texts: According to Catholicism, is the blessing of food by a lay person different from that of a priest?

texts:
I am a bit puzzled. On the one hand, it is common practice among families to ask God to bless the food to be eaten. According to this very related question, the Catechism states:

  every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

Yet, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  [in a] strictly liturgical and restricted sense, blessing may be described as a rite, consisting of a ceremony and prayers performed in the name and with the authority of the Church by a duly qualified minister, by which persons or things are sanctified as dedicated to Divine service, or by which certain marks of Divine favour are invoked upon them.

The same article states that from very early times, the Church has considered blessing an ecclesiastical institution.

Later on, it says:

  Priests, then, are the ordinary ministers of blessings, and this is only in the fitness of things since they are ordained, as the words of the Pontifical run: "ut quæcumque benedixerint benedicantur, et quacumque consecraverint consecrentur" (That whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate shall be consecrated). When, therefore, laymen and women are represented as blessing others it is to be understood that this is an act of will on their part, a wish or desire for another's spiritual or temporal prosperity, an appeal to God which has nothing to recommend it but the merits of personal sanctity. The ordinary greetings and salutations that take places between Christians and Catholics, leavened by mutual wishes for a share of heavenly grace, must not be confounded with liturgical blessings.

Does this mean that the blessing of food given by a priests (say, if you invite one to your house) is of a different nature that the blessing of food given by a lay person?

In my view, the different sources are, if not contradictory, rather imprecise, in particular when it comes to the comparison of the nature of both priestly and lay blessing.

Naturally, my question refers to blessings of things in which lay persons are traditionally involved (like food or family members), but not things which are traditionally reserved to priests (like holy water).


texts: Are Catholics obligated to get married with their partner (i.e., Is the Catholic faith against domestic partnerships)?


texts: What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling?

texts:
As noted in the other question, there are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling. As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.

What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?


texts:
I've dug up at least one reference that may be a candidate.

Jeremiah 6:21-23

  Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion.

I've heard some say this verse is talking about the nation of Russia rising against Israel, and that the 'great nation' that is 'raised from the sides of the earth' is a allusion to the United States.

Are there any other verses that people have cited as evidence the USA is mentioned in the Bible?
Is there anyone (denominations/prominent individuals) who believes that the USA is mentioned in the Bible?
What are the arguments for or against this reference (or any other)?


texts: Were there other people with camel hoof knees from praying?

texts: A reformer whose life was based on prayer and his body bore the marks to prove it. His knees were like those of a camel's hoof as a result of continuous kneeling to pray. Anyone else besides St. James?


texts: Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9?

texts:
I was reading in Matthew and saw a fascinating command, directly from Jesus:

  Matthew 23:9 (NWT)
  Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.

Are there any Christian doctrines or denominations that currently practice this doctrine of not calling anyone on Earth a "father"?


texts: Is Catholicism the only religion to uphold the indissolubility of marriage? If not, which others do?


texts: Where did the dates at the bottom of the pages in the Book of Mormon come from?

texts:
From these images of an original copy of the Book of Mormon, it appears that the dates and chapter summaries that appear in modern printings do not appear in the original.

When exactly did these summaries and dates become associated with each chapter and book in the printings?  What authority is behind the dates?  Do these originate with Joseph Smith, or were they included at a later time?


texts: Had Moses changed something in the Law as when Deuteronomy 12:15 - 16 is compared to Leviticus 10:10 and 11:4-8?

texts:
Deuteronomy 12:15-16

  15
      Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy
      soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath
      given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and
      as of the hart.

  16

  Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the
  earth as water.

.

  Leviticus 10:10, 11:4-8

  Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them
      that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth
      not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

  And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is
      unclean unto you.

  And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is
      unclean unto you.

  And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he
      cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

  Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they
      are unclean to you.

Did Moses change the Levitical dietary law perhaps in favor of helping the oft murmuring and pagan worshiping Children of Israel even going so far as to allow them the pleasure of eating whatsoever their soul lusteth after?

Am I missing something here?


texts: Was the "Nicene Creed" of AD 381 an update of the Nicene Creed of AD 325?

texts:
When people talk about "The Nicene Creed," it seems that they are often referring to the document associated with the Council of Constantinople (AD 381).  I'm sure there are many reasons for this, one of which being the similarity between that creed and the one produced by the AD 325 Council of Nicaea (cf. Wikipedia's comparison of the 325 and 381 creeds).

However, I've learned that it is not universally held that the 381 council actually meant to update the 325 creed.  Britannica says:

  Additional discoveries of documents in the 20th century, however, indicated that the situation was more complex, and the actual development of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed has been the subject of scholarly dispute. [...] It was probably based on a baptismal creed already in existence, but it was an independent document and not an enlargement of the Creed of Nicaea.

If this is the case, then it would seem to be incorrect to refer to the AD 381 creed as the "Nicene" creed, or even the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan" creed (as Britannica does), since there would be no direct connection between the two creeds.

What is an overview of the historical evidence regarding the origin of the AD 381 "Nicene Creed"? Did its authors intend for it to be an update of the AD 325 creed? Did any contemporaries call the AD 381 creed "Nicene"?

Or is the 381 creed better understood to be an independent creed?


texts: How does one become a "lay-minister" in the Catholic Church?

texts:
Wikipedia definition:

  Lay ecclesial ministry is the term adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to identify the relatively new category of pastoral ministers in the Catholic Church who serve the Church but are not ordained. Lay ecclesial ministers are coworkers with the bishop alongside priests and deacons.

Is there a more or less standardized certification process? Is there a formal education requirement? Does it depend on the ministry? Must a priest sponsor the minister? What about the bishop?


texts: Why are Jesus' sayings about the poor concentrated in Luke?

texts:
I've been researching Jesus' thoughts on poverty and the needy, and I've noticed that Luke's Jesus makes many more pronouncements concerning the poor than the others. What, if anything, do scholars say about this?

Edit: I'm interested in knowing what any scholar has to say about the preponderance of mentions in Luke. If you know of any scholar who is saying anything about it, please let me know.


texts: Is there is any external source about Demas, Paul's fellow worker?

texts:
Demas appears at Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 24 as a fellow worker of Paul's ministry, and maybe as Luke's partner like Mark was Aristharcus partner.

But in 2 Timothy 4:10 he appears having abandoned Paul. There is any tradition source about this story? Any ancient reliable source about Demas?


texts: Why is God three persons rather than four or more?

texts:
This question is about the Holy Trinity. Did the Scriptures explained that God is necessarily three persons?

[ This question doesn't challenge the Trinity if it is true but rather, the question, if answered will be for the benefit of the Trinitarian]


texts: Where did the religious symbol of the 'halo' come from?

texts:
I once read somewhere that the 'halo' was inherited by Christianity from ancient worshippers of the Sun.  However, although this seems believable I never bothered to verify its historic credibility - something I suppose would not be that difficult, one way or the other.

It does make me wonder though, 'Where does the halo originate, or similarly the lights behind the portraits of 'holy' men in art, etc'?

I am specifically wondering at what point in history and for what meaning was the 'halo' 'first' used by Christians and was it 'new' or 'borrowed from pagan practice'? I am not interested if it should, or should not be used.


texts:
My question is regarding cohabitation of man and women prior marriage.

According to the Catholic Church what is the formal position on this? Acceptable or not?

References would be much appreciated.

Also interested in the Anglican perspective.

Also, if an unmarried (or married) women was cohabiting with unmarried men (not engaging in sexual acts but mearly residing with them for a time)...what would be the Catholic position on this? (This hypothetical scenario vice versa also).


texts: Isaiah 34:11 translation of animal names

texts:
In the NASB translation of Isaiah 34:11, Isaiah prophesies of Edom saying "But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, and owl and raven will dwell in it."

At first I thought it odd that they mentioned both pelicans and hedgehogs, but when I tried to do research on the significance of these animals, I found that the translations varied widely. Instead of pelican and hedgehog, I found all of these

Amplified: "pelican and porcupine"

Complete Jewish Bible: "horned owl and hawk"

King James: "cormorant and bittern"

NIV: "desert owl and screech owl"

and more. It seems so odd that you could mix up a pelican, hawk, and an owl, or even a porcupine. My question is whether the discrepancy is due to lack of knowledge of how to translate the original Hebrew manuscripts, or whether different manuscripts contain different animal names, and the translators of each version decided on a different set of names.


texts: What reasons do Christians have to believe there is one God?

texts:
Related to What reasons does Christianity give for "Why There Must Be A God?".

In my reading on apologetics, I have come across many arguments for Theism, but next to nothing for Monotheism. I've read the phrase, "the chaos of polytheism," without a more rational argument, though I firmly believe that one exists.

What arguments exist for Monotheism vs. other Theisms?


texts: What impact did the False Decretals have on Gratian's collection of Canon law?

texts:
In the ninth century, a series of elaborate forgeries were written under the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, which are now known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (or simply the False Decretals).  Among these documents are over 100 letters ostensibly written by popes and bishops in the early church, in which these popes and bishops repeatedly quoted works written centuries after their lifetimes.

Everett Ferguson indicates that this was no small thing:

  This collection became the most influential forgery in the history of the Roman Catholic church.  It became the basis of the claims for the papal monarchy in the later Middle Ages. (Church History, 18.IV.B)

This is obviously a sensitive subject, and doubly so because the gradual discovery of the fraud occurred during the Reformation period, during which the RCC faced broader challenges to its authority.  Nonetheless, I'm hoping that it's possible to politely probe the influence of these documents on the medieval church.

One particular point of disagreement I seem to have uncovered relates to the decretals' impact on the Decretum Gratiani (or Concordia discordantium canonum), an important 12th-century collection of canon law.  Wikipedia seems to downplay their impact on Gratian's work, not listing the False Decretals as one of his sources, and saying that his work "ended the immediate influence of the False Decretals" (source).

At the same time, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "many fragments" of the false decretals "are to be found in the 'Decretum' of Gratian."

Thus I'd like to limit my query here to the impact of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals on Gratian's Decretum.  Ways of viewing "impact" might include:

the percentage of Gratian's text that, directly or indirectly, comes from the False Decretals
the percentage of Gratian's supporting references that ultimately come from the False Decretals
any instances of statements or rules that Gratian rests solely or primarily on the False Decretals

Note that I am framing this as something that is, at least theoretically, objectively answerable.  I'm specifically not asking how much of Gratian's text ought to be kept or discarded, for example, nor do I care how Catholics and Protestants have defended or attacked the legitimacy of Gratian's collected canons.  Instead, I'm interested in a textual analysis of the use (intentional or unintentional) of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals in the Decretum Gratiani.


texts: Is there a different way (without spoon) to receive Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church?

texts: Orthodox Churches (including Greek Catholics) distribute Holy Communion with a single spoon used without cleaning for the whole community. I find this practice unhygienic. Are there different ways that I can receive Communion in Orthodox Churches and how can I ask to introduce them in my parish? E.g. Roman Catholics can receive Holy Communion in their hands or on their tounges, the chalice is cleaned after use and so on.


texts: Why was Abraham better able to protect Sarah from Abimelech as her brother than as her husband?

texts:
As recorded in Genesis 12 & 20:

Abraham was afraid that Abimelech would kill him and take his Sarah from him if the king knew that they were married, so he said she was his sister instead. How did presenting her as his sibling rather than wife protect her from that? Couldn't the king still have killed him and taken her?


texts: How do mainstream Christians handle the Epistle of St. Barnabas' prophecy that Jesus will return in the next 50 years?

texts:
In the Epistle of Barnabas, it says

  Barnabas 15:3 Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the
  creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He
  ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

  Barnabas 15:4 Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six
  days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring
  all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand
  years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day
  of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
  days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

  Barnabas 15:5 And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when
  His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and
  shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
  stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

And we know that the World (Human History) according to Bible is now almost 6000 years.
This means The Second Coming of Jesus will happen within 50 years from now.

According to  Saint Malachy Prophecy
 we can know that it has the same timeline.

How should we interpret these things?


texts: According to Catholics at what moment did the ransom sacrifice go into effect?

texts:
At his crucifixion our Lord cried out "My God Why have thou forsaken me?"

A bit later he cries out again and in about that moment he died and there was darkness and earthquake and the temple curtain split in half.

Did the ransom go into effect at that moment or was it upon the shedding of blood when the soldier pierced his side? (Hebrews 9:22) "no forgiveness takes place without the shedding of blood"

Or was when Jesus returned to heaven "to appear for us in Gods presence"?   (Hebrews 9:24)

Or do Catholics have a time frame different than these for when the ransom went into effect?


texts: Is it possible to be a good Christian and be psychic at the same time?

texts:
I've seen many conflicting biblical statements that have been interpreted as condemning psychics and others that promote using "gifts from God". How can a psychic reconcile such a gift without conflicting with biblical teachings?

For that matter, if one is psychic, how can you tell if it's a gift from God or somewhere else?


texts: What did the Dominicans have against the immaculate conception?

texts:
I was readIng an ad for a movie about blessed Duns Scotus which said he was debated and won against the Dominicans in the 13th century about the special privilege given to Mary, her Immaculate Conception.

What I don't know (and don't really want to buy the movie to find out is)

For what reason did they doubt her Immaculate Conception? (and)
Is this why the Rosary starts with the Annunciation and not the
Immaculate Conception?


texts:
At John 19:26 we read : "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

We also read at John 11:1-3 "Now a certain man was ill, Laz′arus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. .......  So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

We know that there are different words in Greek to express love. My question is: Which word was used in the Greek Bibles to denote the special consideration   that Jesus gave to John and Lazarus, which has been translated as 'love" in English. Was it likely that Lazarus, like Jesus himself and John the Apostle,  was a bachelor ? What do Catholic traditions say on such a state of life in respect to Lazarus of Bethany?


texts: Since there is only one God who is not formed then how can the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is a created god?

texts:
If there is only one God, how can Jesus be another "god" as taught by the Jehovah's Witnesses? Isaiah quotes Jehovah in Isaiah 43:10-11 the very verse from which the Jehovah's Witnesses derive their name, that there has never been "formed," either before him or after him, any other "god" of any kind.

Isaiah 43:10-11, (NWT): You are my witnesses, even my servant whom I have chosen in order that you man know and faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I--I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.

Thus, Jesus cannot be a created god, and must be the God that Matthew and Isaiah said would come to be "with us." Matthew 1:23, "Behold, the virgin shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means "God with us."
So if, the NWT and Jehovah's Witnesses claim, the Word was "a god," then that means that Yahweh was wrong when He said "Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me," because the Word would be a created/formed god. How do Jehovah's Witnesses resolve this issue?


texts: Does Hell exist according to Catholicism?

texts:
Does the Roman Catholic Church believe in the existence of Hell?

If YES -

Who will go to Hell and why?
How long will they stay in Hell?
Is there any second chance after they go to Hell?
What should we do to avoid going to Hell?


texts:
Is the Church (Body of Christ) active in any way, to expose fake Jesus reincarnations?

For clarification: are there any missions that include reaching the victims of false Jesus reincarnations that one could join?


texts: How do we understand that the law was given by angels

texts:
This scriptures shows us that the Law was given by ministrations of angels and by Moses.

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Acts 5:53
For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; Heb 2:2
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. Exo 20:19

But the book of Exodus seems to be silent on this matter.
How was the law given by angels?
Are there other passages that sheds light on this?


texts: Can Grace be irresistible and still be a gift?

texts: According to TULIP Calvinism grace is "irresistible".  If grace is irresistible then what role does faith play in salvation and can it still be considered a gift?


texts: What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15?

texts:
What are the 'Scriptures' mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 - 4?

. . . Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.
. . . He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

If Paul called something 'scriptures' I would like to know what it was and take his opinion seriously.
Did the Corinthians have the same Bible we have?
Did they have access to 'Scriptures' other than the modern Bible?
Did Paul teach from the same 'Scriptures' they had?


texts:
In the Catholic tradition, confession to a priest is treated with special protection as a sacred rite. The priest is charged with maintaining the confidential nature of the confession, something they take very seriously. However, not everything ever said to a priest is said as part of an official confession.

When is a confession considered sacramental and when is it ordinary? Is there some kind of instantiation procedure to switch to a confession if chatting with a priest? Is it possible to use the language of confessing a sin in the hearing of a priest and not have it be sacramental? Does place matter?


texts: What should be the role of music in corporate worship?

texts:
There are many musical expressions used in corporate worship gatherings. Some of these music expressions are corporate (singing songs together), some are experiential (listening to a choir or soloist).

Is there a good and proper way to enfold music into a corporate worship gathering? Is there a bad and/or inappropriate way to enfold music into a corporate worship gathering? What's the role/responsibility of the music leader(s)? What's the role/responsibility of the congregation/participants?


texts: Why are most Christians reluctant to identify the Lazarus Jesus raised from the dead with Lazarus in the story of the rich man and Lazarus?

texts:
I’m doing a talk in a few weeks on the story of ‘the Rich Man and Lazarus’ (Luke 16:19-31), and I find that it fits quite nicely with the account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11.  In particular:

The name ‘Lazarus’ is used in both accounts without any disambiguation.  Usually when more than one person has the same name, we get a surname or other point of identification.  Eg. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Judas - not Iscariot etc.  Here it’s just ‘Lazarus’.  Nor is he just a bit player with one or two mentions.  Lazarus is named 4 times in Luke 16, and 11 times in John 11-12.
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus offers no clue to why Lazarus goes to “Abraham’s bosom” other than that in his lifetime he ‘received bad things’.  Are we to understand that everyone who has a tough life goes to heaven?  If however we grant him being the Lazarus of John 11, then the answer is clear.  Lazarus is identified by his sisters in John 11:3 by “He whom you love is sick”.  So he went to heaven because he loved Jesus and Jesus loved him.
The rich man asks for Lazarus to be sent back to his brothers, and while Abraham is pessimistic about the prospects he doesn’t actually deny the request.  And then we find in John 11 that a man called Lazarus is indeed ‘sent back’.  And in John 12:10-11, Abraham’s assessment is confirmed – Lazarus’ resurrection results in the chief priests seeking to put him to death again because it’s causing people to believe in Jesus.

One thing that is difficult to reconcile is how Lazarus could be a beggar when a) he was buried in a tomb (John 11:38), and b) his sister Mary produced perfume worth a year’s wages to anoint Jesus (John 11:2; 12:5).  However there are three other accounts of this anointing (Matt 26:6-14; Mark 14:3-10; Luke 7:36-50), and in the Luke account the anointer is described as a ‘sinful woman’ (Luke 7:39) – presumably a prostitute.  This puts the family in a quite different light.  Far from being a well-to-do middle-class family, we see something much grittier.  Lazarus is a poor beggar, while his sister Mary makes big money as a prostitute - and apparently doesn’t share with her brother.  Yet Jesus met this family and loved them (John 11:5).
This all follows quite naturally, but I find that most commentary on these stories dismisses the possibility that it could be the same Lazarus.  So perhaps I’ve missed something important in this, or maybe there are implications that are too uncomfortable for us to accept.  Such as:

It upsets our idea of the Mary who sat at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:38-41).  The usual understanding of her is a pious virtuous woman, listening attentively because it’s the ‘right thing to do’.  This interpretation reveals her as a desperate sinner hearing words of grace from her Saviour.  Of course she should be excused from meal preparation this time - she has crucial business to do.
It upsets our idea of who Jesus should love.  John 11:5 has “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”  It’s a bit disturbing to think of them as a dysfunctional family.  We’d much rather see Jesus loving respectable folk.  But loving the unlovely is quite in character for Jesus, and complaining about it is quite in character for everyone else.  Eg. Matt 11:19; Luke 5:29-30; Luke 15:1-2.

I realise this view is unpopular, but there must be a reason for it.  Have I missed something important, or is this simply prejudice?
EDIT: I know there are strong opinions on this topic, but if you’re going to give an answer, please provide something based on Scripture rather than unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions.


texts: Is there any denomination that claim to know it is possible for humans to know where a human is predestined to go after death?


texts: Where can I find scans of original Biblical manuscripts?

texts: I want to study different translations of Bible and compare them to Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Can any one tell me where can I find the pictures of original Biblical manuscripts online?


texts: Did Angels sent to earth before Jesus have literal human bodies?

texts:
There  are many instances of angels appearing to humans in the Bible.  For example, Genesis 32:21–32  describes Jacob wrestling with an angel.  The angel Gabriel appears to deliver messages three times: first to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 8:16); next to the priest Zechariah to foretell and announce the miraculous birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19); and finally to the virgin Mary to tell her that she would conceive and bear a son (Luke 1:26–38).

What is the biblical evidence that these angels had actual flesh and blood, human bodies?


texts: Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic? (by some)

texts:
I read that these verses (over other texts that are clearly gnostic but not attributed as such) are considered gnostic:

ST. PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS - Third letter

  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against
  principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this
  darkness

ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS (2, 6 - 8)

  Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however,
  not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
  but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God
  predestined before the ages to our glory;  the wisdom which none of
  the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it
  they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

My question: Why is Saint Paul considered gnostic?

Consider these various examples of people forwarding or confronting the idea:

The Gnostic Paul - Book by Elaine Pagels
Was the Apostle Paul a Gnostic?
The Gnostic Paul - Random Blog post
Paul the Gnostic Opponent of Peter Not an Apostle of Historic Christianity (PDF)


texts: In the Reformed tradition, can an elect expect progressive recovery of reason, emotion, and will before death?

texts:
Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are totally depraved, and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance.  Their reason rejects God's supremacy, their will refuses God's invitation, and their emotion recoils against God's goodness.  This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin.

But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the sanctification stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character.  Then after death, in the elect's glorification stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see Nathaniel's answer to another question).

My question is: since we are in the "already, but not yet" stage, can we expect progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion considering that the telos of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?  In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, and since we are already justified, wouldn't it make sense to expect palpable progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion?

I would like a documented answer quoting Reformed theologians (past or present) who explicitly associate reason, will, and emotion to sanctification.


texts:
In Acts 4:32-5:11, Ananias dies when Peter asks him why he has held some of the proceeds of the sale of his property back from the communal pot. However, it is not made clear that he promised to give them all the money in the first place.

Is this simply implied by the later lie of Sapphira who claims that this was the whole price? Is there anything illuminating from tradition or external Biblical sources? Should this passage be interpretted entirely differently?

So, why did Ananias die?


texts:
Unlike Christianity, other Abrahamic religions say that Jesus was only a great Prophet. Christians belief, however, is deeply rooted in Bible, where there are many references supporting the Divinity of Jesus and there are already many answers on this site quoting these verses from Bible about Jesus’ Divinity.

I am not particularly interested in the verses concerning Jesus' Divinity. I am more interested in the verses where Jesus refutes the claim that He is just a prophet.  Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet?


texts: How do trinitarians interpret John 8:58?

texts:
In John 8:58 Yeshua says:

  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

If I'm not misunderstanding, and based on commentaries I've read, trinitarians believe this quote is god the son claiming to have existed from all eternity, even before Abraham.

Since the divine nature and human nature of god the son cannot be separated or divided, how did the human nature of god the son exist before Abraham?


texts: What is the source for Tertullian's "woman is a temple built over a sewer" quote?

texts:
I've seen several different versions of this quotation, but the one constant is:

  Woman is a temple built over a sewer.

Other versions expand on this. Adding items such as

  Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You should always go in mourning and in rags.

or

  Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags.

But what is the original source? Putting the first quote in to Google reveals so many different versions that I'm beginning to doubt the existence of a primary source.


texts: What evidence is there that Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride?

texts:
Proponents of a rapture sometimes say that Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride, which is a symbol for the future rapture of the church. For example another answer quotes Nancy Missler who writes

The second part of the Jewish marriage was called the nissuin or the marriage ceremony itself. The groom often surprised his bride by his unexpected or early return.
All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up by surprise.” The bride was then led to the groom’s house by a wedding procession of women carrying lighted lamps, similar to the Parable of the Ten Virgins

This aspect of rapture theology would make a lot of sense if it were true. There would be a strong multi-stage parallel between the Jewish wedding custom and the history of the Church:

an initial betrothal
the departure of the groom for a time to build a house (John 14:2-3), while the bride prepares herself (Rev 19:7)
the surprise return of the groom who snatches away the bride for a short time
the public wedding ceremony and banquet with the families and community (many passages use a wedding banquet as a symbol for the afterlife)

The surprise return of the groom is easy to see in, for example, the parable of the ten virgins/bridesmaids (Matt 25:1-13), but I'm sceptical of the staging of a mock kidnapping of the bride. I haven't seen rapture proponents give any reliable references to ancient Jewish sources describing such a custom.
So is there evidence of such a custom? Or should I conclude that it was made up by rapture proponents?


texts: How does Catholicism biblically defend purgatory in a way that upholds the sufficiency of Christ's work?

texts:
Below is a quote from an answer to this question "What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?:

The (Catholic) Church refers to the souls in purgatory as the Holy
Souls in Purgatory, since their salvation has been assured.,
although their souls must be purified from the remaining residue of sin committed while on earth!

From what I understand from this quote and others, the souls in purgatory are not meriting the fulfillment of their salvation by making up for sins committed but are, rather, having the sin remaining in them purged from their being much like dross is purged from precious metal.
I have seen it written in the same answer that Divine Justice is purifying souls in purgatory and we on earth can alleviate some of the pain of their waiting by our prayers and sacrifices.
My question is not about the prayers or the process of purification in purgatory.  My question is about the notion of there being some aspect of Divine Justice that was not satisfied on the sinners behalf by Jesus Christ!
If Jesus bore our sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), and if Jesus' blood offered once for all is so much better than the blood of heifers and goats (Hebrews 9:11-15), and if Jesus' blood purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7), and if he was delivered to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Romans 4:22-25), if Jesus accomplished everything that the Father sent Him to do (John 17:4) including bearing the punishment/chastisement of God that brought us peace (Isaiah 53:5),
and if we do not make peace with God by having and living out faith.  God, in Christ, has made peace with us and we enter into that rest by faith.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. - Colossians 1:19-20

How can there possibly be any remaining residue of sin left in a born again believer that Divine Justice needs to purge out that was not dealt with by the Lord Jesus Christ?  Isn't purgatory like saying that Jesus was almost successful...that He has removed only some of our sins as far as the east is from the west?
Jesus has said that He does not give peace as the world gives it (John 14:27) which is to withhold some until full reparations are made.  This is the new covenant:  "Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
Purgatory sounds like He remembers for a while.


texts: I know that throughout the Bible Angels met with humans for very specific reasons. An obvious example can be found in Luke 1:26-38. Gabriel speaks to Mary and informs her she will give birth to a son who is to be named Jesus. Do Angels still visit us on earth and interact with humans today?


texts: How do the Assemblies of God interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2–6?

texts:
I attend an Assemblies of God church and my pastor's attitude towards expectation of attire within the church is very lax. That being the case, what is the AG/Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2–6?

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (KJV)


texts: How do Reformed Baptists view Dispensationalism?

texts:
What is the "official" stances of Reformed Baptists on Dispensationalism?

What biblical base do they claim for such views?

If, as a group, they would generally not teach Dispensationalism, are there aspects of it viewed as biblical?


texts: According to Eastern Orthodoxy why did we inherit the sin of Adam and Eve?

texts:
God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people.

God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve?

I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.


texts: Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that all Catholics must believe in them?

texts:
As described in this answer to a question about infallible papal statements, there are two teachings that were clearly given ex cathedra: the Immaculate Conception (that Mary, mother of Jesus, was born sinless) and the Assumption of Mary (that Mary at the end of her life went body and soul into heaven). Moreover, all Catholics are required to believe in it and not believing it means you are separated from the church.

From my Protestant perspective, I'm struggling to understand why these two dogmas are such a big deal that all Catholics must believe in them.

I mean, I get that the Church has taken a stance on it and that they would like everyone to believe in it. But there are other statements of faith that the Church holds as true yet doubt or disbelief doesn't expel you from the Church. I'm not seeing why these matters are so important to warrant that. It seems to me that how Mary's life began and ended is between her and God and I'm not understanding how that is relevant to me and my salvation.

Why are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary such a big deal that the popes, by speaking ex cathedra, require all Catholics to believe in them?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, in Luke 10:19 what kind of authority & power Jesus had given the Apostles & Disciples?

texts:
What I'm looking for:

Scriptures said

  'See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and
  over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will harm you. Nevertheless,
  do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you... (Luke 10:19)

Is the Authority & Power only given during Jesus time or can any Christian believers can possess it even during our times?

Is the Authority only given to Church Authority, or to elders in the community?

I will limit the desired answer to be based upon Roman Catholic Church teaching and any biblical basis it provides.


texts: According to churches which teach Believer's Baptism, what are the consequences of not being baptized with water?

texts:
Are there any direct consequences to not getting baptized? Whether this person doesn't think it's important, or just doesn't want to, or wants to but just doesn't get around to it, did Jesus or his disciples ever give an indication that if you don't get baptized then X could happen to you or you'll never achieve X? I have some friends that are believers and love the Lord, but they just don't see baptism as an urgent thing--more of cultural thing, like baby dedications or whatnot.

I feel like a heretic for agreeing, but I honestly don't see how water baptism has any power in itself, though there's certainly power in publicly proclaiming your new faith (which my friends that forego water baptism have all done). Then again, Jesus was baptized and commanded his apostles to do so. So I am conflicted with what makes sense to me and what was practiced by the early church.

FYI: I was baptized as an adult believer, but mostly because it "felt" like the right thing to do because I was told it was the right thing to do. Now having read the bible it feels less and less important. The only answer I see again and again is "The early church did it" but I don't see any consequences for not doing it.

Edit: For the purpose of clarity, the Perspective sought is those who hold the doctrine of Believer's baptism as per Baptist and related denominations.


texts: Does Acts 15:21 assume new believers would learn and follow the law from synagogues on sabbath?

texts:
Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine)

  19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, "There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law." or "The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later."


texts: Are we in the Messianic Age? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Asaph, living in the time of David, was one of the ten elders of Jerusalem and a prophet [1 Chronicles 15:19). He is attributed with several Psalms, including 50 and 74. He speaks of the Day of Judgment, the arrival of the Messiah (Mashiach), and the coming of the Messianic Age.

Psalm 50:15: Call to me on the day of distress and I will free you, and you will honor me.
Psalm 74:19-21: Do not give the soul of your Turtledove to a nation [of idolaters]; do not forget the nation of the poor forever. Look to the Covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence. Let not the downtrodden one turn back in disgrace; the poor and needy will praise your name.

If Jesus represents the coming of the Messiah, does this not mean we are in the Messianic Age?
However, there is also the Second Coming. Is this a second Messianic Age, a continuation of the first (with the Incarnation), or does Jesus's appearance "not count" as an ushering in of the Messianic Age? To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence from the Hebrew Bible (essentially the Old Testament) on what the Messianic Age would look like in human terms, but it seems clear those following Jesus in his ministries were "walking with God" as other
prophets, such as Isaiah, suggeat as part of the Messianic Age.


texts: When was the term 'substitutionary atonement' first coined and what was the reason for the choice of the 2 words?

texts:
The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question.
But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, katallagen, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'.
Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, metellazan, in Romans 1:26).
The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings.
What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ?
Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology.

EDIT upon comment :
I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ.
Further explanatory EDIT :
My concern has always been the emphasis. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then the facts of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts.
The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (gaal in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists before the redemption takes place, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world.
These are my concerns and the reason for my question.


texts: Omniscience, Omnipotence and Modern Science

texts:
God, according to most disciplines of Christianity, is thought to be All-Powerful, All-Knowing and Everpresent. The first two however seem to Juxtapose with everything we know about the natural world. For instance, things are described by sets of variables, like the orientation of a tennis ball, it's mass, how fast it's going, where it is etc yet on the smaller scales, there's a fundamental fuzziness to Nature which means that things don't exist in those sort of states at all, but have distributions. And moreover, if something like how fast something's going is narrowed down to a very small range of values, it's scattered randomly over a far larger section of space. It would seem fundamentally impossible for knowledge of these things simultaneously to exist at all, let alone be continually known by any presence, given what implications that holds [knowing one of the variables inevitably leads to affecting the other, conjugate variable, meaning that it would be continually messing around with the distributions of every system in the universe].

How do you reconcile this / argue against this with Christianity?


texts: Did a pre-schism Roman Bishop say he is not special?

texts: I heard recently that one of the pre-schism Bishops of Rome went out of his way to say that the Bishop of Rome does not possess any special authority, power, etc over any other bishop and is merely the "first among equals". Is that true and, if so, can anyone find the quote and its attribution? Google is failing me.


texts: What is the meaning behind this coin of Pope St. John Paul II?

texts:
I have in my possession a big coin in a nice box with the papal heraldry of Pope St. John Paul II.

I am very curious Where this coin came from and why this coin exists.

I have found many different pictures but none like the one I have.
This is the entire object photographed.

It seems my Grandfather and his brother who was a man of the cloth himself have been to Rome and may have gotten it in Vatican City. I found a photobook with pictures of him on St. Peter's Square and pictures of the Pope he made.  (I cannot say which pope or time)


texts:
I have only a vague recollection of it, but I could swear that I was taught that the word "wretched" in the Bible, and "miser" in Latin, referred to poor people. I may have learned this in communicants class. If so, then that's 50 years ago.

Is there a Latin hymn with "miser" in it? Can anyone think of a context in which one might have been taught about the word "miser"?


texts:
I thought that the trinity came from the following revelations
(1) There is one God (I myself am He! There is no god besides me.)
(2) The Father is God
(3) Jesus is God
(4) The Holy Spirit is God
(5) The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy spirit, the Holy spirit is not the father.

I found the usual expression of the trinity in orthodox Christianity is "One Essence Three Persons". I think I understood why there is "Three Persons" but I don't understand why there is "One Essence". At a glance I thought it stands for There is one God. But the word Essence means different thing from "I myself am He! There is no god besides me". While the old testament revelation means one(singular) personal(I, me) God the "One Essence" means a very abstract "being" which can't be one person.

So my question is: where can I find One God by (1) above in the Trinity expression "One Essence Three Persons"? Can I assume "One Essence" means One God which is represented by I and me? Does "One Essence" mean monotheism in the sense of (1)?  But I doubt it from the very meaning of Essence which I think is very foreign in the Bible.

Sorry, let me clarify my question in the followings.

Who is "I" and "me" in (1)? Is it the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit or God as One Essence?

If it is one of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit then how he can say "there is no god besides me?" So I want to have one God who can say that. And I am tempted to see One Essence as the one God. But I don't know if it makes sense or not since Essence is about "what" not "who" as you explained.


texts: How does Matthew 25:31-46 ("The Sheep and the Goats") reconcile with salvation by faith?

texts:
In Matthew 25:31-46 (a passage subtitled "The Sheep and the Goats" in the NIV), Jesus seems to be drawing a direct relationship between good works and salvation.
Matthew 25:31-46 NIV:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I read this passage to say that those people who cared for those in need will have eternal life; those people who did not will have eternal punishment.
How does this passage reconcile with other passages in the New Testament that imply or directly state that salvation is through faith in Jesus (e.g. Luke 23:40-43 -- the thief on the cross; Ephesians 2:8-9 -- salvation through faith, not works)?


texts: Parable of weeds - where did the enemy get seeds from?

texts: In the Parable of Weeds, the enemy is narrated as sowing the seeds of weed once the farmer had sown good seeds (Mt 13:25).  But, Matthew 13:30 suggests that the tares along with their  ripe seeds would be burned, thereby leaving no scope for the weed-seed to be stored.  My question is: from where did the enemy get the seeds of tares?


texts: Can a non-baptized Jehovah's Witness publisher date a non-believer?

texts: Can a non-baptized publisher date or marry a person who is not a Jehovah's Witness?


texts: If believing that Jesus is God is that important, why doesn't Jesus say it more often?

texts:
Why did many of his disciples not even know it?

Jesus asked "Who am I?" to a bunch of his disciples. Out of so many, only Peter got it close. That he is the Messiah, son of the living God.

Even that is still vague. Cyrus is also a messiah. Judaism tends to think that God considers humans his children. http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm

I mean if believing that Jesus is God is that important, wouldn't Jesus like say that a million time? Wouldn't that be the first thing his disciples know?

Update: I need to add that I wrote a million time figuratively. I mean if it's that important, he would have stressed that more so that his disciples would at least got it right when he ask, "Who am I?". In fact, even after his death and resurrection, his disciples are still divided. We have gnostic, judaizer, arians, and trinitarian. Yea I know that "the rest" are heretic. I also know that most christians think that the trinitarian are the "true" follower of Jesus. But put your self in historian shoes here. Early jesus followers differ from jews only in whether they believe Jesus is a messiah or not.

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

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

He doesn't condemn those who think he's a prophet or Elia? He doesn't say, "Good job Peter. For the rest of you, you'd better answer that thing right because my dad would fry you in hell if you messed up." http://www.ancestralfindings.com/who/ . Even Peter doesn't say, "You're God, Homo Ousion, without the i". I mean if something is kind of important, shouldn't that be more explicit?


texts: In what specific ways does the content differ between the standard edition and the student edition of The Apologetics Study Bible?

texts:
My question is how to compare and contrast the contents of The Apologetics Study Bible and The Apologetics Study Bible for Students.  It is clear from the title that the latter is targeted toward students, but my understanding was that the average Christian adult is no better versed in subjects such as apologetics, philosophy of religion, natural theology, etc., than the average Christian student.  I want to know why a potential buyer/reader would choose one over the other, apart from their age or schooling status.

The above link offer a small clue.  From the standard edition:

  More than 100 articles relate biblical truth to science, history, archaeology, psychology, philosophy, and other critical subjects. Strategically placed alongside the text of Scripture.

From the student edition:

  In addition to the complete HCSB text and dozens of articles collected from today’s most popular youth leaders, including general editor Sean McDowell, this new study Bible also includes:
  Two-color design-intensive layout on every page for the visual generation
  Sixty “Twisted Scriptures” explanations
  Fifty “Bones & Dirt” entries (archaeology meets apologetics)
  Fifty “Notable Quotes”
  Twenty-five “Tactics” against common anti-Christian arguments
  Twenty “Personal Stories” of how God has worked in real lives
  Twenty “Top Five” lists to help remember key apologetics topics

However, it is very difficult to find any more specific information, as it seems few people have read both editions.

How does the Biblical commentary in each edition of The Apologetics Study Bible differ, in terms of scope (the number of topics addressed), depth (how thoroughly addressed topics are explored, i.e., does one go further into point->counterpoint->countercounterpoint->etc. than the other), focus (are some types of topics a heavier focus in one than the other), etc.?  Does one include more non-apologetic commentary than the other to fill the space of whatever content it lacks?


texts: Why did God make the "Forbidden Fruit" available in Eden?

texts:
If the 'Forbidden Fruit' was 'forbidden', why did God keep it in Eden?

If God had the intention of keeping Adam in Eden, why did he keep that stupid fruit there?

Why was a test necessary that was bound to be failed by Adam?

Who is the best one, other than God, to know that Adam is going to fail the test?

If God wanted Adam to be fallen, why didn't He drop Adam on the face of the earth in the first place? Why did He apply the trick? Why was that trick necessary?


texts: How many years are Bible translations usually called New or Revised for?

texts:
Until this year have used the New American Bible (NAB) for my Religious Ed. class.

Now, we've got a New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).

How long is a bible New and how long is a bible Revised and can this continue for ever?

Will Bible translators ever just break down and use the Google Chrome incremental versioning system or will bible quotes require more and more ubiquitous bytes to signify the translation?

Specifically, I'm wondering if it is necessary to call the New American Bible Revised Edition published in 2011 AD the NABRE or if we'll just go back to calling it the New American Bible.  Or futhermore if we'll ever just call it the American Bible.


texts:
When I read the Bible for the first time, about Exodus 21:22-25 ESV I thought the charges are about the pregnant woman and I absolutely didn't know that life for life refers to the born child since hitting may cause also the woman a death, until I see this question!

My question is not focusing on just the mentioned verses but also for whole of the Bible: How to read the Bible correctly?

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her
  children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall
  surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he
  shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you
  shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
  foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
  Exodus 21:22-25 ESV

It is not written "she" or "the child". X for X is written vague.


texts:
In some of the more traditional denominations—certainly Catholicism and Anglicanism, to name two—churches or church buildings are named after "saints". This is in contrast to the more evangelical denominations, where churches are generally either named after their local area ("Mytown Baptist Church" / "Mytown Methodist Church" etc.) or more free-form.

How do the traditional churches determine which saints to dedicate each congregation/building to? Is it the building or the church itself (the people) that take on the name?


texts: How can John the Baptist be the greatest man born of woman, when Jesus was also born of woman?

texts:
Pope Francis tweeted today:

  Both John the Baptist, who is the greatest man born of woman, and the
  Son of God have chosen the path of humiliation. God shows this path to
  Christians so they can move forward. One cannot be humble without
  having suffered humiliation. - #HomilySantaMarta

This definitely connects with (and may be based on) the following passage from Scripture:

  11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no
  one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the
  kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the
  Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence,[d] and
  the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law
  prophesied until John, 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is
  Elijah who is to come. (Matthew 11 ESV)

In these verses, Jesus does clearly say that there is no one born of women who is greater than John the Baptist. He also places John in the position of Elijah (who was prophesied to return, as far as I know). It is easy to understand why John the Baptist is great, and there is no one greater than him except for Jesus. But Jesus does not exclude himself in this statement, which surprises me.

I would automatically assume that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist. Jesus is the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God, the Lord and Savior of Christians. Jesus is also born of woman (the Virgin Mary). How can John the Baptist be the greatest man born of woman, when Jesus Christ was also born of a woman?


texts: Is God's sovereignty a term associated with Reformed theology?

texts: Is the concept of God's sovereignty disputed outside of Reformed theology, and is God's sovereignty a label for God that is exclusively used in the context of Reformed theology?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for "God's already forgiven you" teaching?

texts:
I have recently heard many preachers and teachers, in particular Joel Osteen and Joseph Prince, say things like, "God has already forgiven you. All you have to do is accept God's free gift of salvation." Is there any biblical basis for this kind of teaching? I can only find the opposite:

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 (NIV)


texts: How do non-reformed theologists argue against "God alone matters"?

texts:
Edit

For anyone that might stumble across this by accident:

This is not a position that reformed theologists hold. (I.e. my assumption is incorrect.)

Original Question

If I understand reformed theologists correctly, reformed theology revolves around:

God alone matters
Everything for the glory of God.

Viewed from this perspective, how do non-reformed theologists argue against reformed theology?

NOTE: I understand this question is probably a bit too general. I would appreciate comments on how to narrow this.

Thanks!


texts: Do we know who the descendants of Mary mother of Jesus were?

texts: So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants.  So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc.  Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy.  So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?


texts: According to Jehovah’s Witnesses what does the name Immanuel mean in light of their belief that Jesus is a created being and not God?

texts:
This article goes on to say,

Without accurate knowledge, we may become ensnared by false teachings promoted by God's opposer, Satan the Devil. Therefore, if a doctrine contradicts God's Word, if it is a lie, then believing it and teaching it discredits Jehovah and brings us into opposition to him. So we need to examine the Scriptures carefully to distinguish truth from falsehood.

They quote Acts 17:11.

Now these were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things are true.

The Apostle Paul is telling us to check out what people say as it relates to the Bible to see if what they are saying conforms to what the Scriptures say and teach. (Acts 17:11).
Again, I could not agree more.
The Jehovah Witnesses teach in their NWT of the Bible that Jesus Christ is "a god" at John 1:1.
At Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy

 Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son,+ and she will name him Im·manʹu·el

(Immanuel meaning literally "God" or "Jehovah with us." since Jehovah is the only God).
The Apostle Matthew at Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14,

 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will name him Im·manʹu·el,”+ which means, when translated, “With Us Is God.”+

Isaiah also says at Isaiah 43:10-11,

"You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, And my servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He, Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. vs11, "I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no savior besides Me."

I believe since  there is no other God except for Jehovah, which even the Jehovah Witnesses attest too, that Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same being who are equal in nature/essence, power and eternal yet distinct in persons.
Then there is Isaiah 9:6

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

The Son, Jesus Christ in this verse is identified as "Mighty God."
Isaiah 10:21 says,

Only a remnant will return,

The remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God.+

Also Jeremiah 32:18.

O great and mighty God, The Lord of hosts is His name."

Obviously there cannot be two mighty Gods because for the Witnesses there is only one true God as Isaiah 45:22 and of course John 17:3 inform us.
Which viewpoint of "ACCURATE" knowledge of God and His Son does not contradict God's word?
Is it Matthew 1:23 which says
“God with us?"
Or is it John 1:1 in the NWT that teaches "a god" is with us in the form of a created creature known as Jesus Christ and His role as Michael the arc-angel?


texts: What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome?

texts:
The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says

  The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.

Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop?  Also, are there  any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?


texts: How does one reconcile belief in objective moral values with the notion of moral progress?

texts:
I've noticed that people tend to prefer moral relativism to moral absolutism because of the idea of moral progress. Moral progress is the notion that the world is on a trajectory towards a better and better understanding of what the right thing to do is.

Morality as being socially constructed seems to harmonize better with moral progress than a fixed, unchanging morality. However, while I believe in moral absolutes myself, I also believe in some version of the moral progress idea, although with serious qualifications. (i.e. I believe that moral progress can  over time result from our efforts to faithfully live out God's Word).

I would like to know of any resources where people have reconciled the idea of moral absolutes with the idea of moral progress, from a Christian perspective.


texts: Who or what is the origin of the Seven Mountain Mandate?

texts:
In Charismatic circles, there is a movement or teaching called the Seven Mountain Mandate. In a nutshell, we are taught that it is God's purpose for the Church or Christians to have influence, or take dominion over seven specific areas of society/culture: media, government, education, economy, family, religion, and arts/entertainment.

There have been many books on the topic written over the last decade, from authors Lance Walnau, Johnny Enlow, Tommi Femrite, Bronwyn O'Brien, Bill Johnson, Rivkah Isaacs and others.

One of the earliest book titles (from 2009) stood out to me: Johnny Enlow's The Seven Mountain Prophecy. The title seems to imply that this mandate originates from a specific prophecy uttered by a specific person.

When did this teaching originate, and by whom? I've heard it taught as a general teaching, but I have never learned its origin.

Related question:
What's the biblical basis for Dominionism?


texts: What was the earliest reference to the 3 States of the Church?

texts:
The Churches Militant, Penitent and Triumphant are used quite regularly not only in The Catholic Church but also in some Protestant denominations.  The Catechism has a reference to the three states of the Church in paragraph 934.  I'm interested in the earliest uses of the term.  Even in part, as the for example, the use of the Church as Christ's militant.

Valid answer will be the oldest verified use of one or more of the terms.


texts:
1 John 4:7  NIV

  Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever
  loves has been born of God and knows God.

Whoever loves has been born of God? I'm pretty confident that the majority of people, religious or not, would argue that they know how to Love and that they show their love for people on a daily basis.

So what does Love mean to God?


texts: I'm looking for a multilingual glossary of Christian/Bible terminology

texts: I'd like to have multilingual translations of key terminology used in Christian literature and/or Bible in a translation glossary format, including the same list of key terms ideally in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, English, German, French, Spanish, Arabic, and possibly Turkish.


texts: Did Jesus ever say in the Bible to preach Christianity or his message to the Non-Jews?

texts: My question is very simple: did Jesus mention or command his followers to go and preach Christianity (worshiping Him) to Indians or the Non-Jews? If he did not mention it why are Christians preaching around the world? Does this mean that Jesus's message was only for a particular group of people and not for the whole of humanity? Please  be specific.


texts: What is the Catholic teaching on technology and faith?

texts: We were asked this question in class today and I find it fascinating: Should our actions as scientists or engineers in the creation of our story be guided by our faith? I would like to hear what the Catholic Church teaches about this.


texts: Reference for Comprehensive Prophecy Analysis in Scripture?

texts:
What all resources/expositions/writings have been published as a comprehensive analysis of prophecy in Scripture? Any resources about prophecy in all of Scripture, its fulfillment, extrabiblical support, etc. would be helpful. I would think that 2000 years of church history would already have a few of these, especially since prophecy and miracles seem to be the favorite apologetic for the truth of Christianity, especially for the early church.

I have heard and seen several claims about the number of prophecies in the Bible, such as "over 1000+ fulfilled prophecies!" or "2000 different prophecies!" or I even read a claim of 3000 prophecies in Scripture. I don't like relying on sources I don't trust and I wanted to do a more thorough analysis, so I got 2 books that were proposed to be a comprehensive exposition on "every prophecy/prophetic passage in the Bible" and a book on every Messianic prophecy.

The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook: All the Prophecies of Scripture Explained in One Volume by John Walvoord (Amazon)
Exploring Bible Prophecy from Genesis to Revelation: Clarifying the Meaning of Every Prophetic Passage by (editors) Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson (Amazon)
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer (Amazon)

A basic meta-analysis of the two comprehensive resources shows a noticeable discrepancy in what is accepted as prophecy. I found that they disagreed on the number of prophecies at the book-level (meaning # prophecies in each book of the Bible) by 269 prophecies in just the Old Testament. The LaHaye book only includes 374 total prophecies in the Old Testament, so this difference represents a significant percentage of total prophecy. The LaHaye says that it "focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies" though it still claims to be comprehensive, discussing "every prophetic passage in the Bible." I would be even more interested in the fulfilled prophecies than the unfulfilled ones. The Messianic prophecy book doesn't even give a specific number of prophecies besides "over 300"; in fact, the first two books don't either, but I just counted them by hand. For example, I counted 659 sections/subsections of prophecy in LaHaye though it claims there are over 1000 predictive prophecies. I recognize that identifying exact numbers of prophecies can be difficult and blurry, such as when you include typologies or other things like that, but I would think there should be multiple analyses in the past that have been produced on prophecy in Scripture.

I would especially be interested in references that address the questions

What is the prophecy/prophetic claim?
Has it been fulfilled?
Is its fulfillment recorded in Scripture?
Is there extrabiblical support of this prophecy?

I am not interested in answers giving specific examples of prophecies that have or have not been fulfilled. I am only interested in publications (books, academic journals, church fathers, theologians, etc.) that extensively discuss the prophetic aspect of Scripture in an approximately comprehensive way, since prophecy is important enough to account for about 1/4 of all Scripture. I have actually seen 2 sets of 5 criteria that were created by atheists for analyzing prophecy that I actually find quite useful.


texts: Who could have watched the veil of the temple tear when Jesus died?

texts:
A professor today made the claim that the following claim is spurious:

  And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Mark 15:38 (NRSV)

His rationale is that no-one but the high priest would be allowed to see the veil in the holy of holies in the temple, so the author of Mark could not have knowledge of such an event occurring. Is this claim accurate? Who would have seen or had knowledge of the tearing of the veil that could have communicated that event, directly or indirectly, to Mark? How could this event have made it to Mark?


texts: Is there consensus on the age of human civilization?

texts: I think the interpretation of Genesis-1 concerning the age of the earth and universe is still open, but is there consensus on the age of human civilization or on the date of first man Adam? Can I say both literal interpretation and human history all agree that the age of human being is around 4000~10000 years?


texts: Why does the Roman Catholic church allow girls to serve the altar?

texts:
I once knew a classmate who told me that she belonged to the Coptic Orthodox church. Out of curiosity, I asked her whether she had ever served the altar, because I figured that serving the altar was what many Christian families would push their kids for or want them to do. She told me that serving the altar was for boys.

Just recently, I made frequent visits to the local Catholic church just for fun. I noticed that the Roman Catholic church not only had female altar servers, but also had female singers that led the congregation to sing hymns, even though I do remember reading that the Roman Catholic Church did prefer to use castrati instead of real women. I know the Roman Catholic church is about as old as the Orthodox churches, so why would the Western church and Eastern church differ in their views of the inclusion of females in certain positions?


texts: What practical experience does Pope Francis have with parenthood/fatherhood?

texts:
Recently I shared Francis's tips for being a good father, but my atheist friends do not consider Pope as authority as I do and are asking what is pope's expertise with parenthood?

By expertise I mean education or work with children, child psychologists, psychiatrists.

I read Wikipedia but found nothing relevant. I also know about Our Father book but it will not be strong evidence for Pope's experience by my friends. What I did for now was to explain that author is irrelevant and one should reason about content, not about author.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for "Do Least Harm" or "Do Greatest Good"?

texts:
At one point in The Reason For God, Timothy Keller talks about how to pick which action to choose in a tough dilemma. He gave the example of a man having borrowed tools from another guy...and said guy wants them back so he can beat his wife with them. Keeping the tools is practically stealing, but giving them back would be worse. Keller gives two options:

Do Least Harm: Out of the actions you have available to you, do the one that does the least overall damage and hurt.
Do Greatest Good: Out of the actions you have available to you, do the one that has the greatest overall benefit.

Of course, these two decision paths will select the same choice in a great majority of cases, so I'm not asking for which one the Bible says is better. Rather, I'm asking for any Biblical justification for either of these decision paths.


texts: Does Romans 7:20 contradict Genesis 4:7?

texts:
In contrast with Romans 7:20:

  But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one
  doing it, but sin which dwells in me. [NASB]

Genesis 4:7 states:

  “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you
  do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for
  you, but you must master it.”

Are these Scriptures contradictory, and how does mainline Christianity interpret each?


texts:
I once saw a listing of around 20 different views of predestination on a site. I can't find it any more. I know my own view is a bit unorthodox, but it works cleanly with the biblical text.

What is an overview of the different predestination beliefs? I'll limit them to perspectives of Christian groups which subscribe to the Apostle's Creed.

You may wish to close this question. I see an answer in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination


texts: For those who view Israel typologically, what is the significance of the 12 tribes?

texts:
Many Christians view the historical nation of Israel that we read about in the Old Testament as a Divinely designed type of the Church, and their inheritance in the Promised Land as a Divinely designed type of the New Earth (commonly called "heaven").

My question is: Assuming this typology is correct (i.e. Divinely intended), what is the significance of there being 12 tribes, each with their own region of the Promised Land? (For example, does this suggest each church will have its own domain in the New Earth, or does it speak more generally to the acceptability of diversity within the Church, or something else?)

I'm looking for standard views, not personal ideas, so a survey of the most prominent views (2-3 maybe) would be most helpful.


texts: What is the origin of hands lifting in worship?

texts:
You don't need to go far to agree that raising hands while singing and worshiping (with music or prayer) is a big Christian tradition.

I've always thought that this was some reference to Psalm 134.2:

  Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the LORD. (KJV)

Or to 1 Timothy 2:8:

  I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. (KJV)

So, I can imagine some biblical basis for it. But my question is: When this started on church's history? Is there some theology behind it? Any Father who registered, did or encouraged it? Or is this a thing of modern christian movements?


texts: Why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was a virgin?

texts:
Christian religions constantly remind us that Mary was "forever virgin".

So why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was also a virgin?


texts:
Comparing the lists of disciples in Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16, Acts 1:12-14 We find the name Bartholomew, but in John 1 We read about Nathanael.

In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.

We know He was Philip's friend from Bethsaida and He was "truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit"

Nathanael also appears in John 21:2

The name 'Bartholomew' appears in Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:14

Are Nathanael and Bartholomew the same person?


texts: What is the justification used by the Nazarene denomination that permits women to be pastors/ elders?

texts: Nazarenes allow for, and indeed pride ourselves on, our allowance of women in the pastorate. What is their justification for doing so?


texts: What do Reformed Baptists think about a Christian refusing to be baptised?

texts:
I would like to hear what the doctrinal position of Reformed Baptist churches is regarding a Christian who rejects or refuses baptism?

While Grace alone and Faith alone are the undisputed source of salvation, what does someone refusing baptism reveal? Is it considered a salvation issue, in regards to it showing bad fruit?

If there is disagreement amongst Reformed Baptists, an overview of the major Reformed Baptist churches and denominations' position on this question would be ideal.


texts: What can be the Christian defence of the argument from J.L. Schellenberg’s “Divine Hiddenness”?

texts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
"This argument says that if God existed (and was perfectly good and loving) every reasonable person would have been brought to believe in God; however, there are reasonable nonbelievers; therefore, this God does not exist."


texts:
2 Timothy 3v8
"Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected."

Who were they?


texts: Does God have a form as seen by John the Apostle?

texts:
Revelation 4

  2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in
  heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the
  appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald
  encircled the throne.

  Revelation 5

  1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll
  with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals.
  6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the
  center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the
  elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
  spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the
  scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

Apostle John saw God in Heaven. God was sitting on a throne, had a glorious appearance and His right hand was holding a scroll. The Lamb, who was Jesus Christ, came and took the scroll from the right hand of God.

From this vision, can we conclude that God has a form like us?

Does God have a head, body, hands and legs so that God could sit down on a throne like us?


texts: From the perspective of Roman Catholicism, what do Orthodox churches have to do to become "Eastern Catholic Churches"?

texts:
Recently I answered a question and included an image that attempts to portray, among other things, the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches:

This image shows churches leaving other branches and joining the Catholic Church, specifically, the Eastern Catholic Churches.  I understand from Wikipedia that there are 23 such churches "in full communion with the Pope in Rome," including the Syriac Catholic Church.  Wikipedia is vague on the details, but says that in 1782 the Syriac Patriarch "declared himself Catholic and in unity with the Pope of Rome," which resulted in a division of the Syriac Church into Catholic and Oriental Orthodox wings.

My question relates to how this "in unity" process works, specifically regarding national/ethnic churches of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Churches.  An overview is fine – I don't need details if it's a complex process – but I'd like to understand what the Catholic Church expects from such church leaders who attempt to bring their Orthodox churches into the Catholic Church.

In case it's helpful, I'll mention some ideas that come into my mind, but I don't know if these examples make sense.  Do these church leaders simply have to declare their unity with the Pope?  Do they have to explicitly reject some other authority?  Does a unification ceremony of some kind have to take place?  Do church leaders have to demonstrate somehow that their action represents the will of their followers?  Have standards changed over the years?


texts: In Eastern Orthodoxy, when doing a service, do little mistakes really matter, and should they be cause for concern?

texts:
I have a question about the Ecclesiastical Typikon regarding the singer of the church. Does it really matter (i.e., it is a big problem) if he fails sometimes or instead of a song he sings another one? I am referring to a small mistake, like: at the Theotokion the singer must sing, for example, the Theotokion for Transfiguration of Jesus (on the last day of the afterfeast), but instead he mistakenly sings It is Truly Meet. Is there any problem?

Is there any Saint who has spoken about this kind of involuntary mistake? And also about if the Typikon (and all the Holy Services books) should be complied very very precisely (or maybe is more useful to pray much better)?


texts: Magnitude of the earthquakes of the Book of Revelation

texts:
I live in Chile, which is a country where 2 of the biggest 5 earthquakes occurred since humans measure earthquakes. The biggest occurred in 1960 and it was 9.6 in Richter scale(the soil cracked and big objects like houses were almost jumping) and the 5th biggest occurred in 2010 and it was 8.8 in Richter scale. The Tsunami produced after the earthquake of 1960 killed people even in other countries like Japan and Hawaii. So, when I read the Book of Revelation and see, for example:

  12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great
  earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the
  whole moon turned blood red,
  Rev 6:12

And others like:

  5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar,
  and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder,
  rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake.
  Rev 8:5

And:

  13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the
  city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake,
  and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
  Rev 11:13

Among others, I wonder about the magnitude of these earthquake, because I have experienced great and severe earthquakes here. The problem is small earthquakes here can be considered as severe and great in other countries.

Do any groups or doctrinal systems provide particulars on how strong of a quake or what kind of increase in quake frequency signifies the end times?


texts: I thought I'd answer a question asked here about non-Catholics receiving the sacrament of reconciliation by using the RCIA book, but in skimming all the steps, there doesn't seem to be much said about confession, I know it's unnecessary for the unbaptized, but don't baptized Christians preparing to be in full communion with the Church have to go to confession first?


texts: In 1 Samuel 20:30.. Is Saul saying: "SON of a *****?"?

texts: After reading those verses from 1 sam 20:1-30, it seems like Saul is actually Screaming: You "SON of a *****?"?... but the Bible writers or translators seems to polish that verse with seemingly "Polite" words... by saying things like son of a rebellious woman etc...


texts: Does John 6:44 imply that there is no free will when it comes to salvation?

texts:
I was struck by reading this verse in John the other night:

  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him

I've heard the term 'predestination', however it is unclear to me how free will is reconciled with it.

In the instance of free will, one has the choice to either listen or to ignore God's tap on the shoulder. This also leads to the question regarding predestination in general where religious doctrine is concerned.  What exactly is predestination?  Does it necessarily preclude the ability to choose as one wills?


texts: My church had a guest speaker that said he died and was at the gates of heaven for 90 minutes. Can someone tell me where to read in the bible about seeing if this is possible? I just have trouble believing this.


texts: What is the Catholic Church's teaching on paying respect to one's in-laws?

texts: The fourth commandment says that one should respect one's parents. I wish to know if the Catholic Church has made some rules which would govern one's conduct towards one's father-in-law and mother-in-law.


texts: Is God really Merciful according to the Bible?

texts:
1st Samuel 15, Saul disobeys God but the Bible says that God is Merciful also He commanded that "Thou shall not kill". Why did He ask Saul to kill all the Amalekite people without sparing their livestock too. I mean that really sounds Wicked to me asides it contradicting the commandment. How is God Merciful? If He's sending Israel to kill her enemies when Jesus commands we love and pray for our enemies or for not stopping Jephtah from sacrificing his daughter(a ram was provided in the case of Isaac). How is this bloodbath Mercy or rather How is He still a Merciful God?

  P.S. An in depth answer would be appreciated


texts: What is the source of this numbering anomaly in Ambrose's De Officiis?

texts:
In at least two editions of Ambrose's De Officiis (On the Duties of the Clergy) there is a numbering anomaly in Book 1, Chapter 38, where paragraph numbers 190-199 are skipped, and paragraph number 200 is used twice. This can be seen in CCEL's online edition. It is also present in a paper edition which uses the same translation.

What is the source of this numbering anomaly? Do other translations or editions have it, or is it particular to the Schaff/De Romestin translation? Or is it limited to the CCEL edition? (The Benediction Classics printed edition I saw made no mention of the CCEL, but I guess it's possible they simply copied and published the text of the CCEL edition. Seeing as it's out of copyright I'm not sure if that would be illegal or not...)


texts: Why did Jesus say that "Mary has chosen the better part"?

texts:
Why did Jesus tell Martha, who was serving the Lord and making preparations, that Mary had "chosen what is better"?

  As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village
  where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister
  called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But
  Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She
  came to him and asked, "Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left
  me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"

  "Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about
  many things, but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has
  chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:38-42)


texts: What explanations have been offered for the "messianic secret" passages?

texts:
In a number of places in the Gospel accounts, Jesus performs a miracle and then tells the healed person and others who witnessed it not to spread the word.  For example,

After healing a leper,

  And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” (Mark 1:43-44, ESV)

After curing a deaf and dumb man,

  And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. (Mark 7:36)

After curing two blind men,

  And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it. (Matthew 9:30)

Likewise, in several places Jesus tells people, especially his disciples, not the share that he is the Messiah.  For example,

After Peter's declaration,

  Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:20)

After the transfiguration,

  And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. (Mark 9:9)

And in addition, Jesus also told demons not to reveal his identity:

  “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
  “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”
  ...
  and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was. (Mark 1:24-25, 34, NIV)

What is an overview of explanations offered for these passages?  That is, why does Jesus make these commands according to notable scholars and Biblical commentators?


texts: If a husband wants to recommit to Catholicism but his wife does not want to convert, will they be considered to be adulterers?

texts:
A couple in which the husband was baptized a Catholic as an infant but the wife was never baptized have married outside of the Catholic Church (but married legally, and in a Christian church). Neither has been married before.

The husband wants to renew his Catholicism, but his wife doesn't wish to convert. According to Catholic Church teaching, are they (will they be) considered to be living in adultery?


texts: Does "no part of this world" mean no involvement in politics?

texts:
Jesus is reported as having said that his kingdom was "no part of this world", and further of assuring Pontius Pilate that his followers posed no risk to the secular authorities. Given that, should Christians be involved in politics?

My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this
world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered
up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.
John 18:36. NWT


texts: What "things" is Jesus talking about in Matthew 11:25?

texts:
I really like this verse but I don't fully grasp what Jesus is talking about in his prayer (specifically 11:25)

The Father Revealed in the Son

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

27 “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”