texts:
Matthew 26:40-41 NIV

  Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t
  you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch
  and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is
  willing, but the flesh is weak.”

How does sleep put the apostles into temptation? I understand why they should pray but how the sleep can put them into temptation? Can a sleep be a doorway to  a devil? Or what is Jesus talking about here according to the Roman Catholic Church teaching? What is the context?


texts: what are the correlations or what are the 2 most common types, concerning the # of the beast?

texts: 1 is reference to a single entity, the other is a broader subject. The answer is as vague as it is exact and its a positive thing not just optimistic ^^ cuz i dont like people using #s an events supposed algothryms, to hold control of 1 person over another for bad reasons, theres also somthing called multiple access protocol with selective retransmision. Im saying this cuz i got some feedback and id rather know somthing vagulely than let people use it by not saying nething at all.


texts: What is the biblical basis for those in heaven being able to pray for the living?

texts:
Some Christian doctrine suggests that our work as Christ's servants does not end with our physical passing from this life; that we can continue to pray for those in need in heaven. Catholicism comes to mind but some Protestant denominations seem to leave wiggle room with their teaching on the communion of saints as well. I sense truth in this but could find no direct support in the bible. I do see support for this in the contested book of the Apocrypha and the practices of the Jewish Chasidic and Chareidi sects.

I am not asking if there is biblical authority to support the practice of the living praying to dead saints for intercession. That one has been thoroughly probed.  Rather, my question is if there is biblical authority to support the proposition that when we are in heaven, in the presence of God, we can pray for the living.

In searching this site, I found the following pertinent references. I would also ask for comment on how these references relate to the question posed.

Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go! (Jer. 15:1)

And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you. (Tobit 12:12)

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (Rev. 5:8)


texts: According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was Jesus Christ ordained to the Priesthood?

texts:
This may seem like a stupid question (ie. why would someone need to be ordained to their own priesthood order?). However, I can't seem to find reference to Him being ordained or to Him not needing to be ordained.

I know He had the Priesthood - many references call Him a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. I'm wondering though if He went through any sort of ordinance where He became ordained (ie. He wasn't ordained before the ordinance). I know that the Priesthood is eternal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was born automatically ordained to the order of Melchizedek.

Like I've said in a comment on one of the answers, what I'm envisioning is Jesus as a teenager or young adult being ordained to the priesthood the same as any other boy/man of his time. Whether or not that ordination was as meaningful or needful for him as it was for his contemporaries isn't the point of this question, the question is - do we have evidence that an ordination ceremony of some sort happened during his mortal life, or do we have evidence that whoever would have ordained him understood that Jesus didn't need to be ordained?

For the sake of my question, I'm interested in an LDS perspective. However, if the answer to the question isn't necessarily an LDS one and I just totally missed something obvious (ie. He was ordained and here's the Bible reference), I'd accept that too.

EDIT: As I'm studying more and seeing some answers that are coming in (which have been really helpful - just not quite what I was looking for), I'm realizing that this question is not as simple as I was thinking. So, first of all, moving forward I'm only interested in the LDS perspective. Second, here's some background on why I'm asking (which I hadn't thought was relevant initially):

Alma 13:2 says:

  And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption

Verse 16 mentions something similar:

  Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on th Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

There doesn't seem to be any interpretation available to what this means. I got to both of the same conclusions that this article's section on verse 2 got to (writing it out would take too much space here). Referring to that article, in my mind the first suggestion seemed right (but too easy of an answer), and the second suggestion felt really interesting to pursue whether or not it has any ground to stand on. In my mind, the first question to ask in determining whether or not the second suggestion could possibly hold any water is "Was Jesus ordained?". If not, then the second suggestion can't possibly be correct.

I couldn't think of a time in the New Testament where Jesus gets ordained - but I also couldn't think of any mention in any of the LDS Standard Works suggesting that he didn't need to be ordained. He needed to be baptized, so maybe he also needed to be ordained.

Like one of the commenters below suggested, I considered the Transfiguration, but Jesus was using the Priesthood before the Transfiguration. I've also been reading that some other Christian denominations consider Jesus' baptism to be the moment he was "ordained" (ex. the 'When was Jesus ordained' section of this article on a Catholic website). That idea makes sense to me, but I haven't seen any LDS writings suggesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees or disagrees with that.


texts: If Jesus was weak, how could he be a carpenter?

texts:
From the Gospels, we know that Jesus was a carpenter.

Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him."
Mark 6:3 - NIV

However, Saint Irenaeus of Lyon said that Jesus was weak.

Some of them, moreover — [when they predicted that] as a weak and inglorious man, and as one who knew what it was to bear infirmity, Isaiah 53:3 and sitting upon the foal of an ass, Zechariah 9:9 He should come to Jerusalem; and that He should give His back to stripes, Isaiah 50:6..."
Against Heresies, book IV, chapter 33, section 12.

If Irenaeus was right, how could Jesus be the carpenter if He wasn't physically strong? Is great strength needed to be a carpenter?


texts:
Does anyone know what works are considered to be principal elements of Western soteriological thought, primarily focused on Roman Catholic and Protestant ideologies?

I'm interested mostly in primary texts by the likes of Martin Luther, Erasmus, and Calvin, since I've had a hard time finding exactly where in, for instance, Luther's Works, he discusses such things.

  Example: I'm reading a book on Luther's inception, and it sends me to
  "LW 34:167", which corresponds to one of Luther's soteriological writings. I'm curious if people know about stuff like this for other theological thinkers; for instance where Calvin outlines his theories of predestination.


texts: Do any Christian denominations prohibit eating rare meat?

texts:
In comments on this question ..What does it mean to abstain from blood in the 21st century?... A user stated that Christians must not eat rare meat because doing so violates the command in Acts 15:28&29 (keep abstaining from blood)
I have not ever heard a person say:" make my steak well done I can't eat rare steak it is against my religion".
Are there denominations that prohibit members from eating meat that still shows traces of blood in it?


texts: How does the Filioque affect Reformed Protestant theology?

texts:
In the past, extremely influential Eastern theologians (Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, etc.) have rejected the Filioque on important theological grounds.

Likewise, the Latin Catholic church insists on the insertion of "and the Son" into the Nicene creed.

What is the weight of importance for the Filioque   in Reformed theology...or is it somewhat of a non-factor in the grand scheme?


texts: Why doesn't the Bible also say a woman should leave her parents to be united to the husband?

texts:
Why does the Bible in Gen 1:24

  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

only point to the man leaving his parents and uniting to the wife but doesn't say so to the woman?

I know that if a woman continues to be "too attached" to her parents after marriage it may result in problems.


texts: Why don’t Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ pre-existed before incarnation?

texts:
I want to ask this again but in a different context. In the context of unitarianism.

Why Unitarians do not believe that Jesus Christ is God
And why Unitarians do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus prior to the incarnation.
And where do Unitarians stand regarding the belief of non-pre-existence of Jesus Christ before birth in relation to the Bible verse John 14:6 which states:

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me. (NIV)

If Christ did not pre-exist before the incarnation, how did the people before the incarnation (Adam and Eve, the prophets, the patriarchs and just about anyone before Jesus' birth) who where all considered holy and have communicated to God in one way or another, were able to do so, when John 14:6 clearly states no one can come to the Father (God) except through Jesus Christ?

Furthermore, Matthew 22:43-44 states (which is a direct reference to Psalm 110:1)

  He[Jesus] said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit,
  calls him 'Lord'? For he says, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."'

In the non-unitarian context this is a clear evidence that Jesus pre-existed and an answer in the referred question linked on the top of this question, suggests:

  All of Scripture (the written Word) testifies of Jesus (the Living
  Word) and there has never been access to God the Father except through
  Him:

  You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have
  eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you
  refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:39-40

Although this needs more explaination from the author [Mike Borden]

So, what is the view of a Unitarian about this?


texts: What does the "reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist" mean?

texts:
I've been reading god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I'm a Muslim and this book is my most extensive introduction to Christianity so far, as well as other religions including mine, to some extent.

Here is the passage:

  Some of these would still be in some danger if I were to name them, but I must admit my debt to the late Dr. Israel Shahak, who introduced me to Spinoza; to Salman Rushdie, who bravely witnessed for reason and humor and language in a very dark time; to Ibn Warraq
  and Irfan Khawaja, who also know something about the price of the ticket; and to Dr. Michael Shermer, the very model of the reformed and recovered Christian fundamentalist.

I'm now familiar with the basic denominations, sects etc. of Christianity to some extent but am really confused by the churches, traditions, movements and so on. There are so many of them and they may be a bit too confusing for a beginner.

One of them is reformed and recovered fundamentalist. There is a universe of definitions and explanations on the Internet, I know. But believe me, the more I read them the more confused I get. Moreover, I read each one of them separately and think that I've got the idea but then again, whenever I try to combine and make sense of them, I fail.

I would be more than grateful if anyone could explain me what a reformed and recovered fundamentalist is in simple terms for a non-native non-Christian dummy, so to speak.

As a side note, I know it isn't within the scope of this site but now that I've asked one question about the above passage, I must admit that I don't understand either what is meant by know something about the price of the ticket here. I totally understand if you wouldn't like to answer this one since it's off-topic.

Thank you so much.


texts: Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

texts:
I have always thought that the Pope did not recognize the validity of the faith of those outside of the Catholic church, but in comments from a different post I am surprised to find out I may be confused. It may be because I read old books and things have changed in more recent history.

Most Protestants believe that anyone who genuinely believes in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins is saved. I am one of them.  I believe simply believing in Christ without adding anything else to the mix, including church denomination, brings eternal life to anyone.

My question is does the Catholic church accept that Christians like me have eternal life, yes, or no? If so, when did the Catholic church begin to recognize the faith of those outside of her church and understand that as believers they will be in heaven?

I am not interested in if Catholicism recognizes my baptism, or other sacraments that may have been administered to me, but rather the eternal life which has been granted to me by believing in Jesus.   I am interested to know if my salvation as a whole, outside the Catholic church, is recognized by my trust in Chrst?


texts: Did Jesus' hypostatic union limit Christ's consciousness?

texts:
Just half an hour ago, I watched an amazing video that had a visualization of a baby's development from conception to birth. Afterwards, as I went about satisfying bodily needs (like food), I had one line from Silent Night running through my head: "Jesus, Lord at thy birth." Then I suddenly had the realization that if the Son was in that fetus as it developed, He may not have been conscious for nine months.

I was surprised to find out that I was the one who previously asked when a person's soul/spirit unites with the body. Apparently, the official position is that it happens at conception. If this is true, then the Son united with His zygotic body at conception, which I assume could correctly be referred to as the Hypostatic Union. Thus, my question is: was the Son "conscious" while He was developing in Mary's womb?

A non-birth example would be when Jesus and his disciples went across the lake after feeding 5,000 men:

  Matthew 8:24 (NLT)
  24 Suddenly, a fierce storm struck the lake, with waves breaking into the boat. But Jesus was sleeping.

Jesus was sleeping, so his physical brain certainly would've been unconscious. Multiple times, Jesus made it clear that he didn't use his own divine power (having emptied himself, as Paul explains), depending instead on the Spirit's power and his Father's commands. Did this also apply while he was asleep? Was the Son also "asleep" while Jesus slept?

Basically, what I'm trying to ask here is: did the Hypostatic Union limit the consciousness of the Son? Of course, even trying to apply the term "conscious" to God is a bit wibbly-wobbly, but I think the gist is clear.

I would most appreciate writings from the great theologians of the church up to the Great Schism, but if an answer would be better by referencing a later great theologian, then the closer to Wesleyan, the better. Regardless, Roman Catholic and/or Orthodox writings are fine as sources.


texts: Is there more than one Joseph in the Bible?

texts: When reading my Bible, I've noticed Joesph's name listed in both the Old and New Testaments; is it the same person or is there more than one Joseph in the Bible?


texts: What is meant by the 'Confirmation' concerning the receiving of Holy Spirit in Acts 8:5-19?

texts:
Acts 8:5-19 (NIV)
Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there. When the crowds heard Philip and saw the signs he performed,
they all paid close attention to what he said. For with shrieks,
impure spirits came out of many, and many who were paralyzed or lame
were healed. So there was great joy in that city.
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the
city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was
someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their
attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power
of God.” They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time
with his sorcery. But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the
good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was
baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great
signs and miracles he saw.
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the
word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they
arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might
receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on
any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they
received the Holy Spirit.
When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this
ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy
Spirit.”

(I had to post the whole passage to make it easier to understand)
Questions:

If Phillip was able to perform miracles and baptize people, then what was the need for Peter and John to go to Samaria?
Why was the Holy Spirit not given when Phillip baptized the people?
What actually happened when Peter and John placed their hands on the people that even Simon the sorcerer was amazed at it?
What kind of manifestation of the Spirit was it? Clearly it was visible and powerful.
Why is this incidence known as Confirmation?

(Answers are expected on the perspectives of major denominations only)


texts: Are monks allowed by Church law to set up a religious order for clergymen with a particular profession (ex. developers)?

texts:
Imagine that there is a Catholic monk, who is also a full-stack developer, who, after much thinking wants to set up a religious order for clergymen who code. We have heard of clergymen (monks, priests) who are professors of various academic subjects, such as history and quantum physics. But I haven't heard of a particular religious order of clergymen who are collectively historians, scholars, etc.

Is he qualified by Church law to set up a religious order? If yes, is he allowed to define in that religious order that the people signing up in there have to be/train to become developers? If yes, what are the requirements for setting up such religious order?

Thanks!


texts: Who were the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices?

texts:
The passage from the Gospel of Luke 13 has a very curious beginning. We hear about an episode involving Pontius Pilate that is not recounted in any of the other Gospels. It says Pontius Pilate had mingled the blood of some Galileans with their sacrifices. (Luke 13:1-5).

  Luke 13:1-5

  New International Version (NIV)

  13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus
  answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than
  all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you,
  no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those
  eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think
  they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I
  tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
  ’”

Who were the galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices?

There's some historical/tradition information? Any clue?


texts: What happened with the schools of Luther and Melanchthon?

texts:
I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools.

It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?


texts: What is an overview of the similarities and differences between the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity?

texts:
Upon a cursory examination, both the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin and the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity seem to say that mankind is by default separated from God.

What is an overview of how these doctrines are alike and how they differ?


texts: How many wives did Joseph Smith Jr. have in his lifetime?

texts: I understand that polygamy was commonly taught and practiced in the early days of the LDS church by Joseph Smith and others.  I'm wondering just how many wives he had and who they were.  Also, were any of these women polyandrous (having more than one husband) or was only polygamy (more than one wife) allowed?


texts: Why did Justin Martyr speak so harshly about Christians who ate meat sacrificed to idols?

texts:
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XXXV, Justin replies to Trypho's charge that Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols by saying that such people serve to show more distinctly who are the true followers of Jesus and exhort them to faithfulness, and that such people are wolves in sheep's clothing, causing schisms and heresies.

However, my reading of the New Testament creates the impression that abstinence from food sacrificed the idols was prescribed in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) on the basis of the preservation of unity, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 clarifies that food does not commend us to God, the idols have no real existence in themselves, but that we should use our freedom to not cause the "weaker brother" to stumble (evidently in this case, the one who through prior associations finds a problem with eating the meat). Paul seems to think that it is more of a question of the company one is keeping that might make the action sinful, as opposed to the action itself.

Trypho, as a Jew would have been such a person that the Christians should have at a minimum not publicly ate the meat around, and so they would be guilty of sin. But heresy? Wolves in sheep's clothing? Why does he not argue instead that these Christians are simply guilty of sin?


texts: Is this true that in the Orthodox Church there are still two quite opposite views existing, one of which holds that everybody will sooner or later be delivered by God from the hell, and another one stating that those who are not saved will be tormented in the hell forever?


texts: How does the Catholic Church explain passages that seem to use culturally specific logic?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes about women, prayer, and head coverings. As he often does, rather than simply laying down a law, he appeals to logic and well known facts. For example,

  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
  — 1 Corinthians 11:14, KJV.

The problem is that this particular well known fact is not as universal as Paul appears to imagine. In some cultures, it is not considered shameful for a man to have long hair.

One could say that this means that Paul is wrong. He’s building up a chain of logical reasoning from what he appears to imagine is a universal fact, but actually isn’t. This could be understood to invalidate the entire passage.
One could say that this means that Paul’s logic, and therefore the resultant rules, applies only where the facts on which it’s built are correct. In that case, though, what rules apply where Paul’s facts don’t apply? Can other rules be derived by applying the same logic to different underlying facts?

However, when Paul says that nature itself teaches us, he really does seem to think that this is a universal rule. And he’s wrong about that. To what extent is this a problem?

One could say that when Paul writes that nature itself teaches us, that this is a normative statement. He could be saying that it is universally wrong for men to have long hair, and that cultures in which it is acceptable are also simply wrong.

Does the Roman Catholic church take one of these positions, or another which I’ve not thought of?


texts: What were the major disagreements between Erasmus and Luther during the Protestant Reformation?

texts:
Although Erasmus inspired many of Luther's ideas, they disagreed on many subjects, such as whether the Catholic Church should have a moral reform or a reform of beliefs.

Did Erasmus disagree with Luther's decision to break away from the Catholic Church? It seems like Erasmus may have thought Luther had gone too far by starting the Protestant Reformation, but I am not completely sure.

Sources would be really helpful.

EDIT: Sorry, I have been busy lately, so it has taken me awhile to find some time to write this.

I am actually not sure where I came up with the idea of Erasmus thinking Luther had gone too far. I probably just assumed it, because Erasmus wanted moral reform of the church, meaning he did not want to change the practices and doctrines of the Catholic Church. I must have assumed that because Erasmus did not think the church needed a reform of beliefs, then he probably would have thought Luther had gone too far by trying to reform the church this way. There is no evidence I have to support this, which is why i put that it "seems" like he thought Luther went too far.

This is also the reason why I was thinking Erasmus may have disapproved of the protestant reformation, despite the influence he may have had on it.

This goes back to the question, did Erasmus disagree with Luther's break away with the church?


texts: What is the biblical support for the Nicene creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"?

texts: What is the biblical support for the Nicene Creed's statement of the Son being "eternally begotten"?


texts: How did Christians of WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation?

texts:
I do not know of a single time period where Christians did not believe that "the end time was near."

For many people in the centuries immediately after Christ's death, it's not unthinkable that they would believe "Well, Christ's returned to heaven; he probably just has to take care of some work, and will soon return for us."

For us, we look at the Book of Revelations -- and we say

Hey, we have the internet -- thus having the tech to fulfill the live stream of the death of the two witnesses.
The Mark of the Beast? Clearly we're moving towards a society with embeddable chips; so all our credit card, identity, etc ... will be some embedded chip -- and without it, people will not be able to buy / sell.
Earthquakes / wars ... destabilizing in the middle east: yep, yep, yep.

Question:

How did most Christians during WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation? Were most of them convinced that the end war near? Given the sheer brutality of the wars, if one squinted at the wraths of God poured out and interpreted them symbolically, perhaps they could have been made to match up with the events happening at the time.


texts:
Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter?

I knew a classmate who was Methodist. She told me that she ate ham during Easter. Is this a Methodist church tradition? Are Methodists allowed to eat meat during Easter or Lenten season?


texts: What is the Justification of a priest acting in persona Christi?

texts:
What is the justification used in Catholicism to justify the doctrine of a priest acting in persona Christi?

Scriptural and catechismal references please.


texts: Were Catholics originally offended by the Sacred Heart?

texts:
According to a comment by Mr. Hayword, the Sacred Heart was something which was originally opposed in Catholicism, but I have not found clear evidence of this, only a citation of an Anglican who cites Orthodox priests whose criticism are not undisputed (you might look at the comments here).

This does not provide analysis of WESTERN condemnation of the practice, though, or even Western censure. Does any such document exist?


texts: Does the Mormon Church endorse the children of narcissistic parents breaking off contact with them (not necessarily permanently/forever)?

texts:
Same question as here but Mormon instead of Catholic.

Edit: Okay fine I'll try to make this self-contained.
There's this article about narcissists, written from a Christian perspective, ending with claims about how ACONS can honor their nparents. One is:

We honor them by insisting that they get the professional help that they need, before they have anymore contact with us & our family members.

Would the LDS/Mormon Church agree with that? Google (probably) shows a lot of articles about LDS/Mormon Church and narcissism, but I didn't bother to check because I already checked for Catholicism and narcissism, and someone in the other question has an answer for the LDS/Mormon Church.
More context: Based on the deleted Mormon answer provided (by JBH, iirc) in the other post, it seems the answer is likely

In general, yes, but the precise actions to be taken during estrangement (EDIT: the estrangement is not necessarily permanently/forever) or steps to be taken to become estranged or, in the first  place, whether or not to become estranged must be decided with advice from a religious or mental health professional/s such as priests, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.

Or simply

Probably yes, but definitely seek professional advice.

My guess then is that this question instead falls under a broader range of questions to which the answer is either of the above. What range of questions could this be? I'm thinking now of some church document or section entitled 'On matters pertaining to mental health, etc'


texts: Eschatology: Reformed and Roman Catholic?

texts: I've heard that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies have Augustine as a major foundation. True?


texts: Does Christianity or the Bible forbid polygamy and widow remarriage?

texts:
I've seen people advocate widow celibate for the reason of a happy reunion of the marriage bond in Heaven. As I understand it, this appeal is based on the rejection of polygamy, which is based on the rejection of lustful feelings towards a woman outside the marriage which is considered a lechery.

According to a Czech master's thesis I've read, Christianity has surmounted polygamy as Jesus establishes the equality of man and woman: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

However, I don't consider this a sufficient basis. So what does Christianity base the rejection of polygamy and widow remmariage base upon? Thank you!


texts: Does the great great grandmother in George MacDonalds Princess and the Goblin represent a Catholic conception of God?

texts:
I just finished reading the Princess and the Goblin and the Princess and Curdie written by George MacDonald, a prolific author of Childrens books and a congregationalist minister (albeit not one enamored with Calvinism) whose writing greatly influenced Chesterton and the works of Tolkien.

In reading the Princess and Curdie, and to a lesser extent, the Princess and the Goblin,  I got the feeling that the Great Huge Grandma in the Princess and Curdie was a lot like a precursor to Lewis' Aslan as used as allegory.  The Old Princess shows up in unexpected forms, sends help from above, changes bad into good with fire etc..

My question is, however regarding MacDonald, is there anything in his use of allegory that is contrary to Catholic doctrine?  I could always pick the good parts and avoid the bad parts, but I'd rather take the whole thing.  I'm reading the books to my kids right now and have just left them as books (which I believe to be the proper thing to do, just plant the seed of goodness in them through allegory).  But if there are any themes to revisit in the future, I'd like to know.

Is it OK, in allegory to make God an old woman (even a very strong old woman)?
Does an allegory of God require a death and resurrection, ala Stone Table (and not just a coming and going of old age)?


texts: Do the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches observe different dates for Pascha?

texts: Someone claimed on another forum that the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church observe different dates for the feast of Pascha/Easter. Is this so? If so, what does this imply about the unity of the Church?


texts: Denominational adherence to "The New Perspective On Paul"

texts:
To be honest, I'd never heard about the New Perspective on Paul before today. Does anyone know of denominations that subscribe to the NPP interpretation, in part or in full?

Specifically, the following concepts, taken from this article:

Covenantal Nomism

  Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s
  plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant
  requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its
  commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression

I read this to mean "God saves us by providing atonement, so long as we keep up our end of the bargain."

This of course, would be different than Sola Fide.

The righteousness of God

  Proponents of New Perspectivism argue that the righteousness of God,
  spoken of by Paul in Romans, is refering to God’s faithfulness rather
  than the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

Justification

  According to Wright, justification isn’t merely an initial means by
  which someone is right with God, but rather a mark of who already is.

Denial of imputed righteousness

  N.T. Wright reinterprets texts classically used as prooftexts for
  imputed righteousness. He understands 2 Corinthians 5:21, for example,
  to refer to God’s covenant faithfulness. While many still profess
  agreement with the substance of the doctrine of imputed righteousness,
  the classic (or traditional) interpretations of texts relating to
  imputation have more or less been removed


texts: What's the difference between these two words other than obviously the spelling. I've seen some songs write Alleluia which sounds very similar to Hallelujah when sung.


texts: How do we know we aren't worshipping the same God?

texts: How does a Catholic know that they are not worshiping the same God as someone who practices Islam or Judaism?  Is there anything that concretely points to them being different past personal revelation?  Has the Church expressed in a doctrine the differences between their God and the others?


texts: What are the requirements for establishing an Eastern Orthodox church or mission?

texts:
As a former parish council member of a recently founded Catholic mission, I'm somewhat familiar with the  process of establishing a Catholic mission/church within the parameters of canon law.

What is the process for establishing an Antiochian Orthodox mission?

(A) What are the requirements?

(B) How many members are needed?

(C) How is a priest assigned to the mission?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief held by Jehovah's Witnesses that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are separate entities?

texts: According to Jehovah's witnesses what evidences are there in the Bible that Jehovah is not Jesus Christ? What passages separate them, or declare them as different?


texts:
1 Thessalonians 4:11 says,

  and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,

If this was a blanket statement to everyone, people like Billy Graham would be sinning by living famous lives in the public spotlight.

Is that true? What is the real command here? How has this issue been addressed elsewhere in the Old & New Testaments, or by scholars and theologians?


texts:
I spent many, many years in France and while there I read some older liturgical books that explained what the Golden Mass of Our Lady was. These all explained that the Mass in question was in reality the Mass of the Expectation of Our Lady (December 18). This was especially true in past centuries in Belgium.

While trying to do some research on this connect to the Feast of the Expectation of Our Lady as being the Golden Mass of Our lady, I find out that it seems to be related to the Ember Wednesday of Advent.

The Golden Mass of Ember Wednesday

The Blessed Virgin Mary and Annunciation of the Lord

Although these two liturgical days of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) do share the same Gospel of the Annunciation: Luke 1, 26-38 and occasionally the same day; these two liturgical celebrations have very different spiritual moods. Dom Gueranger does not speak of an Ember Wednesday of Advent connection. The Ember Days were days of fasting and not feast days.

Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that the Ember Wednesday of Advent connection the Missa Aurea is not correct.

My question is as follows: Can anyone locate a pre-twenty-century liturgical source indicating a link between the Feast of the Expectation of Our Lady  and the Golden Mass?


texts: Why are the Ammonites excluded instead of the Midianites in Nehemiah 13?

texts:
Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites, and Moab was terrified because there were so many people. Indeed, Moab was filled with dread because of the Israelites.
The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, “This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field.”
So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the Euphrates River, in his native land. (Numbers 22:2-5a, NIV)

On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God, because they had not met the Israelites with food and water but had hired Balaam to call a curse down on them. (Our God, however, turned the curse into a blessing.) When the people heard this law, they excluded from Israel all who were of foreign descent. (Nehemiah 13:1-3, NIV)

Why did the Israelites at the time of Nehemiah exclude the Ammonites and Moabites from entering the Temple, when it was originally the Midianites and Moabites who hired Balaam?


texts: Source of Christian attitudes towards fantasy and role playing games

texts:
I've heard many stories of people who abandoned their role-playing hobby, or burned their fantasy book collections, on the grounds that these were opposed to their Christian faith.

What is it that causes some Christians to be concerned about fantasy and role-playing? What are the sources** for these concerns?

**Not just Biblical sources, but also the people that promoted the concern within the Christian community.


texts: Poor defined as 'Any Poor' or 'Christian Poor'

texts:
Context:

Proverbs 19:17

  He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Luke 12:33

  Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

... and plenty of more examples ...

In the Bible, when the Bible speaks of giving to / helping the poor, is the poor referred to as:

(1) any poor person
or
(2) a poor person that identifies him/herself as Christian

I.e. according to the Bible, should Christians give to poor non-Christians?


texts: Does a Roman Catholic priest have to intellectually understand a confession in order to grant absolution?

texts: The concept of confessing a sin, seams to imply that the person has to subjectively believe they have sinned—otherwise how could they confess? According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the priest have to understand the nature of the sin, or merely understand that the penitent believes they have sinned? Can a priest hear a confession in a foreign language? I ask this because this seems like the limit case for understanding what the person is saying in the confession booth. What if the sin seems like gibberish to the priest?


texts: Can Christians be guilty of "robbing" God like it says in Malachi 3?

texts:
God accuses the Israelites of "robbing" him by not tithing the full tenth according to the Levitical law. Can this also be true of believers today who are part of the new covenant and dead to the law?

  Malachi 3:8-11 ESV Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the Lord of hosts.

The reason I ask is because this is one of the go-to passages people use to encourage tithing because of the benefits that come from it (God will pour down a blessing). If that's the case, then are the downsides of not tithing shown through this passage also true?


texts: How did the world get populated according to Bible?

texts: Adam and Eve had only three sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth), but no daughters: how did the world get populated?


texts: What is the biblical basis for carrying out social justice in opposition to the justice system?

texts: What is the Biblical basis for seeking social justice when such actions are considered illegal, or in opposition to the justice system?


texts: How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can "represent" me?

texts:
The assertion that all of humanity "sinned" when Adam sinned, or "through Adam" is often made as a foundation to other Christian doctrines. What specific doctrine points to Adam being a representative of all of humanity? According to those who hold this doctrine, by what mechanism can Adam be considered my representative? I never voted for him nor was offered a choice to participate in his blood line. How is it logical that the choices he made should be held against me and the rest of humanity?

Furthermore, are my other blood ancestors such as my father and grandfather also my representatives in the same sense? If not how is their role different?

The tag original-sin has some interesting related questions, but nothing dealing just with the mechanism by which Adam is considered a "representative", a common phrase used by Christians.


texts: How can I be sure someone I know is going to Heaven?

texts:
I am sure that through my faith my sins have been forgiven and I will get into Heaven.  However, how can I be sure someone else will be forgiven and allowed in Heaven?  Are there any good questions I can ask them to be assured of their own faith?

I would expect actually ask any questions and not try to assume anything from outward appearances.  However, I am assuming that when asking the person they are answering honestly.

Also, I imagine asking these questions of someone who may have first approached me and asked how they could be assured they will get into Heaven.  Perhaps someone who is first approaching Christianity or a believer who is questioning how they'll get in.


texts: How do seventh day Sabbatarians explain the lack of Sabbath observing following Spirit led revivals?

texts:
Thinking a lot about the controversial matter of whether Christians should keep the Sabbath in a strict literal sense (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday), after looking at the problem from different angles I had a sort of "Eureka moment". This is the insight: if keeping the Sabbath is a moral duty, and breaking it is as immoral as raping, killing, stealing or fornication, you would expect the Holy Spirit to quickly convict someone about the immorality of such an act and lead the person to repentance and adoption of Sabbath observance. This is a no-brainer. Thus, this led me to ask myself: "Ok, so let's look at the evidence. Where am I more likely to find records of what happens when the Holy Spirit moves? Oh wait, in revivals!". Yes. So I decided to look at the outcomes of most revivals I knew about, looking for any evidence of widespread adoption of Sabbath observance (an outcome you would predict to happen if breaking the literal observance of the Sabbath is indeed immoral). However, after doing some investigation on the matter, I couldn't find a single instance of a revival in which Sabbath observance (from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) was a widespread outcome.
I'm listing below some examples of revivals to illustrate the point:

Uganda's Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The First Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The Second Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
The Third Great Awakening: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1904–1905 Welsh revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Azusa Street Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Pyongyang Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Watchman Nee's revivalist ministry: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Brownsville Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1949 Argentina Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
1954 Argentina Revival: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Argentine Revival with Carlos Annacondia: no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.
Argentine Revival with Claudio Freidzon (check out this book also): no widespread Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) observance.

What explanation do seventh day Sabbatarians provide for the lack of strict seventh day Sabbath observing following so many revivals (in which the Holy Spirit is claimed to have moved) throughout history? If breaking the Sabbath is a terrible sin, shouldn't we expect that the Holy Spirit would quickly lead people to repentance and Sabbath keeping? Then how come we don't see that happening in so many revivals?


texts: How could Stephen be stoned without a trial and conviction in front of the Roman Governor?

texts: I heard in a sermon that it was not allowed for the Jewish leaders to convict a  person without permission from the Roman governor. My question is: how did they stone Stephen (Acts 7:58) without a trial in front of the Roman governor?


texts: What scripture is used to support a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture"?

texts:
CLARIFICATION:  For those who believe there will be an event in the "end times" in which believers will be "taken up" to meet Jesus "in the clouds", and that there is yet to be a "Great Tribulation", I am curious which scriptures (primarily) are used to support the view that the rapture will happen prior to the tribulation, as opposed to after the tribulation.
REASON FOR THE QUESTION:  I am studying Matthew 24 in preparation for a sermon next Sunday, and came across the following passages (from the NASB):

"...the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and said to them...'  (from v.3-4)
"'...they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you... At that time many will fall away...'"  (from v.9-10)
"'For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.'"  (v.21)
"'But immediately after the tribulation of those days... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds... And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.'"  (from v.29-31)

Based on these passages, it sounds like the disciples asked what signs would indicate the "end of the age", and in response, Jesus described a "great tribulation" after which He would "come on the clouds" and "gather His elect".  I am assuming that both "camps" (Pre-Trib. and Post-Trib.) would have an interpretation of this passage, but it got me thinking... if there was a "Rapture" before the great tribulation, why wouldn't Jesus just say something like "when you notice people disappearing, you'll know the end is here!"  In other words, Jesus is answering their question, but seems to be glossing over the most obvious "sign of the end of the age", which happens before everything else (in the Pre-Trib view.)
I haven't studied the Pre-Trib. vs. Post-Trib. debate extensively, and was wondering if someone could summarize the arguments from scripture in favor of the "Pre-Trib" view.  (I am aware that any passage can be interpreted any number of ways, but I am specifically looking for the most clear and convincing passages that support this doctrine.)  Thanks!


texts: What is the meaning of the bronze serpent used to save the Israelites?

texts:
In Numbers 21: 8,9, Why is a bronze serpent used to save the Israelites, and what does this mean for Christians today?

  8Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived. NKJV


texts: Do Christians foresee contradicting Government requirements in prolonged 'lockdown' conditions?

texts:
I received an email today from someone who has, thus far, complied with Government advice, concerned that prolonged lockdown conditions or 'semi-lockdown' conditions (which pose significant restrictions on communal gathering for worship) will soon necessitate a decision to go against Government requirements in the future (I am not saying which country this refers to) and to consider house-meetings for worship or other arrangements that will contradict 'advice' or statutory requirements.
The thought had crossed my own mind as well, that the restrictions imposed (no singing permitted, limited number of persons allowed in the building, limited scope for normal fellowship, limited scope for prayer meetings where many of the congregation will lead in prayer) might, if prolonged, be considered a situation where one would have to consider 'obeying God rather than men'.
My own thought has been to consider meetings in the open air, something done commonly in olden times and done often in the times when Jesus preached to large multitudes.
A building is not a necessity and it would perhaps be viewed by authorities less severely than if Government requirements were breached within a building.
Have any Christian gatherings or denominations (who have thus far complied with all recommendations) made any public statements in regard to how Christians view the ongoing pandemic situation and what they propose for the future ?


texts: Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith?

texts:
I've noticed some churches in my area that are titled things like:
"Greek" Orthodox
"Russian" Orthodox
"Serbian" Orthodox
"Antiochian" Orthodox etc...

Are these all the same type of Christian Church?


texts: What is the origin of Zoe (ζωή) vs Psyche (ψυχή) life in St. John?

texts:
It seems in John's gospel and and in other letters by John, there is a big theological emphasis on the difference between (in the Greek) ζωή "Zoe" life and ψυχή "Psyche" life.

  John 12:25 (NIV)
  25 The man who loves his life [ψυχή / Psyche] will lose it, while the man who hates his life [ψυχή / Psyche] in this world will keep it for eternal life [ζωή / Zoe].

Is there any evidence of this idea preceding Christ, in Jewish thought up to that point, or in other religious traditions or is this unique to Christianity?


texts:
I'm teaching tomorrow on the general judgment and need an answer about folks in heaven.  I know Mary and Jesus are there body and soul.  I think (although my teachers manual doesn't mention it in this chapter) that the Church teaches Enoch and Elijah are there (body and soul as well) owing to the biblical accounts of their departure. But Moses according to Jude via the Book of Enoch (Which is apocryphal not deuterocanonical) had his body fought over and won by St. Michael and he appeared before Sts. Peter James and John on Mt Tabor with Elijah.

So, if the prince of the heavenly host has his body and he's appearing with a known occupant of Heaven (Body and soul) and notwithstanding the evidence is found through an obscure reference by an obscure apostle in the same book as another known occupant of heaven (why that would be a coincidence is baffling).  If all these things are true, then is it likely that Moses is in heaven body and soul, or is he still waiting for the end of the world with the rest of us?

Orthodox Catholic or catholic Orthodox answers only please.


texts: What was meant by the charge: "the upsetting of the lamp"?

texts:
In Justin Martyr's First Apology Chapter 26, we read:

And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.

The context is:

...the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours.

But these three accusations seemed to have been laid against the Christians, charges which Justin supposed was rather invented by them that probably committed it themselves and then charged to the Christians: "upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh".
The "promiscuous intercourse" evidently referred to incestuous practices and "eating human flesh" to cannibalism which Eusebius confirms were charges laid against Christians,...

And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure, and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean banquets and Œdipodean intercourse, and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men. Ecclesiastical History, V.1.14

Other non-Christian writers also refer to such accusations against the Christians that explains two of these charges in The First Apology , but I cannot find a meaningful explanation of what "upsetting of the lamp" means.


texts: What is the norm for celebrating First Friday/Saturday Novena Masses on Holy Days of Obligation?

texts: When First Fridays or First Saturdays fall on Solemnities (like All Saints is on Friday in 2019), do people usually punt the devotions to the next month or pack them into the same day?


texts: What is the reasoning behind the belief that Eve was NOT created on the sixth day?

texts:
I was talking with someone recently and the question was raised as to when Eve was created.  I immediately replied that she was created on the sixth day, albeit later in the day than Adam.  One person seemed surprised by that concept.  It appears that there are two positions on this.

What, then, is the basis for the belief that Eve was not created on the sixth day, but on a later day?


texts: Does the Roman Catholic Church embrace theistic evolution?

texts:
In 1996, Pope John Paul II gave a speech in a plenary assembly at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, documented here. It seems he embraced a version of Theistic Evolution (sometimes called Guided Evolution).

I have two questions:

Does the Roman Catholic Church endorse Theistic Evolution (Guided Evolution)?
And more important: if that's the case: where is the division between the last "pre-human" and the first human with access to salvation by means of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?


texts:
During a prayer service in our Church, we sang the Laurentian Litany to Our Lady. Does someone knows if there exist any rules that say how the litany should be prayed (ex: standing up during liturgical holiday)?

This litany is also known as the Litany of Loreto and the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


texts:
I've read the following:

  You will find different "schools" of Christianity have different epistemological preferences. To put very very broad brushstrokes (and I don't mean to offend), Rationalsm -> liberalism. Empiricism -> charismatics, Biblical revelation -> evangelicals, Church authority/revelation -> catholicism. But I don't think any of them would deny other epistemologies but would place different emphases on them.

My question is: What evidence is there to suggest that denominations have different epistemological preferences?


texts: Why do those who take Matthew 23:9 literally not emphasize 23:8 and 23:10 similarly?

texts:
This could be seen as a follow-up question for "Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally?".
There are some groups (usually evangelical) who emphasize Matthew 23:9, especially as an attack against the Roman Catholic church and other churches where clergy is sometimes called "father", but I have never seen anyone forbid calling anyone "master", "mister", "teacher" or "doctor" (which originally meant "teacher").
How is this inconsistency explained by those who take this position?

Matthew 23:8-10 (ESV):

(8) But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.
(9)  And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
(10)  Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.


texts: What do non-Catholic Christians do with the power of binding and loosing?

texts:
In Catholicism, we believe that the Bishops in Communion with the Pope (as Vicar of Christ) have authority over Church doctrine.  The authority comes straight from the mouth of our Savior.

  Matthew 18:18 (NAB)
  18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So, for non-Catholics and for other Christians who stake their claim to apostolic succession yet hold that the Bible is the only authority, can anything really be bound or loosed by the apostles or their successors?  What does this passage mean outside of my interpretation?


texts: Since Mormonism allows for humans to become gods in the afterlife, does this mean it is polytheistic?

texts: It is stated that Mormons believe in an afterlife scenario that includes the ability to become a god of their own planet (only men though).  Does this mean Mormonism is polytheistic?  Would this be the only example of polytheistic Christianity?


texts:
The New World Translation of John 1 seems to indicate that Jesus was a separate god from the Father.

1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
2 This one was in [the] beginning with God.
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

How does the concept of the trinity fit with this concept of Jesus being a separate God?


texts: According to Catholicism, is going to work on Holy Days of Obligation sinful?

texts:
The Precepts of the Catholic Church says

  You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor

This seems quite clear, that working on Holy Days of Obligation is a violation of the precepts of the church.
The reason I want to get clarification is that the actions of myself and the Catholics I know seem to ignore this requirement, meaning we are either in violation, or I have missed something.

For example Thursday, Dec. 8th, 2016 - The Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary

PS: I am aware that Holy Days falling on Saturdays or Mondays may be abrogated


texts: According to the Protestant denominations that hold to the doctrine of clarity of scripture, is trinitarianism clear?

texts:
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that

"...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and
observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some
place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a
sufficient understanding of them". Westminster Confession of Faith

According to denominations which hold to the doctrine of the clarity of scripture, is trinitarianism something which is necessary to be known and believed for salvation, and therefore clearly propounded and opened such that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain to a sufficient understanding of them?


texts: What bible translation did the Unitarians use in 19th century America?

texts: I have been recently reading a lot of Emerson and through this reading I came to know something about William Ellery Channing (the Elder), who was the main voice of American Unitarianism in the 19th century. A colleague asked me what bible traslation were people like Channing and Emerson (who was also educated in the Unitarian tradition) actually using and I started doing some research on the topic, finding only some infos on the New Testament, as it seems that Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) was indeed popular among Unitarians. However, I could not find any informations on Channing, Emerson and the like. Were they referring to the KJV? Or some other translation? Thank you in advance.


texts: Why does the LDS Church put an emphasis on prepping?

texts: It's been many years since I attended LDS Churches, but I seem to recall quite a bit of discussion about emergency preparedness, which goes by the term "prepping" today.  I've never seen this in other denominations.  What is the official statement on the LDS Church for the reason for an emphasis on this?


texts: What is the significance of the four laws given to early Christians who were not ethnically Jews?

texts:
In the early years of Christianity, there was a lot of debate whether people of non-Jewish origin should follow the strict Mosaic laws, especially circumcision.

A consensus was made that for pagans who wish to become Christians, no circumcision or other old Jewish traditions and laws should be compulsory, with four exceptions, as described in Acts 15:20.

The KJV translation says:

  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of
  idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from
  blood.

My non-English translation effectively says:

do not worship idols. (this is, of course, self-explanatory)
no adultery (still clear)
do not consume the flesh of animals who died by drowning (why? Of course, it makes sense in a sanitary way, but why make it a condition of being allowed to become a Christian?)
do not consume blood. (was that meaning ritual sacrifices that pagans might have done in that time? What about blood sausage, a common food in many parts of Europe, even among the strongly religious, except maybe a few small groups. Or was that, according the translations where the word "consuming" is missing, just "thou shalt not murder"?)


texts: How do non-trinitarians interpret John 14:26?

texts:
John 14:26 (NRSV):

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

My impression as I read this verse is that three distinct persons are identified, but I could very well be wrong. In the pursuit of having a well-rounded and unbiased view of this passage, I would like to get acquainted with the non-trinitarian perspective on it. Do non-trinitarians also identify three distinct persons being mentioned in John 14:26, and if so, how do they make sense of that?


texts: Why was Jesus amazed by the Syrophoenician women's faith?

texts:
“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
  Mark 7:27-29 NIV

Verse 27:

Did Jesus question the women about her daughter's provisions?

Verse 28:

Jesus was amazed by how she had replied to His question. I just don't understand this part.

Verse 29:

God rewards the women because of her faith. I totally understand this part.

I would love to know what the two verses are about. Thanks


texts: Are there other explanations of ”right hand” than masturbation (Matthew 5:30)?

texts:
The context in Matthew 5:30 strongly suggests that Jesus is talking about adultery. Verse 21 starts with "You have heard", starting a section about respecting your neighbor. Again, Verse 27 starts with "You have heard" and starts a section about adultery. The next section after that starts at verse 33 with similar words "Again, you have heard". All these sections concentrate on one issue. Also, the word "again" in verse 33 emphasizes the fact that these are separate sections.

Therefore it's quite clear that verses 27-30 are related to adultery, and 31-32 are a continuation of that theme. Also, verse 28 makes it clear that verse 29 is about lusting with the eye. Then verse 30 is very similar to verse 29, only different body part.

Given these observations above, it's clear for me that Jesus is banning masturbation. My question is that could "right hand" mean something else, also?

Remember that Jesus is talking about adultery, or to put in another way, not meeting the sexual needs of your spouse. The spouse is neglected against in both masturbation and adultery with another person (masturbation is kind of adultery, too).

So, is there any other possible meaning for the ”right hand” in verse 30, considering the context?

I’m a fundamentalist protestant, having not found a denomination with perfect theology yet. I just want to know if any Bible-believing Christian has found another explanation (based on Bible and this context) for the right hand, other than masturbation.

Matthew 5:27-30: 27. “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28.but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29.“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30.“If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.


texts: What are the Biblical reasons for getting married?

texts:
The basis for this question comes from a conversation I had with a friend. She said to me 'The only reason that two people should get together and get married is because they can do more for the Kingdom of God together than they can do apart.' On the face of it, this viewpoint makes sense and is not without some positive aspects, and it is certainly one that I have heard in the church for years. But I don't believe that there is a specific biblical passage that would support this viewpoint.

This led me to ask myself, and to ask here, what reasons does the Bible give for getting married? Is the notion that married people can do more for the Kingdom a Biblical one, or is there another reason given for getting married?


texts: Why did the RLDS change its name to the Community of Christ?

texts:
There are a lot of people under the impression that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints changed it's name to the  Community of Christ in order to distance it's identity from the LDS church so they could be accepted into the World Council of Churches.

For what reason did the RLDS change it's name?


texts: In the book of Job, it suggests that angels sin. Do they?

texts:
In the 4th chapter in the book of Job, it states in verses 17 and 18 that: ‘Can mortal man be in the right before[b] God? Can a man be pure before his Maker? Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.'

"His angels he charges with error"? Do they sin or am I interpreting this incorrectly?


texts: Is Latin considered a holy language in the Catholic Church?

texts: I've heard that many Roman Catholic Churches still hold Mass services and particularly ceremonies (e.g. weddings) in Latin. Is this true, and if so why is Latin considered to be a better language than the native language(s) of the region in which the church is in?


texts: Can a Christian eat semi cooked or red-blood running meat?

texts: Can Christians Today, eat semi-cooked or blood running red meat?


texts: Does Christianity allow allegorical readings of creation and the deluge?

texts: Please forgive me, I'm not Christian but I have wondered: Why do Christians seem to try to prove Noah's flood or a young earth? Considering the overwhelming evidence for human and geologic history that there was no global flood that wiped out life on earth or civilizations and that modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, can an allegorical reading of the beginning of Genesis be allowed?


texts:
How do Protestants interpret 1 Peter 1:17? It reads:

  1 Peter 1:13-17 (DRB) Wherefore having the loins of your mind girt up, being sober, trust perfectly in the grace which is offered you in the revelation of Jesus Christ, 14 As children of obedience, not fashioned according to the former desires of your ignorance: 15 But according to him that hath called you, who is holy, be you also in all manner of conversation holy: 16 Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy. 17 And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one's work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.

This is something I would expect and take for granted in Catholic theology, where we as servants of Christ have a duty to use our talents, or grace, or we can be assigned in Hell  (cf. Matthew 24), and there is "no respect of persons" (i.e. just because you are Christian). But how does Protestant theology incorporate this verse, which seems to be a rather clear and direct warning to believers to be holy because God will judge by our works, 'not faith only?'

In other words, how isn't there a direct teaching here that our holiness and conduct comes into justification (cf. Hebrews 12:14)? I say justification, because you don't 'conduct yourself in fear' because you won't recieve a perhaps optimal 'reward.' You conduct yourself in fear because your deeds are to be judged: and no one fears a judgement of their deeds wherein no condemnation is brought against them.

Thanks in advance.


texts: Elijah "The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail" miracle or not?

texts:
In 1 Kings 17:14 we have the following passage (NV):

  ‘The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land.’”

Now every single preacher I've heard have a literary interpretation of this passage and consider it a miracle (like the multiplying of bread and fish).

However, P.Coelho in his book "The fifth mountain" suggests that Elijah worked in that city so the jar of flour was always full as a result of his income.

The latter interpretation is also favored by the last verse:

  Now by this I know that thou art a man of God

So after the widow sees her son is alive (which was undoubtedly a miracle) is convinced about Elijah. Thus, if the flour multiplying was also a miracle, she would have probably already been convinced.

Is there anything else which might help understand whether this was indeed a miracle or not ?


texts: From Scripture, what are the signs of demonic presence?

texts:
From scripture, what are the signs/manifestations of demonic presence?

Can scripture be used to bring out and away the demonic presence?

What warning signs should be looked for as far as the various stages and progression of the  demonic presence?


texts: Does the Bible make a distinction between Christian and secular love?

texts:
John makes this startling claim in his first epistle.

  1 John 4:7-8 (NIV)
  7  Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

If I am to take the obvious interpretation of this verse, then I must make one of two conclusions:

The act of loving causes us to be born of God, and thus saves us.
The act of loving is impossible unless we have been born of God.

The problem with the first, of course, is that it sets up an alternate, works-based mode of salvation.  This contradicts so much of the Bible, that I think we can immediately rule it out.

The second is problematic (albeit, less so), because it claims that non-Christians are incapable of love, or at least makes some distinction between the character of Christian and non-Christian love.  This seems to contradict observation, because (in my view, at least) many non-Christians live just as lovingly and compassionately as many Christians.  I would find it hard to swallow that their love is somehow less authentic than my own.

So, how do we explain this?  What is John getting at exactly, and how do we reconcile it with reality?

I'm interested in answers consistent with the protestant tradition, and particularly answers that are consistent with Arminianism.


texts: Can the King James Bible be extensively quoted in commercial books?

texts:
I am writing a book about the New Testament and need to quote the Bible extensively. I know the KJV is in public domain and there shouldn't a problem in quoting it, but does that apply to a book that may be published and possibly sold on the open market?

You have dealt with this issue before, but the person who was writing their memoir didn't indicate if they were going public with it, and were creating a commercial product. Does the later use of KJV scripture change any aspect of the Public Domain law?

See below:

  Is the King James Version Bible in the Public Domain [duplicate]

  This question already has an answer here:

  What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain?  8
  answers

  I am writing a memoir and want to use some quotes from the King James
  Version Bible. Will this be considered Public Domain because of the
  age.

  Thank you

  Answer
   Yes, it will. Quote away, without fear of being attacked for not
  footnoting what you are quoting.

  In the Wikipedia article on the KJV, you'll find the following: "The
  Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] is in the public domain in most of
  the world."

  In your memoirs, just make sure your quotation corresponds to the
  correct chapter and verse. A personal pet peeve of mine is the
  frequency with which I go to the reference provided in a writing and
  fail to find the verse that is quoted and cited.

  On the plus side, however, that kind of erratum makes me appreciate
  all the more the miraculous job performed by generations of faithful
  and meticulous scribes and transcribers who all did their part in
  providing us with the Bible we have today. PTL!

Any wisdom that you can provide will be greatly appreciated.


texts: How did early childhood baptisms started in Catholicism?

texts:
Jesus got baptized at an age old enough to decide for himself.

Today, I always see infants getting baptized. According to Catholicism, when, where and how did early childhood (infant) baptisms got started?

Was there a mandate from the Vatican that imposes infants need to be baptized as soon as possible?


texts: Is there such a volume on Luther's commentary on Galatians that is in the original Latin with an English translation: an interlinear of sorts?


texts: How do Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ's resurrection on Easter Sunday?

texts:
After checking the Orthodox Christianity and Easter tags (over 400 of them), I could find nothing specific on how Orthodox Christianity celebrates Easter Sunday, apart from the Paschal greeting What is the earliest surviving reference to the Paschal Greeting? , and one custom of the breaking of pottery on a few of the Greek Ionian islands. In Corfu it happens on Holy Saturday where ceramic pots are thrown off balconies into the streets.  In Zakynthos it takes place at the Great Friday evening of ‘The Epitafios Lamentation’ service.  This custom is meant to symbolize the Harrowing of Hades or, more specifically, the smashing of the Gates of Hades.  I also note a photo in my Enclyclopedia of World Religions of many ostrich eggs being suspended from the ceilings of Armenian churches to serve as symbols of hope and resurrection. But I do NOT wish to know more about such events.
None of that addresses the actual day called ‘Easter Sunday’ (apart from the Paschal greeting, which I suppose only takes up about 10 seconds of the start of the Easter service.) I wish to know what customs and acts of worship and celebration the various Orthodox groups engage in on that one day.  I know there are lots of events in Holy Week leading up to the climax of resurrection Sunday, but I do not wish to know about the days prior to then. Stack Exchange is full of information about that. Nor do I wish to know anything about the date for Easter and controversies / theologies about that. Again, the site is full of such information.
I only want information from Orthodox Christians on what happens on that one day – the Sunday (of Holy Week) – and that could come from any of the groups within Orthodoxy as they all seem to have unique rituals and customs (Nestorian, Monophysite, West Syrian, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian).  I know the Paschal greeting starts that Easter Sunday service, but what happens thereafter?


texts: Is it allowed to receive the Precious Blood before the Body of Christ in a Catholic Mass?

texts:
I've never seen such a reversal of orders, but I wonder if it is allowed by the regulation of the rites. For example, the official norms about communion in the US seem not to make mention on the order, as if it were totally obvious. When it comes to the distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ, the regulation states:

Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost."

Among the ways of ministering the Precious Blood as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church, provided that it can be carried out properly according to the norms and without any risk of even apparent irreverence toward the Blood of Christ.

So, here we see the implicit order, but no suggestion this is compulsory. The instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament in 2004, does not seem to suggest any rule regarding the order. Is there some regulation about this, or is this pure tradition?


texts: It is popularly taught that the reformers declared five distinctive elements of theology that differentiated them from Rome: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone, as sufficiently taught in Scripture alone. They quoted the church fathers in support of their views to demonstrate that they weren't teaching novelties or heresies and they showed particular deference to Augustine. But did Augustine actually teach the doctrine described in the five solas?


texts: Why do Protestants hold "prayer services"? Since "prayer service" is an English term, are there equivalents in other languages? When did this service start? How did it get started? How are "prayer services" different from the "worship services" on Sundays or "Masses" on every day of the week?


texts: In the Catholic Church, what are the options for a person whose spouse abandons them?

texts:
In the Catholic Church, a marriage is considered a life-long state that can't be dissolved. However, it sometimes happens that one spouse abandons the other.
For example, let's assume Alice is married to Ben. Their marriage is valid, but some years later Ben leaves her. Alice tries to reconcile, but Ben refuses contact with her.

According to the Catholic Church, Alice definitely can't get married again. How is she supposed to live her life? Could she join a religious order? Or does she have to be alone until she dies?

Also, Catholics widely claim that a child has a right to a mother and a father. Assuming Alice has children, how does the church justify that she now has to raise them alone, rather than finding a new husband? From her perspective, the situation is more similar to the death of a spouse than to a normal separation, since she did not consent to the separation and cannot do anything about it.

In this hypothetical, Alice did nothing to "make" Ben leave her and he refuses any attempt to reconcile. I think reasonably similar situations are quite common in practice.


texts: What is the justification for relying on faith healing and conventional medicine?

texts: As a contrast to What is the justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine?, I thought I'd ask the opposite. What is the justification for relying on faith and conventional medicine in conjunction with one another?


texts:
In order to better understand Romans 6:5, I've been doing a word study of the Greek word σύμφυτος (sumphutos), traditionally translated "planted together" or "united with". Commentators usually point out that this adjective is found only here in the New Testament. However, a verb form of the root word is found in Luke 8:7. What's more, various forms are found six times in the Septuagint (Esther 7:7,8 in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector; in the text of Amos 9:13, Zechariah 11:2, Wisdom of Solomon 13:13, and III Maccabees 3:22). I'm trying to isolate the most basic meaning, which so far seems to be "thickly grown up together". It's not, as often thought, "grafted", though grafting can be used as an illustration for Romans 6:5 as a whole. Also, it seems to me that the plural form σύμφυτοι (sumphutoi) with the "oi" ending used in 6:5 is not rendered correctly by the traditional translation "united with Him", or even by the alternative "united with the likeness". Rather, in this instance the prefix σύμ- (sum-) doesn't mean "with", but "together", and sumphutoi describes the community of Christians, "such ones as we" of verses 1-4. This is then followed by the dative τῷ ὁμοιώματι (to homoiomati), which means that instead of the locative "'in' the likeness" the dative should be translated "'to' or 'for' the likeness". Romans 6:5 would then more literally read, "For if we have become 'thickly-grown-up-together ones' with reference to the likeness of His death..."

Along the way I found some of the most helpful information on sumphutos in Footnote 187 to Romans 6:5 in John Calvin's commentary on Romans, which was "translated and edited by the Rev. John Owen". This is not the famous Puritan John Owen (1616-1683), but rather a vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire, UK, who lived from 1788-1867. This later John Owen wrote as "Editor" in the footnote and among other things said, "It appears from Wolfius that the word is used by Greek authors in a sense not strictly literal, to express congeniality, conjoining, union, as the sameness of disposition, or the joining together of a dismembered limb, or, as Grotius says, the union of friendship". I've wanted to read the exact words of the passage from Wolfius on this, so I've been trying to track him down. So far I've come up with three candidates:

John Wolfius, mentioned in some of The Zurich Letters  written to him in the 1500s during the English Reformation.
Christian Wolff ("Wolfius")(1679-1754), a German Enlightenment philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739), a German Christian Hebraist, polymath, collector of books, and master of Oriental languages and literature. I haven't found where he was called "Wolfius", but he very well could have been.

Does anyone have a clue who is the Wolfius mentioned by the editor (the later John Owen) in his footnote to Romans 6:5 of Calvin's commentary, and where the passage from Wolfius I'm looking for might be found?  Thank you all for any help, and God bless you!


texts: What does Jesus mean regarding "Raca," and "you fool?" - is he contrasting them?

texts:
Matthew 5:22, KJV says

  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The final two clauses are separated by ": but" which indicates that they are in contrast with each other. Hell seems worse than "the council" - does this mean that saying "you fool" is worse than calling someone a forbidden term of contempt ("Raca?")


texts: In the New Testament who was the first person to recognize Jesus as the Messiah?

texts: Other than the Apostles, who was the first person in The New Testament to recognize Jesus as the Messiah?


texts: Difference between wisdom and knowledge in 1 Cor. 12?

texts:
1 Corinthians 12:4-11 ESV Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

What is the practical difference between these two gifts: wisdom vs knowledge? My understanding of the two words is that "wisdom is applied knowledge", but both gifts are talked about in the form of uttering them, which must mean something.


texts: Is there any denomination which teaches that God never commanded burnt offerings and sacrifice to Israel?

texts:
Jeremiah 7:22

  A. New International Version For when I brought your ancestors out of
  Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt
  offerings and sacrifices

  B. English Standard Version For in the day that I brought them out of
  the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them
  concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

If all translations like A, there is no question. But there are quite many other translations (besides ESV) which like B where it leads to a conclusion that burnt offerings and sacrifices are traditions. Burnt offerings can be seen in Cain/Abel and Noah story.

Assuming that the correct translation is something like B, is there any denomination who interpret as it read in B ?


texts: Did John Wesley admire and learn from Arminias or did he just have a couple similiar ideas?

texts:
I do not know a lot about Wesley, but when I encounter him, I tend to like what he says, even though I am a Calvinist.

On the the other hand when I encounter people arguing for Arminian doctrines in Church history they seem like distrustfull shady sorts of weasles to me.  I just assumed Wesley did not really rely so much on Arminias, since I liked him and that it was a little harsh to accuse Wesley of being a total Arminian.

Does anybody have historic quotes from Wesley that show whether he truly admired Arminias?

I ask the question because my answer in this post has been partially questioned and it makes me doubt my perception of Wesley.


texts: Does Catholicism teach that Trinity is reflected in Man?

texts:
This question is highly related to, but not exactly a duplicate of

Does Roman Catholicism teach that man is body and soul (bipartite) or body, soul, and spirit (tripartite)?

The answer to the linked question states a bipartite union:

  according to Catholic teaching, man's one nature is the union of spirit and matter, soul and body.

Genesis 1:27 says:

  God created man in his own image

If God is three persons, shouldn't that mean that man is tripartite as well? Or at least that the Trinity of God is somehow reflected in man? Does Catholic literature discuss this anywhere?

This question comes from the personal experience of having three contradictory wills: the desires of the body, emotional wishes, and what the mind considers right.


texts: Is there extra-biblical evidence for the earth going dark at the Crucifixion?

texts:
From noon to three, the whole earth was dark. (Matt 27:45, MSG)
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. (Matt 27:45, KJV)

This is a bold claim that few would make if it did not indeed happen. Do we have any extra-biblical records of this event, such as from the Romans or the Jews?


texts: Can a priest add his own prayers to the Mass after the dismissal?

texts: Can a priest add other public prayers to the Mass after the dismissal? If so, are those assisting at the Mass obliged to stay and pray those prayers with him?


texts: Does it actually SAY that Heaven will be joyous in The Bible?

texts:
...and, come to that, does it actually state, beyond doubt (or a different interpretation) that the joy there is far, far beyond that we can experience in this world or even imagine?

BEFORE anyone points to the Corintheans "Eye hath not seen..." it must be pointed out that that is followed by an explanation that, despite the fact we couldn't have guessed for ourselves, God has revealed it to us.

Despite God having revealed it, I'm seeming to find that all the things people had excited me about Heaven with seems to have been 'added on' as good guesses. Current joys are mere sunbeams of that to come? All joys will be ressurected as impossibly greater than they were now?


texts: Could there be a "Newer" Testament? If so, how would it become canonical?

texts:
Could there possibly ever be a new set of books added to the Bible which have modern stories and rules for future generations?  Such as a book describing internet etiquette - which isn't so far out of scope considering dietary laws in the bible. But not specifically or limited to internet etiquette; it was just an example.  Maybe some new revaluations of God - there probably has been at least SOME in the last 2000 years.

If so, who would have the authority to do so?


texts: Why does Christianity claim to be the only true religion?

texts: From where does the idea that Christianity the only true religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim?


texts: How do the proponents of the doctrine that salvation can't be lost usually explain Matthew 7:21-23?

texts:
This question is about one particular kind of Christians (I believe most of such Christians are found among Protestants) - those who:

1) believe that a man receives salvation at his very first prayer to Christ;

2) believe that a man who has received salvation can never lose it;

How do these Christians explain Matthew 7:21-23?

On one hand, the people mentioned there clearly prayed to Christ during their lifetime; on the other hand, the very last words spoken by the Lord ("I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity") may mean that they are either losing their salvation at this moment or have never been saved at all:

  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
  kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
  heaven.

  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
  thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
  many wonderful works?

  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
  ye that work iniquity. (KJV)


texts: Is there any scriptural support for the belief of convulsions/seizures being a sign of the Holy Spirit's presence?

texts:
I work with a handful of Church of God members, and we frequently have friendly ecclesiastical conversations. The Church of God denomination is very prevalent in the area that I live and work. They often describe church services they have attended that involve sporadic behavior, such as spastic convulsions, falling in the floor, seizures, running around the pews and/or sanctuary, running across the top of pews, and so on.

Is there any biblical support for this kind of behavior?

My intentions are not meant to mock these services at all. Every person I know that is a member (many of whom are my very close friends) are very down to Earth, good people.

I just want to be able to bring scriptural material (if any) to our next breakfast fellowship.

NOTE: I am well aware of the argument for "speaking in tongues" being in the Bible. I am not looking for an answer concerning speaking in tongues...only physical behavior.


texts: What denominations don't believe in fasting? And Why?

texts:
There is a question on here about the importance of  fasting.
But this is different because I want to know what denominations don't believe in fasting and why they think that its not important. I personally have great faith in fasting and in the power of fasting such as found in Mark and Matt, when the 12 have tried to cast out a devil but failed.

Mark 9:28-29, 28, (end of verse)...Why could not we cast him out?
29, And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
Matt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goes not out but by prayer and fasting.

Which is a clear example of where the disciples could not do something unless they fasted and prayed for the power to do it first.
Edit:
Changed as per the comments.


texts:
Question: What did St. Thomas Aquinas do for fun? We know that he was a brilliant mind who wrote many good works. However, even he himself says that games and having fun are good for one's soul (I am not sure these are exact words, but he said something in that style). There is this quote attributed to him

  Now this relaxation of the mind from work consists on playful words or deeds. Therefore it becomes a wise and virtuous man to have recourse to such things at times.

So, what was he doing to have fun, how did he play? If we do not have information, is there any educated guess? How did Dominicans, in general, have fun in those times?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, could a "Jesus-name" baptism ever be considered a valid baptism?

texts:
Related: What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching of baptism using a trinitarian formula?

According to Oneness Pentecostals and others, baptizing in the name of Jesus, instead of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the correct form, and they point to Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 as evidence for this position.

Of course, critics will argue that the main reason for this argument is that its proponents are avowed non-trinitarians.  Still, it seems theoretically possible to me that even a trinitarian Christian, on this scriptural basis, might conclude that it is legitimate to baptize a new trinitarian Christian "in the name of Jesus."

So, my question.  Would the Catholic Church ever recognize a baptism "in the name of Jesus" (i.e., without the trinitarian formula) as a valid baptism? If the baptizer and baptized were both Nicene trinitarians at the time of the baptism, might a "Jesus-name" baptism be considered valid?  Are there any other conditions that could be met that would make it valid?  By "valid," I mean that the baptized would not be required to be rebaptized upon conversion to Catholicism.

Perhaps suggesting "no," the Catechism reads:

  In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." [1240]

But on the other hand, Cyprian suggests that Pope Stephen thought "Jesus-name" baptism was acceptable:

  But, says [Stephen], the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is anywhere so-ever baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ [Epistle 74.18]