texts: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible?

texts:
Can anyone provide an overview of major Christian viewpoints regarding the infallibility of the Bible?

Background: I am struggling with accepting that the Bible is 100% correct in all it says.  All the pastors I know hold to the belief that the Bible is right and any view that contradicts it is wrong.  They hold that every part of the bible is God inspired and thus without error.

As an example - but not the point of this question or post:
I have debated with friends about the relationship between works and faith and being saved.  We can all point to scripture that says what we want it to say and seems to imply the other person is wrong.  After 2000 years of Christianity we still have very different interpretations of the Bible and of salvation.

I believe in God, I question whether the Bible is the unspoiled word of God.

I don't believe in arguing over things that are impossible to prove, but I'd like to understand the topic better by reading some well thought out viewpoints.

Thank you for your time.


texts: Do Mormons still eat meat only in "winter, cold or famine?"

texts:
In the Doctrines and Covenants from which the Word of Wisdom comes (referring to abstinence from hot drinks, strong drinks/alcohol, and tobacco), it also states that meat should be used sparingly, specifically in times of winter, cold or famine.

  12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the
  Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless
  they are to be used sparingly;

  13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in
  times of winter, or of cold, or famine.  D&C 89:12-13

Does this continue to be the practice of LDS members today or among any of the sects of Mormonism?


texts: What first century Jews were claimed to have risen from the dead?

texts:
Which first century Jews have been claimed to have been risen from the dead? I know of Jesus, Lazarus, and John the Baptist.

Jesus is found in most of the NT, Lazarus is found in the Gospel of John, and John the Baptist is claimed to have risen by Jews and Herod in the Synoptics.

What other 1st century Jews are claimed to have risen? Sources are not limited to NT canon.


texts: How does Mark's Gospel mark the final hours in the life of Jesus

texts:
Mark's Gospel makes frequent use of chiastic and parallel structures, and there appears to be an important structure in chapters 14 and 15, marking off time intervals in the 24 hours from the Last Supper to Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea.

How are those time intervals defined in Mark?


texts: How do Protestantism and the LDS Church differ as to what is required for a believer to attain salvation and eternal life?

texts:
What is the difference between what Protestantism and the LDS Church teach about what is needed to attain salvation and life in eternity?

Good answers will summarise the doctrines of both with quotes from official sources and with some scriptures which are used to support those positions.


texts: Did Jesus/God/Jehovah know that Jesus would die on the cross BEFORE coming to Earth?

texts: I have a question, summarized pretty much by the title, did Jesus and/or God (depending on whether you accept the trinity doctrine) know that he would be crucified before being born a mortal man? I would appreciate answers backed up by scripture in order to answer this question.


texts: Why are we not seeing miracles in our lives?

texts:
I am wondering why we as Christians are not seeing those great miracles of old and as promised in Mark 11 vs 17 & 18.

Or is it we are failing short or miracles were for a specific period?


texts:
In Genesis 11, we are shown that Abram, Nahor, and Haran are brothers.  Haran dies in Ur.

Then, Abram and other family members travel now to a city called Haran (a bit confusing, but okay.  Did they found the city and name it after the deceased brother or something?).  No mention of Nahor and what happened to him.

Then, Genesis 24, Abraham wants to find a wife for his son from his hometown.  Where is his hometown?  Is it Ur (where his father is from) or Haran (which is where the family spent some time)?

Then, a servant goes out and makes his way to the "town of Nahor."  Where is that?

I looked on Google for all sorts of map but I can't find a city called "Nahor."  I found one map with a colored line describing the travels of the servant and it ends in the city of Haran.  So is "town of Nahor" = "Haran " = "Abraham's hometown"?  I am so confused.


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath?

In the Bible it says that the 7th day should be set aside and be holy. It is the day of rest. Does this simply mean that we are not allowed to do any work? What will happen if you do? Is this going against God's will?


texts: I was looking through Catholic baptismal records, while doing genealogy, when I realized that I didn't know what the purpose of godparents is. What is their purpose? Why are they recorded? Are the godparents held accountable for anything?


texts: How old were Joseph & Mary when they marrried?

texts:
A nun in my Catholic school taught us that Mary was 14 and Joseph was 17 and that this was not atypical for the day. Also that in Joseph's case his Marriage to Mary was his second.

Would there be any ancient text or tradition at all relating to Joseph's first wife (the presumed mother of Jude)?


texts: How are John 17:3 (the Father being "the only true God") and John 14:6 (Jesus being "the truth") reconcilable?

texts:
I was wondering if there was a hidden meaning to John 17:3.

In John 17:3 Jesus calls Father the only true God, but in John 14:6 Jesus says that He is the Truth. You can't have a "True" God without the Truth.

So, is Jesus trying to show his eternal relationship with his Father in John 17:3?


texts: What do churches that prohibit the use of icons think an idol is?

texts:
In the Orthodox and the Catholic Church icons and statues are permitted, and members of those churches look at such in much the same way they look at photographs of loved ones. We also talk to people depicted in certain icons, who we believe are in heaven, and we ask them to pray to God for us. (We ask the people, not the artistic renderings of those people.) Other churches that are opposed to icons and statues sometimes draw a comparison to idolatry. Usually this point makes reference to the commandment to not make idols: idols are a certain kind of image or likeness.

So what's an idol, according to these churches? Presumably idols must include things like the Golden Calf. But they must exclude things like the cherubim mentioned in Exodus 25:18-19, since God would not command the construction of idols:

  Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory,
  fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end.

The question isn't "what practices of the Catholic Church involving images are disapproved of". The question is, these other churches must have some sort of definition of what counts as an idol. Is an idol something made of gold? Stone? Wood? Is it anything that depicts an animal, a human, or Jesus? Under what conditions do these churches consider something an idol?


texts: Does Pope Francis' rewording on the subject of capital punishment in the Catechism trump those of Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium vitae?

texts:
Does Pope Francis'rewording on the subject of capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church trump those of Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium vitae?

I have always looked on the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a teaching aid towards catholic teachings. But Pope Francis' rewording of the Church's teaching seems to be in contradiction to the words of Pope St. John Paul II in his Gospel of Life (Evagelium vitae) which permits such an application in very limited circumstances.

  This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. - EVANGELIUM VITAE

Since these words are from an encyclical and the rewording of Pope Francis on the subject of capital punishment are not, do Pope John Paul II encyclical letter holds precedence over the Catechism of the Catholic Church's wording as 2018?

Pope Francis does not seem to address the possibility that inmates can and have ordered the killing of innocent individual while being incarcerated. A few evil doers will almost always find a way to do evil even from prison. Just ask the Devil and he is equally incarcerated in hell. There are more cases in which moral theologians can see that incarcerations or even detention would not be advisable either in some emergency situations.

Pope Francis on capital punishment: doctrine built on shifting sands?

  The death penalty

  Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

  Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

  Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. - Vatican Press Office


texts: How is it that an unchanging and omniscient God can have "regret" as He did in Gen 6:7?

texts:
In Genesis 6:7, we read,

  "So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”"

I have never understood how it is that God can experience regret.  Does this not imply that He made a mistake?

Perhaps it is only because as humans we experience regret frequently associated with a mistake; however, regret simply means "to feel sorrow or remorse".  Remorse is defined as (1) deep and painful regret for wrongdoing; compunction.
(2) (Obsolete) pity; compassion.

I can't shake the sense that regret always entails "I wish I hadn't done that".


texts: Who is "you" in Genesis 3:15 according to the Calvinist?

texts:
I have a "connected" question before in here. And I think I made a mistake to ask a question like that directly.

So, I will start here first :

  Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
  your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you
  shall bruise his heel.

Who is "you" there ? Who did God talk to ? was God addressing reptile?


texts: Book recommendation that goes over how the bible is compiled based on manuscripts

texts:
I have read about how the King's James bible and (I think) the NIV bible differ.  Some verses from the Kings james bible were removed as they were not present in earlier manuscripts.

Anyhow, are there any research papers or books that go over each verse and notes exactly which manuscript contains the verse?

I know that this is actually an on-going process, where some verses are removed, and then the verse above is split into 2 to keep the verse count the same etc.  I would like to know exactly what was done, and by whom, and which manuscript was used as the source.


texts: Does the Eastern orthodox church prohibit Christian meditation?

texts: There is already a question on whether or not yoga and other non-Christian meditative practices are permissible according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, however I was wondering if all forms of meditative practice are discouraged or whether things like lectio divina, Taize prayer or christian meditation are smiled upon?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans?

It's said that death came into the world due to the primary sin of Adam and Eve.
But if you take a look around you notice that everything dies. From the little ants
to the immense universe we live in. Then is it fair to say that the little ants and
the planets, galaxies, the whole universe, all die because one guy ate a forbidden apple?


texts: Why do Christian missionaries start schools?

texts:
Why do many missionaries start their mission work through the educational institutions?

What is the spiritual focus behind starting a school?

How successful is it at proclaiming the Gospel?


texts: Have Jehovah's Witnesses' top leadership made a "vow of poverty"?

texts:
This question is about the leadership in the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, such as the Directors of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, that are named in this Wikipedia article.

In this article at wol.jw.org, I read about the "Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses". About this, the article says the following in paragraph 19 (emphasis mine):

  Currently, there are some 67,000 members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some perform
  Bethel service, others engage in construction or in circuit work,
  serve as field instructors or special pioneers or missionaries or as
  Assembly Hall or Bible school facility servants. They are all bound
  by a “Vow of Obedience and Poverty,” with which they agree to do
  whatever is assigned to them in the advancement of Kingdom interests,
  to live a simple lifestyle, and to abstain from secular employment
  without permission. It is not the people but their assignments that
  are viewed as special. They realize the seriousness of humbly living
  up to their solemn vow for as long as they remain in special full-time
  service.

I realize that "poverty" in this context does not need to refer to living in a clay hut that has no proper floor, running water, or electricity. Admittedly these people will have some "benefits" (room and board and health care and maybe transportation) because their role is related to the function that they serve in.

But I am more interested of anything beyond that, especially for the top directors or the "governing body" in Jehovah's Witness organization.

The question I wanted to ask is, are the top directors and the governing body in Jehovah's Witness organization also bound by this "Vow of Obedience and Poverty"? Or do they get some kind of market-based compensation (e.g. some CEO-level compensation) for their services?

(I would prefer an answer from JWs on this question)


texts: How could God hold Adam and Eve accountable for sinning when they didn't know evil?

texts: Until Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, how could they know that disobeying God was sinful, as they didn't understand that it was evil? Why does God hold them accountable for sinning when they didn't know what evil was?


texts: I am chemistry and biology lecturer. When I teach new concepts such as equilibrium or origin of life or liquids, etc, sometimes I would like to check if there is some interesting passage in Bible that talks about that concept. Of course it is likely there will be something about equilibrium but not something directly related to molecules. The thing is I would like to find passages in the Bible with that concept/topic/keyword. I tried to use Google or similar tools but the results are not very good. Anybody can help with this?


texts: What was the timeline of the reigns of David and Ishbaal?

texts:
I'm confused about the start of David's reign. Here's what I know...

Once Saul died, two things happened (2 Samuel 2:8-11):

Ishbaal started ruling the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
David was made king over Judah.

Also from 2 Samuel 2:8-11 & 4:7 we know that Ishbaal ruled for 2 years in Israel before he was assassinated, at which time David became king over a united Israel.

So it seems like the kingdom's split for around two years, with Ishbaal in the north and David ruling in the south before they joined back together again. However...

  “At Hebron [David] reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and at
  Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.” -
  2 Samuel 5:5

So was the split 2 years with the kingdom having divided sometime during Saul's reign? (Weird because David seems to have always respected Saul's authority) Or was it that the kingdom was divided for over 7 years, but the kingdom in the north either had no king or some unnamed king for 5 of those years? Something else entirely?


texts: What is the basis of the LDS/Mormon prohibition of facial hair for men?

texts:
I have read in a few places the LDS Church has at least a general practice, if not an official teaching, that prohibits men from growing facial hair--at least for men in any position of leadership.  Apparently, Joseph Smith was "clean shaving", but many of the other prophets and leaders in times past did have significant beards and moustaches.

So, my question concerns what the basis is for this teaching and when that basis came about.  Is it an official church teaching or an unwritten policy, and is there any reason given for why facial hair, which God seems to have intended for men in some way, is inappropriate or wrong?


texts: What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism? Are all Protestants also Evangelicals? Are all Evangelicals also Protestants?


texts:
As, the question asks, can anyone aggregate for me and put a small list of who all witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in the decreasing order of the person's importance (popularity). e.g. First the disciples and then other notable people who witnessed the event in that order. A list of roughly 25 or less number of people would suffice.
Also a related question, who exactly witnessed Jesus Christ saying these words at the time of his death, "Father forgive them?". (Please support the answer to this line with authentic references)

:)


texts: What's the Evangelical take on the Natural Moral Law?

texts: Since it's not in the Bible, are Evangelicals taught to ignore or disapprove of the teachings of such folks as Aristotle and Plato?  Would they belive a redacted version of the Summa Theologica or City of God where all the Aristotelean and Neo Platonic stuff is gone and only the Divine Law stuff remains?


texts: Arguments For/Against Spiritual Uses of Cannabis in Christianity?

texts:
As I am aware most Christians regard the physical and spiritual effects of Cannabis as the same as use of alcohol for intoxication, and that its use is not permitted by their doctrines.
Contrarily, some Christian denominations such as the Rastafari and Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church not only allow its use but strongly suggest its use for meditation and communication with God. Now, I realize that Cannabis use is a controversial topic for many devout Christians and many will not give it a second thought as to whether it has any place in worship. Through some research I have landed upon the following article regarding its use in the time of Jesus: Jesus 'healed using cannabis'. Cannabis is often referenced in the Bible as Calamus (hebrew 'קנה-בשם' or "kaneh bosm"), as in the following scripture:

"Take thou also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty" (Exodus 30:23).
"Vedan and Javan traded with yarn for thy wares; massive iron, cassia, and calamus, were among thy merchandise" (Ezekiel 27:19).
"Spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices" (Song of Songs 4:14).

There is no debate that Cannabis was used in the time of the Hebrews and throughout the time of Jesus Christ.
I am neither for nor against the use of Cannabis, I only wish to see arguments for/against its use as an aid in spiritual connection with God and developing a deeper understanding of his Word.
Any insights on this?


texts: What did Protestant reformers think about the date and authorship of the New Testament?

texts:
Biblical scholars state that the different books of the New Testament were written between 49 and 120 AD, approximately. This means - rather uncontroversially - that the activity of the Church (i.e. of Apostles, converts, churches, etc) predates the Scripture.

Now, this Biblical research is fairly new, starting only in the XIX century. This is, by the time of the Reformation, such research was not available. Which was the opinion of Reformers on the origin, authorship, and dates of composition of the New Testament? Was it in line with the current scholarly research?

PS: Although I do not want to deviate the purpose of the question to other issues, my interest on this issue is the Sola Scriptura debate. Maybe Calvin and other reformers believed that the Scripture was not temporarily before the Church activity? (or, roughly speaking, that what the Catholic Church calls the Tradition did not come before the Holy Writ?)


texts: Are there "rational" criteria for which books appear in the Bible?

texts:
When I looked into "canon criticism" or "canonology" a while back, I came across numerous (alleged) criteria for whether a book is/was included in canon, such as "Old Testament books had to be written in Hebrew."  However, for each criteria, it seemed like there was an exception.  (In this case, the book of Daniel, for instance.)

So, I concluded that the Holy Spirit must have just guided the process, and that perhaps this is an instance where we cannot attribute natural reasoning, and just have to have faith.

My question is - did I miss something?  Is there actual rational criteria for whether a book is considered part of canon?

Clarifications

I am referring to the most widely accepted 66 books of the Christian Bible
By "rational", I just mean criteria which could be understood through human reasoning without supernatural assistance
I am not limiting answers to the historical criteria that the church fathers originally used
It is OK to answer with "no there are not", but please elaborate / prove your case with references


texts: What deuterocanonical books are quoted in the New Testament?

texts:
When talking with a Catholic friend (I'm a Protestant) about the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books, it occurred to me that a possible argument for their inclusion in the Canon would be their authority, measured in two ways:

Claiming to be speaking on behalf of God (e.g "Thus saith the Lord...")
Being quoted by other books considered to be a part of the Canon

Thus, I was wondering which (if any) books are quoted or referenced in the New Testament?

Also, are there any OT books that quote the apocrypha? (I have a feeling this may be a stupid question since, if I understand correctly, they were mostly written before the apocrypha.)


texts: What did the original Christian writings look like during the 1st century CE?

texts:
It is said (from what I've read), from a few Google searches related to "when was the new testament first written", that the New Testament was written down somewhere between 30CE and 150CE, rough ballpark. Wikipedia says the phrase "New Testament" in Koine Greek (the original Greek dialect it was written in) is pronounced "Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη", which was used "to describe a collection of first and second-century Christian Greek scriptures ... traced back to Tertullian in his work Against Praxeas." By the 4th century, there was a canonical collection of the New Testament texts collected. By the 5th century, a Latin translation of the New Testament was created. These first complete Bibles were written in the Uncial Script.

By my question is what happened between 30CE and 300-400CE? What were all these fragments of Christianity referred to casually as the "New Testament" written in? What sort of punctuation and formatting did they use? Was it all in Koine Greek? Even so, what did it look like is my main question. Was it all written by scribes who used the Uncial style? Or did the scribes have other fonts/typographic styles they used?


texts:
There are some legends that say that Peter traveled to Rome where he was martyred.

Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle Peter? Is there any historical evidence that he was bishop of Rome?


texts: When omniscient God had a plan for Jesus, why did God think of killing everyone?

texts:
There seems to be a contradiction between these two verses.

  So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."
  Genesis 6:7

  “He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose Him for this purpose long before the world began, but now in these final days, He was sent to the earth for all to see. And He did this for you.”
  1 Peter 1:19-20

In Genesis, God judges mankind and destroys them, seemingly thinking that will fix them. In 1 Peter we're told that salvation through Jesus was the plan since the very beginning. So the motivation for the flood doesn't make sense in this light.

How is this apparent contradiction typically explained?


texts: What is the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22?

texts:
Inspired by an answer to one of my other questions, what is the proper meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22?

KJV

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

NIV:

reject every kind of evil.

NKJV

Abstain from every form of evil.

I am most familiar with the first translation, as was the poster of the answer that inspired this question.  But is that an accurate translation?


texts: Did God create man to replace the fallen Angels?

texts:
As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period.

That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty.

It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship.

Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.


texts: What are the divisions between Vatican I and Vatican II Catholics?

texts:
On this site Catholic questions are often answered very well by self avowed Catholics. Often two such users will argue well their viewpoints, but reach very different conclusions. For example see  as Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

In the comments, I have learned that there are adherents to the Church under a set of doctrines called Vatican I and another group adhering to Vatican II.

What are the major divides between the two and which group is the larger?


texts: Does Jude 1:9 mean that Moses went to hell?

texts:
Jude 1:9

  Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he
  disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a
  reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

What!? Michael and Satan are disputing about the body of Moses? What does this mean? Did Moses go to hell because he hit the rock twice and not just once as was ordered? What's going on here?


texts: Are relics only considered first class if they were collected from a Saint's dead body?

texts: I was seemingly corrected that St. Maximillian has no first class relics since some of his hairs apparently were found (collected prior to his death).  Would these be first class relics or second class relics?


texts: Will there be ongoing co-creation (aka technological development) in heaven?

texts:
On Earth, the Catholic Church teaches that humans are co-creators with God.

  To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his
  providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing”
  the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be
  intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation,
  to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.
  Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also
  enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their
  prayers, and their sufferings. They then fully become “God’s fellow
  workers” and co-workers for his kingdom. (Catechism of the Catholic
  Church, paragraph 307)

Does any tradition see this concept of humans being co-creative/co-worker extending into heaven? If so, does this mean that we will continue to push technology forward?


texts: At what level of detail does God lead His children?

texts:
It seems that some people worry and pray about every aspect of their life, while others only sweat the big stuff. For example, I doubt any believer does not pray about whether they should marry a certain person or not. But for less significant matters, some pray about what God's will is and others just make a decision without prayer.

Should you pray about what career you should choose? About what book you should buy? At what point should you just make a decision?

Does the Bible indicate an answer to this question?

Note: I found a similar question here.


texts: Don't we need Biblically definitive eisegesis to Exegete properly?

texts:
I've been looking at some of the thoughts on eisegesis and it seems that the general tone is always negative when the term comes up. However, when we read the bible in an Exegetical way in order to expose the text we must understand those words we read and phrases used through a biblical lens; thus in some capacity this is an eisegetical application that comes from foundational exegesis able to be factualized by proof of witness from the Scripture alone.
Therefore, is it not correct to say that we use both Exegesis and Eisegesis in our approach to understanding Scripture and that this is a positive use of the term?
Thanks


texts: I myself am not a Christian but Iin college I have a Christian Friend. I know that Christians regard Christ as son of God spiritually not bodily. I asked my friend, "Why do you call Eesa (Christ) (Peace be upon him) as the son of God?" He asked me a question in reply "Do you accept that Maryam (Peace be upon her) is his mother?" I said "Yes, indeed." He then said "Had there been anyone father of Eesa from the humans?" I said "No, never ever!" He then said, "Here is the point. He had no father among the humans so by convention we call him the son of God because He has no other father!" My question is, do all the Christians think like this? Was what he saying Christian ideology or simply his ideology? I am not trying to offend anyone. I am asking this question for clarity of my mind and I may clear his mind as well about his religion according to your thoughts so that he may get some more knowledge about his religion.


texts: Did adding the Feast of Sts. Mary, Martha and Lazarus clear up anything about the identity of Mary?

texts:
I was just reading in the National Catholic Register that Sts. Mary Martha and Lazarus have been added to the church calendar by Pope Francis and that the reason they weren't on before was because of some sort of concern over whether Martha and Lazarus's sister Mary was the same as Mary Magdalene (seem unlikely if Magdalene means where she's from and these siblings were from Bethany).
The article doesn't address that concern, so I'm wondering if any new stuff has come to light or what Catholic scholars think is the relevance prohibiting having this 3-saint feast and a separate feast for St. Mary Magdalene.  Does Pope Francis just not think it's a stumbling block worth worrying about or do we know for sure that they're separate people?


texts: What are the biblical justifications for racial segregation?

texts:
What are some of the biblical arguments used to promote racial segregation?

I am not asking about slavery or racial superiority, per se (see related question), but about the idea that it is good for society to separate itself along racial characteristics and to avoid miscegenation.

Answers do not need to emphasize its American manifestation.


texts: Is Ecclesiastes 2:24 advice for Christians or non-Christians

texts:
Not everything written in the Bible is biblical for a Christian to follow. For example, David took Bathesheba and had her husband murdered.

Now, I'm reading Ecclesiastes 2:24 and I see:

  24 There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.

I'm a bit confused -- is this line written as Christian advice, or is this "the best someone who does not follow Christ can do"?

I am confused on this for the following reasons:

I consider Proverbs a book of Biblical advice.
I consider Ecclesiastes similar to Proverbs

However, this verse appears to ignore Christ (and takes on a rather atheist view -- i.e. eat, drink, work hard, be happy.)

Furthermore, I'm not sure what stage of Solomon's life this verse was written in? (I.e. was this when the 300 wives + 700 concubines were leading him to worship idols?)

In short, summary of question: is Ecclesiastes 2:24 written as advice for Christians or non-Christians?


texts: How does the Catholic Church explain their belief that Jesus chose Peter to build upon?

texts:
Jesus was God and knew well the character and faults of Peter his disciple. The gospels give us a look at his impetuosity, asking Jesus 'if it is you, tell me to walk on the water';  arrogance, wanting to call fire down from heaven; cowardice, denying the Lord; etc.

Since there are alternate explanations and meanings for Matthew 16:18 (most non-Catholic Christians think the 'rock' Jesus built His church on is Jesus Himself, or the revelation of who Jesus is, that the Father gave to Peter) why does the Catholic Church adhere to their point of view, calling Peter the foundation that Jesus built his church on? Why would Jesus himself not be the Rock?


texts: Are there any documented instances where a council settled a doctrinal debate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, as in Acts 15?

texts:
Acts 15 tells us the story of the Jerusalem Council and the importance that the Holy Spirit had in arriving at a final resolution, which was issued to the Gentiles, concerning their obligations toward the Mosaic Law:

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” [Acts 15:22-29 ESV]

As you can see, verse 28 (in bold) reveals the role of the Holy Spirit as an active part of the final agreement. Now, we all know that the history of the Church has been full of doctrinal debates about myriads of controversial topics, where the intervention of the Holy Spirit would have been as relevant and needed as it was at the Council of Jerusalem. Hence the question: are there any documented instances of a council settling a doctrinal debate with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, following the example established by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for a Good person going to hell simply for not believing?

texts:
The scenario is as follows:

Believer, average life, many mistakes/sins. Asks forgiveness and tries everyday to be better. Goes to heaven.
Non-believer, better life than the believer, fewer mistakes than the believer, tries everyday to be better, succeds more than the believer, knows he has done some bad things in life, regrets them, but doesn't believe in anything because he never witnessed anything supernatural in life so he has no reasons to. Goes to hell.

This scenario was put to debate by a co-worker and I tried to explain how you cannot be saved by your own deeds, but didn't succed to actually give a good argument, so I'm asking for help.

For all the non-believers this scenario is "not fair" as why would a better person go to hell just for not believing.

Can anyone give some biblical explanations / paragraphs to explain this. Or maybe the premises are wrong?


texts: May divorced men become Roman Catholic priests?

texts:
In reading through canon law ( I think around 1037 or so ), it says that unmarried men must be celibate and 25 years old, or married men must be at least 35 and have their wife's consent before being ordained.

What I didn't see was if divorced men were allowed to become priests, and which provisions they would be subject to if they are. So, can divorced men become priests, and must they be celibate if they do?  (In other words, could they remarry if this were the case)


texts: What is the evidence for the claim that Young Earth Creationism was the mainstream viewpoint in ancient times?

texts:
In my previous question, I asked about the origins of the modern Young Earth Creationism movement, especially in America. Originally, the question asked when the YEC belief (mainly with regards to a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation) became widespread, and was subsequently informed that the account of creation in Genesis had been read literally by Christians ever since ancient times.

What is the evidence for this claim? I'm specifically looking for evidence that the early church interpreted Genesis 1 literally in a manner consistent with modern Young Earth Creationism beliefs. The six-day creation and 6000-year-old age aspects may be treated separately, if and when appropriate.


texts: Did Jonah think that God exists only in Israel?

texts:
The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great
  city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come
  up before me.” But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for
  Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that
  port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to
  flee from the Lord. (Jonah 1:3 , NIV)

Was Jonah stupid enough to think that God(YHWH) doesn't exist beyond the boundaries of Israel?

What exactly was Jonah trying to do when he sailed away from Israel?


texts: Calvinism: alternatives to evanescent grace?

texts:
It appears to me that the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" contain a practical contradiction. The T in TULIP states that the reprobate (and even the unregenerate elect) are zealous in their hatred of God. The reprobate completely and totally despise God with their words, thoughts, actions, etc. The P in TULIP states that all of God's elect will be regenerated and will persevere in faith unto death. Now these two points do not seem contradictory in and of themselves, but what of the subject of apostasy? From Biblical texts and our own experience, we come to understand that some people who appear to love God eventually lose interest for one reason or another and fall away from the faith. Jesus even speaks of such people, who accept the gospel with great joy, only to eventually fall back into the world because they get busy and distracted with the cares of daily life.
It is a typical Calvinist response to simply say that those people were never saved to begin with. Fair enough, but if they were never saved, then they were never regenerate, and if they were never regenerate then they must experience vicious hatred towards God according to TULIP's T. So what would compel a reprobate hater of God to go to church, read their Bible, pray fervently, ask God for forgiveness of sins, get baptized, etc. These do not seem to be actions of people who despise God. Why would a reprobate man experience joy upon hearing the gospel, as Jesus plainly stated?
To Calvin's credit, he attempted to plug this hole by coming up with a doctrine called evanescent grace. Roughly speaking, God in his good pleasure, actively causes a deception to fall upon some reprobate men, which gives them a fleeting desire to worship him and follow Christ. However, this false faith is never the 'real deal' and at the appointed time, God removes the illusion and leaves the man in a worse state than he began. This gives God all the more justification to judge the man to death and condemnation.
Understandably, Calvinists do not appear to have endeared themselves to this doctrine. I'd venture to say that many Calvinists have never ever heard of it. But if a Calvinist does not subscribe to evanescent grace, then there must be some other explanation as to what would compel a God-hating reprobate to praise the name of Jesus Christ, even if only for a limited period of time. What explanations, other than evanescent grace, have Calvinists posited to solve this seeming contradiction in their theology?

Our natural, fallen inner disposition is to hate the God of the Bible – the true and living God who created us – and to replace Him with gods (or “concepts of god”) more to our liking. -- http://lakeopc.net/2017/calvinism-101-total-depravity/
Total Depravity means that every sinner is possessed with a nature, inherited from Adam's fall, that is completely hostile toward God. We were all born with a "positive" aversion to God and His authority. By nature, every sinner wants "his own way." Romans 8:7 makes this fact very clear. "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." -- https://www.monergism.com/doctrine-total-depravity
But a man who is totally depraved can not will to be saved. He hates God and wants nothing to do with Christ's death. So it must not be said that Christ died for all men. -- http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_41.html


texts:
Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."
  NKJV John 6:27

I am an Evangelical but have been worshiping in a high church for many years mainly because my friends worship there too. I know the doctrine of transubstantiation which teaches that the bread and wine literally change into Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist. Most defenders of this teaching use John 6 as the main evidence. But in v27 Jesus not to work for FOOD WHICH PERISHES: i.e food that will rot and mould, but work for the food that will endure to eternal life. This is the "food" which Jesus says he'll give.

My question is: how does one who believes in transubstantiation go about understanding v27, considering that the consecrated bread in the Eucharist WILL eventually "perish"/mould/rot over time if left unconsumed. How can Jesus be referring to the Eucharist as his "food", when he says that HIS food will NOT perish (unlike the consecrated bread)?

I am not looking for an argument, I am just interested in how Catholics interpret this verse.


texts: Why the differences between the Maundy Thursday Mandatum and the Eucharist?

texts:
The two links below are examples of many, many Roman Catholic resources explaining the origin, significance, and liturgical format of foot washing (The Mandatum) which takes place during Maundy Thursday services.

Holy Thursday Mandatum

Mandatum: Liturgical History

The biblical text undergirding this practice is in John 13:

  Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”  When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. - John 13:1-17

I will pull excerpts from this passage as I try to clarify my questions (asked of Roman Catholicism).

a) "For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."  Since this took place during the same Passover meal that Christ eagerly desired to eat with His disciples and during which the Lord's Supper was instituted, and since the act appears preparatory to that first Eucharist, why does the Roman Catholic Church only incorporate this into one liturgy each year while the Eucharist takes place during each liturgy?

b) "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."  Given that Jesus washed the feet of everyone there (apparently even Judas) and given that Jesus commanded them to likewise wash one another's feet, why does the Roman Catholic celebration of this event involve only the principle celebrant (Bishop, Priest, or those he designates) doing the washing to only a certain number of chosen congregants?  An ancillary question here is; Are Catholic parishioners likewise encouraged to wash one another's feet going forward?

c) "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them."  I guess this question is more overarching.  Given the tight Scriptural linkage (not just by proximity but by intentionality) between the foot washing (I have given you an example that you should do) and the Lord's Supper (Do this in remembrance of me), why does Roman Catholicism hold the latter as the literal and indispensable centerpiece of each liturgy while the former is only remembered yearly and symbolically?


texts: How do proponents of Apokatastasis deal with the "Everlasting punishment" texts in scripture?

texts:
For those who don't know, the doctrine of Apokatastasis is an ancient form of Universalism which states that everything God has ever created will be saved and glorified, including the Devil and his demons. The existence of Hell is affirmed, but the punishment is held to be correctional and purgative rather than retributive, and it doesn't last forever, instead only lasting for as long as a soul refuses to repent. This makes the Universalist idea of Hell more like a "Universal Purgatory".

I find this doctrine very interesting and appealing. It seems to make the most sense of the biblical data and the Loving+Just character of God in my mind. Nevertheless there are some problematic passages in scripture which seem to contradict it at first glance.

The main one that troubles me is Revelation 20:10:

  10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of
  fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and
  they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This passage seems to completely rule out Apokatastasis and come down strongly in favour of the more traditional "everlasting punishment of sinners and the Devil" view.

How would a proponent of Apokatastasis interpret this passage?


texts: How does this fit in with "we are incapable of following the law"?

texts:
While reading through the Torah, the following verses caught my eye.

  Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too
  difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so
  that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and
  proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so
  that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim
  it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is
  in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Just like the title, I am honestly wondering how the verses above (keeping their context in mind) fit in with the commonly held belief in the Christian church that human beings were and are incapable of following the law of God without the help of the Holy Spirit, etc?

I am aware of Romans 10:6-8, which says:

  6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your
  heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”(that is, to bring Christ down)
  7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”(that is, to bring Christ up
  from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is
  in your mouth and in your heart,”that is, the message concerning faith
  that we proclaim:"

However, what I am looking for is an honest explanation from the Old Testament, if possible, about the verses from Deuteronomy above.

If using Paul's words above is necessary for the explanation then I'd take that too. I am just honestly curious, looking for honest answers.

PS: No offense intended here.

PSS: Translation used is NIV.


texts:
It seems that it is not available anymore from this link
Any secondary copy would be appreciated.

UPD I need all leaves (~100 in good quality to be able to read), not one sample scattered over the internet.


texts: Why did the RLDS start giving the priesthood to women?

texts:
There is a common belief amongst mainstream LDS that the reason the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) started ordaining women with the priesthood is because they ran out of male descendants from Joseph Smith to lead the church.

What's the real reason that the RLDS started ordaining women?


texts: Did Voltaire actually say "If you want to kill Christianity, you must abolish Sunday"?

texts:
Recently I was listening to a defense of the observation of the Sabbath, and within it the speaker quoted Voltaire as saying something like:

  If you want to kill Christianity, you must abolish Sunday.

I've found this quote in a number of places both online and in print, such as in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, IV, 159, but so far I haven't found an actual reference to the writings of Voltaire.  Sadly I don't read French, so I wouldn't know how to best search for this quote in the original language either.

Did Voltaire actually say something like this?  And if so, where/when?


texts: Is there a Biblical basis for the concept of being allowed to "be angry with God" or "tell him just how we feel"

texts:
I've heard, on multiple occasions, from my church and others that it's "okay to be angry with God" or that we can tell him how upset we are with him about something, etc.

It may seem silly, but this has always felt a little blasphemous to me... being angry with the God of the universe.  Is there any sort of Biblical basis for this concept?

To clarify (because I understand the question is a bit subtle): I am not looking for Biblical basis of expressing general emotions to God, that we see constantly throughout the Bible (such as the Psalms as a commenter below points out).

What I'm referring to is being angry at God and letting him know it.

The phrase that commonly goes with this is "Let him know, God's big enough to take it."

He obviously is big enough to take it, but that does not make it right.  That's the question at hand: is there biblical basis for it being acceptable (making it clear it is not sinful) to be angry at God and let Him know it.


texts: What is the Biblical backing for the perspective that our actions affect who makes it to heaven?

texts:
Some members of my church believe that through our actions, people who would not otherwise have been saved will be saved. I want to know what the Biblical backing for this doctrine is. If you want a little more detail on what this viewpoint is exactly, read on...

It is often stated in terms of motivating people toward evangelism. I have heard positive vision: "If you tell your coworker about Christ, maybe he will come to know God!" I have heard negative vision: "If we don't tell people about Christ then we are condemning them to hell by our inaction." And I have heard it used in positive encouragement: "Isn't it great that you got up the courage to tell your Dad about Christ? If you hadn't done that, he might never have come to know God!"

Very rarely I have heard it used in admonition: "By you refusing to share the gospel, people in your family might never come to know God!"

So here's my concern. This viewpoint has periodically reduced me to a nervous wreck, constantly feeling like every person I pass on the street might die and go to hell if I don't stop them and immediately do everything in my power to convince them of Christ's reality. I am generally told to chill out when I get this way.

The way this is usually put is that our actions are necessary but not sufficient. God still has to convict them and they still have to decide to accept Christ, but without our action as believers they will surely/most likely be damned.

I get that not all denominations believe this so I would like scriptural backing from either someone who does or someone who is conversant with this viewpoint. Comments about how this is not true are not helpful to me at this time.


texts: Did Jesus' disciples celebrate His birthday?

texts:
Celebration of birthdays of some prominent persons was very much in vogue  at the time of Jesus, as we see at Mt 14:6.

Now that Christmas has come to be one of the greatest feasts of Christianity, one wonders whether Jesus' birthday was celebrated even as He walked the earth. My question is: Do the apocryphal teachings of Catholic Church tell of of any occasion on which the birthday of Jesus was celebrated by the disciples ?


texts: Why do folks clasp their hands and bow their heads when praying?

texts: Is there a reason, other than humility, that we are taught to pray with bowed heads and clasped hands? Other religions, such as Judaism and Muslim – even with the variety of Pagan pantheons – raise their hands and lift their faces Heavenward.  Is it that most find doing so ‘odd’ or ‘strange’ – or is there more to it than just an outward appearance?


texts:
Lately, the Christian Post uploaded several articles on the late beloved Pastor Chuck Smith. The reception was ambivalent. Some people said he was chosen by God to lead them, while others claimed he was on the other side of that spectrum. It is clear that he intended to live a Christian life and affected many people's lives positively.

Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why?
What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive?
Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony?
How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives?
Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?


texts: What do Christians against state recognition of same-sex marriage think of the fourteenth amendment in US law?

texts:
From what I understand, the fourteenth amendment in American law is interpreted by the SCOTUS to be implying that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

To me, this means, from the perspective of Christians who are against states allowing same-sex marriage, one of two things is true:

the fourteenth amendment is an immoral law
the fourteenth amendment is a moral law interpreted incorrectly

Is this right?

If so, is there a general consensus among Christians against states allowing same-sex marriage between which of the two is right? If there is, which? If there is none, you can go ahead and close this question.

If not, why?

To be clear, I assume that one cannot believe in the following things simultaneously:

being against states allowing same-sex marriage
agreeing with the fourteenth amendment
agreeing with the SCOTUS' interpretation of the fourteenth amendment


texts: Does the Catholic Church permit one to choose two godparents of the same gender?

texts: Can the Catholic Church make an exception that would allow for a mother and father to sponsor two godparents whom are both of the same gender?


texts: Is life imprisonment in accord with Catholic social doctrine?

texts:
I recall hearing an old religious sister talking on Relevant Radio a few years ago about her experience in Mexican prison ministry.  She said that life imprisonment is just as bad as the death penalty and that's why they don't have it in Mexico*.

Is there any Catholic Church document, application to the natural law or other teaching regarding a just length of sentencing?

*I have no knowledge of Mexican law, so I don't know if this is true or not today


texts:
According to Revelation 5:11, there are many:

  11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering
  thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They
  encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
  12 In a
  loud voice they were saying:

  “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
      to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
      and honor and glory and praise!”

Are there any doctrines that document/describ how many angels God would have?
Are they more than us?
If they are these many, why are there that many? Does it have to be in proportion to God's creations? Is it because of division of labour?


texts: Why did God the Father choose suffering for Christ and not the lucrative reigning power of an emperor of this world?

texts:
My witness to suffering can be elaborated by the following poem written by me. I am attaching this poem because I believe this poem a witness to my long journey with my cross assures me that I am following Christ's wishes but leaves a question unanswered. I have asked that small question at the end of the poem. I hope somebody here can answer that and help me understand God the Father well from a Catholic perspective.

  Adoration at Golgotha

  By mvr950

  Adoration began.

  Adoree before the adored.

  Before the exposed monstrance.

  People cry out to Heaven.

  For a drop of Holy Water.

  The night deludes them.

  To take the route to Satan’s

  quiver and crescendo.

  I deny myself to take that path.

  I reject to take that false pathos.

  Because I have the cross of Christ

  living within me.

  I have taken up a fraction of an

  infinitesimally small fraction

  of His suffering.

  He has given me tiniest but

  impossible to carry a cross.

  I prostrate before Him.

  Genuflect before Him.

  Kneel down on the pew

  so a crowbar cannot lift me up.

  I lay before Him.

  I kiss His bloody feet at Golgotha

  as I am crucified along with Him.

  The rebuke, the mockery, the rebuttal,

  the screams, the cries, the smirks

  all are pointed at Him and me.

  I gave up my last drop of dignity

  only for Christ.

  Only for God the son.

  Only for the son of man.

  In Him, I live.

  He requested me to carry the cross.

  And I give my all

  only for Him.

  I know, in Him I will find

  the truth, life, and the light.

  I believe God will separate

  the harvest from the chaffs.

  Cause He is the Just God.

  Our lust for power

  will find the last meaning

  at the end of the epitaph

  engraved on the tombstone.

  Our sins of the flesh

  will be crushed by the holy stature of God.

  And we will hear those sweet condescending words

  This is the Domus Dei Omnipotentis. Come and join us.

Now God chose Christ to die on the cross. And give suffering meaning. Now my question is Can't God the Father choose Christ to come in reigning power as an emperor of the world to become a savior? Why did God the Father choose suffering for Christ instead?

It must be God the Father. Because Jesus at Gethsemani said, "Abba, Father if it were possible, take this chalice away from me. But not what I will what thou wilt." And on the Cross Jesus said, "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani". "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"


texts: Why didn't Syriac Christianity keep Aramaic as their liturgical language?

texts:
Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Orthodox Christians? , The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same).

But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language?

Is it because:

Arabic became the lingua franca and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic.

If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language?
Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to "localized" their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity?

Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points.
Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons?

I hope I lay out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge. Thank you!


texts: What happens when a Protestant doesn't tithe?

texts:
I heard in another question that some Protestants have to tithe. That is, they must give one-tenth of their salary, or more broadly, a specific amount or percentage. That seems a bit strange to me, since I've never had to tithe. I'm not saying it's a bad practice (after all, there was a time at which God ordained it). I just don't really have any proper conception of how it works among Protestants.

Are tithing Protestants supposed to submit proof of their salary? What happens if they don't meet the mark? Are they said to sin, and if so, how serious is the sin? Are they barred from entering their parish? Does the pastor frown at them or is some other form of social pressure applied? Are they asked to come in for a meeting to explain their financial circumstances? How does it work?


texts:
Legitimate, not in the fact that He died, but in how specifically his blood was shed. It is said that Jesus' death was the final fulfillment of the old testament requirements. If this is true, then shouldn't the blood of Jesus, along with water, be sprinkled onto the ark of the covenant?

If Jesus' blood was not sprinkled onto the ark, how did it fulfill the very specific sacrificial requirement of God?

  Leviticus 16:15  (NKJV)

  15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the
  people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did
  with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and
  before the mercy seat.


texts: Was Elohim the Saviour and Redeemer of his world?

texts:
According to Mormon doctrine, God the Father (Elohim), once lived a mortal life.

  “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”  ( The
  Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

Years ago I remember being told that God the Father did not live simply as another man, but that he was in fact the Saviour and Redeemer of his world, much as Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of ours. He lived a sinless life, like Christ, and suffered for the sins of all his brothers and sisters.

I confess that I've never bothered to look into the sources behind this claim, but now I'm wondering, who said this? Which church leader is credited with revealing this?

I'm not necessarily asking for a canonical LDS source, I just want to know where this claim comes from, be it Journal of Discourses, a letter, hear-say, or wherever.


texts: Why was the Baptist Confession of Faith changed in 1986?

texts: For hundreds of years, generations of believers held to the historic belief that Rome/Popes were Antichrist/The Antichrist, what led to the dismissal of this traditional interpretation of Scripture in 1986, and who was behind it?


texts: Virgin birth in other religions and relevance to Christianity

texts:
Like flood legends, legends of heroes of virgin birth and/or virginal conception are not uncommon in faiths across the world.  For example, the Bhagavata Purana tells that Krishna was conceived without sex.  There are many others.

When I was coming up in sunday school and reading Christian literature as a young adult, I remember that the virginal conception was taught to be a pretty special thing about Jesus.  I don't believe I ever heard that this concept was found in other faiths.  It was as if the very uniqueness and absurdity of this claim was enough to show it was true and proved Jesus was divine.

With the flood stories or other ideas which are found in other faiths, the other faiths' stories are often seen as corroborating the biblical account.  This could make sense because those stories could be seen as coming after the biblical event or concept.  But since most of the stories of sexless conception pre-date Christ (though of course not all), they are somewhat different.

Is there anything a Christian might take away from the fact virgin births are found in other beliefs?  Perhaps some kind of global prophecy?  Or is it no more relevant than the fact faith healing and resurrection are also found in other faiths?

(also, didn't find very good tags for this, help if you can)


texts: What level of assent does the 2018 teaching on capital punishment require of Catholics?

texts:
On August 2nd, 2018, Pope Francis made a change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding capital punishment.

In Catholicism there are various levels of Magisterial teaching, a concept which derives from the document Donum Veritatis.  Each level of Magisterial teaching requires a different level of assent from the Catholic faithful (cf. Wikipedia on levels of teaching and assent).  Two well-recognized levels of assent are the assent of faith, and religious assent.

There is a primary and a secondary question which are closely related:

What level of assent does this new teaching on capital punishment require of Catholics?
To what level of Magisterial teaching does this new teaching belong?


texts: Does the Pope have the authority to baptize aliens (martians)?

texts:
Does the Pope have the moral authority to baptize Martians? Or any power from the bible?

This is the article:

  Pope Francis says he would baptise aliens: 'Who are we to close doors?'
      Pontiff made the out-of-this-world pledge during homily on acceptance

  Adam Withnall @adamwithnall Tuesday 13 May 2014 08:47 BST
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-says-he-would-baptise-aliens-9360632.html


texts: Can a Catholic priest take Anglican services?

texts:
I was having a discussion with someone and I said that if a Catholic priest took a Protestant service, it would not be bona fide Protestant service. They replied that Catholic priests can become Anglican members.

Which makes me wonder if I was wrong: can a Catholic priest lead Anglican services; and which services (if any) would not be bona fide Protestant when performed by a Catholic priest?

Please do answer based on whichever Anglican church would say the service really was Protestant.


texts: How does mainstream Christianity's perception of Heaven differ from the Mormon perception of the Terrestrial Kingdom?

texts:
Unless I am mistaken, it seems to me that the Mormon definition of the Terrestrial Kingdom (the second highest kingdom of glory) is essentially identical to mainstream Christianity's definition of Heaven:

It's a paradise
You can see Jesus there (just Jesus, he's the only God there)
You get to see all your deceased loved ones
You can't become a god

Mormons believe that the Terrestrial Kingdom is where Christians who do not accept the fullness of the Gospel (modern prophets, the Book of Mormon) will go after judgement:

  75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded
  by the craftiness of men.

  76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. (D&C 76:75, 76)

If this is true, then that basically means that Mormons believe all the other Christians are going exactly where they believe they are going. And Mormons simply believe in a higher heaven where you can be exalted and become a god, and that not being admitted into this higher heaven would be a type of Hell to them.

Identities of deities and other doctrines aside, after judgement, how does existence in Heaven according to mainstream Christianity, differ from the glory of the Terrestrial Kingdom?


texts: Looking for the source of a Cardinal Ratziger quote regarding the liturgy

texts:
Several years ago, I remember reading the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger in which the Cardinal stated (in essence) that he desired that those who use the Tradentine form of the Mass would use the Liturgical Calendar of 1969 as a sign of unity in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Of course some special provisions would have to be set in place because of the differences between the two forms of the Mass.

Does anyone know where I can find the source of this quote? I believe it was in a book(?) from the late 1990s or early 2000s and thus was prior to Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict XVI.


texts:
Ancient Judaism is religious society. Religious society, unlike secular society, has a feature. What's prohibited by their religions are also prohibited by laws.

A lot like Muslim society right now.

So religious laws tend to be the law of the land. Now we have crimes that's not sin, like money laundering or gambling online. We also have sins that's not a crime, like fornication, and porn.

What about in Ancient Jews? Do crimes and sins always coincide?

The reason why this question is relevant to christianity is because
questions like is it a sin can be changed into is it a crime?

Of course, in practice there are tons of nuance. Things like smoking ganja in some states in US. Is it legal? There is no clear answer. The same way is something legal in ancient israel may vary from kings to kings and enforceable differently


texts: Are there any Bible that comes with explanations of each verses?

texts: I'm looking for a NLT Bible which would have explanations of each verse? I would like to do a deeper study and don't want to end up misinterpreting some of those verses. Thanks.


texts: How to answer: "If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?"

texts: Some people think that God cannot exist because he would be paradoxical, for example "If God is omnipotent, can he create an object he cannot move?" How should this question be answered? Thanks.


texts: Why did the Apologists adopt Stoic Philosophy of the λόγος?

texts:
The Greek word λόγος is a prevalent concept in the first century Greco-Roman world. It has many meanings like divine principle, reason, word and revelation. All of these views regards the λόγος as impersonal but Christians went beyond this age-old tradition and reinterpret the λόγος from personification to a real person subsisting.

God has reason, mind, will and emotion( Psalm 45:1 LXX).Hence, God is a person.The nature of God is eternal ( Romans 1:20).Ergo, God is an eternal person.

John the Apostle wrote that the λόγος is God by nature and hence, teaching us that the λόγος is a person because God's nature includes personality.

John 1:1 is clear that the λόγος is with God and is also God.The immediate context reveals how is the λόγος God by nature and this is by being the μονογενὴς of the Father (John 1:14,18).

God = Person ( the Father- John 1:14)

λόγος =Person because God by nature ( the μονογενὴς in the Father's bosom - John 1:18)

But in the second century, the Logos Theology of the Greek and Latin Apologists began teaching that the λόγος is not an eternal person like what was taught in John 1:1 but rather, they adopted the Stoic terms of "logos endiathetos" ( Reason within) and "logos prophorikos" ( Reason expressed from the inside out) in order to teach that God is not an eternal Father and that the λόγος is not an eternal Son although they still teach that the Son is God and is of same nature with the Father.

Sources:

Against Praxeas Chapter 7

Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 61

Now this is my question:

Why did the second century Apologists adopt the Stoic distinction of the "logos endiathetos" and the "logos prophorikos" to teach Christ's deity?


texts: Does the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia still exist?

texts: I have searched many sites to find evidence of the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia. But I have failed to find any evidence of the real body, only statues of the saint. Can anyone help to find out real photo of the saint's incorrupted body?


texts: How are Lutheran weekday “prayer services” different from “matins” or “vespers”?

texts:
From Wikipedia, matins:

  Lutherans preserve recognizably traditional matins distinct from
  morning prayer, but "matins" is sometimes used in other Protestant
  denominations to describe any morning service.

Assuming that the claim is true, what makes "morning prayer service" in the Lutheran church distinctly different from the matins? Perhaps, the matins has a particular structured order and is a specific form of the "morning prayer service"?


texts: Is the idea that God can erase His memory a common understanding?

texts:
While I was listening to the local Christian radio station on the way home, Jon Courson touched on Hebrews 8:12:

  For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no
  more. (NIV)

Courson said, "Man cannot do this. We have the capacity to forgive, but not to forget.  Only God can actually erase His own memory, and truly not remember your sins."

Now I'm a Biblical literalist, but this makes no sense to me. Even Biblical literalists believe that the authors of Scripture used figures of speech, such as hyperbole, and I'd always assumed that this was one such example.  To take this literally makes no sense to me alongside the doctrine of God's omniscience.

CARM agrees with my view, too.  So does every preacher I've heard up until today. They all teach that it means He will not hold our forgiven sins against us. His judgement will be as if He doesn't remember them.

But if a nationally syndicated preacher can make this claim, it leaves me to wonder if his take on this is common.

My question isn't whether or not this is hyperbole or if God can really wipe His own memories.

What I'm interested in knowing is whether or not this is a common view/teaching, or supported by established traditions or denominations.


texts: According the infallibility of scripture, do ancient near east laws (ANE laws) really explain the derivation of the laws of Moses?

texts:
In the last 100 years, archaeology has discovered many ancient bodies of law including Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian and Canaanite ancient laws. This has caused a lot of significant hoopla among interpreters of the first five books of the Bible. For example Hammurabi's Code has been often referred to in modern attempts at exegesis of the Torah. You could say this is one of the ‘modern’ discoveries of our time. Not quite as significant as the ‘dead sea scrolls’ but significant enough to stir various biblical scholars.

One reason for the stir is that it has dismissed earlier false biblical criticisms that the laws of Moses could have never been written at the time they were allegedly written, as nobody had advanced laws at that time. This seems based on a natural non-faith based derivation of scripture but that was the argument.  However as these poor ideas of ‘modern biblical knowledge’ are washed aside, a new theory is taking its place, namely the laws of Moses are basically a collection of some of the best laws at the time. Fully natural to understand them now.

The question I ask is, does this really explain how the laws of Moses came into being?

Note: I am asking for an answer based on a belief in the infallibility of scripture.


texts: What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister?

texts:
What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister (same father different mothers)?

She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife. - Gen 20:12

I tried googling it and I found this link which had the following diagram:

But that doesn't work as sister, because she's Terach's grandaughter. Abraham's niece.


texts: Why is the Vatican against "The Son of God" movie?

texts:
I didn't watch that movie, I watched a Catholic Maronite priest saying that the Vatican issued a warning about the movie saying that it's not about the true message of Christianity.

The priest added that the movie is more about how the Jews and the Freemasons think of the Christ. Therefore it is delivering a false message about Christianity and the Bible and the theology. The priest advised against watching the movie.

Why would the Vatican be against the movie? What messages does the movie have that would concern the Vatican?


texts: What particular action that is in excess to God's Permissive Will did Satan commit in the Garden of Eden?

texts:
Reading God's judgement on Adam & Eve and Satan would allow us to see and understand that Satan had done something in excess that merited not just a punishment but a "curse".
We can see from the Book of Job, God sets the limits on what Satan was allowed to do.
Job 1:8-12 New International Version (NIV)

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

We can see from Book of Job, God sets limits to what Satan can do, otherwise as St.Augustine said if God had given Satan a freehand no man shall be alive.
So, back in the Garden of Eden, surely Satan under God's permissive Will had given access to tempt Adam & Eve but the judgment of God implied not just a punishment but a curse towward Satan action, which basing on the Book of Job should not be the case as Satan is clearly instructed on the limits.
God's judgment or the "cursed punishment" goes like this;

So the LORD God said to the serpent: “BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, Cursed are you above all livestock, and every beast of the field! On your belly will you go, and dust you will eat, all the days of your life. (Genesis3:14)

My question is, what is the meaning or the so called overly done action does the serpent had committed for God to said the words "BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS"?
My impression is, if Satan just followed the limits of whatever God's instructions had given to him in tempting Adam & Eve, satan would have not merited a "curse".
I'm looking for a Catholic perspective although a biblical explanations from Christian faith would also be helpful.


texts: Why does Vatican require "Yahweh" not to be used?

texts:
This news article by Catholic News Service tells of the removal of the Tetragrammaton from Catholic masses.

  "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.

This might be related to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (God's name, possibly pronounced like Yahweh or Yehovah). Which I think is based on an overtly careful application of the commandment not to pronounce God's name in vain.

What is the reasoning for this directive? Is it just to follow the Jewish example?

What does this mean for the New Jerusalem Bible, a widely used Catholic translation that consistently translates the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh"?


texts: Is the Prophet Jonah the same Jonah as in 2 Kings 14:23-25?

texts:
If this is true, then Jonah prophesied that which did not come to pass, good favor from the Lord to Jeroboam.

Then Amos 6:13-14 reverses this word of favor upon the evil king.

So does this give us some insight to Jonah's character or is this another Jonah?


texts:
John 10:22–24 (NIV) says:

  22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
  23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.
  24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will
  you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Does the "Festival of Dedication" refer to Hanukkah?  If so, does this mean that Jesus was present at the temple to celebrate Hanukkah?


texts: Understanding of "clean" and "unclean" animals before dietary laws

texts:
In Genesis 7:2 we read

  Of every clean beast thou shall take...

Up until this point God never revealed the basis for His distinction between clean and unclean animals.

Does it mean the understanding of clean and unclean animals is common / written in our hearts?


texts: Was the wine in The Last Supper fermented?

texts:
I was reading "Does wine really mean wine in the Bible?" and I thought, The Last Supper was during the Passover, where the jewish was forbidden to use ferment in recipes:

  Exodus 12:15 KJV
  Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the
  first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever
  eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that
  soul shall be cut off from Israel.

This implies that the wine used in the The Last Supper was just grape juice, right?


texts: What liturgical languages were used in the worldwide church/broad christiandom around 500 AD?

texts:
I understand that the western church used Latin, the eastern church used Greek, and the far eastern church was using Syriac.

Was it only those three languages? Or were other languages in use as well in other parts of the church? Eg today the Ethiopian churches have Ge'ez as their liturgical language, and the slavic churches at some point adopted Church Slavonic as their liturgical language.

What did the landscape look like in terms of liturgical languages in use from 400 to 500 AD?


texts: Does God, according to Catholic theology, precondition His help on other people's prayers and if so, why?

texts:
We are told by the Church many times the importance of prayers for others. It would seem that we can help other people by praying for them, or, to be more precise, we can plead God's grace for those who we pray for.

Let us reverse this statement. Then it would seem that if we don't pray for others, then God will deny them His grace He would give them if we were praying for them.

This seems to be almost explicitly stated in Fatima apparitions:

  Pray much and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to make sacrifices for them.

Does this mean that God preconditions His aid for sinners on other people's prayers? If so, why? How to reconcile such a statement with God's infinite love, according to which He should do whatever is possible and whatever will not violate a man's freedom to save them from eternal damnation and bring them to Heaven? Since the fact that no one prays for a man is hardly their guilt, how to reconcile such a statement with God's fairness, according to which he probably shouldn't precondition His actions towards a person on anything other than that person's will, and especially not if eternal salvation is at stake?


texts: Are there any Christian denominations that believe in sex and marriage in the afterlife?

texts:
After an interesting set of articles put forward in  the chatroom,  I'm curious to know if any christian denominations have said a marriage can continue in heaven, and if the conjugal act continues in heaven.

PS. I find the topic interesting but I am one of the Christians that believe marriage and sexual feelings vanish after death.


texts: Why did Jesus say the Son of Man was Lord over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man?

texts:
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (NIV Mark 2:27-28)

There seems to be a connection with the Sabbath being made for 'any man' and from this proposition, 'the Son of Man' , that is the second Adam, has all the more right to change the Sabbath, or at least at a minimum use it as it was intended to the first Adam, if he so chooses.

I sense an argument here but can't immediately find the words for it.  Has anyone heard of a good explanation? I looked up a couple commentaries but nothing seemed to be that good at all.


texts: What is the connection between Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Lent, etc?

texts:
Coming from a Protestant tradition, I grew up hearing about Lent but never having any practice associated with it.  In the years since, I've gathered that there's some sort of connection between Easter, Lent, Ash Wednesday, and Fat Tuesday.

Would someone please explain how it all fits together?


texts: What does Matthew mean by "if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out", etc.?

texts:
What does this verse tell us? It's quite hard to understand.

Matthew 18:9:

  “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It
  is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be
  thrown into the hell of fire.”


texts: Would Jewish religious leaders have travelled by horse or camel i.e. Saul?

texts: Questions have been raised as to how Saul travelled to Damascus. Would he or any of the Jewish religious authorities have travelled by beasts, especially by camels?


texts: What is the Word of Faith teaching on "little gods"

texts:
Rather than assuming Wikipedia is accurate, I thought I'd as for a better sourced answer to the question.  Wikipedia's article on the Word of Faith movement lists various controversies regarding Word of Faith teachings.  Among them is the "Little gods controversy"

  Many Word of Faith teachers have sought to emphasize the full meaning
  of the believer's status as a child of God (through Christ) by using
  phrases such as "little gods" to describe them, a practice that has
  garnered some criticism from some other segments of the Christian
  community.

And later on...

  Suffer the Children, a documentary highlighting some of the teachings
  of the Word of Faith movement, has a video clip of Creflo Dollar
  teaching the "little gods" doctrine to his congregation based on the
  notion that "everything reproduces after its own kind":[34]

  Dollar: "If horses get together, they produce what?"
  Congregation: "Horses!"
  Dollar: "If dogs get together, they produce what?"
  Congregation: "Dogs!"
  Dollar: "If cats get together, they produce what?"
  Congregation: "Cats!"
  Dollar: "So if the Godhead says 'Let us make man in our image', and everything produces after its own kind, then they produce what?"
  Congregation: "gods!"
  Dollar: "gods. Little "g" gods. You're not human. Only human part of you is this flesh you're wearing."

So what is the teaching? Do they teach that people are truly divine?  (Compared to, for example, the mainstream or the LDS definition of divinity)

I want to be very clear that I'm not interested in hearing criticisms and comparisons from the other segments of the Christian community.  I'm not interested in whether the "little gods" teaching is true.  I'm operating under the assumption that what the Word of faith movement teaching is simply misunderstood by the other segments of Christianity.  I'm just wondering what the actual teaching is, not whether it's true or heretical.

That said, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to explain why the Word of Faith adherents believe this to be true.  (In other words, inclusion of apologetic reasoning explaining the merit behind the teaching is allowed.)


texts: Is there an official Christian statement for or against the use of AD & BC vs CE & BCE when it comes to the identification of the time before and after the birth of Christ? What is the preferred Christian method of indicating dates?


texts: What happened to the wives of priests when celibacy was first instituted in the Catholic church?

texts: Since priests were not originally expected to be celibate, many must have been married when celibacy was first introduced. So what happened to the wives during this time when the institution started?


texts:
Do any of the Mormon doctrines that cannot be found in the Bible come from the Book of Mormon?  This is sort of a followup question to What important Mormon doctrines are taught in the book of Mormon that we couldn't find in the Bible already?  The answers there were along the lines of "the book of Mormon clarifies things the Bible talks about, like baptism, the fall, etc."  What I'm looking for here is not clarifications or particular interpretations that Book of Mormon might put on things that are in the Bible, but rather doctrines Mormons believe in that have no Biblical basis: Do any of them come from the Book of Mormon or do all of them come from other sources like the Pearl of a Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants? I don't have an exhaustive list, or even partial list of the doctrines I'm asking about. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is one that I've been told Mormons don't believe anymore (i.e. that God was once a man on another planet who became God by obeying his God). Since I don't know what doctrines I'm asking about (mostly because I don't know which ones Mormons still believe in and which they don't), the examples will all have to be supplied in the answers if there are any examples.

Addendum: Ok, one example might be the doctrine about "Kolob" which was asked about in Does the New Testament have any mention of Kolob and if not, how come?  Does Kolob come from the Book of Mormon, or some other Mormon source?


texts: The term christomonism has sometimes been leveled against Karl Barth, John MacArthur, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  But there doesn't seem to be a canonical definition; most mentions of the term are followed immediately by an attempt by the author to explain it.  What is "christomonism" and how is it meant as a criticism?


texts: Why did Christ need to be the first person to be resurrected?

texts:
Christ is the firstfruits; he was the first person to be resurrected. Why did he need to be the first? Why couldn't anybody else be resurrected until after Christ was first resurrected?

We are taught that Christ loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. What are the pains of death?

When we were born, some power enabled our spirits to enter our bodies. We also know that some people have been brought back to life; some power enabled their spirits to re-enter their bodies after having left. So what then are the bands of death, if not a power that keeps our spirits out of our bodies? Yet the power to put our spirits into our bodies already exists.

So what then did Christ's resurrection enable? What did it overcome? Why couldn't anybody be resurrected until after Christ was?


texts: Does the concept of Gentile exist in Christianity?

texts: Judaism and Bani Israel have concept of Gentile to represent the pagans and Idolaters with a corpus of rules dealing with them, So does Christianity inherit this concept? If yes where ? and Are Jews considered to Be gentiles by Christians as its known that Jews consider the Christians to be Gentiles and Avodah Zarah?


texts: How do literalists envision the size of New Jerusalem?

texts:
A general social census that has been taking place in America since 1984 indicates that ~40% of American Christians favor a literal interpretation of Scripture.  This literal view is defined as:

"the interpretation of Scripture as literal, with the exception of
sections of text that are clearly intended to be allegorical, poetic,
or figurative." - CompellingTruth.org

And, in the "tags" function of this Stack literalism is defined as:

A hermeneutical approach in which the Bible is understood as accurate historical narrative throughout, with the exception of parts clearly stated not to be so.

A study conducted at Baylor University, published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and reported on in Forbes magazine makes the following statement:

People who look at religion tend to associate literalism with evangelicals,” says Kent. “What we found is that if we break out each of these religious groups – Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics – we found that you have literalists in each of these categories. There's more of a relationship between literalism and close personal attachment to God than there is to denomination.

I am unsure if the findings of these (or similar) studies remain true when the net is cast wider than America but the question that follows is directed towards those, of whatever denomination, who hold that, unless there is clear reason presented in the text, Scriptural passages must be taken literally.  Consider the following passages:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. - Revelation 21:1-2

And the one who spoke with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal. - Revelation 21:15-16

The website sizes.com has this definition for the length of a "stadion":

Various ancient Greek units of length, in concept the standard length of the furrow made in plowing with a team of oxen, = 600 podos, the size varying with the size of the pous.

The website goes on to offer a range of lengths (based on the size of the ancient pous) from 177.4 - 199.8 meters.  If we take the smallest number and extrapolate we end up with a city which is 2,128,800 meters (2128 km) in all three dimensions.
This city, if literal, will cover an area of slightly over 4.5 million sq km and contain a volume of 9.6 billion cubic meters.  This city would be a million sq km larger than India, more than half the size of the continental United States, and half the size of the entire Middle East.
If the New Jerusalem comes down centered on the location of the current Jerusalem it's borders will roughly be:

to the North - the southern coast of the Black Sea
to the south - the Egypt/Sudan border
to the east - the Tigris River
to the west - the Egypt/Libya border up through the Mediterranean sea to the Greece/Bulgaria border just west of Kavala

In the third dimension, the height of the city will be 2, 128 km as well.  This puts the top of the city well outside of the outer limits of the inner atmosphere (600 km) and into near space.  The top of the city will reside just about at the delineation between low-earth and medium-earth orbits.
Do biblical literalists really understand the dimensions of this city literally and, if they take them in a non-literal fashion, what makes them "clearly stated not to be so"?


texts: Can a non-Catholic be Canonized by the Catholic Church?

texts:
While listening to Peter Kreeft talking about Thomistic personalism [PDF], he joked that C.S. Lewis isn't "canonized on earth yet." I know it's a joke, but it seems it would only be funny if it is possible he may one day be canonized, though he was Anglican.

Can a non-Catholic be canonized by the Catholic Church? If so, have they ever done so?

Possibly related: What does the Catholic Church teach about the fate of non-Catholic Christians?