
I have commonly heard that 40 lashes were thought to be deadly and thus 39 were issued. It seems as though neither 40 nor 39 lashes had anything to do with the deadliness of the punishment in Jewish law (see below). However, it is possible that deadliness was an issue in Roman law. It is claimed on a number of sites that this is the case (here, here, here, here, here). The problem is that I have yet to find any source to support these sketchy websites. Can anyone provide a trustworthy source to support the view that Romans believed that 40+ lashes would be deadly? Or that Roman law maximized flogging to be 40 or 39 lashes? (Ideally a primary/contemporary source or a more academic secondary source rather than a random blog).
Flogging in Jewish Law
Deuteronomy restricts lashes to be no more than 40

"but the judge must not impose more than forty lashes. If the guilty party is flogged more than that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes." (Deut. 25:3 NIV)

The worry here for going above forty lashes is that "your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes." It is about perception of the person in their brothers' eyes, not their physical degradation, as supporting by surveying various translations and commentaries. The idea being that one flogged 40+ times would be seen as a beast or animal or lesser rather than a treasured fellow human being.
As is typical in Rabbinic Judaism, they "built a fence around the Torah" by making the law be more strict than required in the Torah in order to ensure that they do not break the commandment. In this case, they made the maximum number of lashes be 39 to ensure that 40 would absolutely never be broken. Thus, the Talmud states

"How many lashes is he given? Forty less one" (Mishnah Makkot 3:10-11, Talmud Makkot 22a)

Now, that helps perfectly explain where Paul says that

"Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one." (2 Cor. 11:24, NIV)

So, the 39 lashes was the common punishment in Jewish law (See an extended discussion here). Paul was subjected to Jewish jurisprudence when he faced 39 lashes. Jesus, on the other hand, was subjected to Roman law under Pilate, not Jewish law. He did undergo additional trial in the Sanhedrin, but his flogging was under Pilate and the Romans (Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26, John 19:1). Also, see Got Questions' Did the Romans give Jesus 39 lashes?
Back to the Question
I have yet to find any proof of any limit to the number of lashes that a Roman could or would place on a criminal, nor any mention of a limit being because of a concern for its deadliness. A paper published in JAMA, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ", states

"It is not known whether the number of lashes was limited to 39, in accordance with Jewish law." (citing "The legal and medical aspects of the trial and death of Christ" published in 1970).

I have also heard that Romans have killed people from scourging alone, which seems as though goes against this idea too. However, they could have had different legal practices for a crucifixion victim. Can anyone provide a trustworthy source to support the view that Romans believed that 40+ lashes would be deadly? Or that Roman law limited flogging to be 40 or 39 lashes?


texts: Why does a beheaded saint have the halo above the stump?

texts:
Many Christian martyrs have been beheaded, and they are often shown in art carrying their own severed heads. Sometimes, the halo appears not around the head, but where the head should be, as in the following French examples:

St Denis, on the facade of Notre Dame de Paris (nineteenth century restoration).

Martyrdom of St Denis, in the Pantheon (Paris), by Léon Bonnat. Here, there are two halos in different styles!

A beheaded bishop and martyr (possibly St Denis again) in the Petites Heures of Jean de Berry; flanked by St Stephen with his stone and St Lawrence with his griddle (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Latin 18014, f. 105r). I don't know who the saint is behind them, with the top of his head removed and carrying his own brain - St James the Less, maybe?

What is the rationale behind showing the halo above the stump, instead of around the head? I am looking for answers that can speak to the symbolic purpose of the halo, and of the common practice of showing saints carrying their own body parts - not an answer based solely on aesthetics.


texts: Is there a verse about "big" and "small" lies being the same in God's kingdom?

texts:
I am looking for a certain verse or passage.

The one I'm looking for contains statements about there being no such thing as a "small" lie or "big" lie and that lies are all the same in God's kingdom.


texts: What is the "present crisis" in 1 Corinthians 7?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says regarding marriage,

  Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

What is the "present crisis"?


texts: Is the Star Wars "Church of the Force" a revival of the Manichaean heresy?

texts:
Lots of Christian movie critics have been going on and on about the new Star Wars movies of late and some bring up a good point:

“Darkness” and “light” are notable themes in Gnostic and especially Manichaean thought; they also feature prominently in 1 John, for instance. (In Star Wars, the “light” side of the Force is usually called the “good side” — when it’s specified at all. “The Force,” used without clarification, often means “the good side,” giving goodness a kind of priority.)
Steven Graydanus - Is Star Wars Gnostic?

The problem I face is that the underlying philosophy is exceptionally problematic and lots of kids are buying in to it, even more than before.  Kids I've taught honestly think that conscience is some sort of battle between angels and demons hanging out on your shoulder.  And they see good and evil in the way Star Wars portrays it.
I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with exactly what the succinct reason light vs darkness in the context of Star Wars is more like light vs darkness in the Manichean Heresy than it is light and darkness in the Biblical sense.   Furthermore, it would seem from reading a few things about The Force Awakens that I had shied away from before seeing the movie that:

 the who is killed guy in the beginning of the movie might be some sort of figure in the "Church of the Force"

Previously, I didn't think there was any religiosity to the force. But now, I'm not so sure...
The questions, succinctly put is: What is the difference between the way Catholicism portrays the balance between good and evil and the way is is portrayed in Star Wars and how close does the way it is portrayed in Star Wars align with the Manichaean Heresy?
Orthodox Catholic answers preferred, you don't have to posit a quodlibet, but those are fun to read!


texts: What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the activities of the antichrist in these "last days"?

texts:
The Bible warns against the activities of deceivers and false prophets who arose during the first century, and continues to warn against their activities during the "last days".  Here are a few relevant Bible verses:

But every inspired statement [every spirit] that does not acknowledge [confess] Jesus [is not from God] does not originate with God.  Furthermore, this is the [spirit of the ] antichrist's inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:3 Revised New World Translation)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.  This is the deceiver and the antichrist.  (2 John 1:7 (Revised New World Translation)
Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come [the day of Jehovah] unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.  He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called "god" or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 New World Translation 2006)

Has the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction and the antichrist been revealed yet? What is "the temple of The God" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4?  What activities today identify the antichrist in these, the "last days" leading up to the tribulation prior to "the day of Jehovah"?
What is the official view of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the antichrist?


texts: We see Jesus referring to Himself as "Son of Man" in all four Gospels (e.g., in Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 11:19; Mark 10:45, 13:26; Luke 5:24, 6:22, 7:34; and John 1:51, 3:14, 6:27, etc.). What, according to Catholic Church, does the name "Son of Man" signify?


texts: Who influenced anabaptist teachings the most and where did anabaptist teachings come from?

texts:
I know that Switzerland and southern Germany was the birthplace of anabaptism, did it come from Ulrich Zwingli? Or was there another more influential person out of the reformation that encouraged anabaptism?

Modern anabaptist churches (to my knowledge) are all descendents of German Brethren churches. Where would that put Switzerland?


texts:
What is the nature of Dyothelitism according to the Council of Chalcedon?
At the Council of Chalcedon, the church taught that the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ had two natures: divine and human, united in his one person (Hypostatic union), without mixing or blending them into one nature (Monophysitism). In this Christology, Jesus had two minds: divine mind and human mind (Dyothelitism).
My question is specifically asking about the nature of the Dyothelitism. The following sub questions are really helpful in navigating for an answer:

What is the relationship of the divine mind with the human mind?
When Jesus was incarnated, did he use his human mind primarily?
If so, how did Jesus access his divine mind? Is it like a memory being remembered?
Was Jesus operating in both human mind and divine mind simultaneously when he was on earth?

I am seeking answer from authoritative sources regardless of denomination. Preferrably those who believe in the Council of Chalcedon and Diothelitism. A Biblical answer is also acceptable as long as it can explain logically the nature of Dyothelitism.


texts: What evidence is there that Jesus was a carpenter?

texts:
I was about to say this in another discussion somewhere else, and wondered: do we know that?  As in "it's mentioned or at least hinted at in $book $chapter:$verse"?

Or is it just a very likely conjecture?


texts:
Luke 11:5-8 (NIV)
5 Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6 a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ 7 And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

What does it mean that even though he "will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship", he "will surely get up and give you as much as you need" ?
Why will the friend not give the bread because of friendship (shouldn't it be the other way round) ?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that Papal supremacy can be passed on from person to person over time?

texts:
I know that Matthew 16:18 is commonly cited as the biblical basis for the Papal supremacy of Peter, who is viewed by Catholics as the first Pope. However, what is not yet clear to me is the biblical basis for the belief that such authority can be passed on from person to person over the generations. My understanding is that all the apostles were chosen by Jesus, including the apostle Paul, who had a supernatural Christophany in his way to Damascus. So, my immediate impression would be that all individuals in positions of power/authority in the Bible were chosen by God directly, not by people, but maybe I'm overlooking something.
What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Papal supremacy can be passed on from person to person over time?


texts: Where did Roman Catholicism connect modern heresies with the Reformation?

texts:
Protestant theologian R. C. Sproul, in his series Contemporary Theology, comments on Rome's view of the connection between the Reformation and modern heresies:

  In the latter part of the 19th century, growing out of Vatican I, in the Roman Catholic Church the charge was made that all modern heresies (humanism, pragmatism, existentialism were listed and cited specifically) have their roots in the Protestant Reformation.  That was the Roman Catholic Church's judgment at the end of the 19th century about the chaos in Christendom. ("Background to Contemporary Theology," 5:30)

This certainly sounds like something that Roman Catholicism (and many impartial observers) would accept.  However, I looked in two documents of Vatican I (Dei Filius and Pastor aeternus) and didn't see anything like this.  So:

Did an official outlet of the Roman Catholic Church actually make such a statement in the late 19th century?  Were heresies like humanism and existentialism specifically mentioned as being the result of the Reformation?  Or are such statements only found in the writings of Catholic theologians and not the church itself?


texts: Are there any specific food / slaughter / butchery / preparation rites in Christianity?

texts:
I noticed on islam.SE, Ansari here refers to "Christian practices during the slaughter", which made me raise an eyebrow - as an ex-Christian, I can't remember anything of this form coming up (I was RC, if that skews things). After querying this, Ansari replied:

  I believe some of the Eastern Christianity sects have some ritual requirements, in particular, the mention of God's name. For example, in the Syriac-language Nomocanon of Barhebraeus (d. 1286), a Christian butcher is instructed to recite the phrase ba-shma d'elaha haya, “In the name of the living God.” Gregorius Barhebraeus, Nomocanon, ed. Paul Bedjan (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1898); (citation taken from here)

When trying to look this up, I can only really find references to it on Islamic sites, and it doesn't sound like something with a Biblical basis (but please correct me if I am mistaken).

But I guess, both on the specific point above, and in the more general: are there any explicit Christian practices (generally, or in specific sections of Christianity) of slaughter / butchery / preparation that I am being ignorant of? (I'm not talking about "fish on Friday", here).


texts: Are my feelings altered when I enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

texts:
5th Commandment: Honour thy father and thy mother

Hypothetically speaking, say my father has sinned, he doesn't believe in God and won't repent on his deathbed. By all of the standards of Christianity, he is going to go to Hell.

If I live my life according to God's word and make it in to Heaven, what happens to my dad? If I am not happy then it cannot be Heaven right?

I could NEVER be happy with the knowledge that my father was in agony for all eternity in hell. In fact, I can honestly say that the knowledge would be so horrific that I would consider it a type of hell. Obviously this cannot be the case.

There are, as I see it, only 3 options:
1) My dad makes it to Heaven with me.
This means there is no need to live a life without sin and be a believer. If he is allowed in Heaven then there is really no motivation/reason to live a pious, sin free life. Moreover, my father would have escaped the "justice" some people believe Hell provides. He may even meet his victim in Heaven which I am sure would not be their idea of Heaven. I think we can all agree, this option is not acceptable.
2) When I reach Heaven, I no longer care about my dad.
This means my mind has been changed without my consent (as I would never consent to this). I consider this losing my free will, this is not an option. If we lost our free will in heaven, what was the point in having it on Earth? (It is often said to be why there is suffering in the world)
3) I am told he is fine/happy (and I believe it).
I'm sure God could tell a convincing lie here but he wouldn't, this isn't an acceptable option in my opinion. It would mean Heaven was a lie and that God was willing to deceive me for eternity.

The problem doesn't have a solution that I can see but obviously there is one. Can somebody let me know God's solution please?

EDIT: I should say I am looking for an answer from a Catholic or Anglican perspective. The reason I think this question is different from "How can  I be happy in Heaven knowing loved ones are in Hell?" is that I don't want to presume that my loved ones aren't in Heaven with me or any alternatives that may exist that I haven't thought of (hence asking in the first place).


texts:
The answers to the question on the essence of sin seem to form a consensus that sins are acts of disobedience against things God specifically told us not to do.

Since sin is defined as disobedience and not related to evil, are there evil acts which are not sins?

(Sins which are not acts of evil might also be considered with the special exception of course for the disobedience itself being the only evil)


texts: Is the letter of James promoting "Faith without deeds . . .is empty" in response to Paul or are the Pauline references to "Faith alone" a response to James? In reading them it seems James might the oldest New Testament document.


texts:
I was recently reading the account of Messiah's Passion in the Gospel of Matthew and read over this passage that I did not recall,

  Matthew 27:52-53 NASB The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

The passage stuck out to me for a few reasons:

It is not synchronous with the immediate context of the narrative of Christ's passion and resurrection, since it appears at the point of the narrative before Jesus encounters Pilate.
This resurrection event is not recalled in the other Gospels.
The pre-millennial resurrection of Revelation 20 is called the "first resurrection".

I am curious to know how this relates to other resurrection events in the New Testament, especially events in which more than one person rises from the grave.

What is an overview of resurrection events in the New Testament?


texts: Is there Biblical support for Christians basing their beliefs on extra biblical texts?

texts:
Considering the prominence of the works of popular authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and prominent theologians like Augustine and others in various Christian circles. Is there Biblical support for basing your beliefs on those who've come before?

Said another way, what different perspectives are there among notable Christian groups regarding the use of non-Biblical works for informing beliefs, and what Biblical support do they give for their perspective?


texts: Is "A mighty fortress is our God" anti-Catholic?

texts:
So there's a hymn called A mighty fortress is our God (Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott), written by Martin Luther; there's also a famous version by J. S. Bach. It is a call to arms against the devil, and is particularly associated with the Reformation.

The lyrics are full of references to Satan (der alte böse Feind, der Fürst dieser Welt, der Teufel); the Bach cantata has a few more (zum Kriege wider Satans Heer, treib Welt und Satan aus). That's all fine. What I was wondering about was the extent to which these should be read as references to the Catholic Church and the Papacy. After all, Luther wasn't shy about that in his prose works - calling the Pope an Antichrist, Devil, Satan, Satanissimus, etc., and speaking in martial terms about the conflict between them, where Rome is presented as being part of the devil's captured territory.

Were the devil-references in the hymn originally intended to be about Luther's Catholic opponents?
Does the hymn come across today as anti-Catholic? (And therefore, to be avoided.)

For context, in my congregation we are perpetually anxious about martial metaphors and sectarian divisiveness. We did do Onward Christian soldiers last year, but only after an explanation/rationale from the pulpit. We'd be happy to sing about the devil being our enemy, but not at all happy to sing against our brothers and sisters in Christ.

2nd Verse

“And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us;
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us.”


texts: What does it mean for a society to be moral?

texts:
Inspired by Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one?

There have been many debates going around regarding what constitutes moral or immoral actions; moral or immoral society; etc.  This set of questions is in regards to society and how morality can be measured.

First and foremost, is it possible for a society to be moral or immoral?

If so, what does morality mean in regards to a society?  Meaning, what's the difference between a moral society and an immoral one?

As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible.  Can this same gauge be used for societies?  How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian?

Ultimately: What does morality mean in the context of a society?


texts: How much were the 30 pieces of silver (Judas's payment) worth?

texts:
We often see ancient sums of money approximately described in terms of some modern currency.

How much were the 30 pieces of silver that Judas received as payment for his betrayal worth, expressed in today's currency? (USD or Euro, around 2010-2013)

Wikipedia lists it in terms of days of wages for a skilled laborer—wages for 120 days, assuming the coins were tetradrachms—but how does that translate into modern currency?


texts:
I'm having difficulty with this passage.

On Psalms 45:6:

  Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed

I don't know how the author of Psalms could have referred to a King as God in this verse. Wouldn't a better translation for "elohim" here simply be "judge"?

Next the author of Hebrews quotes this verse and applies it to the Son. Hebrews 1:8-9

  But about the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has placed You above Your companions by anointing You with the oil of joy..

So why did the author of Hebrews take this arguably mistranslated passage and apply it to the Son?


texts: Did Christ's original twelve apostles have families?

texts: We know that Peter was married because Christ healed his mother-in-law. Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children?


texts: Why are there so many translations of the Bible?

texts: It seems confusing to have so many translations of the Bible.  Why isn't there just a single (English) one?  Or maybe a single "modern" one (given that KJV is hard to understand these days).


texts:
A friend of mine will be attending World Youth Day 2016 in Krakow, Poland from July 26 - August 1.

He will be carrying some religious medals with him to be blessed by Pope Francis. He is under the impression that if one holds up any religious objects during the closing blessing of the Papal Mass that these medals would be considered as being blessed by the Holy Father.

I have not heard of such a tradition or manner of obtaining a Papal Blessing for religious objects.

Can anyone confirm one way or another if such a blessing on medals is at all considered Papal or not?


texts: Does the LDS Church teach that murder is unforgivable?

texts:
Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven.
Does "killing" refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way?

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18

Does the LDS Church hold to this position today?  If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma?

Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV
And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.  Alma 24:10


texts: How can 1 Corithians 15:3 and Psalms 49:7 be reconciled?

texts:
In Corinthians 15:3 it states that Jesus died for our sins.

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

In Psalms 49:7 it states no man can die for the sins of another.

  No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for
  them--

These two scriptures seem contradictory to me. How can these verses be reconciled?