texts: What was the dominant theory of atonement shown in the Apostolic Fathers's writings?

texts:
Most articles I read about the theory of atonement in the early church say that Ransom Theory was the prevailing one, although some disagree.  This thinking was promoted by a landmark book on the topic: Christus Victor by Gustav Aulen (1879-1978).

When examining writings from a narrower period belonging to the Apostolic Fathers era (before Irenaeus) is there evidence one way or the other?


texts: Covering of the hair for women, and beards in 1st Century Palestine

texts:
Note:  This is just a historical point, it isn't judging anyone, just trying to understand things in their historical context.

In a lecture I heard that in 1st century Palestine:

1. All women used to cover their hair except for Gentile women and Prostitutes
2. All men had beards except for gentile men and gays.

Where could I verify this?

I know Paul has a strong statement regarding women not covering their
hair in church:

  For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her
  hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut
  off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-6.htm


texts: What are the conditions for removing excommunication of a married priest?

texts:
If a Catholic priest leaves his priesthood and marries a woman, he is automatically excommunicated.
Does the Catholic Church recognize his marriage? He marries outside of the Chuch so his marriage is not sacramental but it might still be recognized as it is for atheists or other Christians.

What can the priest do if he realizes his wrong decision and wants to go back to the priesthood or at least start leaving a sacramental life? Let's say he has children and is validly married according to the secular law.

I know deacons must stay away from a marital act with their wives and live in celibacy. So I'm expecting similar requirements for an excommunicated priest who at least wants back because of sacraments. Can he even live with his wife as it might be considered cohabitation or would he be allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church so he can live with his wife?


texts: Does the concept of Godhead (one God, but multiple persons) predate Christianity? Can we find evidence of this concept in Judaism before 0 A.D.?

texts: Was the concept of Godhead (one God, but multiple persons) known by the Jews prior to the advent of Christianity? Were there Jews that held a Binitarian, Trinitarian or similar "Godhead" theology as a result of studying the Torah, long before Christianity came on the scene?


texts: My question is for Biblical Unitarians and is based on their website as it relates to Philippians 2:6-8

texts:
The following is one of the things they stated. "Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe), of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphe) of God also. https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/philippians-2-6-8
Since Jesus Christ was born as a human being like the rest of us, meaning He appeared as a man why was it necessary for Him to take the form of a bond-servant/man at Philippians 2:8 since He is a man already?
And at verse 6 the Apostle Paul states, "who, although He existed in the morphe or form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." The following is what Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson says about verse 6, "Being (υπαρχων — huparchōn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of υπαρχω — huparchō In the form of God (εν μορπηι τεου — en morphēi theou). Μορπη — Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
Then at verse 7 the very first word is "but." That word means that what follows is going to be the antithesis of what preceded it. So what preceded it is the fact that Jesus Christ went from one form of being God to another form of that of being a man.
So again, since Unitarians believe Jesus was a man and appeared as a man or from verse 8, Jesus took the "fashion" (schema) or "appearance of a man why did He have to change forms?
Or to put it simply, why go from already being a man to being a man again?


texts: Exorcisms: effective remedy or historical curiosity?

texts:
Are exorcisms considered, in the various Christian Professions, an effective remedy for possession?

I thought they were just a curiosity from the past, but here's what I found on Wikipedia:

  Gabriele Amorth (born 1 May 1925) is an Italian Roman Catholic priest and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome.

Gabriele Amorth (Wikipedia)

Are exorcisms actually supported, encouraged, and, well, considered official catechism by the various Christian religions?


texts:
Jesus makes it pretty clear that because of our unbelief we will not see miracles in our life (see below).

However, psychological experts warn against the dangers of unrealistic expectations.

See Psychology Today:  The Danger Of Having Unrealistic Expectations

In summary, unrealistic expectations can lead to very negative consequences, if the outcome is not met.

However, the New Testament instructs us to believe - in the super natural, in the impossible or in psychology terms: the unrealistic.

i.e. -

  Jesus Gives Life to a Dead Girl:
  Matthew:   35 While Jesus was still there speaking, some men came from
  the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. They said, “Your daughter
  is dead. There is no need to bother the Teacher.”

  36 But Jesus did not care what the men said. He said to the synagogue
  leader, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.”

and

  Matthew 13:58
     And so he did only a few miracles there because of
  their unbelief.

Should our life be filled by consistently believing in the impossible - will that end up damaging our faith or just create a denial fantasy world apart from reality?

Should we be thinking about unrealistic vs. realistic belief?

Since Jesus is no longer here in human form, is OK to have unbelief?

Are there any good studies or articles on this concept?

Thank You.


texts: How can there be Five Sola's (Solae) in Reformed theology?

texts:
Reformed soteriology usually centers on Five Sola statements.

Literally, this Latin "Sola" means "alone" or "only" in translation. So how can 5 things that save us be, by name, alone or the only thing each be together with 4 others that also save us (alone)?

Doesn't that make them not alone?

How is it intended for the 5 Solas to relate to each other? Is this even a correct understanding of "Sola"?

Read: I'm asking about their functional/logical association, not their content. How they are intended to cooperate and coexist even while they are "Sola." Where necessary, I should hope simple definitions would be adequate. I'm not looking for an essay on faith alone.


texts: What's the difference between judging God and questioning God?

texts:
In my answer to Can man judge whether God is fair?, I gave an example of the prophet Habakkuk questioning God in a judgmental way. God dealt with Habakkuk patiently, answering his questions.

On the other hand, as that question points out, there are people who judge God by deciding He is not fair that therefore should not be worshipped or trusted.

How do you draw the line between judging and questioning God?  Is it ok to question God, but not to judge Him?


texts: Does Christianity have any connections to the Hinduism?

texts:
Islam and Christianity has same roots and also some names in Bible can also be heard in Quran.

What about Christianity connection with Hinduism?

Because so many pastors claiming that connection exists, but in evil way.

Example: Hindu goddesses are considered as Satans etc.


texts: What is the Catholic stance against In Vitro Fertilization?

texts:
I was researching a different question and saw that some people find that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is something that should be avoided on the basis of religious grounds.

Does anyone know what these reasons are?  I'd like to know if these religious arguments against IVF are biblically based.  If so, what passages do they use to support this argument?

(This seems especially strange to me since pregnancy wasn't fully understood back then, let alone IVF.)

Specifically, I would like the Catholic stance on this.


texts: Did it ever happen that a Christian died simply because he had no food at his disposal?

texts: This question can be restated as: how to interpret Matt 6:25-34 where Jesus tells us not to worry about food and clothes. Is it a promise that a Christian will never die for lack of food? Or is it not?


texts: Why does the (N)KJV put Jesus' name in all caps in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31?

texts:
It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps?

  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:
  for he shall save his people from their sins.Matthew 1:21

  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
  and shalt call his name JESUS. Luke 1:31

It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?


texts: Is the idea of salvation by works alone considered by any branch of Christianity? Consider a person one would describe as good or doing a lot of good, but who doesn't believe in the supernatural. Like Adam Savage, for example, but pick your own example if you don't like him. Why would a good God condemn someone like this to torture? In fact, why would God care more if someone is worshipping him than if they're doing good? In my opinion, such attitude doesn't even pass the test for a good person, and it's the chief reason why I will never believe in God. How is this justified in Christianity?


texts: Where did all the water come from and go during the flood?

texts:
The Bible states that the waters went 15 cubits or 22.5 feet above the highest mountain during the flood.

Genesis 7:20 KJV

  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains
  were covered.

Mount Everest is 29,029 feet high so the waters would have been 29,051.5 feet high.

Where did all the water come from and where did it go?


texts: Why do Catholics believe transubstantiated host may still affect the gluten sensitive?

texts:
I was reading about the Eucharist the other day and read that sometimes in Catholic mass, there is low-gluten bread available for those who are gluten free. The same text said that the bread, once consecrated, ceases to be bread and becomes the body of Christ.

If the bread is no longer bread and indeed the body of Christ, wouldn't it no longer be dangerous to gluten-free people, and if it's no longer dangerous/bread, why cater to the faithful gluten-free? Shouldn't they understand it is no longer bread and instead the body of Christ?

Do I have some sort of misunderstanding of what Catholicism teaches of the Eucharist? I brought this up to my girlfriend who is Catholic, and she said (my interpretation of what she said) that the bread still has its materialistic properties although it has turned into the body of Christ. This didn't really make sense to me at all and I didn't press the issue any further as I felt kind of silly for bringing it up and my lack of knowledge on the subject. Do I have some sort of misunderstanding here or am I looking too deeply into something so "minor"?


texts: How can one judge how accurate a given Bible translation is?

texts:
How can I figure out whether a given translation is "accurate" or not? Is there a site or list somewhere that has Bible-translation ratings?

Note that I am not asking for a list of what Bible translations are most accurate, only for a resource or way to judge this for myself.

Inspired by comments on this question.


texts: What have past theologians written about preparing to die?

texts:
Note: this is NOT a personal question.

It's of personal interest only because I find that thinking about death separates the important from the trivial, pushes secular needs into the background, and makes it easier to focus on spiritual thoughts.

For example:

I find it easier to forgive when reading sermons like:

Preparing to Depart, Are you prepared to Die?

I find less temptations for earthly desires.

In the face of death, questions about startups, romance, become significantly less important than what Jesus said.

In a certain sense, all Christian literature is about Christ; and one can not talk about Christ without talking about the second coming; and one can not talk about the second coming without talking about death.

However, there's a wide spectrum going from "How to use Christianity to live a better earthly life" to "Foxe's book of Martyrs." Thus, the question:

1) What has past Theologians written about "preparing to die?"

2) What theological works continuously bring death back into the picture when explaining the solemn nature of theology?


texts: What is the connection of Alta Vendita in the present Church Crisis regarding homosexual scandal & cover-up?

texts:
The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (commonly called the
  Alta Vendita) is a document, originally published in Italian in 1859,
  purportedly produced by the highest lodge of the Italian Carbonari
  and written by "Piccolo Tigre" ("Little Tiger"), which, according to
  George F. Dillon, was supposedly the pseudonym of a Jewish
  Freemason.

  The document details an alleged Masonic plan to infiltrate the
  Catholic Church and spread liberal ideas within it. The Carbonari had
  strong similarities to Freemasonry and so the document is seen by some
  as a Masonic document. In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX and Pope
  Leo XIII both asked for it to be published. It was first published by
  Jacques Crétineau-Joly in his book L'Église romaine en face de la
  Révolution in 1859. It was popularised in the English speaking world
  by Monsignor George F. Dillon in 1885 with his book the War of
  Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization.

  It is still circulated by many traditionalist and sedevacantist
  Catholics, who believe it accurately describes the changes in the
  church in the post-Vatican II era.

  (Wikipedia)

What is the connection of Alta Vendita in the present Church Crisis regarding homosexual scandal & cover-up involving clergy & prelates?


texts: How was the Bible used to reduce modern slavery?

texts:
In debates over slavery in the United States, many abolitionists used the Bible as part of their reasoning for freeing the slaves.

In both the Old & New Testaments there is very clear statements that holy people had slaves.

Genesis 17:13

  He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

II Kings 4:1

  Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.

Colossians 4:1

  Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Matthew 18:25

  But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

How did abolitionists reconcile these two beliefs?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have a policy on how altars are to be destroyed?

texts:
Recently, I saw some articles about how a Catholic priest got defrocked following his arrest for performing indecent activities in a public place, after a bystander walking past his church one night noticed that the lights were on, and looked through a window and saw him on top of the church's altar with a couple of dominatrices.
The articles I've seen go on to specify that once the local archbishop was made aware of this, he had the altar disposed of by burning and replaced with a new one.
This got me wondering: the Catholic Church is well known for having piles and piles of rules and regulations governing its activities, and I wondered if the way that the archbishop responded to this event was mandated by those rules, or if he was acting on his own recognizance.
Does the Catholic Church have any rules for how to dispose of profaned church altars? If so, does it mandate that they be burned?


texts: Does the Nicene Creed suggest a strict division of responsibilities within the Trinity?

texts:
In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, the three persons of the Trinity each seem to have their own role in creating the world:

The Father is "maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible".
For the Son, we have "by whom all things were made", a clear lifting from John 1:3.
The Holy Spirit is "the giver of life" (Greek ζῳοποιόν, Latin vivificantem).

Does this text intend to suggest a strict division of responsibilities (eg, the Father does not give life, the Spirit did not make heaven and earth), or is it more like giving emphasis to the ways in which each person contributes to a single creative will? In particular, what distinction is envisaged between the Father, who makes all things, and the Son, by whom all things are made? My sense is that the authors wanted to make some sort of distinction, but not to the extent of dividing God; I'd like to know how they thought about the ways that the three persons of the one God are responsible for creation.


texts: How to reconcile the original creation of every soul (Creationism) by God with original sin?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that (CCC 366),

every spiritual soul is created immediately by God — it is not 'produced' by the parents.

So, if every soul is uniquely created by God and is not produced by the parents, why is it still subject to original sin?


texts:
I found an audio version of Das Buch Mormon online here: http://batesbunch.com/dbm/. I was hoping to read along with it for German study, but I found that the currently published Das Buch Mormon (2003) doesn't match the recording.

There was a previous publication of Das Buch Mormon in 1852, and it believe that this may be the text used in the recording. However, I am unable to find the text for it online.

Where can I find the full text of the 1852 publication of Das Buch Mormon?


texts: What does Catholic teaching/theology say about familial relations in hell?

texts:
This post was triggered by the statement below in History of religion in the Netherlands | Wikipedia:

  Later, In addition to successful sermons, there are failures such as
  the refusal of the heathen Frisian king Radboud to be baptized by
  Wulfram, because he would get to heaven by repenting; Radboud chose an
  afterlife with his ancestors who according Wulfram were in hell.

What does Catholic teaching/theology say, perhaps with scriptural support, about familial relations in hell?

Will the presence of those who were family members on earth aggravate or alleviate the sufferings of other family members in hell?

If I were condemned to hell and God forbid, I met dad, mom, and my brothers and sister, i.e., people I loved on earth,  will this give me any kind of comfort? Will I be "happy" to be with them and they with me? Will we "enjoy" each other's company?


texts: In Aquinas's first proof of God's existence, what is the difference between accidentally and essentially ordered causal series?

texts:
I'm reading «Teología Natural» by Ángel Luis González. In the book, it is stated that St. Thomas Aquinas' viae would allow an indefinite series of causes.
He distiguishes between two causes. The first is the "cause essentially subordinated in the present", and the "cause accidentally subordinated in the past". Only the latter can come from a process in infinitum. He even quotes St.Thomas: S.Th., I, q.46, a.2, ad 7.

I'm having a some difficulty in understanding what these two types of causes are.

Any help would be appreciated


texts:
The Bible says in a few places that God does only good things and is full of only goodness: James 1:13 - 1 John 1:5 - 1 Corinthians 14:33. I think we can Biblically support very well that God is not the origin of any evil.

However, what does the bible say about good and evil coming from mankind? Are people actually capable of good without God or would there be only evil in the world if God took a vacation?

I am looking for answers that examine the various passages of the Bible and do not give too much 'this is my interpretation' talk.

I have already considered Gen 6:5, but ultimately decided that the verse explicitly refers to those people at that time who all perished in the flood.

I am getting a lot of feed back that I need to define good and evil here so that it can be answered correctly. I disagree. Those are the Bible's words not mine. Even in this answer David Morton says I need to define them but later says "At that point [God leaving], 'good' simply disappears. It's not that we can or can't do good. It's that good ceases to be good, and begins being something else."

Is that not exactly the answer to this question? How we define good apparently does not matter to God. Isaiah 55:8-9


texts: What is the Biblical basis for favoring the Majority Text?

texts:
I would like to understand the Biblical evidence that is brought to bear to support a doctrine that either favors a priori or exclusively endorses the Majority Text (commonly referred to in text critical discussion as 𝔐).  The basic idea (summarized by Daniel Wallace, a critic - see below):

  Any reading overwhelmingly attested by the manuscript tradition is more likely to be original than its rival(s).

This is distinct from the Textus Receptus / KJV argument because the TR is in some cases supported by little or no manuscript evidence. On the other hand, 𝔐 itself is a category including (appropriately) the majority of available manuscripts, generally of the Byzantine Text type. Although the discrepancies between 𝔐 and modern “eclectic” critical texts (e.g. NA28) comprise only a tiny percentage of the text, they have occasioned vehement arguments.

Daniel Wallace, a prominent NT text critic, has argued against the notion that there are Biblical reasons to favor 𝔐 or that the doctrine of preservation of scripture is necessarily linked to those manuscripts. My impression from that article is that there are doctrinal reasons (in addition to the technical ones) that some prefer the Majority Text, but I may be wrong.

Do those who favor the Majority Text have a doctrinal argument rooted in the Bible, or are these purely technical arguments?


texts: Is the “Dome of the Rock” the “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by the prophet Daniel?

texts: The Abomination of Desolation spoken of in both Matthew and Mark is specifically in reference to “End Time” perspectives.  Are there any Christian teachings that the Dome of the Rock is the “Abomination of Desolation”?


texts:
I think I know at least 2: Abraham and Moses.

Are there any others? Were the Prophets just inspired or did any of them talk to God?


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

texts: When did most Christians (possibly excluding exceptions such as Seventh Day Adventists) and Jews start celebrating Sabbath on different days of the week and why?


texts: What are the natures of the different "priesthoods" mentioned in the old testament

texts:
In the old testament, there are three (maybe more?) references to a priesthood.

  Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the Most High God.) 19 He blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth.

This was also referenced in reference to Jesus:

  Hebrews 7:17 For it is declared: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

The second is of Jethro, Moses' father-in-law:

  Exodus 2:16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came to draw water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock.

And finally the priesthood of Aaron ordained by God through Moses.

Are these all referring to the same priesthood? If they're different, what sets them apart from each other? Are they all priests in some fashion for God? The first two intrigue me the most as I know next to nothing about them.

Thank you!


texts: How do Full Preterists interpret 2 Peter 3:9-13?

texts:
As I understand, Full Preterism holds that all end time prophesies were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.  2 Peter chapter 3 appears to provide an end time prophesy wherein the heavens, down to an elemental level, will burn up and then be re-made:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. - 2 Peter 3:9-13

According to Full Preterism, in what way has this prophesy been fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed?


texts: Are there gender requirements for Sponsors for a Catholic baptism?

texts: In the Catholic Church, do sponsors for baptism need to be male and female, or are you able to have two females or two males as sponsors?


texts: What are the moral, religious, and promissory obligations of canon lawyers?

texts:
Where canon lawyers are charged with

advis[ing] people about how to exercise their rights [as Catholics] and to fulfill their obligations in accord with [canon] law

and Canon Law is defined as

operates in service to the Church that has supernatural responsibilities ... [and is] the legal expressions of Christ's will for his Church

and yet, one does not need to be called to holy orders (be a priest) to be a canon lawyer

it is natural to question the moral, religious, and promissory obligations of canon lawyers.

Moral - Must canon lawyers live in accord to canon law to licitly practice? If not, is there a lesser law by which they must live?
Religious - Must canon lawyers be Catholics in good standing?
Promissory - Must canon lawyers make an oath before being licensed? If yes, what does that oath include?

Source of quotes


texts: How much authority does Pseudo-Dionysus still have in today's Catholic Church?

texts: Ancient and medieval Church identified the sixth century Syrian Christian Neoplatonist author Dionysius the Areopagite, and not until modern times the truth has been revealed. However, Pseudo-Dionysus was seen as an authority figure among medieval theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas. Therfore he has tremendous impacts in the development of Christian theology. But how much authority he still has after the modern general acceptance of his works as pseudepigrapha?


texts: In the "Creed of Athanasius" does "before all things" mean "sooner" or "most important"?

texts:
Please see this question for why I think the Creed claims to be the declaration of the catholic church rather than merely clarifying the catholic position regarding the doctrine of "Trinity":

The creed starts out like this:

  Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam
  fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque
  dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum
  Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque
  confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes....

  Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
  hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole
  and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
  catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and
  Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the
  Essence...

Athanasian Creed on Wikipedia

Is the creed saying that the Trinity dogma should be the first thing that one is taught? Or that believing this creed in its entirety is more important than any other matter of faith than anything else?

In particular are we to understand the creed as saying that "This is the body of truth of the catholic church and it is upon the belief and embrace of the contents of this creed that determine whether or not you will be saved."


texts: Can someone explain what the song is all about? I read it and found out that the characters are not husband and wife. I want to understand the context in which the poem is written and a gist of the same.


texts: From an Orthodox perspective...how do we know the saints specifically hear an individuals prayers?

texts: I know the saints see our prayers ascending as incense (Rev 8:4), that they observe the glory of God and are close to his holy presence.  Where does the belief come from that they hear us? Or that they can make individual intersession for us? How do we know they do not do this collectively on behalf of all believers rather than on a case by case basis.


texts: Besides works versus grace and indulgences, what were the external practices of the Catholics that offended so many reformers?

texts:
My question is not focused on the doctrinal issue, but on the external practices which were contributing to the division. For example, I know there were many 'image breakers' similar to traditional Jewish views, who even took a swing at Luther for having pictures in his Bible, whereas Luther was a little more middle of the road with regards to images and statues. So long as they were not used in anyway that might suggest invocation to Mary, or the Saints, which turned them into proper idols, he did not see a problem.

The question therefore, is NOT should this thing, or that thing, be offensive, but 'historically', what was offensive?


texts: On what basis do Protestants extend the New Covenant to include gentiles?

texts:
Given "sola scriptura" and the explicit assertions in scripture regarding the participants in the covenant ("the houses of Israel and Judah") how do Protestants justify teaching it to be for gentile Protestants?

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:

Isn't this overreach that is contrary to sola scriptura?
Update for clarification
I'm not concerned that the gospel only applies to Jews (gentiles do have "access by faith into the grace") but rather the covenants:

Rom 9:4 ASV - 4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

I'm seeking maybe a "theodicy" about gentiles and the new covenant from a representative "Reformer" and why, since they are all about "sola fida" and "sola scriptura" do they commandeer the explicitly Jewish new covenant as well?


texts: Is it Christian Doctrine to say that macroevolution is not the same as microevolution?

texts:
We read in Genesis that the world was created in seven days.

This article states:

  Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

[The assumption being that more than seven days are required for the changes to bring about all the living beings we see today.]

My question is is it Christian Doctrine to say that macroevolution is not the same as microevolution?


texts: Origin of quote: "If you wish to speak or hear about God, renounce your own body..."

texts:
I've been reading Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky and encountered this quote attributed to St. Basil the Great:

  If you wish to speak or hear about God, renounce your own body,
  renounce your bodily senses, pass over the seasons of the year, their
  orderly arrangements, the adornments of the earth; stand above the
  ether, traverse the stars, their splendor, grandeur, the profit which
  they provide for the whole world, their good order, brightness,
  arrangement, movement, and the bond or distance between them. Having
  passed through all this in your mind, go about heaven and, standing
  above it, with your thought alone, observe the beauties which are
  there: the armies of angels, which are above the heavens, the chiefs
  of the archangels, the glory of the Dominions, the presiding of the
  Thrones, the Powers, Principalities, Authorities. Having gone past all
  this and left below the whole of creation in your thoughts, raising
  your mind beyond the boundaries of it, present to your mind the
  essence of God, unmoving, unchanging, unalterable, dispassionate,
  simple, incomplex, indivisible, unapproachable light, unutterable
  power, infinite magnitude, resplendent glory, most desired goodness,
  immeasurable beauty that powerfully strikes the wounded soul, but
  cannot worthily be depicted in words.

Does anyone know where it came from?


texts: If I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven?

texts:
When packing for a trip, sometimes we forget something small: a toothbrush, shaving cream, or socks. In order to compensate, we simply make a quick pit stop at a nearby convenience or department store to buy a replacement for the missing item.

Can confession work similarly?

My Question:

According to Catholic teaching, if I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven?

If you think about it, it would probably be much better to confess your sins to God than any human on planet Earth.


texts: What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus?

texts:
What historical evidence has been used by people who argue for truth of Jesus' Resurrection?

It’s important to distinguish between the evidence and the best explanation of that evidence. This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial.


texts: Are blessed secular objects categorically lower than or different from traditional sacramentals like altars, priest vestments, etc.?

texts:
Every Thursday in the National Shrine of St. Jude Thaddeus Manila, students of various universities nearby go to Mass. After Mass, the priest comes out with his holy water and sprinkles it on the mass-goers. Students would then break out their notebooks, their pens, their pencils, their laptops, etc., and hold it up high so it would catch some holy water.

The students do this at least once in a semester during their exam periods, before defending their papers, etc., believing that when they use these now-blessed objects during review, exam, or thesis defense, they would have God's Grace (not necessarily have good luck) when they attempt to pass their academic requirements.

Take note that they are having the priest bless objects that are secular, that had been used for secular purposes, and that will be used for secular purposes.

Assuming that this method does bless their school stuff, are these categorically lower than the "normal" blessed sacramentals, such as chalices, priest vestments, and rosaries?

I am asking for the Church dogma/doctrine standpoint, please, if it applies. Thanks!


texts: Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 according to those who reject the deity of Christ

texts:
Zechariah 14:1-5 (DRB)  Behold the days of the Lord shall come, and thy spoils shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2 And I will gather all nations to Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken, and the houses shall be rifled, and the women shall be defiled: and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the rest of the people shall not be taken away out of the city. 3 Then the Lord shall go forth, and shall fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is over against Jerusalem toward the east: and the mount of Olives shall be divided in the midst thereof to the east, and to the west with a very great opening, and half of the mountain shall be separated to the north, and half thereof to the south. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of those mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall be joined even to the next, and you shall flee as you fled from the face of the earthquake in the days of Ozias king of Juda: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with him.

  Acts 1:1-12 (DRB)  The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach, 2 Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up. 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

  4 And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth. 5 For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. 6 They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power: 8 But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.

  9 And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they were beholding him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white garments. 11 Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, as you have seen him going into heaven.

  12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey.

Question

According to those who reject the deity of Christ (that He is "the LORD"), are these two passages speaking of two separate Lords?

(EDIT: Since it doesn't seem to be clear: both mention a Lord returning to, or landing upon at least, the mount of Olives, probably an apocalyptic or end times event; that's the perceived connection. If Jesus is Yahweh, both refer to the same Lord. If not—well, that's the whole question.)


texts: What do the Amish believe with respect to Creationism?

texts: I realize there are numerous denominations of the Amish, but I'm wondering whether any or all of them believe in the literal, six-day creation and a six-thousand-year-old earth. I've looked in many places but haven't found anything definitive.


texts: How was the term 'The Cross' understood by the audience of Jesus? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
At Luke  9:23 we read :

"And He said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

We also read at  Galatians 16:14

"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."

The concept surrounding the Cross, as we have today, was evidently  developed post-Resurrection. But the audience of Jesus, for whom Cross symbolized capital punishment awarded to criminals ( like what gallows symbolizes for today's generation), might have understood the term Cross  in an entirely different perspective. One would therefore surmise that either :(i) the usage of the word 'cross' was very much prevalent in everyday language of the people of Jesus' time , or, in the alternative : (ii) Jesus might in fact, have used some other term(s)  which the Evangelists later summarized in 'the Cross'  which had by then become a commonly accepted term.

My question is: has the Catholic Church ever studied the prospects of option (ii) above ?


texts: Jesus' sacrifice covers our eternal hell?

texts:
I believe that Jesus' death (his punishment) is a substitute for our death (our punishment) which allows us into heaven--Jesus paid the price for our sins. I also believe that this substitutionary payment works.

However, I am slightly confused as to how Jesus temporal sacrifice paid our everlasting punishment.

Unsaved people are punished for their sins by being sent to hell--forever.

  8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matt 18:8 (KJV)

Our punishment (we were unsaved) was taken by Jesus. Jesus' torture on the cross was horrible; I am not arguing against that. But how does Jesus single death on the cross pay for my eternal hell?

Is there some aspect of His suffering that I have missed?


texts: In 1 Peter 4:18, what does Peter mean by the righteous having difficulty to be saved?

texts:
And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will
  become of the godless man and the sinner? (1 Peter 4:18, NASB).

It seems that Peter wasn't talking about salvation from hell here because the subject is already righteous, but he's clearly talking about salvation. So, what sort of salvation is he talking about?


texts:
I presume a liber ordinarius contains texts and/or chants used during masses.

Does it cover the entire liturgical year?
Do I remember correctly that it may contain only incipits of the to be used texts/chants?
If so, are there ones that contain the full texts/chants?
Are they still in use today or did they get replaced by something else?


texts: How do Biblical Unitarians contextually explain Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28?

texts:
John 20:28 has Thomas saying

"My Lord and my God!"

For Trinitarians, this line is fairly straightforward - Thomas is recognizing that Jesus is not just Lord but also God.
How do Biblical Unitarians understand this line, in particular in terms of how context can inform our reading of this line?


texts: Where do Catholics believe the historical narrative of the Bible begins?

texts:
I heard on the Relevant Radio recently that the Genesis account of the deluge is prehistorical.  Meaning, it wasn't really recorded in histories the way other more specific accounts of historical events were.

But, where exactly does the Bible's historical content begin for Catholics?

Here's the radio broadcast of Go Ask Your Father I was listening to.


texts: What is the origin of praying hands folded?

texts:
I was taught in Sunday school to pray hands folded. On the other hand, there's no biblical mention of the practice (as far as I know). It actually doesn't seem to matter which position we pray in.

How did folding hands come to be a common practice? Is there some reasoning behind it?

Gevouwen handen by Rob van Hilten (CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0)


texts: Was there ever an Anabaptist movement in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

texts:
Since the original Great Schism, the Orthodox church has seemed pretty unified (at least compared to the Catholic Church). During the radical reformation, Anabaptists were persecuted throughout Germany and Switzerland. This led to some settling in present day Russia and Ukraine.

Was there any point where a similar movement occurred in the Eastern Orthodox church?


texts: What is known (and/or alleged) about the moral character of the 12 disciples?

texts:
I've been following some (often less than civil) conversations about the character of pastors lately in which how morally upstanding a church leader should be expected to be is questioned. At several points, the interpretation of various Biblical sources was called into question -- something to the effect of "if this is to be interpreted literally it would disqualify lots of pastors. Obviously that wouldn't be God's intent, so we just re-examine our interpretation." Right off the bat, the hermeneutical principles I bring to the table call that nonsense -- instead  it is the Biblical text itself that informs us of what outcome God would or would not have wanted. This leads me to believe that, given the premise of that statement, indeed many church leaders should be disqualified.

My question is what happens when we apply various standards to the first apostles? I know it is generally understood in most Christian circles that while 12 were originally called, it was understood that one was destined to play the traitor, leaving 11 apostles after Christ left. Among themselves they appointed a new 12th. We also know that at least some of them came from sketchy backgrounds where a few broken families and certainly some shady business practices are assumed. Tax collectors anybody?

So what do we know about the moral character of the apostles after Christ's ascension? As they went out into ministry, did they evidence the kind of upstanding moral character we might expect? Does scripture or history record of lieing/cheating/stealing in their "born again" lives? How about divorce? Did any of them go on to marry and then be unfaithful?

If the Scriptural record and history don't afford any concrete examples of unfaithfulness, what dirt did folks try to throw on them?


texts: Is there any evidence to support Matthew's gospel account of the curtain in the Jerusalem Temple being torn in two?

texts:
From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land... And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.  At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:45, 50-51).

As a Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I do not doubt the truth of these words.  But how do I respond to detractors who claim there is no evidence of the curtain in the temple being torn in two?

I am interested in evidence from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sources.


texts: Who is allowed to read the handbook of instructions in the LDS Church?

texts: The handbook of instructions published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a two volume work. Handbook 2 is published on lds.org, but Handbook 1 is only given to leadership. Are members allowed to read it if they have access to it? Or are they "honour bound" not to read it unless directed or authorized by a church leader?


texts: Examples of people who fell from grace and earned it back?

texts:
In the bible, it reads (forgive me as I don't have the exact passage) that the Holy Spirit will be given to those who are righteous.

My question is, are there any examples of people who were favored by God, sinned, and then found favor with God again?


texts: Is it really true that Orthodox Prosphora (unconsecrated, of course) can not be sold or bought?

texts:
I like to buy and eat protestant/catholic altar bread sometimes. It is those small, round-shaped hosts of unleavened wheat bread, they are sold in our local protestant book-shop in package of 100 hosts (with price tag around 1.25$). Usually I eat whole package at once, it is very tasty.
I am now looking for Prosphora bread to buy and taste in the similar manner. I have found so many web pages with recipes, there are lot of prosphora stamps for sale on ebay and Amazon and any other place. But I have not found any single webpage which would offer Prosphora for sale!
Is it really prohibited to sell and buy Prosphora? Generally - there are no such rules for protestant and catholic altar bread which is not consecrated. I understand that it may be a bit more tricky with Prosphora, because is is (more or less strictly) required to use holy water for baking. But anyway - quasi-Prospohra (baked with the usual water instead of holy water) is definitely the good without any meaningful restrictions, but I can not find them either.
So - why Prosphora is not available for sale or any other transaction (e.g. against donation)?


texts: Where was Catholic doctrine defined before the Catechism?

texts:
Apparently the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) has only existed since 1992.

Was Catholic doctrine clearly defined in a specific set of sources before CCC? What would a priest have referred to in earlier times, if he had needed to check the stance of the Church on a specific detail?

Is it possible/practical/easy to find out what Catholic Church taught of a specific subject at a specific time in history?


texts: Do any Protestant Sects object to the existence of angels?

texts:
I'm kind of more-or-less asking this because CHRISTIANITY.SE IS GOING TO GET A REAL HAIRCUT soon, but I was thinking about Christian symbols and Jewish symbols and symbols that everyone agrees one and furthermore everyone feels comfortable engraving.

Everyone's Bible's got this in it

  Exodus 25:17-22 (NIV)

  17 “Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law that I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

And even the Jews who 5 seconds ago were prohibited from making graven images of God are commanded to make some sort of "cherubs".  So, what would be the reason, if any, for a Christian group today to avoid angels?  What's the most nuanced possible understanding of Exodus 25 that could justify an iconoclast who would even iconosmash the Ark of the Covenant


texts:
In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches that it is wrong to do evil to achieve good:

  And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.

This principle is explicitly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1789. However, in Catholicism, a distinction is drawn between physical evil and moral evil. "Physical evil" is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call "corruption* and defect" ("corruptio et defectus"), corruption being the change from existence to non-existence.***cf. "What are “generation and corruption” in Aristotle's philosophy?"**Summa contra Gentiles III cap. 71 ("That divine providence does not entirely exclude evil from things")

According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?

My understanding is that the answer is yes. For example, when performing a medical surgery, it is acceptable for the surgeon to intentionally damage the patient's skin (physical evil) as a means to saving the patient's life (a good end). I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. I would most appreciate answers drawing on quotes from the Magisterium, but I'd also appreciate relevant quotes from Catholic theologians.


texts: What were the circumstances behind the loss of the "True Cross?"

texts: It is my understanding that there was a relic, used by the Crusaders, that was claimed to be the very Cross on which Jesus was crucified. I also understand that sometime around 1187, it was captured by Muslims, and subsequently burned. What is the history behind this relic, and if it was believed to be something as important as the true cross, what on earth possessed them to do something as crazy as risk it in battle?


texts: Why do Christians need to promote their religion to non-believers?

texts:
Door to door Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons, people preaching in town centres, posters outside churches, alpha course.

Why do  Christians have to promote their beliefs to other people? What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them? Do they not think they may offend atheists?

I am interested to hear from people who actively promote their religion to non-believers and what drives them.


texts: Prior to 1900 were there any depictions of Satan in Christian art as a woman/female?

texts:
Are there any Christian symbolic depictions Satan in art as a woman?

In Christian art, Satan has often been depicted as a man (male) or some evil looking monster out of man's imagination of what the Devil should look like.

In 2004, Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ had Satan portrayed as being androgynous by Rosalinda Celentano.

Rosalinda Celentano - The Passion of the Christ

My question is this: Prior to 1900, has there been any historical depictions of Satan in Christian art as a woman (female)?


texts: What support is there for the Jehovah’s Witness translation of John 1:1?

texts:
Rather than the more traditional “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” Jehovah’s Witnesses use the New World Translation, which gives John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

In asking what support there is for the Jehovah’s Witness position, this question is not about whether the New World Translation is correct and is not seeking a hermeneutical response, which is already provided here. I am looking for biblical or historical texts that could support the Jehovah’s Witness translation.


texts: What is "Apologetics", exactly, and how is it used to defend the Christian faith?

texts:
For those who are unfamiliar with  the term, or those who have only a passing familiarity, what is apologetics, in relation to Christianity?  Is it "proving the existence of God"?

For that matter, can the existence of God be proved via apologetics?  And historically, how has the field of apologetics been used to defend the Faith?


texts:
Genesis 19:15–26 (ESV)

  15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city.” 16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city. 17 And as they brought them out, one said, “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away.” 18 And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords. 19 Behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life. But I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die. 20 Behold, this city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!” 21 He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22 Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

  God Destroys Sodom

  23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar. 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot's wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

The text doesn't answer or indicate why Lot's wife looked back, and Googling the question doesn't really turn up very much that's useful. Is there anything in the doctrines of Protestant denominations (the closer to Wesleyan, the better) that explains why Lot's wife looked back?


texts: Dialog between Jesus and Peter in John 21: what's going on?

texts:
In John 21: 15-17 there's a post-Resurrection dialog between Peter and Jesus.  Here's the KJV translation of this dialog.

  So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of
  Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
  thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
  thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.
  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?
  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou
  me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
  that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Other more recent translations basically say the same thing about this threefold dialog between Jesus and the guy who recently denied him.  It's good to read this passage as Jesus's threefold recommissioning of Peter after the three denials. But it does seem repetitive.

But, there's a strange thing about the translation. The Greek uses two different words for love here.  agape and philo.  Writing out the KJV again using "like" for philo and "love" for agape, we get this.

  So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of
  Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord;
  thou knowest that I like thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
  thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I like thee.
  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, likest thou me?
  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Likest thou
  me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
  that I like thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This difference in words gives the whole dialog a very different tone.  Is Peter holding out on Jesus? (If you're wondering about why this might be important, next time your spouse asks, "do you love me?" answer "sweetheart, I like you." Let us know how that works out for you. :-)

Does anybody know why the English translations erase this distinction in the words for love in this passage? Was it due to a translator's theological point of view?


texts: Is there any scientific explanation for the Sabbath Year?

texts:
For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards
  and gather their crops.  But in the seventh year the land is to have a
  year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or
  prune your vineyards. (Leviticus 25:3-4, NIV)

Is there any scientific reason why God commanded them to let the land take a rest every 7 years? Will it increase the fertility of the land? If so, please provide some scientific research on this.


texts: How prevalent is the group known as the 2x2's?

texts:
Recently, while reading a blog about Mormons, I saw a commenter saying something to the effect that he had been raised in a similarly strict upbringing called the 2x2's.

I have found a little bit of history on them but wondered if the group is still active, and what their membership is?  Perhaps their geographic scope, etc.?


texts: Can I get some help understanding the exact definition of an Idol, and Worshiping an Idol?

texts:
My definition of and Idol is hyper sensitive. Because at the moment I see it as a thing. Like this laptop for example. I have a great fear of Worshiping Idols. Like for example I am under the understanding that if I say "This is a great laptop" then I have just worshiped my idol. Not that I think that the laptop has anything to do with my creation or that God is in any way my laptop.

I come to this conclusion because:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God... (Exodus 20:4-5)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. (1 John 2:15)

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. (Col 3:5)

For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Ephesians 5:5)

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have power of choice over her self, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:10)

Why I need the Help:
My understanding has made it very difficult to shop with my wife. I feel a guilt if I choose for her what to get. Or if I point out the advantages of one product over another I feel somehow that I am raising it (not to the level of God).

I have a lot of experience with the same forms of questions. Like the time we where picking out yarn. Truthfully I don't care what colors of yarn my wife picks out. I just trust that it will turn out fine. But a question will come like "Autumn needs a new scarf, and I don't know what colors to get her. What do you think?" I feel that if I make any choice at all then I'm wrong and stupid for the selection that I picked. Like "Oh those colors are horrible." Doesn't the very nature that my being wrong or feeling wrong in what I have done a version of sin. And then I'm receiving judgment, and I feel that I'm not in the spirit.

Seriously, I just need to really understand the correct perspective that God has on Idols. And If my saying "That looks like a cool shirt" is not idolatry, I need biblical proof that it is not, because it needs to come from Gods word, and not from Man. Because I don't want to worship Idols, and I don't want to become an Idol worshiper because some guy told me that wasn't what he was talking about.

Also bending over servicing Idols. I feel affected if I have to fix something under the sink, because I had to bend over. I fight the stress with faith in Jesus. Still I want to know, and Gods word says that if it something that he wants for me to understand. That his word will show me. So the answer has to be in their.


texts: What is the meaning of "last day" from the perspective of the dispensational premillennialist?

texts:
TLDR
Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that the resurrection of believers occurs at the Rapture, which seemingly conflicts with Jesus's promise to raise Christians on the "last day."
John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Analysis
I really enjoyed learning about Dispensational Premillennialism from teachers like John MacArthur and RC Sproul. The literal approach to attempting prophesy really resonates with me. Most common objections to the framework have reasonable answers on sites like GotQuestions, but I can't really find any compelling answers that directly address Jesus' clear words that the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day.
The Lord mentioned this promise several times. Even Martha reflects on Jesus' teaching:
John 11:24
Martha replied, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

Now, my understanding of the dispensational timeline is:
(1) Church Age <= (we are here)
(2) Resurrection of believers, both living and dead, at a time that no one can predict; aka Rapture
(3) Tribulation lasting seven years
(4) Second coming of Christ and Sheep/Goat Judgement
(5) Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth
(6) Brief rebellion, led by Satan who is "loosed for a while"; Rebellion is summarily squashed.
(7) Unbelievers resurrected into new bodies suitable for eternal punishment; They're thrown into their final destination, the Lake of Fire.
(8) New heaven and new earth. Time ends, eternity begins.
So it would seem then that the timeline indicates the resurrection of believers occurs at Step #2. Whereas, if we take Jesus at His word, and the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day (of time), it would take place just prior to Step #8.
If we were talking about unbelievers, then the timeline holds true since they are indeed resurrected on the last day prior to being cast into the lake of fire. But clearly Jesus is talking about believers being raised on the last day.
So how might a Dispensational Premillennialist interpret the phrase "last day" in a way that is consistent with their timeline?
Thanks!


texts: What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?

texts:
The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as:

  Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death
  secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect),
  in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all
  humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the
  post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist
  circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God
  could not have intended that Christ die for everyone.

We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement, so my question is what is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?


texts: How does the doctrine of British Baptists compare with their American cousins?

texts:
This question examines the difference between the American Baptists and Southern Baptists in the USA. In the UK, there is one formal Baptist denomination, the Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB).

How does BUGB doctrine compare with the American equivalents? Which is it closer to? (The principle difference between the American denominations seems to be that the Southern Baptists encourage re-baptism while the American Baptists don't; the BUGB website doesn't seem to comment on this).


texts: Are there any Christian sects that believe in "curative intercourse"?

texts:
A lot of episodes from the Law and Order franchise seem to draw inspiration from real life events, however, with a recent episode (Law & Order: SVU Season 18 Episode 19: Conversion), I'm wondering whether the writers "jumped the shark": they portrayed a weird "Christian" sect that actually believe in something they call "curative intercourse" - in the words of the character Rollins, they believe "you can rape the gay out of someone".

It seems a little far-fetched to me that this would actually be taught by any group that claims to be Christian, but with groups like Westboro, I suppose anything is possible - is there any group that identifies as Christian that actually teaches any doctrine that resembles this?


texts: Significance of Virgins in the Catholic Church

texts:
Why are Virgins so popular in the Catholic Church (specifically in Mexico and Latin America)?  Aside from the obvious, Virgin Mary, there are "Virgins" of practically every major Catholic Church throughout Mexico.  The Virgin of Guadalupe is the most famous one, I believe.  Where I live, there are two parishes that could not each afford their own Virgin (you can buy Virgins?), so they pooled their resources, and now share one.  Every 6 months, there's a big ceremony in which the Virgin is transported with much fanfare from one to the other.

What is the significance of these Virgins?
Is this practice specific (or more common) to Mexico and Latin America, or is it common in Catholic Churches world-wide?
What exactly are these Virgins?  Clearly they represent a person who once lived; are the bodies of these people what is being transported and/or stored?
Why aren't virgin males important?


texts: Do Protestants accept the doctrine of free-will?

texts:
Protestants accept the doctrine of faith alone. If they accept the doctrine of free-will, how do they reconcile James 2:20-24 faith is dead without works, since works to do good is a free- will of man.
James 2:20-24

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.

Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?


texts:
Agustín Fernández de San Vicente, Canon of the Cathedral of Durango, traveled in 1822 to California as a political emissary. He was a gambler and a dandy who, unsurprisingly, dressed better than the mendicant friars ministering to Californians at the time:

... the canon's attire was really striking and colorful. His outfit was reddish in color. Whenever some girl or woman would be taken aback by the splendor and colors of his outfit, she would ask, "Who is that man?" [Testimonio of Juana Machado, in Beebe and Senkewicz]
He wears a small calotte, a blue frock coat and a three-cornered hat.... [The Khlebnikov Archive]

It's not clear to me whether the two quotes describe the same outfit. Traveling through California and conducting meetings with local officials, would the canon have worn some kind of clerical clothing, vestments, or some other non-church clothing? Would his cathedral college have entitled him to fancier clothing than a parish priest of the same diocese?


texts: Why is Lust a sin in Matthew, but praised in Proverbs?

texts:
Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew [paraphrasing] "if you look at a woman and lust for her, you have already sinned in your heart."

In proverbs, they say, [again, paraphrasing] "let her [the companion of your youth] breasts satisfy you."

Is that not lust?  Aren't these two messages contradicting each other?


texts: When did guitar led worship music become accepted?

texts: When did guitar based worship music become common and accepted in church worship, when organs used to be the standard.


texts: What is the difference between the KJV, AKJV, NKJV, etc?

texts:
Hello I've been confused by the amount of KJV bibles there are.

The AKJV means the authorised King James Bible but AKJV also stands for American King James Bible as well.
From my understanding the Authorized KJV (1611) is the KJV but I've read that the 1611 version is not the KJV used today. Been told "Get a 1611 AKJV". So they are referencing a certain type of KJV.
The website bible gateway has the AKJV and KJV as options as if they were different versions but I haven't noticed any differences in it yet. Except someone said the AKJV has British English?
I looked at it on Wiki and the 1611 version has a section to itself and it doesn't seem this is the same KJV we use today? I'm confused how it is the same bible of 1611 we call the AKJV.

https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091024144529AA84Ts5

Then there comes the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV which seems to be a form of the KJV and others....seems like many versions exist. But is it just modernised text?

What is the difference between all of these? What KJV should I get? How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV" if they are different which they seem to be? (I own a KJV already)
On Amazon if you look up 1611 KJV you find only a few results and they especially have 1611 on the cover.

Seems there is a conflict between the AKJV and the KJV being the same or not by searches I've done. Are they really the same or not?
There also seems to be "counterfeits" used in stores (not illegal books just a fake KJV...not sure what they mean) http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html ???


texts: Christian denominations that believe in salvation for non-Christians

texts: Are there any denominations in Christianity that believe that one can get to heaven without actually being a Christian?


texts: What is the origin and basis for the Catholic teaching regarding Mary's vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal?

texts:
In the answers to this question it is asserted that Mary had taken a vow of celibacy prior to her betrothal to Joseph.  Thus, Joseph already knew that he and Mary would never have marital relations prior to the Annunciation.

I have never heard this before, so I am wondering when this teaching originated and how close that was to the birth of Christ.  Also, were vows of celibacy inside marriage recorded as being practiced at any time in Jewish history?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the eternal existence of the lost in hell?

texts:
I've heard particular denominations claim that although hell is definitely a real place and hell itself will burn forever, people who are condemned to hell don't actually exist forever in hell but instead are eventually destroyed, wiped out of existence. They claim that the soul being naturally immortal is a pagan idea, and that only those given eternal life will live forever.

As far as I know most mainline denominations affirm that if you are not saved then you will indeed exist forever in Hell.

My question is, what is the biblical basis to support the doctrine that people who are condemned to hell will actually continue to exist in hell for eternity (as opposed to being annihilated)? Alternatively, what is the biblical support for the soul itself being naturally immortal?


texts: What are the major differences between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities?

texts:
I've looked around but can't really find a proper answer. Would anyone mind clarifying this for me?

I'm a Western Orthodox Christian, and I attended the baptism of my young cousin on Sunday, and this question just popped into my head.


texts: What does it mean to say "Jesus died for our sins"?

texts:
When Christians say "Jesus died for our sins", what do they mean?

      I went to Catholic school for 5 years and all I heard was "Jesus died for our sins", "Jesus sacrificed himself for us!!", and "Jesus was the Messiah!". What do you mean by this?
As far as I'm concerned, everyone still "sins" all the time.

      Which brings me to my next point...

      Why call Jesus a messiah? Was it impossible to be a good person before he "sacrificed himself for us"?

      This isn't meant to be a hostile question... I really want to know what you mean when you say this kind of stuff.


texts: Jesus cried: my God, why did they hear Elijah?

texts: The bible states the meaning of Jesus' words on the cross. Why then did some people take it as calling for Elijah?


texts: Christian description of "self-love" (from Matthew 22)

texts:
Matthew 22:

  39 And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor
  the same as you love yourself.

Self love, esteem, worth, etc are matters of the spirit and personality - that are foundations for how we live our lives.

What is the description of self-love Christians are expected to have for themselves and their neighbors?

Another issue, what is meant by this in a society where self love is low or rare (and why wasn't that considered when Jesus said this)?


texts: Is repenting the same as it always has been or do we in the New Covenant repent in a new way? (Roman Catholic perspective)

texts:
In Judaism you repent to get back to "normal" or back to God. Another reason is to stop the consequence of sin. So you have Thesuva (repenting) for a week before Yom kippur in order that God will bless you with a good year.

Since the roots of Christianity comes from the Jews. And that the RCC see tradition and the mystical as something important just as in judaism. In the Old Testament repenting has to deal not only with your heart and emotions but also your actions, you had to pay for your mistakes not just change your mind and look forward. If not there will be a negative consequence but if one do repent God will heal the land.

Almost every Church will teach that Jesus did take away the sins of the world, but He is also presented as the Lamb and did teach about repenting.

So Is repenting the same as it always has been, or do we In the New Covenant repent in another way after the Cross?

  Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mark 3:2)

According to the RCC.


texts:
Photography is a relatively recent invention, and as such, the appearances of the majority of saints have only been captured in portraits, icons, and other constructed media.

What is the oldest surviving photograph of someone who was later canonized as a saint?


texts: What would the Catholic Church's hierarchy look like without the Vatican?

texts:
What does the Roman Catholic Church teach would happen if something catastrophic (God forbid!) Destroyed the entire city of Rome, as well as the Vatican city-state?

As an example - what would happen if an hydrogen bomb was detonated in the Colosseum of Rome, effectively wiping out the entire Roman Curia?

How would this effect the universal church as a whole?

Who would be in charge?

My curiosity stems from my study of ecclesiology. The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is not whole or complete without the Pope and the Vatican.

Again, I do not wish this to happen at all!

This is ecclesiastical theoretical contemplation.


texts: What exactly is hermeneutics and exegesis?

texts: Two terms that get thrown around on this site a lot are 'hermeneutics' and 'exegesis.'  To the layman, what exactly do these terms mean?


texts: Is there a scripture affirming the begetting of the Word?

texts:
John's prologue does support the begetting of the Word by using the term " only-begotten" but bible scholars nowadays almost always consider it as a mistranslation of the Greek word " monogenes".

So the question really revolves around the said word " monogenes". Is there a Biblical, Historical and Linguistic proof for it to be translated as " only begotten"?

The NASB is a very current  English Bible version that still translate "monogenes" as only begotten. Therefore, my question is answerable.


texts: In Catholicism, what are the different kinds of sins?

texts:
I have heard various persons refer to different 'kinds' of sins on this site and in other places.

I have heard of

mortal sin
grave sin
venial sin

Are there others? What is a basic definition of each? If all sins are bad and have the potential to damn why are they classified?

Let me know if this is too broad


texts: Is cross dressing immoral or forbidden by the bible

texts:
I am a catholic young man. I’m straight but I recently started and am enjoying cross dressing.I have been enjoying the look of female fashion quite a bit more then male fashion for about 7 years now.

I’m kind of a bible/theology noob so I am wondering if enjoying certain things, like paintings my nails or wearing leggings is immoral. I can’t see anything wrong with it, but I don’t actually know enough.

Thanks


texts:
Do holy relics lose power over time? It seems as if holy relics account for fewer miracles than in times past. The handkerchiefs of Paul had incredible power to heal (Acts 19: 12). Today one seldom hear that anyone gets healed by a relic.

Anyone that knows can answer but I think the Catholics, etc are the experts and I am very interested in the use of relics in exorcisms. The question was prompted by the classification of relics so maybe an explanation of how that works as well.


texts:
I am Indian and a Hindu by religion.

I have few doubts about intentions of  christian missionary that happen in india funded by west.I have no intentions to hurt any religion but to get alternate opinion from christians  about messages given by groups in India who are Hindu conservatives.

.

A book by the group argues that the purpose of christian missionary is to create a fault-line in indian backward caste like dalits and which may finally cause harm to national integrity leading to national disintegration for economic  benefits of corporations.

.

My question is

As a christians , What in your opinion is objective of west to fund missionary in India?
Do christians in west really have such big conspiracy plans as they claim ?Like funding NGO to stop Nuclear plant development in india,etc?


texts: The word "ascended" and what does it mean "No one has ascended into heaven" in John 3:13?

texts:
John 3:13

  No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

About the word "ascended" :
A. resurrected then "bodily" ascend into heaven
B. not resurrected but it is his/her spirit ascend to heaven

is it A or B ?

About the whole bold sentence, Jesus say :
A. until today, no one has ascended into heaven
B. before My Second Coming time-frame, no one will ascend into heaven

is it A or B ?

Thank you.


texts: Is modern technology part of the Divine Intention?

texts:
These days we have very advanced technologies which our forefathers could not have think of. Are the discoveries and inventions part of the Divine Plan or Intention?

  Genesis 1:28 (NIV) God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and
  increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
  in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature
  that moves on the ground.”

This verse tells us some of the Intentions of God. But, did God intend them to be intelligent, creative,innovative,exploring, discovering and inventive?

Did God give scientific knowledge to Adam and Eve? Did God intend to give them only spiritual wisdom?

Is there any denomination that believe that God did not intend it this way? And is there any that say the otherwise?


texts: Should a priest refuse communion to the inappropriately dressed woman when she approaches to receive it?

texts: Should a priest refuse communion to the inappropriately dressed woman when she approaches to receive? For example, a woman comes dressed with a short dress or bare shoulders in the church, and she goes to receive communion; should the priest refuse the communion on the account of the scandal she is causing? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.


texts: How do Catholics reconcile Christ's intercessory prayer with the doctrine of the Trinity?

texts:
John 10:30 (KJV)  is often quoted to support the doctrine of the Trinity:

  30 I and my Father are one.

But during the great intercessory prayer, Christ asks God for his disciples to also be one with them:

  John 17:20-21 (KJV)

  20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
  21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Non-trinitarians often quote that scripture to show how John 10:30 (and other scriptures like it) is being misinterpreted. They say, "If God and Christ are literally one, then is Christ praying for us to become part of their nature too?"

Tons has been written about the Trinity, so surely a reasonable explanation for this exists.

How can John 17:20-21 be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?


texts: What are modern Christian views of the soul?

texts:
The soul, the immaterial “breath of life”, was originally thought (I believe) to be where most of our thoughts, feelings, and personality originate. However, a lot of the functions of the brain, like cognitive thoughts, aggressiveness, generosity, attribution of your actions as being self initiated, and happiness have been shown to either have a biological basis or correlates. A lot of these functions overlap with what I would have attributed with being the immaterial soul.

For example, I would have thought that trust would be something that would originate in the soul, however, oxytocin can make someone more trusting. It also seems to play an important part of maternal love and long-term relationships. Morality is also attributed to the soul, but alcohol can inhibit moral actions. I don’t see how alcohol can make it more difficult to be moral, unless there is some biological component of being moral. Perhaps, only the conscience is a part of the soul, but acting on the conscience is either a function of the physical brain or a close collaboration between the soul and the physical brain? Also, attributing an action (such as your hand moving) as being self-initiated versus involuntarily initiated (such as uncontrolled shaking of the hand) seems to rely on subcortical areas and people with schizophrenia (presumably a biological disorder) are unable to correctly attribute their actions to themselves. I would have thought that the soul be able to distinguish actions that it initiated? Or does the soul even responsible for initiating conscious actions?

Are there Christian scholars who propose ideas of the different roles that our biological brain and souls play and how do they interact?

Note 1: This question may challenge your preconceived notions of the soul, but it does not challenge the idea that there might be an immaterial soul. I’m just curious about details of such conjectures; detailed to the extent that they might form testable hypotheses. Some of which will inevitably be wrong, there is nothing wrong with this.

Note 2: While the soul may be immaterial, if it affects the biological brain, then it is at least theoretically possible to study it with science. For example, gravity still remains a black box to us. There are hypotheses (such as the graviton), but we don’t really know. But this has not prevented us from studying the effects of gravity and learning a lot from it. Likewise, behaviorists treated organisms as a black box, but that didn’t prevent them from making a lot of discoveries about learning.


texts: What does the Catholic Church think John the Baptist was referring when making the statement on greatness of Jesus?

texts:
John 3:30 (NIV) presents John the Baptist as saying about Jesus: " He must become greater; I must become less.”

My question is: What exactly is  the Baptist referring to (for example, public acceptance)  while wishing that Jesus becomes greater than he himself is ? Could he not anticipate a win-win situation in which the both of them grew in greatness ?  Are there any teachings available from the side of Catholic Church on the said statement of John the Baptist ?


texts:
I'm writing something about usury and want to mention Christianity point of view on it.

There are several verses in Bible that prohibit usury. Also Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther have despised interest. However, modern Christians seem to be OK with lending and borrowing with interest, especially in US.

How did so many modern Christians come to accept this practice?


texts: What does it mean "...blood that will be shed by many of you for the forgiveness of sins"?

texts:
The priest during Mass, always says this while on the Eucharist, Holy communion time, when the bell rings, and one kneels.
What exactly does this mean for people?


texts: In what countries is it illegal to own a Bible (the most banned book in the world)?

texts:
It is my understanding that in many countries of the world, it is illegal to print or own a copy of the Bible.  Is there any compilation of which countries have banned the Bible?

As an aside, if you know of any other widely banned books, I'd be interested to know what they are.


texts: What is the Catholic view of Matthew 18:20 in this technology age?

texts:
Matthew 18:20 (NET):

  For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

There is so much technology now.

Does the Catholic Church have a view on whether or not it has to be a literal physical gathering of two or more?


texts:
John 20:17:

  Jesus said, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Why did Jesus not want Mary to touch him, remembering that he allowed Thomas to touch him before he went to heaven?


texts: Is there a sense in which Stephen was the first Catholic saint?

texts:
I was told that St. Stephen was the first saint but read that Ulrich of Augsburg was the first to be officially canonized. Chronologically, however, shouldn't Joseph or John the Baptist be the first saint? The penitent thief is also a saint, St. Dismas, and he was the first saint to die after Jesus.

Does Stephen get honored as the "first saint," and if so, why?
Did the rules for becoming a saint change, and if so, how?


texts: Are incenses burned inside LDS temples like the ancient Jerusalem Temple? Why or Why not?

texts: I apologize if this question is not appropriate because I understand and I respect that the ordinances performed within the walls of LDS temples are sacred and holy and are not talked about. However, I know they are not secret (as there are open houses), so I'm not sure if asking about incense burning qualifies as an ordinance or not. If it is, please feel free to remain mum about it, but if it's permissible to talk about -- can an LDS member tell me if incense burning occurs in modern LDS temples akin to the Jerusalem Temple? Why or why not?


texts:
I am studying the Abrahamic covenant and I have two questions after reading Genesis 15-17.

1) In Genesis 15, God establishes the covenant with Abram.  It is an unconditional covenant and because of the fact that only God himself walked through the pieces of the carcass, the full burden of fulfilling the covenant rested on God, not on Abram.  Abram did not have to do anything to merit the benefits of the covenant, correct?  Why then does God in Genesis 17 require that Abram circumcise himself and all the members of his household in order to receive the benefits of the covenant?

2) If it is established the the promise of the covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac, why does Abraham circumcise Ishmael at the end of Genesis 17?  Wouldn't that signify that Ishmael was part of the covenant?


texts: Were the Gospels considered Scripture when the rest of the New Testament was written?

texts:
When the New Testament was written1, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture?

1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?


texts: At what point in history did Catholic priests begin to be called pastors?

texts:
I have recently, within the last year or so, begun to notice the sometimes reference to Catholic Pastors.  I assume that this term is in reference to Priests.  I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic school, in 18 years, never heard the term Pastor within that context.
Is the term Pastor within the Catholic church synonymous with Priest and, if so, is it's usage recent, regional, or did I just not notice for 18 years?
Answers to this question, Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor, seem to indicate that this usage is limited to the US only.  Does this mean that it's usage within Catholicism is less than 300 years old?


texts: Moses' Age when moving to house of Pharaoh?

texts: How old was Moses when he went to live with Pharaoh's daughter?


texts: In the Catholic tradition, are penances after confession predefined? For example would lying equate to a standard set of penances that are applied universally by all priests, or are penances set at the discretion of the priest who is hearing confession?


texts: Can a Roman Catholic be re-catechized and re-confirmed?

texts: As I understand it, many Catholics mark the sacraments according to the human lifespan. During infancy, children born in Catholic families would be baptized. Around 7 years of age, children would typically have their First Holy Communion. Around 14 years of age, children would typically have to take confirmation classes and be confirmed. Okay. So, let's say a Catholic doesn't really pay attention to Sunday school or confirmation class or thinks the theology is too confusing and dense or falls half-asleep in class due to boredom. And the only reason why he wants to get confirmed is that his family has a tradition of giving out confirmation presents. In adulthood, the Catholic tries to be a good Catholic, but the information that he was supposed to learn never got encoded into his memory. Plus, he might pick up some heretical information from a Lutheran friend or a Quaker friend. If the priest suspects that such a person is completely ignorant of Catholic theology, would the priest recommend a re-catechism and re-confirmation? If the said person confesses that he has completely forgotten everything he learned, then can such a person receive a re-catechism or re-confirmation, or is it too late as he was already confirmed? Basically, I am just wondering whether Confirmation is an one-time deal in life or can be given out despite that the individual is already confirmed (however poorly catechized he might be).


texts:
According to the hypostatic union, God the Son assumed a human nature, so that he is both fully divine and fully human. The two natures, although distinct, are not separated.

Does this mean god the son's divine nature is fully human?

If not, what does "without division, without separation" mean?


texts: Why were Catholic fasting obligations steadily relaxed?

texts:
It seems that since the Middle Ages, the fasts prescribed by the Catholic Church were gradually but steadily reduced.  Much can be read about the history of these relaxations, but little is said about the motivation behind these relaxations.

For example, in Pope Paul VI's Paenitemini, which abolished strictly regulated fasts, he refers to responding to "the signs of the times".  Does he mean that modern life has become more stressful?  Or that our waking hours are longer than in the Middle Ages?  Or that the black fasts of the Middle Ages cause health problems?

Certainly Paul VI wanted to emphasize personal freedom and the interior/spiritual reality of penance, but there must have been other reasons.  I'm curious not only about Paul VI's motivation, but about the overarching trend through Catholicism's history.  I'd also be interested in any articles or books written on the subject.


texts: There is no scripture that tells about Jesus' life from 12 to 30 years. Is there evidence of Jesus' during this time?


texts: What are non-ordained lay person powers?

texts:
According to apostolic churches (those claiming  apostolicity), what powers do the lay people unordained have?

For example, both the Church of Rome and the Anglican church agree that a lay person can baptise in an emergency: Emergency Baptism.

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (CCC)


texts: What are the Six Prophetic & Apostolic Proclamations to the World?

texts:
In the April 2020 Sunday Morning session of the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Russell M. Nelson, before reading what would become the sixth Proclamation to the World, stated there had been only five proclamations before it.1

I am finding conflicting reports about what those five proclamations are.  For example, this page at BYU.edu loosely suggests they are:

The First Presidency's Counsel on Youth (1999)
The Family: A Proclamation to the World (1995)
God's Love for All Mankind (1978)
Parenthood (1942)
The Origin of Man (1909)

Contrast this with this list from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism only lists four.

A Proclamation of the First Presidency of the Church to the Saints Scattered Abroad (1841)
Proclamation of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1845)
Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles (1865)
Proclamation of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1980)

Both of those sources exclude "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles" (2000), most likely because the two sources (notably the second) were compiled before 2000. (If "The Living Christ" is added to The Mormon Encyclopedia's list, we'd have five. That might be the list.)

Does anyone know what the five proclamations referred to by President Nelson are?  If so (and as a requirement for the best answer), please list title, delivery date, a summary of the proclamation, and a link to the official or original proclamation. For extra credit, include today's proclamation, the sixth.

1 At the time I wrote this question, the Sunday Morning session's transcripts had not yet been posted.  When they become available, they will be located here.


texts: Do any of the seven ecumenical councils condemn slavery?

texts: Did any of the seven ecumenical councils respected both by Catholic and Orthodox Christians pronounce against slavery or allow slavery?


texts:
Growing up in the church, silent prayers are pretty much part of how I pray.  However, challenging assumptions, I'm curious to know how biblical this is.

Every prayer I've found in the Bible is spoken out loud.  So, what is the biblical basis for praying silently?  Is there any biblical indication that praying silently is just as effective and beneficial as praying out loud?


texts: How does the Snake in the Desert foreshadow the coming of Jesus?

texts:
In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus referenced the story of the snake in the desert and indicated that it foreshadowed Himself.  How exactly does this story foreshadow Jesus?

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.    John 3:14 ESV


texts: Does the Catholic Church in Turkey celebrate the Feast of the Chair of St Peter at Antioch?

texts:
Prior to the changes to the General Roman Calendar in 1969, Catholics of the Roman Rite celebrated two Feasts of the Chair of St. Peter. The Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch was celebrated on February 22, and the Feast of the Chair of St Peter at Rome was celebrated on January 18.

Since 1970, the Catholic Church only celebrates the Chair of St. Peter at Rome on February 22.

The Archdiocese of Malta celebrates the Shipwreck of St Paul on February 10. St Paul was shipwrecked at Malta around 60 AD.

Since St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles established his first see at Antioch (Antakya, Turkey), my question is this: Do the Catholic faithful of Turkey celebrate the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch in accordance with the general celebration, or according to a local custom?  If they do, what is the day of celebration?