texts: Are all confessions protected from being used in criminal court as evidence against someone?

texts: Catholic doctrine and law prohibit a Catholic priest from testifying in criminal court against someone, solely on the basis of a 'heard' confession: there is never an instance when a priest can divulge information received through confession. My question is: are there other denominations which have this codified in there canons or laws? Catholic priests are trained to respond in a short and sweet answer when pressed by police or prosecutors to divulge confessional information - even if that information could prevent a new crime; "We are in the business of saving souls, not lives."


texts: Where does the story of the spider on the cross come from?

texts:
I have a memory from childhood of being told not to kill spiders because there was a spider on the cross when Jesus was crucified. I cannot find any source in folklore (I doubt if it is anything else) and wonder if anyone else has heard this story before.

I am aware of the baby spider story related to the flight of Jesus -- a spider spun a web at the mouth of a cave to protect him and his family -- but I'm referring to a different story.


texts: What are the various beliefs about the fate of honest atheists?

texts:
Some atheists (or any explicit denier of Christian truth) claim that their disbelief in Christianity is an honest one, viz. if they had put their faith in Christ they would be lying to themselves and to others. Therefore, they believe they are being more honest to disbelieve.

If an honest disbelieving soul such as this actually exists, what do the various Christian traditions teach about the fate of such a soul? I'm particularly interested in traditions such as:

Roman Catholicism
Reformed
Evangelical
Orthodox
And variations within these traditions

No need to be comprehensive. If you have relevant information about one or two of these traditions please share.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, does purgatory have a symbol?

texts: I haven't found it on the internet. Are there any symbols for purgatory, or related to purgatory?


texts: How can Wisdom be Jesus if Wisdom was created?

texts:
Proverbs 8:22 (KJV) The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Even if you take the stance that Proverbs 8:22 means God possessed me at the beginning (i.e. as opposed to God created me at the beginning), what does one do with, for example, Sirach 1:4, which says:

  Sirach 1:4 (KJV) Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

I'd like to believe that Wisdom is Jesus; it makes a lot of sense to me. But it's very hard for me to believe Jesus was a created being, and just as hard to believe there are two Wisdoms.

Question

According to Christians who believe a) Christ was not created and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been created by God?


texts: Is the choice, or decision, to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ a Work?

texts:
While reviewing the superb answers to this question about free will, I was inspired to leave a comment for Ian that I realized ought to be its own question.

As I understand (and possibly misunderstand) Reformed theology, "works" are things that we do, and as such are not included in that which provides justification nor salvation.  I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone.  Thus began my walk in Faith (though I keep stubbing my toes on those rocks in the road ...).  It appears to me that my choice, my decision to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ is a Work since it is something that involved my agency.

From a more Determinist and Calvinist perspective, how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ not classify as a Work, since it was something that I did but that I could have chosen not to do?  (If other Reformed denominations view this differently, that perspective would also be appreciated in contrast).

From my perspective, I feel like I've tripped over a contradiction in the general case of not being saved nor justified by Works, yet it took my agency to accept Christ as my Savior. (It is quite possible that I simply don't understand the theology well enough, hence the question).

How does the Reformed/Calvinist theology resolve this (seeming) contradiction?

I am under the impression that there are other Reformed denominations than Calvinist, but that may be wrong so the bottom line question needs to be answered from the PoV of Calvinist/Reformed theology.  (I am seeking more help in chat to get my terminology right on this).  I note that this question is related to my question in addressing the free will issue.


texts: Does Christianity solve personal problems?

texts:
If I pray and truly believe God will turn around a personal problem, does Christianity support that will help solve the issue?

Example:

  What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive
  them, and ye shall have them.

—Mark 11:24

Is there some context I am missing with this quote or does it stand alone - and I can use it to solve personal problems?

Thanks.


texts: When Christ was pierced with the spear, why did water come out?

texts:
On the cross, when the Romans pierced Christ with the spear, the scriptures say that water poured out:

  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith
  came there out blood and water. (John 19:34)

The Greek word used is ὕδωρ (hydōr) so it's unlikely that they meant, "fluids" or anything else, it's apparent that it was literally water that came out.

Why did water come out of Christ when he was speared?


texts: Can a Jehovah's Witness say that they know they have eternal life?

texts:
John's Gospel is written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and may have life in that name"

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which
are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by
believing you may have life in his name. - John 20:30-31

The purpose statement of John's 1st epistle is that the believer (that Jesus is the Son of God) may know that they have eternal life:

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. - 1 John 5:10-13

I have read some material indicating that JW may be certain that they have been "anointed" but that this anointing amounts to the equivalent of an invitation.  In order to make use of the invitation faithful living must be undertaken:

Does the Christian who receives this token have a guaranteed future in heaven? No. That person is sure of his invitation. But whether he finally receives his reward in heaven or not depends on his proving faithful to his calling. - Watchtower Study Edition Jan. 2016 (section 7)

The article goes on to explain that the "anointing" is, in fact, the gift of the holy spirit and that it is a deposit:

This special operation of holy spirit becomes like a down payment, a guarantee (or, a pledge) of what is to come. An anointed Christian gains an inner  conviction because of this token that he or she has received. - Ephesians 1:13-14

It appears though that this inner conviction, gained by the reception of this down payment, is still not enough to be assured of a place in heaven.  In other words, a Jehovah's Witness can know that they have been anointed by the holy spirit and still not know that they have secured a spot in heaven.  Does this mean that an "anointed" can at least know that they have secured a place of eternal life on earth?
How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand the complimentary purpose statements of John's Gospel and his first letter regarding belief in the name of God's Son and knowing eternal life is possessed?
Can a Jehovah's Witness ever know that they have eternal life as John intended?


texts: Which are some of the Non Trinitarian sects in Christianity

texts:
I read about a very famous Scientist  Newton, who had did not believe in the theory of trinity and i came across a banner in my country which called people to some "Unitarianism church"

Hence out of curiosity wanted to know:

What are some Christian sects (Modern as well as Extinct or Old) which don't believe in the theory of Trinity nor the divinity of Christ ?


texts: Did Churches plant a tree at their entrance in 13th century Christian Spain?

texts:
Nahmanides (in his commentary to Deut. 16:22) writes that the Christians in his time had a custom of planting a tree at the entrance of their Churches.

Is there any corroboration validating the claim of such a custom at all, especially in Nahmanides' time and place (13th century Christian Spain)?

Her is the original Hebrew:

  פסוק כב (כל הפסוק)

  "ולא תקים לך מצבה" - מצבת אבן אחת להקריב עליה אפילו לשמים אשר שנא מזבח אדמה ומזבח אבנים צוה לעשות ואת זו שנא כי חוק היתה לכנענים ואע"פ שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות עכשיו שנאה מאחר שעשאוה אלו חוק לע"ז לשון רש"י ואם כן אסר הכתוב האשרה ואסר כל נוטע בהר הבית אע"פ שכוונתו לשמים ואסר המצבה לשמים ושניהם מפני חוקת הכנעניים אבל לא הבינותי החק הזה שהרי הכנעניים גם במזבחות גם במצבות היו נוהגים שהכתוב אומר ונתצתם את מזבחותם ושברתם את מצבותם (לעיל יב ג) כי את מזבחותם תתצון ואת מצבותם תשברון (שמות לד יג) וכן בכל מקום ואולי נאמר שהחזיקו הכנענים במצבות ולא היה להם בית ע"ז שאין שם מצבה להקטיר עליה ולצוק שמן על ראשה וכענין שנאמר בבעל (מלכים ב י כו) ויוציאו את מצבות בית הבעל אבל המזבחות היו במקצתן להקריב גם בהם והנראה בעיני כי היו הכנענים השטופים בע"ז עושים בכל בתי אלהיהם מזבח להקריב עליו הקרבנות ואבן גדולה מוצבת על פתח הבית לעמוד עליה הכומרים ואילן נטוע חוצה לה לאשר דרך הבאים שם וגם היום הנוצרים עושים כן והנה השם הנכבד שנא ומאס כל מעשיהם ואסר המצבה והאשרה ולא השאיר רק המזבח שהוא צורך הקרבנות אשר הוא יתברך צוה בהם והיו נחת רוח לפניו שאמר ונעשה רצונו מאז קודם היות ע"ז בעולם וטעם אשר שנא ביאור כי השם צוה (שמות כ כד כה) מזבח אדמה תעשה לי ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי וביאר משה כי באלה יחפוץ להוציא המצבה כי שנאה כי כל מעשיהם שנואין לפניו וצוה את ישראל שלא יעשו כמעשיהם אבל בימי יעקב לא נאמר עדיין ובחקותיהם לא תלכו (ויקרא יח ג) ולכך היה משתמש במצבה לשם שמים כמנהג העובדים והנה זו מצוה מבוארת מן ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי אבל מה שאמר בתורה (שם כו א) ופסל ומצבה לא תקימו לכם הם פסל ומצבה להושיב הפסל על המצבה לע"ז כי שם בענין ע"ז דיבר הכתוב אבל יאמר (שם) ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחוות עליה אפילו לשמים מפני שהוא נראה כעובד לשכיות ההם כטעם האשרה שהיא מחוקות העמים ודע כי מזבח הוא בנין אבנים גבוה ולו קרנות ארבע ולו יסוד סובב יעלו על יסודו ומקריבים בין קרנותיו והמצבה אבן אחת גדולה ירימוה להקטיר או להקריב עליה או להיות הכומרים עומדים עליה והבמה כענין הר ועושים אותה מעפר מקובץ ועליה מזבח בנוי להקריב בו כי כל דבר רם וגבוה יקראו כן אעלה על במתי עב (ישעיהו יד יד) על במותי ארץ (דברים לב יג) גם גב האדם יקרא במה על במותימו תדרך (שם לג כט) וכן אמר הכתוב (מלכים א ג ד) וילך המלך גבעונה לזבוח שם כי היא הבמה הגדולה אלף עולות יעלה שלמה על המזבח ההוא


texts: Why don't Christians celebrate the feast of tabernacles?

texts:
Although there are some who celebrate the feast of Tabernacles they are definitely in a minority.

A prophecy in Zechariah speaks of a time when all nations will have to keep the feast:

  Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles

We know that Jesus celebrated it (John 7:2) and if we believe the prophecies then we will keep the feast again in the future. The current period of not celebrating appears anomalous.

Why don't Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now?


texts: How do Christians that advocate libertarian free will interpret Romans 9:14-24?

texts:
Romans 9:14-24 (ESV):

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

How do Christians who believe in the existence of libertarian free will interpret this passage? (Btw, related.)


texts: Does the verse in Song of Solomon 5:16 contain the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad?

texts:
I have met Muslims and interacted with them directly and indirectly about their brief that the Islamic prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. One such claim is centred on the Song of Solomon 5:16. The following is how Muslims usually reason in support of their view:
In Song of Solomon 5:16 the original text reads: חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם. The original Hebrew word in the verse mentioning the name Muhammad is “מחמד”. [These letters in English are MHMD and in Arabic are محمد (Muhammad)].
But, does the above understanding base on exegesis or eisegesis?


texts: How do Reformed Churches justify applying the 4th commandment to the Lord's Day?

texts: It is understood why Sunday is the Christian celebration every week, but it is not clear how the classically reformed justify applying the fourth commandment concerning the Sabbath, which was given to Israel with its own stipulations, to the Lord's Day. It would seem on its face that the Sabbath observance would be simply spiritualized as entering into the eternal rest, rather than moved to Sunday and being accompanied with the traditional worship service.


texts: Was anyone making a theological point by changing the ending of Jesus Christ Superstar?

texts:
So, I'll admit, I love Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar.  I've seen it many times, and I've often tried to compare the 1973 and 1999 versions.  Grant you, the acting is a heck of a lot less corny in the later version, but I'm struck by one major difference between the two.

In both versions, the climax of the film is Jesus being crucified.  The last words spoken in each are from Jesus, from the cross.  But after that, there's a huge difference.

In the 1973, let's film it in Israel version, the musical ends by the cast and crew getting in the bus, but all of them intently watching a sunrise.  A wordless song is played, but it is fairly easy to interpret this as an artistic decision to simply allow for the fact of the resurrection, but due to its ineffability, leaving the fact without comment.

In contrast, the 1999 remake affords no such reflection.  The cross is raised up, and the scene directly ends into the title and the credits.  While there is music, the ending is very definately at the last breath on the cross.

The question I have then is this - is there any record of the theology of the two producers that would validate this hypothesis? Are either Norman Jewison (1973 director), Gale Edwards (1999 remake director), or Andrew Lloyd Webber himself on record as having discussed the motivation behind this crucial change?


texts: Is it valid to use grape juice at Communion?

texts: Given that wine was used by Christ at the last supper, is it valid to use grape juice in the remembrance of the Lord's Table?


texts:
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (New International Version)

  2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not
  know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or
  apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to
  paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is
  permitted to tell.

Here Paul is relating a story of an experience that (presumably) he had, where he mentions going to 'the third heaven' also called 'paradise' in the same passage.

What is he referring to? Is he talking about a distinct place other than heaven, the abode of God'?
Is this phrase, 'the third heaven' have some meaning in Greek that is lost in English?
How would a first century Corinthian have understood this?


texts: Why does the Quran mention Jesus Christ 25 times, but Mohammad only 5 times?

texts:
I ask anyone here, and I ask all people who think that Muhammad, peace be upon him, edited and wrote the Quran, to give me a fair and convincing answer for this question:

Question: Why is Jesus Christ mentioned 25 times in the Quran, and Muhammad, peace be upon him, only 5 times ? And I would also ask you to provide, for comparison, the number of times they are mentioned in the Holy Bible.


texts:
Animals without a doubt go against the commandments of God. There are gay animals, animals that kill each other for no reason, etc.

Does it say in the bible that the animals are under the curse of sin as well? If so, how is that justified? As in, why should animals suffer the curse of sin when they were not made in the image of God, did not disobey God, and are not descendants of Adam?


texts: What is the "abomination of desolation"?

texts:
"'Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)'"  (Matthew 24:15, NASB)

I don't understand.

I'm just curious if anyone actually understands this?  Is this the Antichrist, or Jesus, or the Jews, or Rome...?  Is this a prophecy that will only be understood once it happens?  Make your case.  (See Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11.)


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their "Governing body" will rule the world after "Armageddon"?

texts: I understand that Witnesses follow an unelected body of men called a "Governing body".  However I'm unclear on whether or not they believe this governing body is in charge of the earth after their claims of Armageddon.  Is this true?


texts:
Why do Catholic church teaches to practice abstinence from meat on certain occasions(Example :Good Friday) or periods like lent?

I have heard some say that it is in respect towards Christ. However, I have not understood the rationale behind it.

EDIT : I can understand when Catholic church say that I must observe penance for my sins by fasting and abstinence from what I love. What I do not understand is the insistence on abstinence from meat.


texts: Can you be Christian while wishing death upon another?

texts:
As an American on 9/11 I wanted death to come to all who planned or contributed to the attacks. As a Christian, I felt conflicted. Should I be feeling this anger? Am I right in thinking that Osama bin Laden should be killed? As well as brought to justice.

As a Christian should I have these views? Or should I leave it up to God to handle, to decide whether he should die or live?


texts: How many languages had the Hebrew Bible been translated into by 30 CE?

texts:
I had thought that the Old Testament had two versions: Greek and Hebrew. Today, from this link I've found that before the Greek Bible, there was another version, the Aramaic Bible.

During Jesus time, did the Jews use versions of the Old Testament in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Did they use versions in other languages?

I'm sorry as I have misunderstood the link above.
After searching the internet, I found another link :

  The writings of the Old Testament of the Bible were preserved in three
  languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and have been passed on to us ...//cut

And this

  The originality and the importance of Aramaic Old Testament (known as
  Peshitta Tanakh) can be seen through its consistency by solivng the
  contradiction between  Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic Text (Hebrew
  Old Testament written several centuries after Jesus Christ)

I'm unable to find out about on what year the Aramaic Old Testament began to be used or translated.

Today I search more about my question, and this link say :

  Jesus was quoting Aramaic. Not Septuagint. Aramaic was the spoken
  language of first century Israel.

From the sentence above, then there were three version Bible language in that time. But it seems still not clear as in Wiki I found out :

What Theodore of Mopsuestia says of the Old Testament is true of
both: "These Scriptures were translated into the tongue of the
Syriacs by someone indeed at some time, but who on earth this was
has not been made known down to our day".
F. Crawford Burkitt concluded that the translation of the Old
Testament was probably the work of Jews, of whom there was a colony
in Edessa about the commencement of the Christian era.
The older view was that the translators were Christians, and that
the work was done late in the 1st century or early in the 2nd.

Today I've also read this link which I get from this link

  The Peshitta Tanakh is the ancient Scriptures translated into Lishana
  Aramaya (Aramaic language) from the original Hebrew text which
  pre-dated the Greek Septuagint text (LXX).


texts: What is difference between God and Jesus Christ in Mark 10:17-19?

texts:
I have a question about some verses in Bible Mark 10:17-19

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.

In these verses a man came to Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) and asked some thing by saying him a GOOD TEACHER. In reply Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) said that No one is good except God alone. Mean Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is making difference between himself and God here. Can you please tell me that Who is God here and after God what is the status of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) here because he called God someone other here.


texts: Why don't priests give Holy Communion to everyone at Mass?

texts:
Today I went to a Catholic Church and attended the mass then at communion time, priest asked us all to receive Communion (white, rounded hosts), but when I went there he spoke something very slowly and I did not listen properly, I asked him to repeat he did not repeat and was told that I could not receive Communion.

Please explain the case. Was the priest rude, or is there any special rule in Catholic Church for receiving Communion?


texts: The word "faith" in Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21 according to Reformed?

texts:
Matthew 17:20

  And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for
  truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you
  will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will
  move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Matthew 21:21

  And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have
  faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig
  tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into
  the sea,' it will happen.

In my own understanding (as a non Christian),

"moving a mountain" is a hyperbolic sentence where it means do
something X where X in general point of view is impossible to happen.
(and if it happen, it's not necessary whether there is a logical
explanation or not).
The verse is talking about the power of mind where in a "religious
way" maybe it will be something like this: (a) because God with me,
I believe (have faith) that I can do it ---not--- (b) because I
believe (have faith) in God, God will do it after I ask Him,
although both (a) and (b) can leads to [nothing will be impossible to
me].

As the two points above is a non-Christian thinking, that's why I ask the question here if there is a "deeper" explanation about the sentence in that verse then what is it according to the Reformed Church?


texts:
This question reminded me of a question I've had for a long time:  What is the Catholic concept of grace?
A look at the dictionary says:

grace [greys]
noun

favor or goodwill. Synonyms: kindness, kindliness, love, benignity; condescension.
a manifestation of favor, especially by a superior: It was only through the dean's grace that I wasn't expelled from school. Synonyms: forgiveness, charity, mercifulness. Antonyms: animosity, enmity, disfavor.
mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

I've always felt that #3 was the most relevant in the context of Christianity, but the way I have heard Catholics and Catholic literature speak about the topic, it seems there is a more specific, and almost "tangible" concept of grace (and graces) at work.
The above mentioned question uses the phrases ...the same graces... and But what graces are not conferred...?
As I'm accustomed to "the grace of God" being a singular (or perhaps mass) noun, the concept of "graces" confuses me.


texts: Can '15 Prayers of St. Bridget of Sweden' be divided and prayed through the day? What about '7 Prayers of St. Bridget of Sweden', can they be likewise divided? Prayers mentioned are full of content, and it is hard to meditate on every prayer. God Bless!


texts: How much are we personally responsible for the salvation of someone else?

texts:
The quickest and easiest answer might be "not at all, as it's only between God and that person", but this question can lead to other question. For example, to the responsibility of a priest. Even as not a priest, for example, I can get a feeling that maybe if I tried better, I could have helped turn someone from the evil road. The accent is on "helped", as in the end it is not me who does the turning.

I don't remember seeing or hearing any significant discussion about this topic. Are there established viewpoints or dogmas about this? Notable theologians or at least an explanation about the official views of notable denominations is what I'm looking for.


texts: When it comes to natural law (in Catholicism perspective), I understand that there is wrong to kill, also when it's suicide, but is it wrong with self defense? And what if there is an accident? Like you forget to turn off the oven at home and someone on the block gets hurt, is that the same as taking a life? On purpose?


texts: Do the Rogue Pits of cemeteries still exist?

texts: In the not-so-good old days, there used to be an annexe to the Christian cemetery, called Rogue Pit in some places, where members who had commited suicide or had lived sinful public life would be burried. These days, such annexe is hard to come by. I wish to know whether the Catholic Church has officially stopped segregating a part of the cemetery to be used as Rogue Pit, or has the practice tapered off without invervention of of the Church authorities .


texts: What is the purpose of describing who is son of who?

texts:
In many excerpts of the Bible one can find an extended description of a person and his respective descendents. What's the purpose of this? Is it supposed to give an idea of how much time passed between two important facts? Is it supposed to preserve the origin of man? The genealogic tree is a lot more objective than most of the facts narrated in the sacred book. There must be a good reason for this.

Genesis, 5:21-24

  21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.


texts: Is the God Calvinists believe in unjust?

texts:
Who I am: ex worship leader / lifelong "Christian" of 18 years, now agnostic.
Why I ask: If God is the way I am about to describe (unjust from a human perspective), why follow him?

From my understanding, the belief that God has predetermined those who will receive salvation is one held by many Christians, and in my experience has been mostly Christians with a Calvinist theological perspective.

This is what I mean by predestination: The belief that God has chosen/ predetermined those who will spend eternity in heaven with him and while not choosing others. In doing so, he has intentionally NOT chosen some to spend eternity with him.

Here is the problem. According to the Calvinists I have talked to, because of our sinful human nature that we've had since the fall, we are not deserving of heaven/ God's presence.  For example, if a child is born and dies the following day, its spirit will go to hell due to its sinful nature. Another example would be a person who has never accepted the gospel because they never heard it. Even if they have heard it, certainly no two people have had an equal chance to receive salvation (i.e. a pastor's son and a child raised in an atheist home). This is not even taking into account whether or not God has chosen them for heaven.

In no way are these things just from a human perspective. However, if this is the case, then there are both uninformed adult and newborn souls in hell who never had a fair opportunity to receive salvation (by a human standard). Why would anyone desire to be in the presence of a God who does not show mercy to certain people? It seems to me as though it would only be to escape the punishment of hell.

Please correct my misconceptions of this viewpoint or explain it is that God is just in this context.


texts: Are Jehovah's Witnesses particularly anti-violence?

texts:
One of the things I've heard about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they've been persecuted by governments for their pacifism:

  They do not work in industries associated with the military, do not
  serve in the armed services, and refuse national military service,
  which in some countries may result in their arrest and imprisonment.
  They do not salute or pledge allegiance to flags or sing national
  anthems or patriotic songs. Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as a
  worldwide brotherhood that transcends national boundaries and ethnic
  loyalties. Sociologist Ronald Lawson has suggested the religion's
  intellectual and organizational isolation, coupled with the intense
  indoctrination of adherents, rigid internal discipline and
  considerable persecution, has contributed to the consistency of its
  sense of urgency in its apocalyptic message.

And from Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States

  Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs,
  doctrines and practices have engendered controversy and opposition
  from governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian
  denominations consider their doctrines to be heretical, and some
  religious leaders have labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a cult. Members of
  the religion have also met with objection from governments for
  refusing to serve in the military, particularly in times of war. Many
  individuals consider their door-to-door preaching to be intrusive.
  These issues have at times led to persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
  in various countries, including the United States.

Is their pacifism based on a rejection of all violence, or is it more a reflection of their beliefs about, and behaviour regarding governments?


texts: Are there disagreements between Reformed Theology and the teachings of A.W. Tozer?

texts:
Are there any known conflicts between the teachings of A.W. Tozer and those of Reformed Theology?

My concern is sparked by his relation to the Christian "mystics", which sound potentially heretical. This question arose from finding numerous books related to the Holy Spirit written by Tozer when browsing Amazon.

Note this question is NOT "Is A.W. Tozer a Christian?".


texts: What is an overview of how Christian commentators have explained rulers to be a terror to bad conduct?

texts:
Paul writes in Romans 13:

  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. (Romans 13:3a ESV)

If we interpret it as referring to all rulers at all times this statement does not seem to agree with reality. Many examples can be found of rulers terrorizing those who do good works.

Paul must have known this, too. Although he may have pre-dated the worst of the Roman emperors' persecution of Christians, he probably knew of Pilate's treatment of Jesus.

How does one reconcile this? Is "good rulers" implied? Is "not generally a terror" implied?

Can you give an overview of how scholars and theologians have interpreted this?


texts: Variations in the Hail Holy Queen (Salve Regina) prayer

texts:
In praying the "Hail Holy Queen" at the end of the Rosary with my Parish, there is a bit strangeness in the terms used.

For one, some people say

  Mourning and weeping in this vale of tears

and some people say

  Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears

then some people say

  turn then, most gracious advocate

and some people say

  turn then, most gracious, advocate

but when they pronounce advocate they pronounce it 'advo-kate', which seems to mean they're addressing Mary as 'most gracious' and asking her to 'advocate' on their behalf (not that that makes sense with the continuation of the next line, but oh well I've got my theories)

Anyway, does any good Christian soul know the right way to pray the Salve Regina in English, has anyone overheard the Pope praying the Rosary in English perhaps?


texts: Why was Jesus called Jesus, and not Immanuel?

texts:
Was the choice of Jesus (Joshua) in addition to Immanuel(Matthew 1: 21 and 23) in order to fulfil the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18: 15? This gives a message that Jesus, like His namesake, would lead Israel into the promised land and not Moses (the law).

Can the answers concentrate on the prophesy in Deuteronomy.


texts: What is the controversy/issue surrounding Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

texts:
I was reading this article where representatives at the 2012 Democratic National Convention booed in disagreement over a platform position regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I'm not interested in a political debate in asking this question; rather I am interested in what is the thought process behind the position that would contest Jerusalem as Israel's capital?


texts: How were missionaries able to convert native populations?

texts: What made it possible for Christian missionnaires to convert natives of America, Africa and Asia to another religion despite the fact that they already had beliefs and gods ?


texts: When was the name of Sinai first applied to the Sinai peninsular?

texts: When was the name of Sinai first applied to what we now know as the 'Sinai peninsular'? Some modern scholars maintain that Mt Sinai = Mt Horeb = 'the Mountain of God' which is located in northwest Saudi Arabia. The volcanic phenomena described in Genesis support this hypothesis. So was the Sinai Peninsular so named on the possibly incorrect assumption that this is where the Exodus events took place, or was it already known as Sinai before the Exodus?


texts: Looking for source for quote from Christian author

texts:
Some years ago I read in a book about Christianity an attempt to explain the apparent paradox between predestination and free will.

I have forgotten the name of the book and its author (it could be C.S. Lewis, but I am far from certain).

The explanation (if that is the correct word) went something like this:

  Events that happened yesterday cannot be changed. The actions we took then cannot be altered. Nevertheless, the choices we made then were made out of our own free will.

  We see no conflict between unalterable actions and free will when we look into the past. Why, then, should there be a conflict when we look into the future? God, presumably, is outside time.

This is by no means a verbatim quote. No doubt, it has changed in my mind over the years.

Can anybody tell me where I may have read that explanation?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's answer to whether one is really Catholic if they don't accept some of the Church's teachings?

texts:
A reader posed this question to CRUX magazine and obtained an answer.

This question is seeking the Catholic Church's answer to whether one is really Catholic if they pick and choose in what they believe in.

A comprehensive answer will state what the Church teaches on the matter and include what the Church Fathers have said with arguments from scripture.

What is the status of the Catholic when the picking and choosing involves faith, and when it involves morality?


texts: Is the popular image of the Puritan as purveyor of an intolerant monoculture accurate?

texts:
Recently I listened to the introduction of Russell Shorto's The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America.  When he talks about the New England colonies, he uses language such as:

  Something was happening that was quite unlike the unfolding of society at the two English colonies to their north, where the rigid Puritans, who arrived in 1630, and the even more rigid Pilgrims maintained, in their wide-brimmed piety, monocultures in the wild.—p. 61 (emphasis mine)

Given that the Puritan movement was escaping religious persecution in England, it's surprising that in they persecuted Quakers (including executing four martyrs).    Further, especially in New England, they largely dedicated themselves to pious amusements and hard work rather than a broad range of culture.

On the other hand, they universally rejected the principle of Erastianism, which justified placing the church under the authority of the government.  Many Puritans were Calvinists, but by no means were all.  The very name, "Puritan", began as an insult bestowed by outsiders.

Did Puritans see themselves as "rigid"?  Was their mission to create an island of monoculture on the edge of the American wilderness?


texts: Do Catholics consider Job to be historical?

texts:
The Book of Job is taken by some Protestants to be an historical document, whereas others hold that its position in the Ketuvim (the Writings) never assumed that it was anything other than what we would call fiction today.

So, what is the position of the Catholic Church in regards to the historicity of Job?  Is it a play or a recount of a real event?


texts:
What are the six OT quotes in the NT, which are not from the Septuagint? I was aware that some of them were not, but it's surprising to learn (see below) that there are only six of them. And, an associated question (which may be a duplicate, sorry) is, where might I find a list of all these 200 OT quotes in the NT?

  “The Septuagint was a good strong anchor for theologians and scholars to determine, what the Bible was really like in apostolic times” the Rev. Dr. Gordon Walker, an emeritus priest at St. Ignatius Antiochian Orthodox Church in Madison, Tenn. said in a telephone interview. “In the New Testament, all but six of the Old Testament quotes that were used, came from the Septuagint.” New Testament writers quoted Scripture more than 200 times, he said. The other six references were taken from Aramaic and Hebrew texts available at the time. (Vicksburg Post - Vicksburg,
   MS)

Note: Looking among the many related posts, I found this information from a participant called "Zenon." Below is my attempt to link you to the site where Zenon says "This website" ... hopefully, this works

  http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

  This website provides an exhaustive list of instances where the NT quotes the OT. It gives the passages side-by-side from the NT, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic. Some are virtually identical between the texts; others vary rather significantly.


texts: Does the Bible suggest that the earth is round?

texts:
I've heard the term "flat earthers" mentioned in regards to Christians. Does the Bible suggest that the earth is flat or that the earth is round?

What scripture is there that suggest a round earth or flat earth?


texts: What is the biblical basis for All Saint's Day?

texts:
As an Evangelical Christian, I recently had a debate about why I do not celebrate Halloween. Their response was that the origins of Halloween come from the Christian "All Saint's Day" (which is actually the day after Halloween).

I would like to know if there is any mention of All Saint's Day in the bible, and if not, is there any biblical basis for the tradition of All Saint's Day in the bible?


texts: Will the faithful eat and drink after resurrection?

texts:
At Luke 22:17–18 (RSVCE) we read:

  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves;  for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.

We also read at Luke 24:42–43:

  And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”  They gave him a piece of broiled fish,  and he took it and ate before them.

Do the above verses give any indication that we will, like the resurrected Christ did, have meals of communion after our own resurrection? What do the Catholic teachings say about carrying forward of mundane  functions by the resurrected faithful in heaven?


texts:
In response to this question How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old?

I'm curious to know if Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

I understand that the word dinosaurs wasn't invented until 1841. So obviously we won't find them by that name. Are there references to animals with the same characteristics as dinosaurs and just known by a different name?


texts: I know that Martin Luther knew Latin and German, but did he know other languages? For example, did he know Greek or Hebrew (I mean those Greek and Hebrew that the Bible is written in)?


texts:
From Wikipedia,

  Theonomy, from theos (god) and nomos (law), is the state of being
  governed by God or in accord with divine law.

It's also essentially the view that all types of government should adhere to, use, and operate on the Bible and biblical principles. See the Goals of the wiki page for some practical applications of that.

What is the biblical basis for this?

Direct biblical support?
Logical deduction from passages or reasonable reasons for it?
Traditional view of theonomy by church?


texts:
My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven alive.

What is believed to have been the purpose of this? Specifically, once dead, why not just ascend to heaven in soul form like everyone else? I mean, either way, he gets to heaven.

I looked at Wikipedia and saw only that "Paul explained the importance of the resurrection of Jesus as the cause and basis of the hope of Christians to share a similar experience", which doesn't make much sense to me (I assume it doesn't mean that it's believed to allow for modern-day CPR), and that Augustine "argued that the death and resurrection of Jesus was for the salvation of man", which also doesn't.


texts: Why is 'putting to death' condoned in the Bible?

texts:
Death as Judgement

One of the well known commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." However, it seems that death is the single most used judgement for violations of the Leviticus law.

Not only is killing sanctioned as an act of punishment for egregious violations, being put to death is also commanded for less abhorrent crimes, as in Leviticus 20:11;

  If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (NASB)

Death for seemingly unknown reasons

During the Exodus God commanded that Israel slaughter nation after nation. Thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people were put to death as Israel came in and took over the promised land. Why did God tell Israel to do this?

Can you explain why God commanded Israel to slaughter nation after nation?


texts:
Jesus said there will be no marriage in heaven, but after He rose He ate food. Does Jesus eat food in heaven? Is there any reason for us to suppose He does not?

This is the kind of question kids ask me in Sunday School.


texts: Why is Ruth's child in the line of Boaz and not Mahlon?

texts:
It seems to me that according to this law the first-born child of Boaz and Ruth should have been recorded in the line of Mahlon:

  If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. Deuteronomy 25:6 KJV

Boaz clearly mentions this when he purchased the land:

  Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. Ruth 4:5 KJV

mar mine own inheritance - is why the other relative was unwilling to redeem the property.

Yet, Jesus, David, Solomon were all recorded as belonging to the lineage of Boaz, not Mahlon.

Questions:

Why was it recorded like that?
Is this the norm or the exception?
Is there any other recorded incident in the Scriptures where this was done and the lineage was accorded to the deceased person?


texts: How do Catholics respond to the claims that the cross has pagan origins?

texts:
According to An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.  :

  The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

There are many other references that agree that prior to 3rd or 4th century only non Christian groups ever used the symbol of the cross in their worship. There is also the matter of whether or not Jesus was put to death on a cross or a single upright stake as the Ancient Greek words stauros indicates.

Thus I am asking: How does the Catholic Church explain the cross becoming acceptable to use and venerate as a symbol of Christianity?


texts: Who does Paul consider to be "Saints" in Romans 1:7?

texts:
I am not a Roman Catholic. In my understanding of Roman Catholicism, the term "saints" is not applied to all believers. It's applied to a subset of believers who have performed some miracle or great act.

When I look at Romans 1:7, I see:

  To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

From this, we can logically derive:

"those people who are in Rome" AND "are loved by God" ==> can be called a saint

I suspect the condition of "being in Rome" is not a hard requirement, i.e. it's there became it's the book of Romans and Paul is writing to people in Rome.

Thus, I get the impression that in Paul's eyes, "all those who are loved by God should be called a saint."

Thus, "all believers are to be called saints."

Is this consistent with Paul's other teachings?


texts: Is there anything known about Jesus time as a carpenter - was he a small business owner with employees?

texts: Is anything known about the level of expertise he has attained and whether he was running a small business, or working as an employee in a shop or a day laborer?


texts: Who are the five brothers mentioned in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:28)?

texts:
Luke 16:27–28 (NIV) reads:

  27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
  28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not
  also come to this place of torment.’

Who are the "five brothers" headed to the place the rich man is in?  I'm interested in both historical and symbolic explanations.


texts: Why don't Catholics divide the blood of Christ into individual cups?

texts: This question deals with pouring the wine into one chalice instead of many individual small cups for the congregants to consume. In my experience, I've observed that the wine is always poured into a single chalice, never into individual cups. Is it to conserve resources, or is there a theological reason behind this practice?


texts: Does the Catholic Church verify whether candidates to the priesthood are really men?

texts:
In Catholic Church, only a baptized man can be ordained a priest.

  cf. CCC 1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives
  sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the
  college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when
  they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The
  college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the
  priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and
  ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes
  herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this
  reason the ordination of women is not possible.

In the Catholic Church, when candidates to the priesthood present themselves, what verification processes are there, if any, to determine whether they are really men?

Related: Were the medieval popes examined on a toilet-lid-like chair to establish their masculinity?


texts: Can one pray for something "bad" to happen to yourself?

texts:
Short version: In the context of Christianity and in particular the New Testament, is it possible to pray for something that one perceives as "bad" for oneself, and receive it?

Long version: The New Testament states that "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14). Assuming "in my Name" and "Father glorified in the Son" as the two sufficient precondition for a prayer's success, is it possible to intentionally pray for something that one (initially) considers something bad (because one does not see any benefit in its execution), and receive it?

Most prayers that I've come across have a "good" intention, i.e. the issuer of the prayer hopes a benefit of some sort (healing, wealth etc.) Then there's outright evil prayers (death upon someone else etc.).

As an example for the kind of prayer I'm talking about, consider the following situation: A person desires to participate in a regular event. However, due to the nature and schedule of his work, he won't be able to do so because when the events are on, he's at work. Apart from making it somehow possible to reconcile both job and attending the events, one alternative is to accept the futility of reconciling both, and instead asking God to just remove the desire to attend those events. The only benefit lies in the fact that he doesn't struggle any longer with those desires, but that's a rather self-fulfilling benefit. On the flip side, losing an interest is something I consider something "bad" if it is not replaced with something else meaningful.

I have seen many such prayers to be seemingly fulfilled (rather easily, with very little effort, almost immediately, universally whatever the prayer was), which is somewhat concerning, as the Father's glorification is not really clear in these cases. It seems like God opened a prayer trap, as it appears that it is easier to just pray for an increasingly empty life and receive it, rather than have it fulfilled with the joys God can give through his mercy. To draw a comparison: Rather than asking your parents for allowing to stay over at someone else's house, you give up and just never ask and never do a stay over, and accept that as normality. Rather than asking your parents to have some chocolate, you give up and just never ask, and never eat chocolate, and accept that as normality. Where is the benefit in this? While a single such occurrence is certainly ok in everyone's life (there are people who never eat chocolate), all taken together, this seems to lead to lifes not lived to their maximum capacity. How is this reconcilable to the gift of salvation that declares Christians as the Children of God, and the mercy of God that wants to give, not take away?


texts: Are natural disasters the result of evil being allowed into our world?

texts:
I remember reading somewhere that the reason there are natural disasters on this earth is because of the evil which was allowed into it when Adam and Eve sinned.  I have not been able to find this reference, though.

Has anyone else seen this, and are there any biblical references saying that natural disasters are caused by evil?


texts:
I am a Christian who recently became very interested in the Catholic faith. I am curious how the Catholic community responds to these verses, which seem to bring to question the "blessedness" of Virgin Mary.

Luke 11:27-28:

  As he said these things, a woman in the crowd spoke out to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”

I have minimum knowledge about the Catholic conception of Mary. Please also help me clarify, if it pertains to your response to these verses.


texts: How was Queen Keran, wife of Leo II of Armenia, able to become a nun?

texts:
Queen Keran (or Kir-Ann, d.1285) bore her husband Leo II (d.1289) fifteen or sixteen children. By all accounts, she was a loyal and devoted wife. This article on http://enacademic.com/ states:

  Many words of praise were made about Queen Keran by her contemporaries. Her son Hethum claimed that "she had a wonderful soul and a beautiful body." The chronicler and scribe Avetis, described her as "a good friend to her husband in trouble and joy."

However, after the birth of her last child in 1283 or 1284, she became a nun at the Drazark monastery (Armenian Apostolic Church). I haven't been able to find any information on this relating to the medieval period.

Were married women able to become nuns in the Armenian Apostolic Church in medieval times?


texts: What specific scholarship is there behind the New World Translation?

texts:
The New World Translation of the Bible was produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  I'm wondering what specific scholarship is behind the translation.

Who were the translators?  What Greek Manuscripts were used?  What were the credentials of the translators and their training in Biblical Languages?  Was the Latin Vulgate referenced?  Was it intended to be a word for word translation or thought for thought?


texts: Do any denominations object to writing/ saying "the god" instead of "God"?

texts:
For example, the King James Version translates Gen. 1:1 as,

  In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If I translate it as,

  In the beginning, the god created the heavens and the earth.

Would any denomination object to that translation?


texts:
As a young believer I was quickly turned on to the idea of learning some things about the "original languages" of the Bible.  After all, how could you understand John 21:15-17 without understanding the difference between "agape" love and "phileo" love?  Jesus was using specific words for a specific reason, right?  That's pretty basic sermon stock right there.
Shortly after my conversion I was talking with a Mormon friend of mine, and suggesting that we need to look at the Greek in certain cases to understand exactly what was meant by certain phrases in Scripture.  He looked at me with a strange look and asked why I thought the original language was Greek, since Jesus spoke Latin (or Aramaic... or something like that.)  This was news to me!
To be honest, it is a bit hard for me to accept that the Hebrews wouldn't have spoken Hebrew... given that their entire culture was built around Hebrew Scriptures.
Anyway, can someone sort all of this out for me?  Did Jesus speak Latin? ... or Greek? ... or Hebrew? ... or something else?
Also, please explain how we know what languages He spoke.


texts: Do Lutherans believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

texts: Do Lutherans believe that the story of Adam and Eve and all the book of Genesis is to be taken as literal truth?


texts: What is the biblical basis to say it is the duty of every minister to know his congregation?

texts:
There seems to be two possible ways that a preacher can feed their flock.  One, they can be inspired by God to preach sermons that give people exactly what they need in due season without ever realizing the sermon just fits the needs of the church. Two, they really get to know each person in the congregation and develop a clear understanding what their needs are to preach sermons that match what they can see.

My question is, what is the biblical basis that a preacher must engage the members getting to know them and their thoughts, rather than just bury himself in theological study and prayer barely knowing his congregation?


texts: Are the images of Jesus drawn with blond hair and blue eyes correct?

texts:
Lately I heard that, as an inhabitant of ancient Israel, it is more likely that Jesus had dark skin and probably had hair that was a little curly.

Why is it that illustrations always show him with blond hair and blue eyes, and how did he really look? Also, I know that, for believing in him, his appearance doesn't really matter, but it still interests me.


texts: A Question regarding arguments against the Nicene Creed

texts:
The Nicene Creed, produced at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was later amended (see Wikipedia) at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD and states :
( I am quoting excerpts from the original Greek and the literal English) :

Πιστεουμεν εις ενα θεον Πατερα [...]. . . . I believe in one God (the) Father [...]
και εις ενα Κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον . . . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
τον υιον του θεου, τον μονογενη. . . . . . . the son of God, the only-begotten,
τον εκ του Πατρος γεννηθεντα . . . . . . . . that of the Father begotten
προ παντων των αιωνων [...] . . . . . . . . . . . before all the ages [...]

Francis Warden wrote a Ph.D. dissertation in 1938 which was summarised in 1953 in a journal and led to a publication by Dale Moody (also 1953) in the Journal of Biblical Literature which argued against the Nicene Creed's expression of 'only begotten' for the Greek word  monogenes (used nine times in scripture) and argued that the meaning should be 'one of a kind' or 'unique'.
This is a strange thesis as that is what monos, by itself, means. Moody has failed to translate the -genes suffix and has ended up conveying the concept of solitude, rather than expressing the fact of a relationship, especially considering the nine contexts of intimate relationship recorded in scripture :-
Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38 Hebrews 11:17 John 1:14,18 3:16,18 I John 4:9.
Subsequently, Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky) argued strongly against Dale Moody's conclusions. Also, Charles Lee Irons of the Fuller Theological Seminary argued against it and contributed to a book Retrieving Eternal Generation, Zondervan 2017, in which ten University Professors and three Assistant Professors argued unanimously in favour of the Nicene stance on the subject.
I am interested to know if there has been any response to the extensive research work of Burk, Irons and their compatriots and am interested to know if any further arguments, from the opposing faction, have been presented against this considerable resistance to Dale Moody's theory.
Denny Burk - Monogenes and Eternal Generation
Charles Lee Irons - The Only Begotten


texts: Did Protestants get "Thine is the Kingdom etc..." from the Didache?

texts:
So, I was writing an answer to a question a few minutes ago, and I was going to smugly tell all you Protestants that your "thine is the Kingdom" doxology is so non-Biblical, it's apocryphal.

Well, it is apocryphal, but if anything it's anachronistically apocryphal as no Protestant between the time of the Reformation,  whenever that was, and the time of Martin Van Buren's presidency, whenever that was, would have had access to said tidbit of apocryphal lore.

The problem is, it's SOOO nearly verbatim.

  ...for Yours is the power and the glory for ever. Didache Chapter 8

as opposed to

  for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory, now and forever.

Catholic's have a similar doxology said during Mass, in English it's:

  ...the kingdom the power and the glory are Yours now and forever

and I always console myself when praying with Protestants that I'm not doing anything unTraditional in saying their doxology (any more than I am in saying trespasses instead of debts).

But, how did it come about, and what, if anything does the English version of the Protestant ending to the Lord's Prayer have to do with the Didache?


texts: What is an overview of the way Adam and Eve ate and became like God?

texts:
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
  (Gen 3:22)

In what way did Adam and Eve become like God, in knowing good from evil? Most answers to related questions on this site suggest that Adam and Eve already knew it was wrong to disobey God and to eat against His wishes.

In the past, I have taught others that they did not know evil 'experientially.' It had only been theoretical before. But that understanding implies that God knew sin experientially also !!

So, in some way they knew they should not eat, and after eating their knowledge changed or increased. But that new knowledge does not depend on having to sin in order to learn it.

So the only increase in knowledge that I can think of is

  understanding (some of) the results of sin and how it affects others and God.

But I am looking for other ideas or better expressions of this idea. What is an overview of the main theological explanations of what this means?


texts: Which faiths are accepted for membership in the Catholic Church?

texts:
My husband and I were married in a Lutheran Church. He is Episcopal, I was Lutheran, then Confirmed Episcopal, but am now Confirmed Catholic for 26 years.

The Monsignor at our previous parish said the

  Lutheran Church was one of the Churches

that was accepted for marriage—we have been married 46 years!


texts: Is the Pope the Antichrist or the spirit of the Antichrist?

texts:
According to reformed theology, in the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26 (Of the Church), paragraph 4, the Pope is the Antichrist.

There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

Also in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (Of the Church), paragraph 4, we found the same, the Pope as the Antichrist.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

But how can he be THE Antichrist, as 2 Thessalonians 2: 2-9 says, if it is talking about a position and not a person. Would not be more in line with the concept of the spirit of the antichrist, of which it is spoken of in 1 John 2: 18-19 and 1 John 4: 2-3.
How can this paragraph be interpreted? The Pope is an antichrist or the Pope is the Antichrist?


texts: How could Jesus be born during the reign of Herod, and when Quirinius was governor of Syria, if those periods were not contemporary?

texts:
In Matthew 2, it makes it clear that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when Herod died.

  After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”

We know that Herod died in 4 BC, so we know that Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or shortly beforehand.

In Luke 2, it is made clear that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius

  In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. ...
  He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

Quirinius became governor of Syria and performed his census in 6 AD. From this we know that Jesus must have been born in 6 AD.

This is a nine year discrepancy between the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Matthew and the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Luke. How can these two accounts be reconciled?


texts:
I'd like to know what prophethood designates in the Bible and what is the scriptural standard for identifying a true prophet? What I mean is, what if someone today stood up and claimed prophecy? How could we tell of his genuine or imposturous nature?

Moreover, I wanna know the basis and evidence on which the likes of Joseph, the son of Jacob, in specific, is regarded a prophet of God?


texts: How should we judge the trustworthiness of a given Bible translation?

texts:
Given that both the humans who actually penned the Bible and the later humans who translated it all had free will, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a tricky one.

See also: By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant?

It is usually claimed that those transcribing and translating the text were working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While this may be true of some, it is also clear that not every translation project has even approached the work in good faith, much less under supernatural guidance. Some 'translations' are clearly contradictory with others, and others show obvious signs of a specific agenda being brought to the text. Others specifically state having a political bias going into the project (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project). Of course nearly every group or individual that produces a translation then goes on to claim that theirs is the "true" rendition of the text or meaning.

Since clearly not everyone that works on the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit, how are we to know which translations are reliable? Are modern and ancient mainstream translations considered to be free from political agendas and personal bias? If so, how do we know?


texts: What is the Mormon position on keeping weapons and on war?

texts:
I have come across a chapter in the Book of Mormon that is very interesting. It details how the Nephites thought it would be better to bury their swords and never kill another person again. The Lamanites came against them for war, but the Nephites did nothing and about 1000 of them were killed. After that some of the Lamanites felt regret for killing them anyway and repented of their sins. They then joined the Nephites and buried their swords as well.

Alma 24:18 Sums up the Nephites' disposition:

  And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands.

With this story in mind, what is the LDS position on war, self-defense, and keeping weapons?


texts: In what sense do Mormons believe salvation is only through Christ?

texts:
As background to my question, I found this statement by a Mormon that shows Mormons believe that there are many gods in the universe:

  “While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God.“

My question is this. Since Mormon's claim that salvation is only through Christ, why aren't those other gods able save their own followers?

The author of the quote above goes on to explain:

  I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I
  have one boss. He is my boss and no one else is. There are other
  bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly
  reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of
  manager-underling relationship.

I don't really interact with the other bosses but their subordinates do. And they have to respect and follow their bosses just as I do my own.

Taking the analogy further, what sense would it make for me to try to steal some person from another department into my own? It's not like my department is the only one that pays for work done. Why rock the boat and create all the trouble proselytizing in the name of Christ?

This analogy doesn't fully satisfy me as an explanation. What is the official LDS doctrine on the ability of gods other than Christ to save people?


texts: Why did Swedenborg accept any New Testament books?

texts:
Based on this question we see that Swedenborg denied most of the New Testament as being divinely inspired.

  Swedenborg did not reject the rest of the books of the Protestant Bible. He considered them "good books of the church" (see link below). However, he saw them as historical, instructional, and doctrinal writings rather than as divinely inspired books of the Word of God. (emphasis added)

However he accepted the four Gospels and the book of Apocalypse as being divinely inspired.

Why did he even accept these five books as inspired?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  How to test the spirits and identify false preachers

one of the gifts of Holy Spirit is the gift to receive Prophecys. (1 Corinthians 12)

Jesus also warns us in Matthew 24:24

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs
and miracles to deceive even the elect -  if that were possible.

So I am wondering, how can we know that someone is a prophet of Jesus?


texts:
What are the requirements for joining the Catholic church as an adult?

I'm interested in all the requirements, including whether a previously baptized Protestant would be required to (or forbidden from?) being re-baptized as a Catholic.


texts: To what extent does mainstream Christian doctrine teach that knowing a spirit's name gives you power over it?

texts:
A while ago I was at a resort with a man who for many years worked as a church painter. He introduced me into some pieces of Christian doctrine.

He told me that the humans' souls, the angels, demons and the God himself all are the spirits.
Knowing a spirit's true name gives unlimited power over it.

For example, Jesus asked for the demon's name before he expelled it from the man and into the herd.

Consequently, nobody knows the true God's name which is the highest secret, because anybody who knew it would have God's power.

I wonder to what extent this explanation reflects mainstream Christian doctrine.


texts: 2 John 1:9 — What does it mean to "continue in doctrine?" (Protestantism)

texts:
2 John 1:9 (KJV2000) Whoever goes beyond, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.

Cf. 1 Tim. 4:16.

Question

According to Protestantism, what do "continue in doctrine" and "go beyond" mean, respectively?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic Church doctrinal justification of its perceived opposition or support of the independence of Catalonia?

texts:
According to the New York Daily News,

  Vida Nueva (New Life) internet publication said the pope told Spain's new ambassador to the Vatican, Gerardo Bugallo, that the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes.

(I have to say that although this is circulating in the news I don't know if there is an official statement from the Vatican).

In Spain though, some 400 priests openly support Catalonian independence.

I'm confused as to what business the Catholic Church would have in supporting or opposing an independence movement, unless it is related to its doctrine or the Bible.


texts:
According to Catholic Tradition, what is Jesus doing right now?

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is among us on Earth.
Catholics believe that God the Father listens to our prayers and intervenes in human affairs from time to time.

But what is Jesus doing?


texts: Does the theology of Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses admit that God was at one point ἄλογος?

texts:
According to the article on “The Word” in the Watchtower publication Insight on the Scriptures,

  This Word, or Lo′gos, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) Hence John continued, saying: “This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”—Joh 1:2, 3.

The publication states that the λόγος was God’s only direct creation, the “only-begotten son of God.” Furthermore, it also identifies the λόγος as Jesus Christ:

  In the Christian Greek Scriptures “the Word” (Gr., ho Lo′gos) also appears as a title. (Joh 1:1, 14; Re 19:13) The apostle John identified the one to whom this title belongs, namely, Jesus, he being so designated not only during his ministry on earth as a perfect man but also during his prehuman spirit existence as well as after his exaltation to heaven.

The claim is that God’s λόγος, the Word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ), is a creation (and thus, a creature). If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon; Greek Word Study Tool at Tufts University.

The Greek letter α (alpha) prefixed to a word signifies absence, opposition, or negation.

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

For example, the Greek word νόμος (nomos) means “law.” When prefixed with the Greek letter α, it means “without law; lawless.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

While the Greek word λόγος is most often translated simply as “word,” it also possesses the meanings of “reason” and “logic.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

Something which possesses reason, or the ability to reason, is said to be “rational.”

Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (based on the Random House Dictionary).

Something that lacks reason is said to be “irrational.”

Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (based on the Random House Dictionary).

The consequence of the argument that God created the λόγος was that God was at one point ἄλογος, or without reason, illogical, or irrational.

How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?

What does this say about God’s supposed immutability?


texts: Should we allow doctors or God to heal us?

texts:
Inspired by this post regarding moving mountains by faith.

God has told us to rely on him (Matthew 6:25-34) for all things.

Also, James 5:15 says

  And the prayer of faith will make the indisposed one well, and Jehovah
  will raise him up. Also, if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven
  him.

So, since we should rely on God for all things and God will heal us, should we ever need to go to the doctor?

Similarly, since God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, should we ever trust a doctor?


texts: What are the core differences between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christianity?

texts:
I read an answer here which explained the difference between the various branches of the Eastern Church.
I was thinking as an extension, what is the difference between Eastern Christianity and Protestant Christianity, as both seem to reject the claims of supreme authority from the Catholic Church?
What are the major differences between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities?
Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other?


texts: What is the difference between commandments, testimonies, statutes, precepts, judgements, and law?

texts:
Reading Psalms 119, we see the following words:

Commandments
Law
Way
Testimonies
Precepts
Judgments
Statutes
Ordinances
Word

Deut 26: 16 - 19 reads

  16 “This day the Lord your God commands you to observe these statutes
  and judgments; therefore you shall be careful to observe them with all
  your heart and with all your soul. 17 Today you have proclaimed the
  Lord to be your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His
  statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and that you will obey
  His voice. 18 Also today the Lord has proclaimed you to be His special
  people, just as He promised you, that you should keep all His
  commandments, 19 and that He will set you high above all nations which
  He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a
  holy people to the Lord your God, just as He has spoken.”

Deut 6 : 1 reads

  “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments
  which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may
  observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess,

There are many other places in the Old Testament where these words appear, but I couldn't quite grasp distinctly what they mean.


texts: How does the essence–energies distinction differ from the ontological/economic views of God?

texts:
Eastern Orthodoxy teaches the essence–energies distinction of God. Wikipedia quotes catholic-church.org's explanation:

The Ultimate Reality and Meaning of the Palamite theology consists of the distinction between God’s Essence and Energy. This is a way of expressing the idea that the transcendent God remains eternally hidden in His Essence, but at the same time that God also seeks to communicate and The Distinction between God’s Essence and Energy unite Himself with us personally through His Energy.

This sounds very similar to how theologians since Athanasius have spoken of the difference between the ontological (or immanent) and the economic views of the Trinity. R. C. Sproul explains:

Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption.

But while Catholics and Protestants generally accept the ontological/economic views of God, they regard the essence–energies distinction as problematic or even heretical.
So what is the difference between these views, and why would many Western theologians consider the essence–energies distinction to be heresy?


texts: What prominent scholars and/or denominations hold to Matthean priority?

texts:
This question discusses the differences between Marcan priority and Matthean priority and asks about the arguments in favor of Matthean priority. My question is who holds and promotes this view. I heard the claim made that there are only a few scholars who hold to this view and that Marcan priority is almost undisputed.

Is it true that the overwhelming majority of Christian and secular scholars hold to Marcan priority? Who are the major voices on the side of Matthean priority? Is there a reliable indication of what proportion of the scholarly community holds to Matthean priority or disputes Marcan priority?

I'll also accept a well-sourced answer confirming the claim that Marcan priority is all but undisputed.


texts: Why is the Catholic Church called "The Roman Catholic Church"?

texts:
If the word "catholic", from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), means "universal", why The Catholic Church is known as "The Roman Catholic Church"?

Is it possible be "universal" and "roman" at the same time?


texts: Why does Iglesia ni Cristo use the Lamsa Bible?

texts:
Recently, I met members of a group called Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for "Church of Christ"). After I looked them up and watched some debates between them and other Christian churches, I observed that while English speakers in their group support their teachings using a number of Bible translations, the Lamsa Bible seems to be the one they most often reference.

What are the main reasons Iglesia ni Cristo uses the Lamsa Bible and how is this translation viewed by "mainstream" scholars with a traditional approach to biblical scholarship?


texts: In what countries is Christianity banned?

texts: I am doing a history day project and ours is on the rights and responsibilities and we wanted to know in what countries is Christianity banned and for what reason.


texts: According to Reformed theology are the Psalms suitable preaching/prayers/songs for Christians?

texts:
In other words, are the Psalms considered Jewish-specific or deemed equally useful as prayers and songs for Christians? For example, is the first Psalm a Christian Psalm as well as a Jewish Psalm?

  KJV Psalm 1: 1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of
  the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the
  seat of the scornful.

  2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he
  meditate day and night.

  3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that
  bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not
  wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

  4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth
  away.

  5Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in
  the congregation of the righteous.

  6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the
  ungodly shall perish.


texts: Meaning of term "satisfactory" in T. S Eliot's Journey of the Magi

texts:
In T. S. Eliot's "The Journey of the Magi", the following line appears:

  Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory

Context: The three magi have arrived at the barn and one of them states that it arriving there after their long journey was simply "satisfactory".

I read somewhere that the term has different meanings in religious contexts and was wondering if anyone could expand on them?

To any who are more familiar with Eliot, if the poem is said to be a metaphor for his conversion and reaching the barn is a symbol of him finally being converted, why would he feel that it was simply "satisfactory"?


texts: How do Jehovah Witnesses explain differences between NWT and Hebrew/Latin/Greek in Zechariah 12:10 and Acts 20:28?

texts:
How do Jehovah Witnesses explain the differences between the New World Translation and Latin/Greek, specifically in these two Bible verses?

(1) Zechariah 12:10

King James Version (KJV)

  And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn

New World Translation (NWT)

  I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and supplication, and they will look to the one whom they pierced,+ and they will wail over him as they would wail over an only son; and they will grieve bitterly over     him as they would grieve over a firstborn son

Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 382AD

  ..et effundam super domum David et super habitatores Hierusalem spiritum gratiae et precum et aspicient   ad me quem confixerunt et plangent eum planctu quasi super unigenitum et dolebunt super eum ut doleri solet in morte primogeniti

(There is no word indicating 'the one'.)

LXX Septuagint — Greek translation of Hebrew in 132BC

  καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Δαυιδ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ιερουσαλημ πνεῦμα χάριτος καὶ οἰκτιρμοῦ καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός [TOWARD] με [ME] ἀνθ’  ὧνκατωρχήσαντο καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν κοπετὸν ὡς ἐπ’ ἀγαπητὸν καὶ ὀδυνηθήσονται ὀδύνην ὡς ἐπὶ πρωτοτόκῳ (No word indicating 'the one')

(2) Acts 20:28

King James Version (KJV)

  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

New World Translation (NWT)

  Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers,+ to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son"

Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 382AD

  .adtendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei quam adquisivit sanguine suo.

(There is no word translatable as 'son'.)

Greek New Testament

  Προσέχετε { οὖν ♦ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ {κυρίου καὶ ♦ - } θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ { ἰδίου [OWN] αἵματος ♦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου [OWN]}.

(There is no word translatable as 'son'.)

Note

Upon further research, I found the Dead See Scrolls segment that contains Zechariah 12:10  and, in trying to identify the Hebrew words in the English parallel, I am noticing what seems to be an aleph and tau (the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet) right after “inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon...” and before “and they shall mourn for him, as” as seen in this picture. Does anyone know what the aleph and tau (if that’s what they are), are doing there?

Note

FYI, I re-posted this question on hermeneutics.se, as two separate questions as suggested by Affable Geek:

On Zech 12:10 https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7604/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-nwt-and-latin-hebrew-greek

On Acts 20:28 https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/7605/how-do-jehovah-witnesses-explain-differences-between-nwt-and-latin-greek-on-acts


texts: Does 2 Peter 1:10 teach salvation can be gained through faith plus works?

texts: Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you ( 2 Peter 1:10 NASB)


texts: At what date in history was the last papal anathema officially applied through the death penalty in a papal court against a heretic or protestant?

texts: I was just wondering when in history the official papal death sentences really ended. I  am not interested in any killing that was not officially authorized by a pope (or his authorized representatives) as that would seem more like an potential unsanctioned action (even if done in the name of Catholic faith).


texts: What would be a good counter arguments to this idea?

texts:
Sex Before Marriage Is Not A Sin

I found this article that says that sex outside marriage is not a sin.

Some samples are

  Ruth and Boaz

  Really? Where does the Bible give a green light to premarital sex?
  Perhaps the most striking example is in the story of Ruth, though
  there are other examples as well. According to the Book of Ruth, when
  the recently widowed Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi were faced with
  a famine in Ruth’s homeland Moab, they returned to Israel impoverished
  and with little hope of survival. Ruth took to gleaning in the fields
  to find food for herself and Naomi. The owner of the fields, a
  relative of Naomi named Boaz, saw Ruth and was pleased by her. When
  Naomi heard about it, she encouraged Ruth to adorn herself and
  approach Boaz at night while he was sleeping to see what would happen.
  Ruth took this advice, resting with him until morning after first
  “uncovering his feet” (in Hebrew, “feet” can be a euphemism for male
  genitals). The next day, Boaz goes to town to find out whether he can
  marry her, and, luckily, another man with a claim to Ruth agrees to
  release her. They do marry and together they produce Obed, the
  grandfather of King David.

  None of this would have been possible if Ruth had not set out to
  seduce Boaz in a field, without the benefit of marriage.

The Bible’s Contradictions About Sex

Another is David and Betsheba. It's not a sin because Batsheba is not technically married.

David and Bathsheba says it's not sin at all.

Yet, not having sex outside marriage seems like the most talked about rules in christianity second only to believing Jesus is God.

So what would be a good counter-argument?

Also is there reasonable reason to say that this is very open to interpretation and that the bible is simply not clear about the idea? Is it okay to say that, yes it's sin and no it's not a sin is well within possible interpretation?


texts: Why is Ex 3:10 in the reading of the Third Sunday in Lent (Year C) in German and French lectionary?

texts:
The first reading of the Third Sunday in Lent in Year C (today) is Ex 3, 1-8a.13-15. The new (Advent 2018) German lectionary includes also verse 10. The French lectionary has the same.

The old German lectionary, the US lectionary, the Italian lectionary, the Brasil lectionary, the Spanish lectionary, the current Latin lectionary (Ordo lectionem Missae. Editio typica altera 1981, p. 21 (PDF 67)) does not have this verse.

Where does this difference come frome?

I understand that the adddition makes sense. The mission to Moses should be mentioned before Moses says to God "But when I go to the Israelites ...".


texts: Where did the rich young ruler hear of eternal life?

texts:
Something prompted the young ruler in Matthew 19:16 to ask Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. (Word search for "eternal life" and "everlasting life" )

The phrase "everlasting life" appears once in the OT, in Daniel 12:2. Jesus' usage in the gospels is brief. What did the ruler hear that made him rush to Jesus to ask for it? Are there any clues I missed that give us a fuller picture? Are there Christian writings that have addressed this point?


texts: Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?

texts: What, if anything, does the Bible say either supporting the theory of life on other planets, or suggesting that there is none?


texts:
The Bible In a Minute video by Barats and Bereta has been enormously popular on YouTube, with 3.6 million viewers. The video quite literally goes through the Bible in less than a minute.

Obviously, the video leaves out a lot. But as for what is included:

Is it accurate?
Is it enough? Consider someone who knows nothing of the Bible but watches the video carefully over and over, even frame by frame. Can they learn enough of the Bible to become a Christian?


texts: According to Jehovah's witnesses, why does an active force have a name?

texts:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (KJV)

From my understanding of Jehovah's witness theology, the father's name is Jehovah, and the son's name is Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is God's active force. What is the name of the Holy Ghost? If there is none, what is the explanation for this verse? And why would an active force have a name?


texts: Why are the wicked resurrected only to be destroyed and sent to the Lake of Fire?

texts:
In Revelation 20 the resurrection of the wicked is detailed. They are then judged and thrown in the lake of fire.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [The righteous only were raised to life first]
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [the wicked are then raised for judgement]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [all the dead wicked are found and raised for judgement]
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. [then they die]

I personally take the Annihilationism perspective, where the wicked are completely annihilated after being judged; they will exist no more.
So from the other perspective, the traditional doctrine of Hell, how does it make sense that the wicked will be resurrected, only to be killed, then suffer eternal torment in Hell (Lake of Fire)? Less challengingly said, why are the wicked resurrected when it seems unnecessary?


texts: Differences between paranormal entities like banshees, poltergeists, demons, ghosts, etc..?

texts:
Human history is full of various paranormal entities such as:

Ghosts
Demons
Spirits
Poltergeists
Banshees
Disembodied voices
Orbs

Some books I have seen even equated extraterrestrial aliens or UFOs with the paranormal entities.

I have previously heard (or read somewhere, I cannot remember which one) that some of these may be souls trapped between heaven and hell, or souls of people who were killed and are looking for justice.

From what I understand though, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the immortality of the soul (as per this question, or the selected answer to this question).

With that in mind, do Jehovah's Witnesses have any kind of spirit creature taxonomy for explaining the different kinds of paranormal entities?

Or do you view these as mainly the product of human imagination?

Update:
I had assumed that the different paranormal entities have their own separate backstory so to speak. This seems to be to the assumption from sites found through queries such as this one. For that reason I thought the other question only dealt with "ghosts", but the comment by @4castle does clarify this in my mind (i.e. that all of these phenomena are caused by demons) although now I need to find what the "demons" backstory is according to JWs. That would be a different question however; this one can considered a duplicate.


texts: Can Catholics receive sacraments via Skype?

texts: Can Catholics receive any of the sacraments via Skype?


texts: How do we know that death has no mastery over Christ?

texts:
Romans 6:9 says:

  For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.

The logic here says that since Christ died and was risen, now he cannot die again.

With that same logic, we might say that Lazarus (who died and was risen) or anyone else who was raised from the dead - that death has no mastery over them either.

Obviously Christ is the son of God, so that makes him different, but Paul is making a specific argument here. Why is Paul's argument true for Christ but not for Lazarus?


texts: To what extent should the Apostles' speech be considered infallible?

texts:
It is my understanding that all known writings of the Apostles are considered infallible and are Canonical.  However, I am unclear as to what extent recorded speech of the Apostles should be considered inspired.

In Galatians 3:11-13 we have evidence that Peter, an Apostle, is not perfect in his actions. So it seems that, like us, Apostles were subject to sin and error.  What implication, then, does this have on the Apostles' recorded speech?

For example, In Acts 15:19-21, James makes a statement in which he seems to consider eating meat sacrificed to idols a sin (which seems to contradict many of Paul's writings).  Should his statement be viewed as infallible, because he is an Apostle, or is a possible interpretation of the passage that James was wrong?

Answers should assume the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.


texts:
Did God hate unborn Esau?

  Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good
  or bad ... 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I
  hated.”

How does this square with the concept that God loves everyone? How should I know He didn't hate me as a child?


texts: Was the Catholic title "vicar of Christ" conceived as an "assistant" or an "agent"?

texts: I was under the impression that a "vicar" was a "replacement" or "one acting in the stead of" another (an "agent") but it appears the Roman title of "vicar" seems to be more of an assistant. What is the intended significance of the title as applied to Catholic Popes? Was their title part of Roman government or just a religious title?