texts: Are JWs restricted from expressing things in their own words?

texts:
I've been wondering if there is any official doctrine held by Jehovahs Witnesses that would restrict them from talking about their faith in their own words?

I have noticed in my interactions with them (through everything from talking to door to door missionaries to hanging out with the families of some of my friends to reading their postings on this site) that instead it is very typical for them to use the exact phrases and constructs found in officially sanctioned publications, often preferring to quote these sources (Watchtower, etc.) wholesale rather than writing or otherwise articulating their views in their own words.

As a Reformed Protestant, I believe there is great value in using words and constructs whose meanings have become well defined and have been tested through time. In particular, I will even direct people to re-frame their own questions in the words Scripture uses for given topics rather than their own because I think this will help bring clarity to the issues they face. At the same time I see great value in meeting people where they are at -- in speaking the same language -- and articulating eternal truths in ways that people relate to and that specifically match the important issues. However much some Theologian may have said something better than I and I might quote them, still I do share the Gospel and articulate my faith to people using my own words.

This seems fundamentally different from the interactions I see from JWs. When you ask them a question, they will seem reticent to stray from a specific track and try to find the closest matching stock answer from their repertoire. Or so it seems. My question is, is that an official stance?

Is there a specific teaching or doctrine that binds them to operate this way? Or perhaps a more general doctrine that leads people to that conclusion even if it isn't a requirement?


texts:
Is Hebron referred to Hebrew?

In Genesis 39:17 → The Hebrew Servant →
Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew.
So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites.
It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham.

Hebrew is → geographical reference whereas Israelite is → lineage reference

Please correct me if I am wrong.


texts: Why do Daily Office readings in the BCP 1928 sometimes repeat?

texts:
Can anyone explain why the Daily Office readings in the 1928 (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer (containing the 1943/45 revision of the lectionary) sometimes repeat on Sundays readings that were read on weekdays during the previous week?

For example, the First Sunday after Easter calls for an Evening Prayer reading of Zephaniah 3:14-20 and John 20:19-31.  But Zephaniah 3:14-20 was already read on Friday Easter Week's Evening Prayer, and John 20:19-23 was read on Wednesday Easter Week's Evening Prayer.


texts: Where can I find the 5800 Greek NT Manuscript copies?

texts:
How do we know 5800 is a correct figure if we can't even locate these manuscripts?
How reliable is this figure?
Which libraries in which countries in the world hold these manuscripts?
Who first found out and established that it was 5800 copies?


texts: Why did God describe the light as being good, but not the darkness?

texts:
In the account of creation in Genesis 1, it seems that God describes many of the things He creates as being "good".  Verse 2 indicates that prior to there being light, there was "darkness over the face of the deep".  God's first created act, aside perhaps from the heavens and the earth themselves, is light.  He specifically calls the light "good", but not the darkness.
So, was the darkness "not good", or did God simply not explicitly declare it as such?

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:1-5, ESV)


texts: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

texts:
Trying to find an answer here leads to 2 main questions, firstly there is Blood transfusions and Christianity? (closed due to asking for the truth) and loosely there is Should we allow doctors or God to heal us? which was closed due to being non-constructive.

In a hope to ask in a format fitting this site, I would like to ask, what is the basis for Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions?

Looking at one of the answers in Blood transfusions and Christianity?, it has something to do with Acts 15:28-29 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)

  For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things
  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!


texts:
"And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him." Genesis 4:15 ESV

What is the mark placed on Cain?


texts: Under what conditions does the Bible support divorce?

texts:
It seems that Jesus talks out against divorce.  But in other places, divorce is allowed.  How does this all play out and where does the bible really stand on this?  Is it a sin or is it just part of the culture?

I'm seeking the exegesis of mainstream Protestant denominations, since I believe that these will all be similar (if not identical).  If differences of interpretation exist between the different denominations, please let me know and I'll refine my scope a bit.


texts: Why were both criminals that were crucified with Jesus abusing him in Mark, and not in Luke?

texts:
Two thing stick out to me in the gospel accounts of Jesus on the Cross:

Mark 15:27-32
They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Luke 23:39-43 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Were those that were crucified with him 'rebels' or 'criminals'?

Why does Mark mention that there were two rebels, both of whom were presumably insulting him "Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him", whereas Luke has one criminal insulting him and the other recognizing his innocence and mission?


texts: Did a Church Father ever write an epistle encouraging Christians to observe the Jewish Sabbath, and if so, what was the earliest instance?

texts: Did a Church Father ever write an epistle in which he explicitly encouraged Christians to embrace the observance of the Jewish Sabbath? I've looked at the matter, but only managed to find examples of the opposite (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Justin Martyr, etc.). Are there any examples of epistles for the Jewish Sabbath written by Church Fathers? If so, what is the earliest example?


texts:
Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality? I have not heard nor found any.
One is tempted to make the comparison with the "conditional nature of the private property rights" that are expressed, e.g. in https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html article 120. There is no dogma about the private property rights (AFAIK), there is strong Church teaching on the conditional nature, but nevertheless, there are attempts to question this conditionality.
I am not aware of any official (*.va) list of all dogmas, but there is one non-official list http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/ and it has 2 dogmas for marriage.


texts: Do Biblical Unitarians believe in Creatio Ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing)?

texts:
Creatio ex-nihilo, for the purposes of this question, meaning that matter is not eternal and was therefore brought into existence by God at a specific moment (the beginning) and this creation is also inclusive of space, time, and any other dimension understood to be necessary for material existence.  In other words, creatio ex-nihilo means that, prior to creating everything (if saying prior to time even makes any sense) there was only God.
Also see this related (closed) question.
Following are two quotes from an article at Biblical Unitarian.com entitled "John 1:1- But what about John 1:1?".  I was searching whether Biblical Unitarians (BU) believe that God created everything out of nothing (creatio ex-nihilo) but could not find any direct statement (the search was not exhaustive).

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.”

Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being.

It seems clear that John 1:1 is linked to Genesis 1:1 as referring to the same "beginning" in BU thought but it is unclear whether BU believe that everything was created "ex-nihilo" and what "everything" might encompass.

Do Biblical Unitarians believe that God created everything out of nothing and does everything include matter, space, time, etc (as defined above), or 1a) did God create matter into an existing space-time, or
1b) did God "create/form" things from already existing elemental matter, or 1c) is there some other alternative that escapes me?

*Note:  Part of the reason for this question is, if something existed into which or from which God created then how can God be said to have created everything (if indeed such is claimed)?


texts: What is the Greek word for a non-essential Christian doctrine?

texts:
What is the Greek word that starts with a that means nonessential points of faith? It is contrasted with essential dogma, and refers to areas of disagreement which are not critical for Christian faith.

I keep wanting to say anaphora, which is obviously incorrect, but I imagine it sounds something like that.


texts: Where can I find a free Russian Bible other than the Russian Synodal Translation?

texts:
I am considering to translate my book into Russian.

A stopper for this is that the standard Russian Bible (Russian Synodal Translation) is out of question very poor quality. (I once compared it with the Hebrew/Greek original, and it seems that more than half verses are with errors.)

Where can I get a good free complete translation of Bible into Russian language?


texts: What symbols are preferred among certain denominations more than others?

texts:
I am compiling a list of common themes or symbols to be used for decoration around the different denominations or to be given as gifts for members of that church.  I am in the USA and only interested in local norms (Oklahoma).

For example, I know for Catholics, one would use the crucifix.
I would like the preferred symbol for the following churches:

Baptist
Methodist
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Nazarene

Examples: Christian cross, dove, open bible, lamb, fish, folded hands, etc.

I am not looking for obscure symbols.  I want a generic but still acceptable symbol to use as a basis for keeping in mind while shopping for gifts or decorating for an event.


texts: What is the difference between Presbyterianism and Evangelicalism?

texts:
I understand the main differences with Evangelicals vs. protestants are the strong beliefs in being "born again" and Biblical fundamentalism.

However, what are some of the main differences in theology, personal belief, politics, structure of leadership and interpretation - specifically speaking between Evangelicals and Presbyterians?


texts: Why did Pope Francis say, "When we encounter the Cross, do we turn to Mary," rather than to Christ?

texts:
When we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary: Give us the strength, Mary our Mother, to accept and embrace the Cross! —His Holiness Pope Francis

Source

Can anyone explain, according to Catholic doctrine, why, when we encounter the Cross, we turn to Mary, rather than to Christ?


texts: Is it true that there is an inscription that says that Yahweh had a wife?

texts:
In this video, around 1:08:40, Amihai Mazar, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says:

  The name "Yahweh", as the name of an Israelite God, [...] appears for the first time in the inscriptions of around 800 BC, found in the Sinai desert, and one of the inscriptions is a dedication to Yahweh and his "asherah": that means, Yahweh, the God of Israel, in this inscription, has a consort, a wife.

Does such an inscription actually exist? Is this a correct interpretation of the inscription in question?


texts: When and where did the Catholic tradition of first communion at 7 years old start?

texts:
I found out a few weeks ago from a friend that she celebrated her first communion around her 7th birthday, which seemed like an oddly specific age. In addition, the way she talked about it, and the fact that she was raised Roman Catholic, seemed to suggest to me that this was a Catholic tradition. Thus, I have a few closely-related questions:

How widespread is this tradition?
Where, when, and why did this tradition start?
Why was the first communion celebrated at seven years old?

If this tradition is also found in other branches of Christianity, then mentioning that would be great.


texts: What are other explanations for Malachi 4:5-6?

texts:
The LDS church believes the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 (KJV) has been fulfilled, and those verses are often cited while explaining why they're so interested in genealogy.

What other explanations exist for this prophecy? What do other denominations think it means that Elijah will "turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers?"


texts: Were paid indulgences compulsory prior to the Reformation?

texts:
Luther's 95 Theses were a refutation of selling indulgences on the part of the Catholic Church.  Did he, or others, believe that the Church was saying that:

The only way to be a good Christian was to purchase an indulgence
Were indulgences a public or private matter (I mean, did you show them off)?
The sale of indulgences was a benign form of alms giving
The sale of indulgences were a form of extortion by the Catholic Church
The only way to assure one of salvation was through the purchase of indulgences
Neglecting the purchase of indulgences assured one's soul of eternal damnation

How did Luther's viewpoint compare to that of the common man?


texts: The Prohet and the Messiah in John 1:20-21

texts:
Why did the Jews in John 1:20-21 ask John the Baptist if he was the Christ and then if he was the Prophet?

Since the coming Prophet mentioned in Deut. 18:18 is the Messiah, it seems that their question was redundant. Or did they just not know that the Prophet and the Messiah were one in the same? I think I may just have answered my own question, but please elaborate.


texts: Are there any other judgments of Solomon in Christian tradition?

texts: Today I told the story of the Judgement of Solomon to my children, and they were so fascinated I proceeded to read them the Biblical text 1 Kings 3:16-28. They then asked me for 'more' of Solomon's judgments. I know that many wisdom writings are attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, The Wisdom of Solomon), but I have not been able to track down any other actual judgements of Solomon, ie cases brought before Solomon with his judgement. I might write a separate question on the Judaism stack exchange, but my question here is, Are there any further judgements of Solomon to be found in the Christian tradition? By "Christian tradition" I mean any text copied by Christian scribes (or otherwise published by Christians), even if the original source may have been Jewish or otherwise. I am not interested in canonicity or authenticity.


texts: In which writing(s) does Hugo Grotius set forth the "Governmental Theory of the Atonement"?

texts: I'm trying to locate, in book form in English, the writings of Hugo Grotius in relation to the "Governmental View of the Atonement". I see very little of his writings available in book form in English and can't seem to identify any texts that do or would likely contain his writings on this subject. Does anybody know where I can obtain such? Thanks.


texts: Is the register where the first marriage was registered still available?

texts:
I read that the Church had little to do with marriage till the 13th century, when it took legal control of marriage. Then, Church registration followed.

My questions are:

Where was the first registration done (i.e., in what country) and what were the names of the persons involved?
Also, is the register where the first marriage was registered still available?


texts:
What I mean is the following:

Job stands out as being as old as the Torah (if not older)
None of the characters are Israelites (especially if it was Abrahamic time when Israel didn't even exist)
Every other book can be traced back by tradition, the author is fully unknown

So how did the Jews get a hold of Job scriptures? or does it not have an answer and is left to theory?


texts: Why are relics that can perform miracles not idols?

texts:
In reviewing the idol vs. icon issue, the top answer to What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons? defines an idol as "something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God."

Catholicism has a long tradition involving relics, Eastern and Western rites. These relics are usually the remains or possessions of a great saint. Many of these relics are believed to give divine blessings of various types, including healing for the sick. This seems to fit the definition given of an idol. These relics are essentially items that house something divine, namely, divine power to heal.

I'm aware of some biblical arguments that these beliefs should be permitted, the most interesting of which is the man brought back to life simply by his body touching Elisha's bones, as detailed in 2 Kings 13. For purposes of this question, answers can assume the licit nature of relics. What I'm having trouble determining is exactly why healing relics don't count as idols.


texts:
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1st John 5:1)

John seems to be both liberal and absolutistic in his statement here: on one hand, he doesn't add any more prerequisites for a human to be a regenerate (while today's main stream Christianity would most likely add some more like believing that Christ is God,  that Christ and God the Father are the same One God, etc.), on the other hand, he says "whosoever", which sounds like he is very explicit about his statement being true for all cases that meet his prerequisite (which is believing that Jesus is Christ).

What are the arguments of those who believe that the prerequisite stated here by John is yet not sufficient for being born of God? I know that many Christians don't consider, for example,  Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be regenerate (because they don't believe that Jesus is the same God as God the Father). However, both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses seem to meet this prerequisite stated here by John.


texts: Is there a Christian perspective on the matter of "delusion"?

texts:
What I mean by this is, in other communities of people, there may be certain ways to measure a delusion.  An atheist may define it differently than a theist.  The official DSM has a specific way to define a "delusion" (with religious exemption).

Do any Christian doctrines have a clear way to define delusions OR is there no such thing as a psychological delusion from a Christian perspective?


texts: Is there such a thing as a Catholic commentary on the Bible?

texts:
In the Protestant world there are endless commentaries on Biblical books, or series of commentaries that cover either the whole Bible or at least the New Testament.  Does the same exist in the Catholic world?  (Modern, I mean, not patristic commentaries.) If so, what would be considered basically the most authoritative commentary on the Bible to a Catholic?

PS: I'm really asking about like a commentary set, not a Bible with footnotes or a "Study Bible."  The reason being, study Bibles have a few comments on a few selected verses they want to highlight, but a commentary set really goes in depth with every verse. You can't skip inconvenient verses that way, and if you want to know, for instance, what the Catholic position is on a verse that might be inconvenient to Catholic orthodoxy, you're not likely to find an answer to that in a study Bible because it will just skip that verse.


texts: Why do Mormons use Trinitarian language in baptism when they explicitly reject Trinitarianism?

texts:
In conferring the rite of Baptist, Joseph Smith writes in the Doctrines and Covenants as follows:

  73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

And yet, they are also explicitly non-Trinitarian:

  Latter-day Saints believe that the simplest reading of the New Testament text produces the simplest conclusion — that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, that They are one in purpose. We feel that the sheer preponderance of references in the Bible would lead an uninformed reader to the understanding that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. That is, one must look to the third- and fourth-century Christian church, not to the New Testament itself, to make a strong case for the Trinity

So, if they are tri-theistic rather than Trinitarian, why would one baptise in three personages?  My understanding is that Baptism is supposed to be an identification with one person, so having "three" names doesn't seem to gel.  What is the justification here?


texts: What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus?

texts:
Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth.  However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus.

What specifically is the basis for this belief?


texts: If God desires salvation for all, how come many people died without hearing the gospel?

texts:
1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants everyone to be saved:

  This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and
  to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator
  between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for
  all people. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Furthermore Timothy possibly implies that Jesus also saves those who don't believe:

  That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the
  living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those
  who believe.

In Ezekiel 18:23 we read:

  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the
  Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their
  ways and live?

Ezekiel 18:32

  For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign
  LORD. Repent and live!

Ezekiel 33:11

  Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take
  no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from
  their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die,
  people of Israel?'

Here is my question: it is obvious that lots of people in the world have never heard the gospel. This includes pretty much everyone living in East Asia, Australia and the Americas in the year 50 AD.

These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved.

Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel? After all, you can't have all three statements being true:

God desires all people to be saved
The only way to get saved is hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus
Many people never heard the gospel.

One of these must not be correct and I think it's #2.


texts: Was there a "cessation of church fathers" in Catholicism?

texts:
I read somewhere in passing that the Orthodox church never set a limit for who can be a church father, and it is therefore possible for someone today to be a church father, or even someone in the future.

Is it the same case in Catholicism? If not, then who was considered the last church father? (What year of history is the cut-off for being considered a church father?)

I'm interested because as I understand it, interpretation of scripture/tradition is supposed to be done "through the eyes of the church fathers". However if the list of church fathers is still expanding even today then it seems to me that there is the potential for new and unique interpretations to become mainstream.


texts: Who is this pope's auxiliary? I see him with the Pope in many pictures. Thanks


texts: Absent apostolic succession, what is the argument for the authority of the church?

texts:
I realize that Catholics believe in apostolic succession, and that they were explicitly given authority by Jesus himself.  In other denominations, what, if anything, other than the choice made by its members gives the church authority over them?

I am speaking here not of "church" meaning a community of Christians, but "church" meaning a specific entity that owns property and instructs its members on what they may or may not do (such as tithing, indulgences, sexual practices, marriage, musical choices, etc.), led by a specific human individual or group.

I used to think that non-Catholics dedicated themselves to a church conditionally -- that is, they stay as long as the church seems to be serving God's will, and leave or seek to change the church if it doesn't.  However, in practice that doesn't seem to happen much.  I know many Christians who have never even read the Bible directly -- they pray and live solely according to the directions of their pastor and his/her interpretation of God's will, their only direct contact with the Bible is in small quotations strewn about a sermon completely out of context.  These particular individuals feel that only a pastor can know what is true, and that as laypeople they are required to follow without question.  Is this a mainstream belief, and if so, from what does it stem?


texts: Is there any scripture or literature exploring why God chose not to annihilate Satan?

texts:
For that matter, why aren't we annihilated if we reject Jesus?  Particularly if there is no posthumous "second chance?"

For the record, I resonate with C.S. Lewis' notion that, perhaps, the "doors of hell are locked from the inside," but I would love to know more about scripture and other works that explore this territory.


texts: Where does C. S. Lewis teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?

texts:
I recall reading something by C. S. Lewis some time ago in which he recommends that a person who wants to develop a virtuous, right attitude in some area of life should begin acting virtuously in that realm, even though his attitude is wrong.  After a time, Lewis says, the virtuous actions will lead to the development of a virtuous attitude.

Recently this struck me as a particularly Aristotelian approach to moral development.  One introductory textbook relates Aristotle's view this way:

  We should perform acts that resemble virtuous acts, that resemble what we would do if we had the disposition.  In this way we build up the right habits.  If the disposition I wish to acquire is liberality, the way to acquire it is to ask how I would behave if I possessed the habit and continue to behave that way. (Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 152)

I'd like to explore how this idea might fit in the framework of sanctification, but unfortunately I don't remember where I read it.

Where in the works of C. S. Lewis does he teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that some who died before Christ are still in Limbo? Why?

texts:
In Dante's Inferno, the Poets (Homer, Ovid, Horace, Lucan, etc) and other figures are portrayed as residing in Limbo. Ostensibly, during the crucifixion of Jesus, he entered Limbo and took with him to heaven such figures such as Abel, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc. Virgil states to Dante that:

  (Canto IV, Lines 31-39) You do not question what souls these are that suffer here before you? I wish you to know before you travel on that these were sinless. And still their merits fail, for they lacked Baptism's grace, which is the door of the true faith you were born to. Their birth fell before the age of the Christian mysteries, and so they did not worship God's Trinity in the fullest duty. I am one of these.

Does this depiction—in which the Roman poets (and perhaps others who died before Christ's death) still reside in Limbo even while others such as Adam and the Jewish patriarchs were led forth in the Harrowing of Hell—accurately reflect current Catholic theology?

If so, why is it that these good men were not brought out of Limbo? Does Catholic theology make any statements on such matters?


texts: Why was the Holy Family instructed to flee to Egypt?

texts:
At Matthew 2:13-14 (NRSVCE)we read about the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt:

" Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”   Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt"

My question is: what were the advantages that Egypt offered as a shelter for the Jewish family in the post-exodus scenario in which the then generation of Egyptians  would have only  hatred for the Israelites  in their genes ?  What are the views of the Catholic Church on the divine selection of Egypt  as the shelter for the Holy Family ?


texts: Are Jesus and Lazarus the only people raised from the dead?

texts: Based on the bible, are these the only two people who were revived, or raised after being dead?


texts: How do Christians tell whether they lack or have the "power" promised in Acts 1:8?

texts:
Acts 1:7-8 (NIV):

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

What criteria do Christians normally employ to discern whether they have or lack the "power" promised in Acts 1:8? Similarly, what are the usual practices employed to attain/increase this "power" if it's lacking? If this requires a different answer per denomination, an overview type answer would be very much appreciated.

Not duplicates but related and probably relevant questions:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52554/is-the-promise-of-power-in-acts-18-only-for-the-apostles-or-for-christians-in
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52573/what-is-the-intended-meaning-of-the-word-power-as-used-in-acts-18/


texts: Is there a list of popes by autonomous particular church?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church consists of a couple dozen autonomous particular churches in full communion with the Holy See.  Is there a list that indicates the particular church affiliation of each of the 266 popes (so far as is known)?  Such a list would be particularly useful for answering the following questions:

How many popes has each particular church produced?
For each particular church, when was the first and last time one of their members became pope, and who were these popes?

I imagine that the Latin Church has produced the vast majority of popes, at least in recent times, but I'm very interested to know the facts and figures on popes from the Eastern Churches.


texts: How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable about wise virgins?

texts:
The Parable Matthew 25:1-13 King James Version (KJV)

  Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
  took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

  2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

  3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

  4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

  5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

  6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh;
  go ye out to meet him.

  7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

  8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our
  lamps are gone out.

  9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for
  us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for
  yourselves.

  10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were
  ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

  11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to
  us.

  12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

  13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
  the Son of man cometh.

Did the 5 foolish virgins were saved once but lost their salvation in the end? Clearly, they were waiting for Christ(the bridegroom) which means they were saved but didn't have faith(oil).


texts: Did the pre-Christian Greek Bible contain only the five books of Moses?

texts:
The New Testament quotes portions of the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint, or LXX for short), including portions of books beyond the Pentateuch (or five books of Moses), some of which are of a distinct tradition than that of the Hebrew (or what is loosely called the Masoretic tradition).1

Yet it is claimed by Jews,2 as well as others, that the Septuagint was originally only a translation of the five books of Moses, not the entire Bible.

Question: If this is so, what exactly were the New Testament authors quoting?

Thanks in advance.

Footnotes

1 e.g. Mt 9:13 "mercy" (LXX) / cf. Hos 9:6 "goodness" (Masor); Mt 9:13 "perfected praise" (LXX) / cf. Ps 8:2 "ordained strength" (Masor). See also Mk 7:6-8/Isa 29:13; Lk 3:5-6/Isa 40:4-5; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 | It's been estimated that out of all the quotations of the Old Testament in the New, 340 are from the LXX, and 33 from the Masoretic (see G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, p. 25-32).

2 The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (Bible Translations, under 'Septuagint') states, "According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden," 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life. ¶ It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the "Peshiṭta.""


texts: Online resources for the Churches of Christ (USA)

texts:
What are the main online resources for the Churches of Christ (USA)?

I've found this:
http://cconline.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=39707

I was hoping to obtain a brief introduction and a few resources to get the idea behind this congregation, and perhaps a reliable way to find local congregations which adhere to it's teachings.


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, is it a sin to vote for pro-choice politicians?

texts: Let's not make this a debate about pro-life and pro-choice views of abortion. According to Roman Catholic teaching, would it be a sin if I voted for a pro-choice politician such as Bernie Sanders?


texts: Why is the term Immanuel/Emmanuel considered to be a title rather than a proper name?

texts:
In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet foretells that a virgin will give birth to a son and call him Immanuel, which means "God with us".

  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  Isaiah 7:14 ESV

Matthew 1:22-23 references this prophecy and indicates that it was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus.

  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).  Matthew 1:22-23 ESV

It is understood by many that Immanuel was not intended to be a proper name, but to be a title or description.  What is the basis for this understanding?


texts: What is the difference between these versions of the KJV?

texts:
I found those versions of the King James Version:

King James Version (1769) including Apocrypha
King James Version: Pure Cambridge Edition
American King James Version

Is there any difference between them?


texts: Were Prophets Moses and Aaron magicians?

texts:
It is a well known fact that the Bible contains many verses where magick is forbidden. Some examples are Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:9-12. However, I find also in the Bible many verse that indicate Prophet Moses and his brother, Prophet Aaron, to have performed magic as well. The following verses are some of the examples:

Exodus 7:10-12:

  And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.

Exodus 7:20:

  And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

Exodus 8:17:

  And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exodus 9:23:

  And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt.

Exodus 10:13:

  And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Exodus 10:22:

  And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days.

Exodus 17:5-6

  And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee … thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Exodus 17:9-11:

  And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

Numbers 17:6-8:

  And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, and every one of their princes gave him a rod apiece, for each prince one, according to their fathers’ houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods. And Moses laid up the rods before the Lord in the tabernacle of witness. And it came to pass, that on the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle of witness; and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.

So did Prophets Moses and Aaron really performed magick or is this a mistranslation? If they did practice magick, why did they do it when it is forbidden or does it mean magick can be white?


texts: According to Catholicism what happens to young children who die before being baptized?

texts:
John 3:5 is as follows:

  Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
  of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

In the light of that, what happens to those who die before being baptized ? For example, what happens to a baby who dies in the womb of his/her mother ? Or a 5 year old child ? Basically, someone who is not mature enough to reason.


texts:
In this video, John Barnett says "Jesus rejected the apocrypha" at 2:06:46. He goes into detail to discuss how Jesus accepted particular writers but rejected others.

Are there any scriptural evidence to validate the possibility of Jesus's rejection of particular deutronomical teachings?

Video source:
WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC Church? (YouTube)


texts: Why John the Baptist did not follow Jesus?

texts:
John the Baptist was aware the Messiah was coming after him, and His identity was revealed (or rather, confirmed) to him in the Jordan though a voice from Heaven.
And yet, it seems John the Baptist did not became one of Jesus's many disciples, nor was he chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve (whereas two of John's disciples did follow Jesus, one being identified as Andrew). It seemed like they had different tasks altogether and could not mix. I am not aware of an instance where they are preaching together or sharing other moments.
Why John the Baptist did not "follow" Jesus and became one of his disciples? He remained having disciples of himself, which you would imagine being a "less perfect way" than following Jesus.
PD: If needed as per site rules, a Catholic perspective is preferred.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, who was God talking to, at Babel?

texts:
At Genesis 11: 5-7 we read:

" The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built.  And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.  Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”

My question is: Who was/were God talking to, when He said "..let us go down.." ? Was it to the angels, or to the Holy Spirit ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the words of God at Babel ?


texts: Did the symbols of star in Christianity and Judaism originate independently?

texts: In the literature of Christianity, the symbolic drawing of star is a pentagram picturising a five-pointed star. Judaism, on the other hand, uses hexagram that is, a six-pointed star . I wish  to know whether the symbolic representation of star in Christianity and Judaism originated and/or evolved independently. Views of any denomination are most welcome.


texts: Brush the dust from your feet vs cursing a town

texts: Is brushing the dust from your feet when you leave an area the same as putting a curse on it?


texts: Reformation objections to lectio divina?

texts:
It is becoming popular in Protestant circles to embrace traditional Roman Catholic (RC) mysticism, such as the practice of lectio divina. For example, see this page on the website of Timothy Keller's church, and also his recommendation of this book. However, it occurs to me that the original Reformers were probably aware of these forms of mysticism, and had reasons for rejecting them, or they would have been preserved in the Protestant tradition. In light of the current trend, it would behoove those who subscribed to a Protestant and particularly a traditional Reformed position to be aware of and wrestle with these objections.

What did the Reformers (or later Reformed theologians) teach about RC mysticism?

In what works did they critique it?
What were their major objections?
Did they find anything laudable in it?
What alternatives did they offer for spiritual growth?

I am most particularly interested in the practice of lectio divina.


texts: Is there a biblical ban on running a casino?

texts:
This is a spin on the question Is there a Biblical ban on gambling?

Is opening a casino considered a "shady business" a Christian should not be involved in? (Yes, let's assume it's perfectly legal.)

This question seeks to involve both the offline and online worlds (online poker, online lottery, online dice, etc).


texts: Are there Christian denominations that promote making themselves eunuchs?

texts:
In the same way that certain denominations promote (and in some cases, require) their adherents to remain celibate and/or non-married, are there any that promote making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God like Jesus talked about in Matthew 19?

Jesus brought up the practice as if it was somewhat common.

  Matthew 19:9-12 ESV And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

I've heard of individual men that have done this, but never a group.


texts: What did St. Thomas Aquinas write about Christ's passion?

texts: St. Thomas Aquinas never wrote a complete treatise devoted solely to Christ's passion. So what did St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about Christ's passion?


texts: Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?

texts:
The title is a bit tongue in cheek, but according to Christianity, is it necessarily right to have to make arguments starting from atheism? It seems obvious to me that God exists. However, in both causal arguments, or public policy, this seems the default position ingrained in our culture and to make an argument otherwise is ridiculed.

Is this a legitimate premise (that atheism is the default position) to reason from? I think not, but what are the arguments against it? With what methods of reasoning does Christianity approach this issue?


texts: What process will be followed for the Anglican Covenant after its rejection by the Church of England?

texts:
The Anglican Covenant is a document long in the making; it is a proposed formal statement of how the member churches of the Anglican Communion should relate to one another. It is particularly motivated by disagreements among those churches about such topics as homosexuality, and the threat of schism. The current text is available for ratification by each of the provinces.

The Church of England decided that a majority of its dioceses would have to vote in favour of the Covenant (that is, the bishops, clergy, and laity of each diocesan synod) in order for the Church to adopt it. On Saturday 24 March 2012, the diocesan synods of Guildford, Lincoln, and Oxford voted "no", making it impossible for there to be an overall "yes" majority.

What process will be followed for the Covenant now?

Is this rejection enough to halt the ratification in other provinces, or could others continue to decide?
Is it final with respect to the Church of England, or could they change their minds?
Does it mean that we will see another draft - or does it end the overall process?
From the voting results, it seems that the bishops are more pro-Covenant than the clergy or laity are: does this have any bearing on the possible future of the Covenant?

I also asked: What are the arguments for and against the Anglican Covenant? That question is about the content of the Covenant, and this one is more about the process and consequences.


texts: Why is sex between two consenting adults sin?

texts:
My understanding is that murder is a sin because I don't have rights on another person's life in the same way that another person doesn't  have rights over my life. Likewise stealing would be a sin because I don't have rights over another person's property nor would I like anybody else to take what is mine. On the other hand smiling would not be a sin because I don't encroach on another person's right when smiling and they may actually like being smiled upon.

In the Old Testament David (considered a prophet) did not sin when he engaged with concubines and slave girls who were not legally wives. If adultery is defined as having sex with another man's wife, David has not broken the law. Or did he? However today if two (unmarried) consenting adults have sex, that's adultery by Biblical standards. From my understanding its encroaching on another person's right that seems to define sin. Here I don't see an encroachment of the rights of any person.

If a married person is involved in extra marital sex he sins, because he has broken his marital vows. Why is the sexual act a sin when two people have fun by mutual consent and not encroaching on each others freedom?


texts:
How can children who are not elect be a gift from God?
Scripture tells us that children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
When a parent has surrendered "birth control" to God and He blesses with twelve gifts, most of whom don't appear to follow Him whole-heartedly, that causes more sorrow that the gift of the child.
I have spent the last 36 years birthing, nursing, homeschooling...pouring my life into the gifts God has given me and my husband. Only two of our children seem to be genuinely seeking God's ways.  It is heart-breaking!
How is a child destined for hell a gift?  Honestly it would have been better to not have those sweet, precious children than to see them reject God.


texts:
Mental illness is a fairly recent idea (in terms of human history).  As far as I know, the concept did not exist at all at the time the Bible was written.
I have heard some Christians speculate that some of the instances of demon possession recorded in the Bible may have been cases of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. For example (many others exist):
Matthew 8:16-17:

16 And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick:
17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.

Is it possible that some/all "demon possessions" in the Bible were simply cases of curing mental illnesses?  If the answer is "some," can we know the difference, and if so how?


texts:
The six New Testament epistles known as James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1 and 2 John; and Jude are not directed to any one person or specific branch of the Church. The first verse in each epistle indicates who the intended audience was:

  The General Epistle of James1. James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the
  twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

  The First Epistle General of Peter
  1. Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered
  throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

  The Second Epistle General of Peter1. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to
  them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the
  righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

  The First Epistle General of John ?

  The Second Epistle of John1. The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love
  in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the
  truth;

  The General Epistle of Jude1. Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to
  them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus
  Christ, and called:

Besides the obvious answer that they were direction from God, for what purpose were they written? It would appear they were written as general counsel to everyone who may read them, but to whom were they delivered? Were the epistles copied and delivered to all of the churches? Were they carried by missionaries and delivered as sermons? Are there any records that tell us who these epistles were sent to, or where they were first read?


texts: Are Naaman's actions considered an exception to God's laws?

texts:
2 Kings 5:18–19 (NIV)
18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.

Naaman's actions go seriously against the laws given by God. Within the Ten Commandments, for example, idolatry is the most serious sin to commit. And yet, surprisingly, Elisha does not seem concerned, and he tells Naaman to go in peace!
It is the act of idolatry, not the thought of idolatry, that the Bible explicitly condemns. Based on my studies of law, I feel we must not bow down to an idol and then say we did not mean to do so. The mere act of bowing down is sinful. How, then, are Naaman's actions justified in this case?


texts:
In Genesis 49:13 is written:

  "Zebulon shall dwell by the haven of the sea;
  He shall become a haven for ships,
  And his border shall adjoin Sidon.

But if I take a look on the maps, which are created for the twelve tribes, Zebulon is not near Sidon and neither at the seaside. Instead, Asher has the place I thought Zebulon should get. Was there something I missed, or why was Jacob's words "false"?


texts: Catholic Marriage to an Infertile spouse

texts:
As I understand it, the Catholic Church teaches that there are 3 purposes to a marriage: (According to http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5822)

Procreation and education of children
Mutual help and support of the spouses
The remedy for concupiscence (lust)

According to this doctrine, would it be considered a flawed marriage if one spouse was infertile and therefore unable to procreate or educate natural children? Or if one spouse was physically unable to make love?


texts: Why is the story of Joachim and Anne considered true in tradition but mentioned only in apocryphal works?

texts: Recently I have been reading about different Christian traditions that aren't neccesarily written in scripture but have been accepted by the RCC (and sometimes Orthodox Church) as tradition and true. The story of St. Joachim and St. Anne is only mentioned in the apocryphal Protoevangilium of James. How can the story of Joachim and Anna be true if it is written in a book that was made apocryphal by the church? Are there any other early sources that also affirm what the Gospel of James says about the parents of Mary or is that the only one?


texts: (LDS) What kind of payment can a murderer make to receive a pardon?

texts:
Related to this other question about whether murder is unforgivable according to the LDS Church.

One of the answers to the question says that:

  Murder is a very serious sin, and while it can't be forgiven it can be
  pardoned.

However the link in the word "pardoned" leads to a "page not found" message.

This answer, however,  does quote the following from D&C study guide in chapter 42:

  The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully
  shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: ‘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.) Thus this is an
  unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or
  ‘atone for’ or ‘forgive’) the penalty demanded by the broken law. This
  sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually
  make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon. (Emphasis added.)

So, murder is described as a sin that Jesus cannot atone for and yet, the individual himself can receive a pardon by making some form of a payment.

My questions are:

1. What kind of "payment" can a murderer make to cover for murder?

2. What are the differences, if any, between being thus pardoned and
    being forgiven by Jesus' atonement?


texts: What is the scriptural evidence for Satan "taking hold" of Christians' minds or implanting/whispering thoughts?

texts:
Just looking for some solid theology here.

There is a premise that I have seen repeated over and over in Christian circles and it typically revolves around the paradigm that Satan and demons have the supernatural ability to insert themselves into the mind of a believer, take them captive or at the very least “whisper” to them in a supernatural way new thoughts that seem like ones own.

Example:  “An idle mind is the devil’s workshop.” I assume this goes back to Proverbs 16:27, which states idle hands (physical).  And not the devil taking over or setting up shop in the mind of a believer.

Another example: “Satan has really been putting some bad thoughts in my mind lately.”

I have been researching this and have yet to find conclusive evidence based on scripture that the demonic realm has an active role in inserting thoughts into believers' brains, or the “whisper” theory.

Note: I do believe that a non believer can be possessed and thus have the mind and will controlled by demonic forces, but I have not found conclusive scriptural evidence that as a believer our minds can be infiltrated by the demonic realm.  I also want to stress that I believe in the “flesh” concept of our fallen will and sinful natures and that I can see that Satan and demons tempted others circumstantially.

2 questions:

What is the scriptural basis for saying that Satan or his demons have the ability to enter our brains and have the ability to “take hold” of our thoughts or to implant new thoughts?
I have also heard of the “Satan's whispers” model, where Satan/demons don’t supernaturally inject themselves into the brain/thought life of a believer but rather “whisper” thoughts into a believer's head. What is the scriptural basis for this?


texts:
This is about two questions to Mormons about Daniel 2:44. This passage records Daniel explaining the conclusion of a sequence of events in the then distant future to King Nebuchadnezzar, as follows:

  And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a
  kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be
  left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
  these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

(This passage is according to KJV taken from here)

The questions are:

Do Mormons believe that this describes an actual physical event,
such as the end of the world (Armageddon)?
If it describes an actual physical event, will USA also be among those
destroyed by God's Kingdom?


texts: How could Christ offer His blood to those under the Law, when He was forbidden by heritage?

texts: Christ being from the tribe of Judah, could not offer blood as a Levitical priest to those under the Law (Hebrews 7:14)  Christ is the Melchizedekian high priest offering His blood for those who are under the NT covenant.  How could Christ's blood flow to those under the Law?  Hebrews 5:9-10 "And having been made perfect,He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek."


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the Holy Spirit will sometimes choose not to lead?

texts:
(Somewhat related to At what level of detail does God lead His children?)

Here, I am going to make a couple assumptions.

The person has the Holy Spirit in them.
The person follows the Holy Spirit's leading at all times (or as much as they can).

Now, what I'm wondering is: does the Holy Spirit ever say something like, "Up to you"?

What is the Scriptural justification for the idea that the Spirit will explicitly give the Christian a choice (instead of a mandate) when the Christian asks for guidance?


texts: To what degree does the Church of England consider the Genesis creation account to be metaphoric?

texts: Does the Church of England generally consider the Genesis creation account (first couple of chapters) more metaphor than literal history?


texts: How did the four living creatures become associated with the Gospel writers?

texts:
The visions of Ezekiel recorded in Ezekiel 1 and that of John in Revelation 4:7 include four living creatures (ζῷα) that stand in the presence of the throne of God. In both visions these heavenly creatures appear like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle, though their detailed descriptions vary.

Later, these four creatures – an angelic ox, lion, man, and eagle – became associated with the traditionally held writers of the four Gospels of Jesus Christ, for example by Rabanus Maurus Magnentius and in the Book of Kells, both c. AD 800, with ample other examples in Christian art even as late as the modern age.

When and how did these four heavenly creatures become symbolic representations within Christianity of the persons of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Mary and/or other saints are in heaven?

texts:
The Assumption of Mary states that after she died on Earth she went to Heaven.

What is the Biblical basis for the idea that she, or any other person who died after Jesus' resurrection, is already in Heaven?


texts: Can someone point to a prophecy about the 3 days between the cross and resurrection?

texts: Can someone point me to a OT prophecy about the Messiah being in the tomb for 3 days? As general or specific as you can think of. I think I have one, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but a lot of Bible commentators don't mention it.


texts: On what scriptural basis do some Protestants end their prayers "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"?

texts: The question is being asked because Jesus teaches us to pray to the Father (Matthew 6:9) in his name (John 14:13-14).  It makes sense on an intuitive level that one would supplicate one Person (the Father) in the name of another (the Son).   But to supplicate the Father in the name of the Father (in his own name?) and Son and Holy Ghost, or to supplicate the Father, Son and Holy Ghost all at once in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, makes little logical sense. It sounds like those prayers people make in public when there are Deists around so they prayer to God and end with "in YOUR name" rather than "in Jesus' name."  Supplicating someone in their own name doesn't make sense.  Anyway, all of that aside, scripture only mentions praying to the Father in Jesus' name, so how can the custom of closing a prayer "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" be justified scripturally?  Or do the Protestant traditions that engage in this practice simply drop Sola Scriptura on this practice and justify it by Catholic tradition?


texts: Effectiveness of prayers of intercession

texts:
I understand that there are many different reasons to pray: confessing your sins, thanking God for daily provisions.

However, many people pray for intercession and believe in the possibility that God will intervene on their behalf. There are also examples of this in the Bible.

Is there any evidence to suggest that God intervenes on our behalf (in the modern world). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but are there any studies demonstrating proof of the effectiveness of intercessory prayer?

If God intervenes on our behalf surely this can easily be proved, reproducible, and should be statistically greater than chance.

If there is no evidence to suggest this type of prayer is effective, is there any purpose for praying for intercession?


texts: What is the biblical basis for a post-tribulation rapture?

texts:
I am fairly well-versed in premillennial theology, however, I was challenged frequently while at Bible College on my point of view of a pre-tribulation rapture in favor of a post-tribulation rapture. I understand the principles of post-trib thought, but I fail to see any scriptural evidence for it. Can someone please point me to the scriptural evidence used to support a post-tribulation rapture?

I have read "Gospel of the Kingdom" by George Eldon Ladd and I enjoyed it, but I suppose that perhaps I did not properly understand it or his argument for a post-trib rapture.


texts: Does God hate Sinners like he hates Sin?

texts:
I've heard it a thousand times, God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Recently I came across a verse in Psalms 5:5

  Psalm 5:5 (KJV)  The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Is this a proper translation?


texts: How do proponents of the dual nature of man address Hebrews 4:12, "dividing soul and spirit"?

texts:
Those holding to a tripartite nature of man, or trichotomism, sometimes point to Hebrews 4:12 as evidence for their view that soul and spirit are distinct in man:

  For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (NIV)

How do proponents of a dual nature of man (dichotomism), believing that the soul and spirit are two words referring to the same entity, understand this passage?


texts: Why did God make it a sin to eat an apple?

texts:
Eating a fruit* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?

* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.


texts:
Praise the Lord.
I have recently published the Tamil Bible in romanised English (or transliteration) to enable the Tamil speaking diaspora who cannot read the Tamil script but are well versed in the English script to enable them to read the Bible  in Tamil.
However, I have noticed that most of these people do not understand the menaing of some words in Tamil. To overcome this challenge I am planning to publish a Bible that carries the transliteration version (that I already have completed after 4 years) side by side with an English version.
I need your advice on which version I can use with no or minimum cost. I would prefer to use NKJV but the cost is prohibitive.
Please advise. Blessings.


texts: Through what procedure is canon law amended?

texts:
The Code of Canon Law has undergone at least one other version since the first in 1917, and has received amendments since the 1983 version from what I've read.

What would warrant a new version of the Canon Law? How exactly are smaller amendments applied to the Code of Canon Law?


texts: Do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the new covenant is for gentiles?

texts:
My understanding of the new covenant is that it was made ONLY with the houses of Israel, not with gentiles:

[Jer 31:31 KJV] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[Heb 8:8 KJV] 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

It seems to me that they ascribe to the "anointed class" features of the "great army" of the new covenant Jews:

[Eze 37:10 KJV] 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them [IE: the regathered Israel in Jerusalem 33AD], and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

Do they believe that the new covenant is in force today among them (gentile JWs) in any way?


texts: Old testament: where is Eternal Life and Judgement discussed?

texts:
When Jesus was teaching of eternal life (Rich man and Lazarus, also Martha and Mary's brother Lazarus being raised from death) the people listening didn't think it was a new and novel idea: your soul lasts forever and you shall be judged.

Where is this taught in the Old Testament?  I find Jesus telling the Saducees that "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob", which is suggesting that Abraham, Issac and Jacob are not dead and gone (I was the God of Abraham, etc.).

Are there other places where it's made plain?


texts: What is the purpose of baptism for sola fide adherents?

texts: Sola fide says that works play no part in our salvation. For sola fide adherents, what is the purpose of baptism? Is baptism necessary?


texts: What arguments do adherents of a global flood give for how water was able to cover the entire earth?

texts:
Some people say that the story of Noah and flood is false, because there simply wasn't enough water in the world to cover the entire earth in a flood. As it is written:

  And the waters became mighty and increased greatly upon the land, and the ark went [gently floating] upon the surface of the waters.
  And the waters prevailed so exceedingly and were so mighty upon the earth that all the high hills under the whole sky were covered.
  [In fact] the waters became fifteen cubits higher, as the high hills were covered.
  Genesis 7:18-20 (Amp)

What is the counter argument against this belief?


texts: How did Rahab speak the language spoken by Joshua’s spies

texts: Did the Israelites learn many languages in Egypt and pass them down (including to one of these two spies)? Is it known how Rahab was able to communicate?


texts: Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox Reunion - What's the hold up?

texts:
I have been taking catechism classes at a Greek Orthodox Church. My priest said that the current division between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara) is a great tragedy, and that the division really occurred because of problems in language and semantics, and that there is no substantive difference in Christology. The Chalcedonians feared the Orientals were Monophysites (which they have always denied - they say they are Miaphysites), while the Orientals feared the Chalcedonians were closet Nestorians (which they have always denied).

Both sides now seemingly recognize that each position presents a correct view of Christology, even though it uses a slightly different formula / set of language to describe it.

Now if there are significant numbers of people on both sides who believe there still is a substantive difference in Christology, then let me know who these parties are. However, if the vast majority on both sides concede there is no substantive difference in Christology, why some 1550+ years after Chalcedon, are we not united? Our Coptic brothers and sisters in Christ are being persecuted in Egypt, and yet we are not in communion with them. Seems tragic to me.  What's the hold up!?


texts: Was Mormon a priest according to the LDS?

texts:
Background

Before John the Baptist laid hands on Joseph Smith to establish the Aaronic Priesthood, and Peter, James, and John laid their hands upon Joseph Smith to establish the Melchizedek Priesthood, there were several figures of note according to the book of Mormon well after the original 12 apostles' time. Not the least of which was Mormon himself.

Question

Because Mormon existed before the moment where the priesthoods were reestablished though Joesph Smith, I had this question come to mind: Was Mormon himself a priest in the sense that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priests are in the LDS today?


texts: What happened to the resurrected after death?

texts:
In the Bible (primarily the New Testament), we see numerous people who were raised from the dead. Drawing from this link, we see the following were raised from death:

Widow of Zarephath's son (1 Kings 17:17-24)
Shunamite's son (2 Kings 4:20-37)
Man tossed into Elisha's tomb (2 Kings 13:21)
Widow of Nain's son (Luke 7:11-16)
Synagogue ruler Jairus' 12-year-old daughter (Mark 5:35-43)
Lazarus (John 11:1-44)
Tabitha, also known as Dorcas (Acts 9:36-41)
Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12)
Men raised upon Jesus' death (Matt 27:51-53)

Some of these were most likely saved already (e.g. Lazarus, Tabitha). Others we simply hardly know anything about. Is there any evidence or any significant commentary on what happened between their first death and resurrection? If they went to heaven/hell after that first death, what was it like coming back from that?

Note: I am not Catholic, so I am not interested in an explanation that claims they went to Purgatory


texts: What Biblical basis do "separation traditions" have to support their beliefs?

texts:
There are a variety of Christian traditions that involve some level of separation from the world - monasticism, the Mennonites, Amish, Shakers, Quakers, etc.

We are told in the New Testament to be "separate from the world" and to be "unstained by the world".

We are also told to "go and make disciples".

I know that the Bible does not contradict itself.

How do the "separation traditions" (for lack of a better phrase) support their [sometimes full] separation from the world with the other (sometimes apparently contradictory) commands given to Christ's followers?


texts: What are the differences between the different millenialisms?

texts:
Revelation 20:1-6 tells of 1000 years in which Christ will reign.  I've heard there are different views on this 1000 years, mainly premillenialism, postmillenialism, and amillenialism.  What are the differences between these views of the millenium in Rev 20:1-6?  (Especially concerning the different timelines)

  Revelation 20:1-6
  1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the
  Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon,
  that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a
  thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed
  it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the
  thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short
  time.

  4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given
  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.
  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received
  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not
  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first
  resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first
  resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will
  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand
  years.


texts: How do some Franciscans brothers become priests?

texts:
Watching EWTN, I see that some of the Franciscans are priests and some are brothers.  I'm pretty sure St. Francis himself went only as far as the diaconate (by his own choosing).

So, do some good brothers get promoted to study for the priesthood?  Who decides that and what's the ideal priest to brother ratio?


texts: Was Jesus' human nature included in the Trinity?

texts: Since Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human, is human nature included in the Trinity, or just the divine nature? What did the early Christians and the traditions have to say about this?


texts: What is the concept of kowtow in Christianity?

texts:
I am a Chinese.
In China, every year on Ching Ming Festival, Chinese people go to the tombs of their dead ancestors to kowtow.
Christianity prohibits kowtow to ancestors, which means disrespect for ancestors in the Chinese concept.
During the Qing Dynasty, many missionaries came to China to preach, but very few Chinese believed in Christianity. Their attempt to turn China into a Christian country failed.
What do you think of this matter?


texts:
God has said that vengeance should belong to Him alone, but why?

Romans 12:19 ESV Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 32:35 ESV Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’

I take vengeance in this context to mean that God will intercede for a wronged person and give the other party their come-up-pance here on earth (distinct from His eternal judgement).
What is the biblical basis for God doing this?
I understand why we shouldn't take vengeance--because our judgement would almost certainly be faulty and out of an unloving intent. But it seems like God would be acting on the vengeance in our hearts if he were to do it himself.
I'm looking for scripture to support scripture and want a biblically cited reason in an answer.


texts: Are there any traditions regarding the non-disciple casting out demons in Jesus' name?

texts:
Luke 9:49-50 (NLT)
  49 John said to Jesus, “Master, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn’t in our group.”
  50 But Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! Anyone who is not against you is for you.”

I'm seeking traditions (early church/Roman Catholic/Orthodox) that answer questions such as (but not necessarily including):

What is this guy's name?
Who is he in general?
How and why did he start using Jesus' name to drive out demons?
Why isn't he one of Jesus' disciples?

Again, I know that some of these questions may not be answered in any ancient tradition, but I mainly just want to know: what are the traditions related to this non-disciple who casts out demons in Jesus' name?


texts:
Why is denial of the primacy of the bishop of Rome considered a Schism, not a Heresy?

Disclaimer: I'm interesting only in authoritative answer according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine.

The Papal primacy is essentially dogma of Roman Catholic Church. So why are those who deny this dogma (say, Orthodox Church officials) not formally considered as heretics?


texts: What to think of miraculous images? (Catholic view)

texts:
There is some number of images of Jesus or other spiritual beings that are claimed to be miraculous as they miraculously got exposed in a camera. People who took these images swear there was no the image prior to the picture taking.

Some of the images of Jesus:

Here is a site displaying many images of Jesus's face.

Did any of the theologians explain why they resemble the face of Jesus always in a different way? Hardly ever Jesus looks the same. In order to make this question about Christianity, what does the Catholic church say about these miraculous images? Some of the images claim to have the real or similar presence of Christ in them similar to the Eucharist. They also supposedly offer a special spiritual protection if hang in a house.


texts:
Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (weltlich geschefft).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another:

  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband…

In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace?

1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)2. ibid. p. 749n102: "Von Ehesachen WA 30.3: 205/12–14. Traubüchlein, WA 30.3:74/2."


texts: In Catholic teaching, what specific actual sinful act did Adam and Eve commit, and what level of authority can be applied to this teaching?

texts:
What I am asking

What does Roman Catholic theology hold to be the nature of the original sin?  If we consider the Tree of Knowledge, its fruit, and Adam and Eve partaking of it as all being metaphors, what is the meaning behind the metaphor?  What exactly did Adam and Eve do that ran counter to God's command not to "eat of the Tree"?

To clarify, I am not seeking to identify the Original Sin in terms of the Seven Deadly Sins; Catholic dogma tells us that the sin was Pride.  What I'm trying to do is identify the specific prideful thought or action that Adam and Eve committed which was sinful.

This question is being asked primarily to form the basis of another question I have posted.

What I am looking for

The ideal answer will contain citation of specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including:

The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal).
How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).
Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop).
Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts.

What I am not looking for

Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.


texts: What Does "Not My will but yours be done" mean?

texts: I need for things in about the bible to line up with our lives down here like when receiving prayer we should get what we ask for. Right now it's all negative coming from the belligerent acting warfare waging war coming up against my life and personal freedoms. When who the son sets free is free indeed, and need His mercies.


texts: Is saying "Oh My God" really using God's name in vain?

texts:
It's become habitual for me to say "Oh my God" in a situation where I am shocked or surprised, as I'm sure it's become for a lot of people.

I said "Oh My God" in the presence of a friend of mine once, a long time ago, and he said, "Don't use God's name in vain" or "Don't use the Lord's name in vain." People have said this to me very often since then.

This intrigued me, so I was just wondering...does the phrase "Oh my God" really use God's name in vain?


texts:
Is a papist always a Catholic who is wholly supportive of the Pope?

Must one be some sort of cleric or theologian to be considered by detractors as a papist or were every day catholic peasants and bums considered papists by people like Luther.


texts: Why must the hypostatic union be viewed as taking place at Jesus' conception?

texts:
What are the reasons why Trinitarian orthodoxy holds that the Word had to make his hypostatic union with the man Jesus Christ at the point of his conception in Mary's womb rather than later at his baptism by John the Baptist?   Is the view simply that the Word was incapable of uniting with a full-grown man?

The reason I'm asking is I don't see anything in John 1:14's "the word became flesh" that specifies when that took place.  From a purely scriptural point of view, I don't see that it matters whether it took place at the conception or the baptism, that the word united with Jesus. But I'm sure the framers of Trinitarian orthodoxy must have had some reasons for placing it at the conception.


texts:
At first, Jesus taught by direct instruction and expounding the scriptures. For example, Luke 2:46-47:

  46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
  47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

Also, Matthew 5:3-5:

  3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
  4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
  5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

But then, as He got closer to the end of His life, He began to teach in parables. Why?


texts: What does Jesus mean that those that can be trusted on small matters can be trusted in large matter?

texts:
Imagine Madoff coming to your living room and saying, "I got an investment that I want you to invest all your money in."

You test him. You left some changes on the table and pretend to do something else. You return and see the changes are still there.  Ah I can trust Madoff in small things. He must be trustworthy on big things. That would be stupid, right?

Many people don't steal small things not because they're infinitely trustworthy. People don't steal small things, so that they have their reputation intact and can steal big things.

Madoff didn't take the change not because he is trustworthy. Madoff didn't take the change because the change is small. He aims to steal big. So those who are trustworthy on small things are not necessarily trustworthy on big things.

I once lost $30k due to a fraudster that built trust by being honest on small deals. When the deals got big they ran away.  Likewise, most corrupt officials that steal billions won't steal chickens or bread.

On then face of it, this appears to contradict some of Jesus teaching on trust:

  Luke 16:10
  "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with
  much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest
  with much.

How is this apparent contradiction resolved?

Note: I honestly trusted this interpretation on Jesus words and lost almost $1 million of profit because my ex-employee become my competitor. Consider this a form of "customer complaint" on Christianity.


texts: How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 1:10?

texts:
Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. - 2 Peter 1:10 (ESV)

This seems to suggest that we have some level of influence over whether we finally end up among the elect, and that idea is contradictory to the Calvinist teaching of Unconditional Election. So how do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 1:10?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have a position on slavery reparations?

texts:
Does the Catholic Church have an official position on slavery reparations?

  For those interested, I asked the same
  question
  on Mi Yodeya, which is the site for Judaism.


texts: Why don't Christians believe in the Gospel Of Barnabas?

texts: The Gospel Of Barnabas is one of the 2 additional Gospel discovered than present in Bible which has an clearly distinct prespective about Jesus (PBUH) and his death so why Christians do not believe in Gospel Of Barnabas?


texts: Can a person be faulted for disbelief if they request evidence via direct revelation?

texts:
In the book of John when the other disciples relate to Thomas the resurrection of Jesus, Thomas declares he will not believe until he himself is able to witness the resurrected Jesus.
Jesus, instead of ignoring this request, grants his request and reveals himself to him.
In the book of Acts, Paul is described as a persecuter of the early Church, rejecting the claims of the disciples of Jesus. It is not until when Paul is on the road to Damascus when Jesus reveals himself to Paul that Paul believes. If it were not for this act, Paul would remain an enemy and persecuter of the Church.
We see time and again that instead of damning some disbelievers for their rejection of the gospel, that Jesus himself caters to their standards of evidence and reveals himself directly. So we know this is not an unreasonable and far-fetched request.
In that case, if some people could only be convinced via direct revelation, and given that Jesus is aware of that, can such a person be faulted for not yet receiving evidence in such form?


texts: Why pray to Jesus and not to the Father? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Jesus always refers the Father as to be greater than himself.

For example:

  You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
  John 14:28

  Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
  John 5:19

And many more. So why don't Christians directly pray to the Father instead of Jesus if he is more superior than him?


texts: Why was Jesus offered vinegar and gall on the cross, and why did he refuse it?

texts:
I have often wondered why Jesus was given vinegar and gull to drink? What would be the use of drinking it?

Also, was this a common thing to offer people hanging on a cross, or was this specific to Jesus?

  Mat 27:34  they gave to him to drink vinegar mingled with gall; and having tasted it , he would not drink.


texts: How did the wise men (Magi) know the country where the new king was born?

texts:
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King
  Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the
  one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it
  rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-2, NIV)

I can't understand how one can conclude that a single star is pointing at a specific location. Even if I draw some lines by joining some stars, I don't think I can point at a specific location on earth. Even if I think that it points to a particular place, when I reached that place, the same line will point again somewhere ahead from that location.

The wise men were from the east, indicating that they were not Jews, I presume. They simply saw an unusual star and are able to calculate or know that a new king of the Jews is born in Israel. From the appearance of the star, I believe it is possible to conclude that a new king is born, provided the observer truly believe in star signs. However, I still can't understand how the star provided some clue where the new born king is. Moreover, the wise men were very specific when they asked king Herod. They said "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?".

Why did the wise men stop at Jerusalem and asked "Where is the king of the Jews"? They could have gone up to Egypt or Greece, or even further. From their question, it sounds like they were searching in Israel only. It appears as though they knew that the king was born in Israel and hence they went straight to Jerusalem, the city of the king of Israel.

How did the Magi know the country where the new king was born by simply looking at a distant star in the sky?


texts: Since Mormons believe in multiple earth-like planets, do they believe that the "fall" was likewise needed on each of them?

texts:
As is brought out in the top-rated answer to this other question, according to Mormon belief there are other inhabited worlds (presumably in our own universe) created by God.

The answer refers to the Book of Moses, chapter 1, where verses 29-34 state:

  29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.30 And it came to pass
  that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these
  things are so, and by what thou madest them? 31 And behold, the
  glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence
  of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto
  Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom
  and it remaineth in me. 32 And by the word of my power, have I
  created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace
  and truth. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also
  created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them,
  which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have
  I called Adam, which is many.

And according to the answer to this other question, Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were unable to have children until they ate from the tree that they were told not to eat from. The section under "Additional Notes" states:

  It is worth noting that rather than viewing the Fall of Adam and Eve
  as an unfortunate and evil accident, one which if it had not happened,
  everything would be perfect, Mormons see the Fall as necessary to the
  purpose of life on earth.

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

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

What I would like to ask is, do Mormons believe that the fall was likewise needed on each inhabited planet? And if so, do they believe that Jesus also eventually died on behalf of the inhabitants of each planet?


texts: Is there a Christian philosopher who has published a book challenging compatibilism from the point of view of hard determinism?

texts:
A.W Pink in "The sovereignty of God" says in the introduction- "Two things are beyond dispute: God is sovereign, man is responsible". That compatibilist point of view is compared to Libertarian thinking in Scott Christensen's book "What about Free Will?" page 238. Is there a book which challenges both compatibilist and libertarian thinking by putting forward a third possibility, namely hard determinism?

Hard determinism- all human choices are necessarily determined by prior conditions, which in this Christian context would include God's sovereignty.

Libertarianism- Freedom of choice is the ability to choose contrary to any prior factors that influence the choice including one's motives, desires and even God Himself.

Compatibilism-God determines human choices, yet every person freely makes their own choices.


texts: Considering the Lord's Supper was instituted on the Passover, would the apostles have concluded it was to be an annual celebration like the Passover?

texts:
When instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus commands the apostles: "Do this in remembrance of me."

Luke 22:19 reads:

  Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to
  them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in
  remembrance of me.”  (NET)

As the Passover was a yearly celebration and the Lord's Supper was instituted during it (apparently to be part of the Passover meal or even a replacement for it), it would seem natural for the apostles to understand the command "Do this" to mean do this annually during or instead of the Passover meal. Additionally, all the major festivals of the Jews were annual.

However, in 1 Corinthians 11 it seems that the Lord's Supper was not merely an annual celebration and distinct from the Passover meal.

Considering the occasion when the Lord's Supper was instituted, why would the early Church not conclude it was an annual celebration, and that it could (or was intended to) be divorced from the Passover meal?

Although there are accounts of the resurrected Jesus eating with his disciples, they are not explicitly celebrations of the Lord's Supper.


texts: Absent the original golden plates, which translation of the Book of Mormon is considered to be the "official" version?

texts: I'm curious what version of the book of Mormon is considered the official version? For example, when translating the book of Mormon into other languages, what is used as the "base text"? Presumably if we had access to the original golden plates the translators would use those, but seeing as they are lost, some other version has to be regarded as "the most authentic". Which is it?


texts: What are the primary differences and implications of a propitiatory view of the atonement versus an expiatory view?

texts: Western theology tends to view atonement as propitiation, while Eastern tends to view it as expiation. What are the primary differences and implications of each perspective? Are they antithetical or complementary paradigms? This is related to this question, which tackles translation issues concerning biblical passages that use these terms.


texts: Why is Eben Ezer used as a shop's name in Chile?

texts: I'm Chilean and I want to know the meaning and origin of the name Eben Ezer because in my country is a custom to put that name to trade places, specially small grocery stores. I have consulted many times owners, but usually they tells me that it "is a biblical name". It's also a way of knowing that shop owners are Protestants (my country is mostly Catholic).