texts: When was papal supremacy accepted by the entirety of the Catholic Church?

texts:
The Catholic Church has an unbroken list of Popes from Peter through Francis I. Was there a time when all, or at least the vast majority of, Christianity recognized them as the supreme authority over all Christianity?

A book I'm reading (Thomas Bokenkotter. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004) said that the church at the Council of Nicaea "knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy." Is this accurate? Where might I find a source to back this up?

Bearing that in mind, I'm looking for something after 325. Wikipedia suggests my answer may lie in the fifth century. I’d like to find a historical answer if at all possible, from a neutral source, but if that isn’t possible, I’d prefer to find a Catholic opinion on the matter.


texts: Must a Christian accept the Bible to be infallible and/or inerrant?

texts:
Related question: What is the difference between "infallible" and "inerrant"?

I have heard lists of requirements to be considered Christian; among those, I find these the most prevalent:

Belief in the Trinity- very common
Belief in the Apostolic Creed- pretty universal
Belief in the infallibility/inerrancy of the Bible

Does this third point belong as an essential condition to be considered Christian?

Note:

In order to fit the format of this site, I expect answers to be well-defended and present both sides, articulating the points that make the most sense to a Christian point of view. I will pick the one that I find the most defensible, regardless of my personal opinion.

For example, if major religions denounce the view that the Bible may be imperfect as heresy, then this would be a very important note to make. I mostly grew up in a single Church, so I don't know the finer points of many other religions, only broad generalizations.


texts: What are the Biblical and theological problems with theistic evolution?

texts:
Theistic evolution holds that God used evolution to create mankind.  It seems to follow then that this view must also hold the creation account in Genesis to be unhistorical.  So, Adam and Eve may have been people, but were perhaps the first humans whose parents were pre-human.

According to those who reject it, what are the Biblical and theological problem with theistic evolution?


texts:
David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan
  said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not
  die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the
  Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his
  house.

I've been trying to wrap my head around this part of scripture for a while now. How can a just God kill an innocent child for the sins of David? Most of the explanations I've been getting online have been incredibly unsatisfying, ranging from "It was an act of mercy for the child to die, he would have had a terrible life!" to "It's OK for God to punish innocents for the sins of the guilty." All of these feel inadequate.

To me, the one thing that sticks out to me is that Nathan says that God "[P]ut away David's sin", which seems to contradict the child's death being a punishment for sin.  Is there an actual satisfying answer to this problem?


texts: What are the relationships between 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Tanakh' etc?

texts:
What are the relationships between the terms 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Greek Bible', 'King's Bible', 'Torah', 'Tanakh', 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'?

Wikipedia seem to have separate articles for each of them and the discussion is pretty convoluted.

Which of these are parts of other ones?

The term 'Bible' seems to mean different things to different people.

Is the Bible a Christian or Jewish scripture?

I would appreciate an overview of how these terms are related.


texts: Is the 'Ho' in Hosanna! connected in any way to the 'ho' in Jehovah?

texts:
While studying Jesus' name and the prophecies fulfilled or reiterated by Gabriel when he addressed Mary to announce the expectant birth, I was led to praise, and the Bible word, "Hosanna" came to mind.

Having seen in my study of 'Yeshua' and 'Yehoshua' that 'ho' is the common abbreviation that was used for God's holy name, I wondered if there was any connection.  I haven't found any direct connection, but perhaps I have missed something, or perhaps the only connection is in the transliteration of these names and words from Hebrew and Greek into English.  Is there any reason to believe a connection exists?


texts: Did Jesus mean that heaven and earth would actually pass away in Matthew 24:25?

texts:
In Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Jesus says:

  "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

How can heaven pass away, since it is the abode of God? (See, for example, 1 Kings 8:49; Psalm 123:1.)

Are there any other Scripture passages that can help to clarify this saying?


texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church consider belief in the existence of Jesus' soul before the incarnation a heresy?


texts: Is the New Covenant a unilateral or a bilateral covenant?

texts:
The Old Covenant was a bilateral covenant of which Yahveh and the nation of Israel were parties. The Israelites had to agree to the terms of the covenant, which they did (Exo. 24:7).

Is the New Covenant a bilateral covenant?


texts: What happens to non-believers or believers of other religions after death?

texts:
What happens (according to Christians) to people who specificially rejected the idea of God, the Bible and the christian teachings after they die?

Is there a difference to people who believed in another deity, maybe even several deities?

We have seen questions what happens to people who have never heard about Jesus, unborn babies and children. I did not see that question before, so I asked right away. Additionally I don't ask if we can go to heaven, but simply what happens after our life has ended.


texts: Why did Joseph only present five brothers?

texts:
After Joseph and his brothers were reunited, Joseph presents only five of his brothers to Pharaoh.

Genesis 47:1-2
New International Version (NIV)
47:1: Joseph went and told Pharaoh, “My father and brothers, with their flocks and herds and everything they own, have come from the land of Canaan and are now in Goshen.”
2: He chose five of his brothers and presented them before Pharaoh.

Why only five? Why not all?


texts: Which Christian churches have an entirely unpaid/lay clergy?

texts: Of those Churches what is their form of governance that allows them to run smoothly lacking fulltime ecclesiastical professionals? How does one ascend into a leadership role in the Church?


texts: According to Preterism is the land mentioned in Ezekiel 37:25 "Heaven"?

texts:
NIV Ezekiel 37:
24 My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have
one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my
decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the
land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their
children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will
be their prince forever.

And are the "laws" the Torah?


texts: What is the argument for papal succession?

texts:
First off, I do not mean for this question to sound as an attack on the Catholic Church. I would like to know the stance of the church regarding this.

I found this resource, which documents the succession of the Pope, but there appear to be some significant holes (258 AD, 304 AD, etc).

I guess some related questions are:

Who is St. Linus and why did He succeed St. Peter when St. John was still alive?
What is the basis for voting for a pope when the only documented evidence of choosing a successor is election by casting lots (Acts 1:26, see wikipedia)?
Why don't popes do the same thing as Peter (heal people, write epistles, etc)?
Why is there a pope if it isn't mentioned in the Bible (while apostles, pastors, etc. are)

As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church holds edicts and creeds to be of equal or similar weight as the Bible, and there are books in the Catholic canon that do not exist in most other churches' canon (considered to be part of Apocrypha).

Note:

I am not looking for a debate, and I do not mean for this question to be inflammatory. I only want to know the Catholic position and the basis for it.


texts: Jesus predicts that some will not die until he comes in his kingdom, but did this occur?

texts:
Matthew 16:28

  I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1

  And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27

  I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God

Obviously everyone that heard Jesus say this is no longer living, so it seems this prediction by Jesus did not take place. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the 'Kingdom of God' is. Or maybe Jesus is saying that salvation brings life, and physical death is not important. I think that is was the pervading belief among early Christians that they would live to see the second coming of Christ, as evidenced by some of the letters of Paul. How am I misinterpreting this?


texts: What is the meaning of peoples being divided up "according to the number of the gods" in Deuteronomy 32?

texts:
Deuteronomy 32:8–9 (NRSV), part of Moses' song, reads:

  When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

Can someone tell me what this means?  God is one of many gods and he got Israel?  God divided the earth among his angels?  Or is he talking about idolatry?


texts: Can I say Jesus' arrival was through conception of the Holy Spirit?

texts: I am writing an essay. I wrote an sentence like this, Jesus' arrival was prophesied and, moreover, was through the conception of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure whether it makes sense doctrinal sense according to Protestantism to say Jesus' arrival was through conception. Could anyone tell me?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the idea of accepting one's "station" in life?

texts:
Often people say that they have a job, friend, or other "station" in life for a "reason" (including health, wealth, etc.). They feel that it is their obligation to stick it out in a job or personal situation that may be detrimental in some way especially when it is emotionally or mentally draining, but also even when it is a flat-out health risk.

The exact phrase, in regard to people, I have heard from two people that have never met each other but are both Christians is "when I meet someone I feel like they are supposed to be in my life [forever]".

Other mantras exist for work situations also, but none come to mind at this moment.

I recently asked a Christian leader about what his take was on the subject and I got back that we should stick with these things unless they cause us to stumble in our Christian way of life.

What is the Biblical basis for this thinking?

I would like to know if there is a difference in how we are supposed to handle different situations; job, people, other....

Side note

It seems to follow a general thought of sticking it out in tough situations God will eventually reward you for your hard work and diligence in putting up with (mostly) other peoples [caused] problems. This seems wrong because the entire Bible is about God's grace we don't earn or deserve what we get from God, so how would sticking it out in any situation that is the least bit bad be a good thing? Why not move on and take steps to better ourselves by getting away from situations that are the least bit detrimental, an extreme example in my mind would be that of not seeking treatment for a health problem.


texts: What are the dietary restrictions for Lent in Catholicism?

texts:
There are some things that I've been told since I was kid that I'd like to ask about regarding fasting. I'm a of Catholic Maronite Rite and I'd like Catholic answers.

Are we allowed to eat whatever we want on Sundays? I've been taught not to fast on Sundays, therefore we can eat whatever we want on Sundays all day long.
Are we allowed to drink? I've been told that we can drink water, only Muslims don't drink water while fasting. Some Christians do it, but it's optional.
Is Saturday or Sunday the last day of lent? I believe it's Sunday, meaning you cannot eat on Holy Saturday, my friend is a Catholic too and he believes that he can eat on Holy Saturday.
What about fish and egg? I don't eat meat in the first and last week. however, I eat fish and eggs. Is it allowed? I've been told so.


texts: Was Catholicism chosen by the Roman Empire because of synergies to Roman hierarchy?

texts: I was watching a documentary on the History Channel recently and they mentioned that when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, they chose Catholicism because of its similarities to the hierarchy of the Roman government of the time. I had never heard that before and am wondering if there is any documented evidence of this being the main reason in their decision.


texts: Can humans fall in love with each other in heaven?

texts:
How does falling in love work in heaven? Do we still fall in love?

Is it possible to fall in love with more than one person? Or are we set to love just one person or none at all? Are intimate relationship in allowed heaven at all? Is having sexual relationship allowed in heaven?  Or, is heaven just a sexless, harp-playing place?

In other words, what is the role of sex and love between humans in heaven, beyond the place of the love for God?


texts: How do I know when to cross myself during Mass (Novus Ordo)?

texts:
I've been going to Catholic (Latin Rite) Mass my whole life and am constantly surprised by the different times that people will cross themselves during the Liturgy.

I only do it when the Priest says the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit"  (and I try to hang on to Holy....Spirit for as long as it takes for him to finish the sentence (not sure if that's necessary).  And doing the three crosses before the Gospel is read (which wasn't certain is in the rubrics but asked about here and found it to be)

I've seen people cross themselves during the Penitential Rite, the Kyrie, and at other times during the Eucharistic Prayer. And crossing themselves at a Mass with the Bishop when he comes down the aisle blessing everyone (regardless of whether he has holy water).  Is that just how we catch his blessing? People also cross themselves after receiving communion, but as a Catechist, I was taught this is not right, so I'm not asking about that. see this question

I'll probably ask a follow up about crossing thyself during the Liturgy of the Hours, so no need to include that in the answer.


texts: Slavery in the classical ancient Christianity

texts:
Did Jesus recognize slavery and accepted it?
In other words, What was his opinion about slavery or slaves?
N.b.
Maybe we can understand it also according to the written evidence we have, based on what was the opinion of the classical ancient Christians when Christianity was more homogenous. Maybe some holy figures in the new testament who had slaves. I'm trying to outline the information we know about this issue.


texts: Why would Jesus Christ ascend, then descend again?

texts:
Millenialism, as such, postulates the return of Jesus Christ to this present earth to reign for a thousand, literal, years. The evidence for this is taken from the visionary mention in Revelation. This view has serious Gospel implications regarding an earthly reign and regarding the concept (held by some) of the re-instating of sacrifices on earth. The article to which I have linked, explains various historic forms of this doctrine.
Anti-Millenialism states that resurrected saints and saints remaining on earth, will be caught up from this present earth to Jesus Christ and there shall be new heavens and a new earth (once Judgment is effected). They say that the thousand years in Revelation is a symbolic figure and relates to the present rule of Christ over deceased saints in heaven and faithful saints on earth, in a reign of Spirit, not physical. Importantly, and importantly to my present question, they say that Jesus Christ shall never set foot, again, on this present earth.
There are implications to Jesus Christ returning to earth for a thousand years and re-instating an earthly reign : implications regarding the parables of Jesus, which express an immediacy and urgency regarding an everlasting Kingdom; and implications regarding the apostolic epistles which, again, express immediacy and urgency regarding a finality associated, immediately, with the return of Jesus Christ.
My question is, Why did Jesus Christ ascend, if only to descend again, thereafter, in order to establish an earthly kingdom ?
Why ascend at all ? Why not remain and reign on earth ?
What do those say who adhere to the Millenial system ?


texts: What is the meaning of the three letters in the halo of the Acheiropoieta?

texts:
In many renditions of the Acheiropoieta, three letters are present in the halo around Christ's face: omega, omicron, eta. (This is the usual clockwise, left-to-right order; but in other versions the same letters are present in the order omicron, omega, eta.) What is the meaning of these letters?
I heard in a tour of a Greek Orthodox church that the letters refer to God's revelation of his name in Exodus 3. However, the crucial words in the Septuagint - the historic Greek-language version of the Old Testament - are ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ("I am who I am"). None of these words includes the letter eta.
Is it that case that the three letters are actually omicron, omega, nu - which is to say that they spell out ὁ ὤν ("the one who is")?


texts: According to Catholicism, were animals created in the image of anything?

texts:
Humans are made in the image of God, but what about the animals?

What are the animals in the image of?

Is there any Roman Catholic doctrine on such a question?


texts: Does God punish babies and children who die in sin?

texts: I've always wondered this. Before they even have a chance to think for themselves, and they die in sin, does God send them to Hell?


texts:
Bishops of all Catholic dioceses in Germany currently ban the public celebration of mass because of the Corona outbreak. In some European countries the general public is largely confined to their homes and houses.

In this situation our vicar general issued a note (March 16., 17:00) declaring:

  In the current situation, it is the Church's mandate to bring people's concerns before God and to continue to be close to them spiritually. Can 906 CIC (Codex luris Canonici / Code of Canon Law) only requires the existence of a just and reasonable reason for the private celebration of the Eucharist of a priest, i.e. without the participation of any believer. Such a reason is given in the current exceptional situation, so that the priests can continue to celebrate the Holy Mass on behalf of the faithful, i.e. without the participation of believers and altar servers.

  [In der derzeitigen Situation ist es Auftrag der Kirche, die Sorgen der Menschen vor Gott zu bringen und ihnen auch weiterhin geistlich nahe zu sein. Can 906 CIC (Codex luris Canonici/Gesetzbuch des Kirchenrechts) verlangt für die private Feier der Eucharistie eines Geistlichen, also ohne die Teilnahme irgendeines Gläubigen, lediglich das Vorliegen eines gerechten und vernünftigen Grundes. Ein solcher Grund ist in der derzeitigen Ausnahmelage zweifelsfrei gegeben, so dass die Priester weiterhin stellvertretend für die Gläubigen die heilige Messe, das heißt ohne Beteiligung von Gläubigen und Ministranten feiern können.]

The quoted canon reads:

  Can. 906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful.

My question is: What benefits for the Church or the faithful arise from the celebration of mass without congregation? What other reason compels priests to say mass without congregation?

For this question I am not interested in benefits for the priest (who takes part in the liturgy, receives the Eucharist and so on) and I am not interested in reasons that could also be satisfied by some form of intercessory prayer (which might still be part of the celebrated mass). I am more interested in this specific case of mass being important to celebrate even if no congregation will participate.


texts: Is it ever right to sin in order to potentially prevent others from committing far more damaging sins?

texts:
I am interested in the Christian and biblical view about when it is right to do something wrong in order to prevent something worse from happening.

This question is mainly inspired by a documentary I saw about scam baiting.

Scam baiters aim to trick the typical internet scammer (think Nigerian prince who wants to transfer large sums of money into your bank account!). They pretend to be naive, foolish and gullible internet users that fall for scams. Their aim is simply to waste the scammer's time and resources, even in some cases tricking the scammer into actually flying to another country in order to transfer money which of course is non-existent.

In the documentary the scam baiters did present some compelling moral arguments for their actions. For example, if they are successful at "scamming the scammer" then the scammer may start losing confidence, and therefore in the future may be less likely to succeed when they encounter a real gullible individual. Or the scammer may just give up altogether and get another job etc.

However, entertainment also seems to be quite a motivating factor for these people as well.

I can certainly understand the anger people have towards scammers -- for example just recently an elderly man was tricked out of $140K:

Victim loses $140,000 in love scam

But the flip side of scam baiting is that you yourself are essentially lying and deceiving, far more so than a simple "white lie".

So, my question is, from a Christian/Biblical point of view, is an activity where a lesser evil has a potential to prevent a greater evil OK or not OK? Or should we take the probably less effective route of simply chastising the scammers and not play their game? Or should we simply do nothing, other than trying to educate the people that fall for these scams?

I am sure there are other examples where this question is applicable but scam baiting is the one that I am thinking of at the moment.

Just to make it clear I am not asking for opinions about the issue but for an interpretation of Christian tenets applied to this problem.

Further links:

Scam baiter website 419.com
Secrets of
the Scammers
documentary


texts: What is the purpose of church discipline?

texts:
What is the end goal or purpose of church discipline and how is this defined in Scripture? What is the relation (if any) between church discipline and God's discipline?

Lets keep the implementation details for another question and stick to just the why for now.


texts: Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the doctrine of intercession of saints during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD?

texts: Motivated by a related question, I would like to know if there is any historical evidence that the early church believed in the doctrine of intercession of saints during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.


texts: Is adultery grounds for excommunication or other discipline in a Jehovah's Witness Church?

texts:
I think the title says it all.  Are there rules/guidelines for Church Discipline for members of the Church that are blatantly involved in adultery?

Specifically, I'm referring to well-known, unabashed involvement, not a one-time or short-term slip up.  Understanding that we are all human and all able to fall into temptation, I am not referring to a situation where a person falls into sin, and then repents.  I'm talking about openly unashamed sinful behavior.

For example, a member becomes involved with a married man, becomes pregnant with his child, then works actively to break up the marriage, with no sign of a repentant spirit.

Without focusing on what we think ought to happen, I'm looking for a defined policy or set of guidelines, similar to the Catholic guidelines, or those found in other denominations?


texts: What is the Calvinist and Hyper-Calvinist understanding of the "whosoever will" from Rev. 22:17?

texts:
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev. 22:17 KJV)

I've heard that Spurgeon had some issues with hyper-calvinists because he preached the "whosoever will, let him" so freely that his friends became upset with his approach on this question.

Here is a quote from one of his sermons, that I could find

  It simply says, "whosoever will," Art thou willing? Art thou willing to be saved? Canst thou say, "Now, Lord, I am willing to be saved, give me a new heart; I am willing to give up my sins; I am willing to be a Christian; I am willing to believe and willing to obey, but oh for this no strength have I, Lord, I have the will; give me the power." Then thou art freely invited to come, if thou art but willing. (C.H. Spurgeon - October 16th, 1859)

I understand that avarage hyper-calvinists would trully disagree with this words.

Now, what is an overview of reformed, especially (but not only) hyper-calvinists, published commentaries on the meaning of this whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely, since they don't believe in a free will at all and, in the case of hyper-calvinists, that the calling is not to everyone, but to the elect?

A good answer will focus on this issue:

Is the calling to drink the water of life extended to everyone, or is limited to the elect?

Disclaimer:

by Hyper-calvinist, we can assume the wikipedia article as a  definition, as it says that "Their system denies that the call of the gospel to "repent and believe" is directed to every single person and that it is the duty of every person to trust in Christ for salvation." and "as a view that maintains the theory of limited atonement and limits the scope of gospel invitations to the elect."


texts: To which prophets does Peter refer in 1 Peter 1:10-11?

texts:
To which prophecies does Peter refer in these verses?

1 Peter 1:10,11:

  10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched
  diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

  11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which
  was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings
  of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

I'm looking for scriptures of prophets telling about the grace that should come unto us. I'd like to see the cross reference between the old and new testament.
I know the verses in Isaiah, but I'm looking for one or two more references.


texts: What is older: Dead Sea Scrolls or Septuagint? Which is more reliable?

texts: In the future, I will learn Koine Greek and I will read the New Testament in it’s original language. I will also read the Septuagint. The Dead Sea scrolls are all fragments so They are defined not proper to read the Bible. But which is older? And when were the Dead Sea Scrolls finished being written? God bless you all.


texts: Which day of Creation Week were the stars created?

texts:
This question is directed to those who believe the entire universe was created just 6000 years ago (approx) during "creation week" of Gen 1.
Question: On which day was the universe (all things outside planet earth, ie sun moon and stars) created? Was it day 1 or day 4?

If the answer is day 1, then presumably this means that "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1) does not include the sun moon and stars (Gen 1:14-16)
If the answer is day 4, then what does Gen 1:1 mean?


texts: Do Rob Bell and Tullian Tchividjian represent sides of any prior Christian controversy?

texts:
Both Rob Bell and Tullian Tchividjian  have each taken heat for talking too much about grace.[*]  Here is, for example, an interview on John Piper's objections to Rob Bell, and here is David Murray's objection to Tullian's talk on works.

My premise is that they are fundamentally different. While both extend grace to an uncomfortable degree, Tullian also extends the literal demands of the law to an uncomfortable degree. In Tullian's view, you are in fact expected to "Be perfect", and when you realize you're not you seek out Jesus' righteousness.  Bell on the other hand seems to say that grace is so great it erases hell for everyone.

Questions:

Are Bell and Tullian fundamentallly different, or fundamentally the
same?
Based on the conviction that all arguments have already been had before, do they essentially represent different sides of some famous split in church
history-- say during the Nicene or Reformation periods?

Answers from those with different perspectives (agreeing with one or neither) are especially appreciated.

[*] If you are able articulate a better description of their common feature or problem than "talk too much about grace", that is part of my question.


texts: Has Madonna been excommunicated by the Catholic Church?

texts:
The singer Madonna Louise Ciccone has stated on in various interviews that she's been excommunicated by the Catholic Church multiple times.

The best-selling female recording artist then revealed that she had
been excommunicated from the church three times. Corden, in disbelief,
questioned whether or not she was serious but she assured him that it
was true.
"The Vatican has excommunicated me," she said before the two of them
started belting out her hit song, "Papa Dont Preach" off of her third
studio album released in 1986, True Blue.
Madonna Talks Being Excommunicated by Church, Desire to Be Nun on James Corden's 'Carpool Karaoke'

and

“I’ve been excommunicated from the Catholic Church three times,”
Madonna joked to the crowd in Philadelphia. “It shows the Vatican
cares – deeply.”
Watch Madonna Dedicate a Song to the 'Popey-Wopey' (A.K.A. Pope Francis)

Has she formally been excommunicated on multiple occasions (or if not, why does she think she has)?


texts: What is the history of the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus"?

texts:
It is common these days to hear questions like:

  Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

Or...

  The most important thing is your personal relationship with Jesus.

The Bible never uses this phrase.  Jesus certainly had personal relationships with his disciples, but after his death, Paul never tells the churches in Corinth or Rome that they need better "personal relationships with Jesus."  The other epistles don't talk about ways to "strengthen" that "personal relationship," etc.

How long has a "personal relationship" with Jesus been talked about in Christian culture?  Where did this term and related language originate, and what is its history?

EDIT Please note I'm not specifically looking for Biblical references to support this concept (although that could certainly be part of a good answer!)  I'm asking about the cultural history of this concept.  And while I can appreciate that even Jesus made statements that can be easily interpreted as supporting a personal relationship, he definitely did not emphasize this aspect of Christian culture.  When, where, how did the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus" enter Christian culture as a prominent theme?


texts: Does the word 'testament' in the titles OT and NT imply the death of the testator in both covenants?

texts:
A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his estate and provides for the transfer of his property at death. This property an inheritance.

What I am wondering is the origin of the word Old Testament, or New Testament.  Does 'testament' imply the death of Life in order that we receive an inheritance?  Is the Old Testament, a 'Testament' or just a Covenant?  Was the Old Covenant truly a Testament, or is only the New Covenant a Testament?  If the Old Covenant was also a Testament which would not be ratified until the testator died, in what sense is the Old Covenant a testament before the actual death of Christ?

Does the word testament in the titles 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' imply the death of the testator in both covenants and thus provide a biblical basis for calling the two divisions of the Bible testaments, rather then just covenants?


texts: Do any authorities have anything to say about "criminality" as grounds for divorce in addition to "adultery," alluded to in the New Testament?

texts:
A (Christian) acquaintance of mine offered the opinion that the two valid grounds for divorce are adultery and criminality.

Matthew 5:32 says, "Everyone who divorces their spouse, except on grounds of adultery, makes them an adulteress/er." Apparently divorce is permitted for adultery.

Adultery is self explanatory. "Criminality" would probably refer to a felony such as robbery, assault, or murder. (Rape would also be a form adultery.) Maybe certain "nonviolent" crimes such as embezzlement, drug use, or even "shoplifting."

Are there any Christian denominations, doctrines, or faith traditions that would make a similar provision for criminality? Could there even be a "work around" whereby criminality is considered more serious than adultery, so making an adulteress/er by divorcing a spouse is less serious than the spouse's criminal behavior? (I don't know this acquaintance well enough to ask where he was coming from.)


texts: What is the significance of what Jesus ate after his resurrection?

texts: Is anyone aware of any special symbolic significance of Jesus eating specifically fish and honeycomb while showing his disciples he was not "a spirit" when he appeared to them (and somewhat scared them) after his resurrection in Luke 24:42-43?


texts: How do Catholics believe God is eternal if Jesus died on the cross?

texts:
The doctrine of the Trinity states that there are three Persons: God (the Father), Jesus (the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

The Church also teaches that Jesus died for the sins of humanity.
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, and at the same time not mixed or separate.

So if Jesus is said to have died for the sins of humanity, and Jesus is God, then God died.

An entity that dies cannot be considered eternal.

Is the dictionary term "eternal" not correct, or are our rational minds incorrect in thinking that an entity that dies is not eternal?  (I don't mean to sound rude or harsh, but this is a theological matter, and the seriousness of the matter sometimes requires stating things bluntly.)

If one just states the usual, "It is a mystery," I think that might be another way of saying it doesn't make sense—just accept it. I am looking for a more direct and specific answer than that, based on Catholic theology.


texts: What is the biblical basis for "March for Jesus" or "Jesus Day"?

texts:
As a Christian, I believe that the scripture contains the basis for all the activity that I, as a member of the Church, need to get involved.

Of course, we can't find all kind of Christian activity on the text in stricto sensu, but we surely need to find a consistent theological ground that clearly support every activity that we get involved into.

That being said, my question is: what is the biblical basis for things like "March for Jesus" or "Jesus Day"? There is any commitment for the church to march into the streets or to make a spiritual parade, like romans had the Lupercalia and feasts like that?

I can't remember any verse in the NT that supports such a behavior.

Some points:

The Wikipedia article provides no such thing as a Bible basis, even in the "further reading section".
No event website provides any Biblical basis at all, like London Jesus Day or Brazilian March for Jesus or even this really old website, from the beginnings.
Here in Brazil, we have the biggest March for Jesus and is important to state that the Pentecostal movement is largely involved with that.


texts: How do Biblical Unitarians understand verses that appear to identify God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit as different beings/entities?

texts:
Here are a few notable passages (the list is probably not exhaustive - edits are welcome):

13 So if you, despite being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13 NASB)

14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14 NASB)

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you. (John 14:26 NASB)

22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22 NASB)

33 Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear. (Acts 2:33 NASB)

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among people knows the thoughts of a person except the spirit of the person that is in him? So also the thoughts of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (1 Corinthians 2:10-13 NASB)

At face value, these verses appear to be addressing God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit as two separate beings/entities. How do Biblical Unitarians make sense of these and similar passages?


texts: Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as consecrated Bishop during Apostolic times?

texts:
St. Paul the Apostles admitted that Christ did not sent him to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1Corinthian1:17)
In the Catholic Church, a bishop is an ordained minister who holds the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders and is responsible for teaching doctrine, governing Catholics in his jurisdiction, sanctifying the world and representing the Church. Catholics trace the origins of the office of bishop to the apostles, who it is believed were endowed with a special charism by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Catholics believe this special charism has been transmitted through an unbroken succession of bishops by the laying on of hands in the sacrament of holy orders. - Bishop in the Catholic Church

In Catholicism the priest has the faculties to administer Sacraments of Baptism, Penance and Matrimony but the Sacrament of Confirmation is only for the consecrated  Bishop.
If St. Paul was not sent to baptize although the scriptures showed St. Paul had the faculties to baptize if he wants too. It would mean St. Paul lacks the faculties to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation unlike the rest of the Apostles who were present at the Upper Room and had received the Holy Spirit.

1299 In the Roman Rite the bishop extends his hands over the whole group of the confirmands. Since the time of the apostles this gesture has signified the gift of the Spirit. The bishop invokes the outpouring of the Spirit in these words:
All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by water and the Holy Spirit
you freed your sons and daughters from sin
and gave them new life.
Send your Holy Spirit upon them
to be their helper and guide.
Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of right judgment and courage,
the spirit of knowledge and reverence.
Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.113

Does Catholic Church acknowledge St. Paul the Apostle as a consecrated bishop during Apostolic times?


texts: Why does Jesus speak of himself in the third person?

texts:
There are a number of places where Jesus refers to himself in the third person.  The most common is when he uses the title 'Son of Man' (by my count, there are some 78 times Jesus uses that title in the gospels!).  For example Matthew 16:13 (NIV):

  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
  disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

I understand the significance of that title (e.g. Daniel 7:13-14) but why does Jesus use it so often to describe himself?  Complicating matters in my mind is the fact that the various gospels seem to use 'Son of Man' and 'I' interchangably.  For example, Mark 8:27 is a parallel passage to the one above but it says:

  Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea
  Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"

One other major case of third person titles that intrigues me is in John 17 where Jesus is praying and refers to himself as God's son and 'Jesus Christ':

  1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

    "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may
  glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he
  might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is
  eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
  whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by finishing
  the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your
  presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Why does he suddenly refer to himself as Jesus Christ here but nowhere else?


texts: Why do people have different chances of becoming Christian?

texts:
First of all, let me say that I'm Christian, and I regularly volunteer at Church. However, I have a question that I'd like some light shed on:

Christianity seems to value fairness and justness, but this question seems to oppose this, as, say in Muslim cultures, there is a much lower chance of becoming Christian than in more Christian environments.  Why would God put some people in a culture where the Gospel is readily available, and allow others to live in areas where it's harder, or impossible to hear?

It seems unfair for someone to not be able to get to heaven because of the culture they grew up in.  If they can't hear the Gospel message, and salvation is only applied to those that hear the Gospel message, that seems like an unfair situation.

Is there a doctrinal teaching, or a standard apologetic answer to the question of the salvation of those that don't get the same chance to hear the gospel as others?  I'm looking primarily for a Protestant perspective, specifically.


texts: Are there any traditions that believe in the complete cessation of miracles?

texts:
As I have learned from this question of mine, the general consensus is that Cessationists do not believe in the cessation of all miracles. This lead me to wonder what to call the people that do believe in the complete cessation of all kinds of miracles or supernatural events.

Are there any significant traditions that believe that all miracle-working has stopped? If so, what are they? What would the general idea of total cessation be called?
(Note: I expect the answer to the second question to be a small set, if any, so I don't think it's a listy question.)


texts: Where is the sermon in a Mormon church service?

texts:
So, I'm on vacation in Utah (and still compulsively thinking C.SE!), and so I attended an LDS service. In the morning, I heard a reading from one of the Presidents of the church during the "Quorum of the Elders," then went to Sunday School, and finally witnessed the Sacrement of the bread and water. (I guess it makes sense there was no wine, but it did make me go "Huh!") After that, there were testimonies from missionaries and some music - but nothing that struck me as a sermon.

Was I missing something, or was this an atypical service? I guess I was trying to understand what the "pastor"s role in the service was supposed to be - or again, is it just that Mormons are even more Baptist than baptists?

If someone could explain how instruction and exhortation are primarily conferred in the LDS church Id appreciate it.


texts: How did the phenomenon of "Megachurches" come about?

texts:
Megachurches are part of the landscape in a lot of Christendom and have been defined as a Protestant church where average weekend attendance exceeds 2000. How did the phenomenon of megachurches arise? Are they an effect of mass urbanisation? Are they a recent thing (as they seem to be).

Many of them seem to promote prosperity gospel-type beliefs. Is the prevalence of megachurches associated with the rise in popularity of this belief system? Alternatively is the rise of megachurches associated with the increase in attendance of popular music concerts in that they can offer worship in a similar format to a concert?


texts: What is the Trinitarian explanation or interpretation of Proverbs 8:22

texts:
Prov 8:22 (NKJV) says about Wisdom:

  The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.

And John 1:1 reads:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Emphasis mine

-

Wisdom speaks of itself as having existed with God


texts: Wall numbers in German church / during German burial ceremony

texts:
I have just came about a 10 years old photo of my aunt's burial ceremony that took place in June 2009 in one of the German churches (in a small city close to Oldenburg).

Unfortunately, relation both with my aunt and her living family was/is very weak, so I can't even say, if she was Christian or Protestant and thus, in which church following photo was taken?

Does anyone know what are these numbers printed on the wall in the right part of the photograph?

My first and only guess was that these are song numbers that will be sing during the ceremony. But then, what are those additional numbers (or actually some kind of value ranges)? And why to print song numbers permanently on the wall, if they keep to changed (depending on ceremony, day of year etc.) and thus should rather be displayed using some non-permanent way. Like a display etc.


texts:
Unique "traditional" souvenirs people may obtain from the pope or other Catholic prelates?

Believe it or not, there’s a way to get the pope to surrender his zucchetto to you, while in the presence of a pope while at Rome (papal audiences) or when he is on an apostolic visitation outside of Rome or Italy. All you have to do is offer him another one in exchange and you obtain an unique souvenir that was really worn by a pope.

It’s all part of an unique yet long-standing tradition among popes. And for the record, I am not talking about the large, ornate headwear called a mitre you see the pope donning at a Papal Mass. I am talking about the white zucchetto (skullcap). Just be warned: Few people have managed to pull off a successful trade with Francis so far.

  The process works like this: First, you have to acquire a zucchetto to trade with the pope. To do that, swing by his tailor in Rome and purchase one for about $68. The tricky part here is trying to guess what size will fit Francis’ head best.

  Once you have your brand new zucchetto, the next challenge is actually finding the pope. Fortunately, Francis is known to give plenty of public appearances and has a history of mingling with the crowd in ways that make his security staff uncomfortable. This should give you the perfect chance to weave through the faithful and get nice and close. - Inside the wild and wacky tradition of the Papal hat trade

Here are a few successful zucchetto swaps:

Swapping Zucchettos with Pope Francis
Zucchetto swap with Pope Francis

Question: Do any similar, yet traditional ways of obtaining such unique souvenirs (non-zucchetto) from the pope or other high ranking Vatican officials exist while in their presence and while in Rome?

I have never heard of any other tradition existing or have found on the web. I hope someone here has some information on other unique papal or Roman traditions on how to obtain some religious item from a pope or cardinal.


texts: Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism?

texts:
This might seem like a weird question if you're a Protestant and really like C.S. Lewis. But as a Catholic, I don't see him as ever espousing particularly non-Catholic positions, and he is very well read at Catholic universities.

His faith journey closely parallels G.K. Chesterton, although Lewis came from a more intellectual background. Chesterton converted from nothing to Anglicanism to Catholicism, but Lewis never made the final jump.

I read Lewis's book The Pilgrim's Regress, and understand that he had a few things to say about Catholics. But in general, we like him, so why didn't he like us? One of his best friends, J.R.R. Tolkien (who was largely responsible for his conversion), was Catholic, so what made Lewis not Catholic?


texts: What is the Biblical support for Purgatory?

texts: Exactly as the title asks; where do Catholics get their Scriptural support for the idea of Purgatory? To be more specific, how I think of Purgatory (which may be incorrect) is that it's a temporary place of suffering before one goes on to Heaven.


texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church eat leavened or unleavened bread during the Eucharist?

texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church eat leavened or unleavened bread during the Eucharist, and if it is indeed leavened bread, what is their basis for this practice?


texts: My mother is recently deceased. My siblings want just a Mass said for our recently deceased mother. Is there a Mass for the Deceased other than a funeral?


texts: Does the Roman Catholic church consider HIPAA to be an unjust law?

texts:
HIPAA, the United States Health Care Privacy Law has been in effect for nearly two decades.  It's the law that makes people all nervous about talking about other people's well being with their doctors and I've got a feeling it cuts in to Catholic Social teaching, but I can't say exactly why.
According to the Catholic social teaching, the principle of subsidiarity laws are best crafted at the an appropriate level

Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
CCC 1883

I got off on a bit of a tangent today at my Religious Ed. class telling the 13 and 14 year olds that HIPAA was in direct violation of Catholic Social teaching because of the part that potentially removes their parents from the loop of their healthcare decisions.
So, my question is, should a family ever be trumped by a higher order when it comes to medicine?


texts: What is the most accurate calculation of Jesus' birth date?

texts:
I am trying to develop an accurate historical timeline (expressed on the Gregorian calendar) that includes the events surrounding the annunciation, birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I have come across a number of speculations in the 4-6 BC range for his birth, in the 25-30 AD range for the onset of his ministry, and in the 29-33 AD range for his crucifixion. I believe a persistent error in our Western tradition of designating Good Friday as the day of his crucifixion and Easter Sunday as the day he rose from the grave has developed as the result of a misunderstanding about when during the week the special Passover Sabbath occurred that year. Friday evening to Sunday morning does not reconcile with what Jesus said about being in the earth for 3 nights and 3 days before rising again (see proposed alternate scenario here). This error could contribute to a number of other miscalculations about the dates I am looking for.

Can any of you help me clarify the date problem and narrow this down further? Thanks!


texts:
The most common explanation I heard from Christians for the theodicy is that suffering is caused inevitably by the free will of humans. The argument is essentially that a world without suffering is impossible when you allow free will, as you can't prevent humans from causing harm to each other.

In heaven, there is supposed to be no suffering at all. How can that notion be reconciled with the free will argument? Do the humans in heaven have no free will, and are therefore unable to cause harm to each other? Or is it possible to create a world without suffering even when granting free will to the humans living in it?


texts: Why did God accept Abel's offering and not Cain's?

texts:
In Genesis 4, we read the following account of Cain and Abel:

  So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.  Genesis 4:3-5

The story continues that Cain continued in anger and ended up murdering Abel.

So, Cain's offering was not accepted by God, while Abel's offering was.  Why was this so?  What was it about Cain's offering that made it unacceptable, what was it about Abel's offering that made it acceptable?


texts: Do pre-tribulational, pre-millenial theologies reconcile with Jehovah's Witnesses

texts:
In this thesis there are many assertions made.  One of them is that the teachings of Charles Taze Russell, as regarding the return of Christ being 'multi-staged', shares a common origin with the pre-tribulational, pre-millenial theory of the 'rapture' that is becoming prevalent in many Protestant denominations.  This theology is often called Dispensationalism and is becoming very common within Evangelical congregations such as non-denominational churches, Baptist, Pentecostal, and other charismatcs, especially in America.
This 2016 survey indicates that nearly half of American Evangelical pastors believe and teach premillenialism and 36% are pretribulational as well.  The survey included Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches.
This question is directed more towards a theological school of thought than any particular denomination.  If I must ask of a denomination then I am asking primarily of those denominations which hold to Dispensational theology; particularly those teachings of a multi-staged return of Christ with the first return being invisible.  How do these theologies reconcile the apparent common source of theirs and the Jehovah's Witness eschatology with their strong opposition to the bulk of JW theology?
There is no assertion being made that Protestant dispensationalists and Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same thing eschatologically, but that the two eschatologies appear to share the same origin.  To be clear, I am asking Protestant dispensationalists to respond regarding the common roots of dispensational eschatology and Jehovah's Witness eschatology alleged in the thesis linked above.


texts: Which pre-Nicene Christians who helped shape the trinity doctrine are now considered heretics?

texts:
There were several theologians in the early centuries of Christianity whose knowledge of Platonism and other Greek philosophy helped shape what is now known as the trinity doctrine.

For example, Tertullian was the first to use the word "persons" (in Latin) when describing a tri-unity within God. Origen was the first person to use hypostasis (Greek equivalent of "persons") and homoousios when describing his hierarchy within God. Also, Sabellius is reported to have used homoousios to describe his modalism, and the term was  adopted by Athanasius of Alexandria to further develop the trinitarian doctrine.

However, all three of these men are considered heretics because of their misunderstanding of the trinity.

Which other pre-Nicene theologians who helped shape the trinity doctrine are now considered heretics by Nicene trinitarians?
(For example, Justin Martyr may be, but I am not sure).


texts: Biblical significance of the gifts given to Jesus

texts:
Is there any spiritual significance to the gifts the Magi brought – Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh – after they were led by a “star” to Bethlehem where they worshiped the young child Jesus?  Why would this caravan of astronomers present expensive gifts to Joseph, Mary and their young child unless they were aware of the significance of his birth?  Here is the biblical background information:

Matthew 2:1-6: After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews?  For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”  When King Herod heard this he was alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him.  After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born.  “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet:  ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Matthew 2:7-12: Then Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared.  He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and look carefully for the child. When you find him, inform me so that I can go and worship him as well.”  After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was.  When they saw the star they shouted joyfully.  As they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother, they bowed down and worshiped him. They opened their treasure boxes and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  After being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back by another route to their own country.

I realise there are different traditions surrounding this advent, but what I’m looking for is biblical references to the significance of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  Also, I would like to know if there are any Christian references (from old hymns, for example) that suggest the spiritual significance of these expensive gifts that were presented to the infant king.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize marriages performed by non-denominational ministers?

texts: I am seeking my Ordained Minister License and was asked to perform the wedding ceremony of my brother and his future bride, who are studying to become Jehovah's Witnesses.  Do JWs require a particular Ordained Minister License to perform marriages in their denomination?


texts: Where did the idea that Cherubs were baby Angels originate?

texts:
I know of no Scriptural basis for Cherubs being baby Angels, or in fact that any Angels are infants. Additionally I find no reference to Cupid who is depicted as a infant with wings and bow and arrows anywhere in the Bible?
If anyone is aware of any such Scriptures please inform me.


texts: Did Oliver Cromwell ban Christmas or is this an unfounded rumour?

texts:
I've read various articles/questions/answers that claim Oliver Cromwell took it upon himself to ban Christmas in the U.K.  The Puritans were also implicated.  Is this true, or is it an unfounded rumour put about by the "Bah! Humbug!" brigade?
Source: When Christmas Carols were banned.

I didn't dare post this question till now for fear of upsetting people.  Personally, I don't do the feasting, drinking and gift-giving stuff, but then again, I'm not a Puritan.

By the way, this is a light-hearted post-Christmas question and is not intended to offend anybody.

Is there any evidence to suggest Oliver Cromwell was a complete "Scrooge"?


texts:
In Revelation 12, John sees Satan cast out of the Father's presence and down to earth:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Does this mean the Earth was created by the time Satan was cast out? Then were he and his angels present for the Creation? If not, to where was he cast out, maybe in the interim, until the earth was created?


texts:
I've recently started doing bible study with a good friend (a devoted Christian). I started at first out of curiosity about what Christianity really is about. However, as the study went on (half way through Luke, beginning of Romans, and bits and pits elsewhere), I started having more and more questions despite some of my initial questions being answered.

A bit of background about myself: I grew up learning religion is often not a good thing. All my close family members are atheists or just in general don't care much about religion. I would consider myself an atheist, but my friend said I'm agnostic.

I knew very little about Christianity (Jesus and Heaven that's all...) before I started bible study. Now I know a little bit more but of course still very far away from the full picture. However, I'm already filled with so many questions that it's almost painful to go about with my daily life without having them answered. (My friend has done a great job in answering a lot of my questions such as what is trinity, what is heaven, how Jesus has paid for our sins, difference between faith and religion, etc. But even he doesn't have the answers to all my questions...)

In general, I've so far come to really enjoy reading the bible. I've come to really like Jesus as a person (living a life like Jesus's is very admirable in any era). Emotionally, I agree with a lot of what Jesus said. But I can't bring myself to really follow his teaching. There is a part of me that really wants to become a Christian, but I feel like I have no right to be one if I can't (not willing to) even follow what Jesus commands.

Jesus has said to love my enemies and give them all I have. I agree with this, emotionally. Vengeance will only lead to more harm. However, if you really follow this and do not stand up to the evil people who harm you, won't that just give them even more chance to take advantage of you? It's indeed noble that you will do what the evil people won't do (love the enemies). And I really wish I had the courage, determination, and faith to follow it. But as of now, I really cannot bring myself to it.

I've always been taught that one should never do another harm, but in the case of being harmed by another, one should strike back as hard as possible. While I've never really fully agreed with this view, I do take a similar stance: never harm, but if harmed, always seek for justice. Not that I believe this is the right thing to do, but simply the most practical thing to do. I'm really afraid to put myself fully in God and follow Jesus's teaching. I'm afraid others will take advantage of me. Perhaps, I'm just selfish.

Jesus also said not to judge others for only the God can judge us at the end of the time. How should I approach this saying? I agree that none of us is perfect, and very often we accuse others of faults without knowing the full picture. However, does that mean we should never judge others? What if a person commits crimes? Do we condemn him or do we withhold our judgment? What if this person had down great injustice to my family or myself?

I admire the way Jesus lived and wish I had the courage, determination, and faith to follow his teaching. I want to believe in God and I want to believe in Jesus. But as of now, I can't bring myself to. I wonder if my atheist view is simply too deeply rooted in me. Is Christianity really for me?

Any help/guidance is appreciated.

Thanks in advance,


texts: Is there a good Swedish Bible Translation that's not the equivalent of the NIV?

texts:
I have a friend in Sweden who is a new believer and I want to buy him a bible translated in his native language. Unfortunately, the only two translations I've found are the 1917 translation which is expensive and rare, and the more recent which seems to be the Swedish equivalent of the NLT of NIV. Is there an NKJV or ESV equivalent in Swedish?

Thanks in advance. God Bless.


texts: Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die?

texts:
As if some people couldn't get far enough away from them on earth, several verses in the Bible seem to indicate that there will be preachers even in Hell.

  1 Peter 4:6 (ESV)
  For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Does this mean that there will be a chance to repent and believe even after if I do not do so in this life?

Note: This is not a duplicate of Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture? which talk about people who are still living on earth after the rapture (if there is such a thing). I am also not asking about the eternal nature of Hell. Whether it is or not is not the same thing as whether there will be a way to repent and be saved from there, although it does make more sense if Hell is indeed enternal.


texts: Why do Christians believe Christ's death applies to future sins?

texts:
One of the points that different Christian denominations and movements generally agree on is that Christ died on the cross to atone for our sins, and his death was the ultimate sacrifice. This sacrifice can apply to anyone, both before and after his death.

My understanding of the sin offering and guilt offering in the Old Testament, which Jesus' death rendered no longer necessary, was that a person or nation committed an act, and subsequently a sacrifice was made to atone for that act.

Why do Christians believe that Jesus' sacrifice is different to those of the Old Testament? That is, what is the Biblical basis for believing Jesus' sacrifice can apply to sins committed after his death?


texts: Where is there official writings from Perpetua or Felicity?

texts:
Supposedly there was a diary written by a woman named "Perpetua" just before she was killed in the arenas for her faith.

Another similar account is concerning Felicity.

Did these women actually write down anything authentic, and if so, where are their writings found?

I've found plenty of commentaries and history accounts, but no actual writing from them.

Do they have written accounts and where can they be found?

Such a thing would show the mind of a Christian during that time. Their views, thoughts, motives, etc, possibly distinct from modern Christians.


texts: What is the Biblical basis of the idea that a deceased person has "entered into eternal rest"?

texts:
The obituary page becomes a more frequent read for me as I age.

Sometimes I see the phrase "So-and-So entered into eternal rest on such-and-such day."

I am aware of the various beliefs on the nature of the condition of those who have died. So I often wonder what, if any, is the biblical basis for saying a dead person has entered into eternal rest.


texts:
We read in 1 Samuel 17: "David killed Goliath"

  And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the
  Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the
  Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard
  them. 1 Samuel 17:23 ASV

(...)

  Then David ran, and stood over the
  Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof,
  and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines
  saw that their champion was dead, they fled. 1 Samuel 17:51 ASV

But we read in 2 Samuel 21: "Elhanan killed the giant Goliath"

  And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the
  son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the
  staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 2 Samuel 21:19 ASV

So, who killed Goliath?


texts: How many mistresses did Solomon actually have?

texts: As read here, it says, in 1st Kings, 11:3, "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." This is speaking of King Solomon. My confusion: are the concubine and princesses included in the 700, or separately, and if so, how many did they account for? I am simply having issues understanding the verse's wording.


texts: According to Catholicism do priests ever receive spiritual graces on account of changes in discipline?

texts:
Can the actions of the Pope in changing sacramental discipline result in clerics having spiritual ability to read souls?

(This was brought up as a a theory in a chat in relation to a different topic).


texts: According to Baptist when were names added to The Book of Life?

texts:
According to Baptist of all stripes, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)?

I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added.

  “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Revelation 3:5 ESV

In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in?

What is the Baptist view?


texts: Historical Apologetic used by 7th Century Christians towards Early Muslims Regarding the Hypostatic Union and Jesus' Title "Son of God"

texts:
According to my research Jesus is called the Son of God about 40 times in the NT. When interacting with Muslims, a common objection they give against Christ's deity, and the Trinity is that the Quran says God does not have a son.

  O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. - 4:171

Obviously Christian's have never historically taught that Jesus is the physical progeny of the Father and Mary. However, this is the first reaction I have always gotten when discussing Jesus' nature with Muslims. Is there any way to get some idea what the apologetic Christians interacting with early Muslims were using? I understand that the term "early Muslims" may not be entirely accurate since Mohammed had not amassed a large following when engaging with Christians and Jews in the area, but for now I think it's alright to use that label.

Please add other appropriate tags if you think of them.


texts: Are these LDS scriptures consistent with LDS doctrine?

texts:
In an answer to this question Calvin quoted some LDS scripture from this search on the LDS scripture site.

It seems that the word "eternal" might mean continuing forever from some point in time in LDS theology, rather than the forever past until forever future as it does for many Christians. However, some of these specifically say from forever past to forever future. How can these scriptures be consistent with their "eternal progression" doctrine?

  God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9

No change here, so no eternal progression? When this sentence occurs in the Bible, it is usually believed to refer to forever past as well as forever future, however it could be from "sometime past" to "now" to "forever future".

  God knows all things, being from everlasting to everlasting: Moro. 7:22

This definitely refers to eternity past to eternity future.

  God’s course is one eternal round: D&C 3:2

OK, this could be future only, unless round means it's an unbroken cycle.

  God is endless: D&C 19:4, 10

No end in either past or future? Or could it be no end in space?

  God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17

Past eternity to future eternity, no eternal progression?

  Endless and Eternal is God’s name: Moses 7:35

OK, maybe a beginning is not considered an end, so one-direction eternity might work.

Am I seriously misinterpreting these statements here?


texts: Do mormons have a doctrine of afterlife preaching and repentence?

texts:
I swear I read somewhere some years ago that Mormons have a developed doctrine of saints in the afterlife descending to Hell in order to preach the gospel to those who are stuck there and give them the opportunity to accept Christ and repent.

I find this interesting and appealing because it would neatly solve the age-old dilemma of the dude in the jungle who went his whole life without ever hearing the Gospel. He ends up in Hell, but the friendly mormon missionaries take a holiday from heaven to come and hang out with the damned where they "preach to the spirits in prison". This jungledude then has the opportunity to accept the gospel. Presumably there is no time limit set on the offer of salvation and therefore it is safe to assume that everyone will eventually end up responding positively to the gospel (either here on earth or after death in Hell).

My question is, is any of what I just said accurate? Do Mormons actually believe anything similar to this?

(I note that what I just described is slightly similar to the "Holy Saturday"/"Harrowing of Hades" tradition in the Catholic/Orthodox churches: this is where Jesus "descended to Hell" and busted out of hades/sheol all the righteous people from the old testament times)

(Can someone please add the tag "harrowing-of-hell" or "holy-saturday" (these are basically synonymous))


texts: How is the situation of "divorce her quietly" in Matthew 1:19 according to Catholicism?

texts:
Matthew 1:19

  Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not
  want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her
  quietly.

In these modern days, in my country, something about "secret/quiet" in a marriage - for example like this :

A. A couple already engaged. Because of something, the man ---after
considering--- finally decided to cancel the marriage. But in order
not to expose the woman to public disgrace, the man still do the
marriage ceremony, living together in a same house, but the "husband"
don't do sex at all with his "wife". It's just a staged marriage
so everyone else think that they are married couple as the normal
husband and wife.
B. A married couple. Because of something, the husband ---after
considering--- finally decided to divorce his wife. But in order not
to expose the wife to public disgrace, they still live together in
the same house, but the husband don't do sex anymore with his wife.
It's just a staged marriage so everyone else think that they are
still a married couple.

The "considering" from the man then indirectly is also about to have sex with the woman or not to have sex with the woman.

So, in general ... a "secret/quite divorce" in my country is also about there is no sex between the couple besides other things. But still to public, the couple is a husband and wife.

Since I don't know the custom in Israel let alone during Joseph & Mary times, that's why I wonder what kind of a situation is a "secret/quite divorce" in those days ?


texts: What types of signs are given by the "lights in the expanse of the heavens"?

texts:
On the fourth day, God created lights in the expanse of the heavens for "signs", among other things.

  Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. Genesis 1:14 NASB

I understand the astrology seems to be forbidden in the Scriptures:

  You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.  Leviticus 19:26 NASB.

So, what specific signs are referred to here?


texts: What is the prayer of faith as recorded in James 5:15?

texts: James 5:15 says that the prayer of faith will save the sick. Is there a specific prayer of faith?


texts: What does Sinclair Ferguson (a reformed theologian) mean by a 'new identity'?

texts:
I watched some of the Youtube recordings of lectures given by Sinclair Ferguson and I am now uncertain which one it was in which he stated that in Colossians we see that 'we are given a new identity'. So I cannot now refer to it but I remember the wording distinctly.
However, just searching under the words indicates that is is a concept common in what might be considered evangelical Christianity today.
But I am personally unfamiliar with this concept, myself, and can think of nowhere in scripture where wording like this, as such, is used.
I know that the Son of man states, Revelation 2:17, that 'to him that overcometh ... I will give ... a white stone and in the stone a new name written ...' but that does not - exactly - say that the new name is the person's new name. And a new name is not, necessarily, the same as a new 'identity'.
Jesus gave Simon a new name (Peter) but that did not change his identity and he was thereafter known as 'Simon', 'Simon Peter'or 'Peter'.
The names written upon persons in Revelation 3:12 are the name of God, the name of the city of God and the new name of the Son of man : not their own name, new or otherwise.
Paul says 'I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me', Galatians 2:20, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, in union with the spirit of the believer, is not anything to do with an alteration to identity. It is a union of spirit, in which union (of Holy Spirit) Christ himself dwells within.
I am therefore left somewhat mystified by the expression 'given a new identity' and would like to ask if anyone can further enlighten me either from Sinclair Ferguson's other utterances or from reformed theology generally, what is meant by the expression and what texts are brought forward in order to support the concept.


texts: Are the apostles the final authority on interpreting the scriptures in the LDS church and how can I get their interpretations of specific passages?

texts:
I heard a lesson on Isaiah in Sunday school and the manual gave what was to me a surprising interpretation of a scripture. I'm trying to understand the scriptures in Isaiah, (praying included). Having someone actually tell me exactly what it means (assuming the excerpt from the manual is approved by the apostles) like that is a dream come true.

I remember hearing in seminary that one of the roles of the apostles is to interpret the scriptures. Is that right? Are they the final authority? If so, is there some book or reference guide that I could have? Especially, where can I get their authoritative interpretation of Isaiah (because the Sunday school manual only has a little excerpt)?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to the charge that they are false prophets (because their end-of-the-world predictions didn't come true)?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses seem to identify themselves as prophets:
(Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197).

"So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers
and to declare things to come?  These questions can be answered in the
affirmative. Who is this prophet? . . . This "prophet" was not one
man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of
footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as
International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's
Christian witnesses . . . Of course, it is easy to say that this group
acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another thing to prove it,"

The Bible says that prophets whose prophecies don't come true should be ignored:
Deuteronomy 18:22

when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not
come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not
spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be
afraid of him.

Jehovah's Witnesses have predicted the end of the world numerous times but it hasn't happened. How do Jehovah's Witnesses scripturally refute the application of Deuteronomy 18:22 as applying to themselves when confronted with the issues of apparent false prophecy?

Per comments below, I make this edit for clarity:
Jehovah's Witnesses are unique among most denominations in that while claiming to be a type of prophet for God they have made specific predictions on dates and events that were not fulfilled. 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975 name a few.
For this reason, unique to this religion, Deuteronomy 18:22 is routinely applied to them.
Thus I am asking how JWs are instructed to reject this application of scripture to themselves?


texts: According to Reformed Baptist theology when did the Church begin?

texts: According to Reformed Baptist theology, when did the Church begin? In the Old Testament or in the New Testament?


texts: Meaning of Acts 10:34-35 according to Protestantism

texts:
Acts 10:34-35 (DRB) And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.

How do Protestants interpret this passage?

Specifically the parts "not a respecter of persons" and "worketh righteousness" (DRB uses the Latin "just" instead of the Germanic "righteous", used for instances in KJV)?


texts: Did biblical polygamy ever involve group sex?

texts:
Just to be clear, polygamy and group sex go against my conscience. I am a Christian, and I ask this question sincerely.

Polygamy is not explicitly or unambiguously forbidden in the Bible. In fact, it is regulated (see, for example, Exodus 21:10), and wise patriarchs saw no problem in marrying many women (see, for example, 1 Kings 11:3).

First, in the polygamy-practising society described in the Bible, if one were in a polygamous marriage, would group sex within that marriage be morally acceptable? Normally group sex involves committing the sin of fornication or adultery, but I do not see what sin it would be in a polygamous culture.

Second, is there any biblical, historical, or cultural grounds to think that any of the polygamists in the Bible would have actually engaged in group sex, regardless of whether their society considered it morally acceptable?


texts: Does natural law override silly human laws?

texts:
So Augustine, Aquinas and King agree that we, as Christians and free people are not required to follow human laws that do not comply with the natural moral law

. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

That's well and good for the evil that men do, but what about the pointless things that men do. Both in terms of the laws of government  like those dictating the use of butter substitutes in the dairy state and those edicts in our every day lives and offices such as, "all men on yhe second floor must poop in the basement even though there's a bathroom close by"?
Does the natural law, which has a lot to say about man's inherent dignity, override ones moral duties to follow laws and command which are, not wicked or unjust, but just either below ones dignity to follow, not a matter of gracious obedience or self-perfection, or just plain dumb?


texts: Why do Mormons/LDS refer to God as "Heavenly Father" rather than "Our Heavenly Father"?

texts:
I have noticed a very subtle distinction in the way Protestants and LDS refer to God.  When  Protestants pray to God, he may address Him as "Heavenly Father", but when they speak about God, they seem to refer to Him as "Our Heavenly Father".

However, the LDS people that I have known and met seem to refer to God as "Heavenly Father" (without the Our) in both situations--as a direct address and as an indirect address.

I really don't know if there is any reason for this.  Perhaps it is just cultural to each group, but I thought I would ask anyway as it does make me curious.


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach that the Catholic faith is demonstrably true?

texts:
Question: Does the Catholic Church teach that the Catholic faith is demonstrably (with certainty) true? Please provide references.

Thanks for any help.


texts: What was St Paul's age at the time of his conversion and what was his age when he died?

texts:
I think that there are no direct answers for this.
I would like to know the age of the Apostle St Paul when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus and how long he lived after that.


texts: Tithing and excommunication question (LDS)

texts:
Member of LDS Church asking:

Will the LDS hierarchy excommunicate me if I do not pay them the required 10% of the difference between my home purchase price and my home sale price? Anyone know about that? It is a bit more than just a tithing question because I had to pay $44.000 of home value in a divorce settlement, and I don't know if the LDS Church will take that into consideration.


texts:
One of those attributes of God is his ability to be everywhere at all times.  I'm not debating that it is an attribute of his, I'm just wondering how we know that.

I ask, because I've been going through a question of my own recently - If God is omnipresent, how can hell exist?  After all, hell is by definition, that one place that God is not. But, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place that he is not?

My favorite answer to that question comes from C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, in which he describes hell not as a place of fire and brimstone, but rather an infinitely empty, substance-lacking smallness.  The journey from hell to heaven that his characters make is not from "down" to "up" from rather from "small" to "big" and "weak" to "strong."

I really like using that idea of hell, since it seemingly answers the idea that hell is merely a place that is, itself, so small and insubstantial that it isn't God's lack of presence, but rather its own insignificance that causes God's presence to feel so lacking.

In order to test that assertion, however, I want to make sure that I am correctly stating the postulate - namely that God really can be everywhere at all times. What is its biblical basis, and does God presence exist in hell?


texts: How could I bring up security concerns at the church that I attend?

texts:
I currently attend a church on Sundays, and this church serves as a synagogue on other days of the week.  Currently, there is a bit of security at the entrance, e.g. some security guards in uniform, but they are not police and do not appear to be armed.  We get scanned by metal detectors before entering.

How could I bring up security concerns to this church, say, during coffee hour after the Sunday Service?

Basically, I wonder how prepared they are to counter something like a terrorist attack.

I don't want to offend anyone - how could I inquire about this politely?


texts: How can a loving God make a deal with the devil?

texts:
In the book of Job, as best as I can see, God ruined Job's life over a bet (Job 1:9-12, 2:4-6). People and livestock who weren't even involved died (Job 1:13-19). Moreover, God literally made this deal with the devil.

It seems that Job's life (and the lives of his children and livestock) is just a game or one big cosmic joke to God and Satan. We can explain Satan's behavior by saying he's evil. But God is supposed to be all-good and all-loving.

How do Christians reconcile God's bet with Satan with a God of love?

Important Note:
This question is not about the problem of evil. It has nothing to do with Job. It's about God's behavior in the book of Job, i.e. the bet with Satan. If your answer has anything to do with why the righteous suffer, you're probably answering the wrong question.


texts: Is it appropriate to leave a Catholic rosary in place on a cemetary headstone?

texts: Is it appropriate to put a rosary on a relatives headstone and leave it there even if it starts to discolor and rust the headstone?  Would it be a desecration of the grave if someone removed it because of possible negative effects?


texts: When was the last time, if ever, the secular world acknowledged a demonic possession?

texts: The gospels seem to be peppered with demonic possessions that are nonchalantly noted by the author. Is there evidence that the ruling secular powers of the day acknowledged these as demonic possessions as well? Has a government acknowledged them afterwards?


texts:
Which denominations believe that the bible should be read "literally?" Do they believe that all of the text should be read this way? Why?

Context: It seems like most of these people would still read parable/poetry as metaphor. But I still hear the argument that the text should "always be taken literally."


texts: How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil?

texts:
I think it's pretty universally accepted that God is wholly good.  Indeed, many sources, including lots of answers on this website, are based on the belief that God is the perfect standard of goodness.  God is also widely believed to hate evil, hence why transgression from His perfect standard of goodness (sin) is taken so seriously and required such amazing grace to save His people.
However, in church this morning we were looking through 1 Samuel 16 and verse 14 alarmed me somewhat:

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. (NIV)

I would never have believed that an evil/harmful spirit could be from God had I not seen it in the bible.  On further investigation, it appears there are several other examples in the bible of God purposefully bringing evil things into the world.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (KJV)
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?  Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? (KJV)
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie (NKJV)

I'd always been told that God may allow us to be exposed to evil but doesn't bring it upon us Himself.  This is clearly false in light of the above.  It's therefore also possible that evil is God's will, which is particularly disappointing and devastating to one's faith.
Can anyone please offer any explanation as to how a totally-good God can create evil deliberately and still remain holy and righteous?


texts:
In recent conversations I came to the realization that not every Christian necessarily believes in the existence of Satan and demons as 'personal beings'. Instead, some view Satan and his minions as mere figures of speech to mean the 'personification of evil'. Here is another site where people show skepticism toward the personhood of Satan.
Question: What is the biblical basis against the personhood of Satan and demons?


texts:
Did Jesus teach the doctrine of the Trinity?
And by teaching I mean giving a lesson to someone regarding the subject matter.


texts: What is a good starting point for a study of the early Church?

texts: I'm very interested in the Early Church (after Christ's Ascension) and was wondering what Orthodox writings are available? So far, I have found Eusebius, Papias, Irenaeus, James the Martyr and Philo Judaeus. Does anyone have any additional suggestions? Basically, looking into the first century AD.


texts: Why would a loving God prefer one nation over another?

texts:
Deuteronomy 14:2

  "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has
  chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the
  peoples who are on the face of the earth. "

First, this sounds like God is a racist or nationalist, that he prefers one nation over another.  But I came to my own understanding of why God chose Jewish people to be "his" nation: He had to choose one nation where His son would be born, and Jewish people happened to meet all the requirements, or they responded in a right way.

I'd like to ask, though, what is the stand of the Roman Catholic church as to why God chose Jews and not Celts or other nations? And do other Christian groups share the same view as Catholics?


texts:
This might not be the best place to ask, and I apologize if this is off-topic.

In his of the Truth of the christian religion, Hugo Grotius quotes on several occasions the Orphic verses. I cannot find any reference to this work anywhere else. What is it, and where can they be found (if anywhere)?


texts: Repetition of "and he begat sons and daughters:"

texts:
While reading Genesis 5, we can read the development of human race from Adam to Noah, bridging the gap between the two.

During that passage, there's an expression mentioned often

  (...) and he begat sons and daughters:

What's the purpose of such repetition?


texts: Where did the concept of Christians attending a church building come from?

texts:
Christians attend church on Sundays, they sing, listen to a pastor speak, etc.
When did such a concept first appeared?
Did the early Christians practice this?  or is this 'attending church' a medieval tradition from the Roman Catholic church?


texts: In Catholic exorcisms why the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not actively participating as soldiers in battle?

texts:
In a book about exorcism Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans the author writes in the introduction chapter "A Brief Handbook of Exorcism" (emphasis mine):

The exorcist is the centerpiece of every exorcism. On him depends everything. He has nothing personal to gain. But in each exorcism he risks literally everything that he values. Michael Strong’s was an extreme example of the fate awaiting the exorcist. But every exorcist must engage in a one-to-one confrontation, personal and bitter, with pure evil. Once engaged, the exorcism cannot be called off. There will and must always be a victor and a vanquished. And no matter what the outcome, the contact is in part fatal for the exorcist. He must consent to a dreadful and irreparable pillage of his deepest self. Something dies in him. Some part of his humanness will wither from such close contact with the opposite of all humanness—the essence of evil; and it is rarely if ever revitalized. No return will be made to him for his loss.

My question is why the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not actively participating as soldiers in battle to prevent the exorcist from bearing the full brunt of the demonic attack, especially since we are fighting angels turned demons?
In the 5 detailed cases, the Brief Handbook of Exorcism chapter, the Manual of Possession section, and the Roman Ritual of Exorcism appendix, good angels were not asked to come and help, but at most were asked only to pray, as in the Litany of Saints or in the Prayer to St. Michael.


texts:
In the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, what is the the distinction between the gifts of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge?

  cf. Isaiah 11:2
  (RSVCE)
  2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
      the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
      the spirit of counsel and might,
      the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.[a]

  Footnotes: a. 11.2 The enumeration of the “gifts of the Holy Spirit”
  is taken from this passage.

and Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1831.


texts: Is the Church both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ?

texts:
Some believe the Church is the Bride of Christ. Yet that term is never used in the New Testament. In Revelation the bride who is the wife of the Lamb is used (DRA):

  And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. (Rev 21:9)

Obviously Jesus Christ is the Lamb, but John's calling of Him as "The Lamb" seems to be referring to Him as John the Baptist did and is looking at the day when Israel is married to Christ. This would explain why John also refers to the bride as "the wife." 1

Paul states the Church is the Body of Christ (Romans 7:4, 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27) and in Ephesians seems to make the same statement using the analogy of marriage:

  Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. (Ephesians 5:21-24)

According to Roman Catholicism is Paul's example of marriage in Ephesians the basis for the Bride of Christ and if so is the Church both the Body and the Bride of Christ?

1. If Revelation is used as the basis for the term "Bride of Christ" it is incomplete. If Christ replaces the Lamb, the correct term would be "The Bride, the Wife of the Lamb." Since John is purposeful to include both terms, his purpose should be preserved.