texts: In Catholicism, what is the difference between Natural Law and Divine Law?

texts:
In Catholic understanding, there is a divine law and a natural law.  Based on my reading, it seems like Divine Law = Revelation (as a Protestant would call it) and Natural Law = what you could deduce about right and wrong simply by using Reason to extrapolate the consequences of the act.

Thus, the 10 Commandments are first natural law (because you can figure out pretty easily that killing is bad), but then are also articulated by God. Does it then become Divine Law? Is it "also Divine Law" or "no longer Natural Law, just Divine?"

Are these categories supposed to exclusive? Is divine law higher than natural law?

Ultimately, what is the difference?


texts: Are the ancient indulgences still valid, those decreed by the previous Popes?

texts:
I found in a 1676 old book that indulgences are granted to the people who wear their rosary around the neck, around the wrist or at the belt.

Is it still valid ?


texts: To what extent were original papyri used as sources in the translation of the NIV New Testament?

texts: I am wondering to what extent original papyri were used in the translation of the NIV New Testament? I know there are some large papyrus fragments such as p45 and p66 and I am wondering how much the translators of the NIV referenced them directly.


texts: Where did St. Jerome say this quote about the manger of the nativity?

texts:
I have seen on multiple websites, mostly websites about seeing the Holy Land or otherwise pilgrimage-focused sites, that St. Jerome said:

  If I could only see that manger in which the Lord lay! Now, as if to honour the Christ, we have removed the poor one and placed there a silver one; however, for me the one which was removed is more precious . . . .

The site typically prefaces it similar to the link above saying that St. Jerome, whose cave was nearby (since Jerome lived in Bethlehem at this time), did not approve of the 4th century replacement of the marble manger with the silver manger. Also quoted around the same point in the article is a "biblical scholar" who similarly disapproves of the "men's devotions" around the cave of the nativity.

I have yet to find a basis for this quote by Jerome. Do we have any record of this statement anywhere?

My search found a somewhat contradictory quote in letter 108, to Eustochium, dated AD 404:

  I too, miserable sinner though I am, have been accounted worthy to kiss the manger in which the Lord cried as a babe, and to pray in the cave in which the travailing virgin gave birth to the infant Lord.

This quote suggests that he, at least some point in the past up to AD 404, was able to access the original manger. Perhaps the manger replacement came at a later point before his death in AD 420.

I could not find the original quote on either New Advent or Christian Classics Ethereal Library. If anyone could find a basis for this quote attributed to Jerome, that would be great.


texts: In the beginning God said "let there be light" and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then God separated the light form the darkness. Where did the darkness come from? I do not have my Bible with me so my quotes my not be verbatim.


texts: What does Liberate 2014/Tullian mean by 'One Way Love'?

texts:
My question is prompted by the Liberate 2014 Conference and the concept of One Way Love. There's also a book by a pastor Tullian Tchividjian called "One Way Love".

What does Liberate 2014/Tullian mean by 'One Way Love' and what is their understanding of man's role in reciprocating per 1 John 4:19?

  We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)


texts: Is 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 not the 'Word of God'?

texts:
Paul makes it clear that the following section is not a command from God but his own opinion:

  Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. (1  Corinthians 7:25, ESV)

Does this mean that 1 Corinthians 7:26–40 is not the 'Word of God'? If it is, how can this be explained? If it isn't, doesn't this call some other verses, particularly from the epistles, into question, i.e., that they might be just the writer's opinion?


texts: What did the Early Christians Believe About the Trinity Before the Gospel of John?

texts:
I think Christianity today is extremely Johannine, meaning very dependent on the teachings of the Gospel of John.
In my studies, I came across the fact that most Christian communities of the late first and early second centuries only had one gospel to listen to during meetings (not read, since few knew how to read).
This raised a problem for me, since without the Gospel of John, the rest of the gospels and the Pauline epistles are not sufficient to teach the Trinity.
Does this mean that the early Christians did not believe in the Trinity? I have been reading the other gospels and do not find the concept of Trinity being taught in them.


texts: According to Catholic sources, what is the "Leviathan" in the Bible?

texts:
According to Catholic sources1, what is the Leviathan in the Bible?

Is it a mythical creature or a particular animal that it can be identified with or some other creature?

1. E.g. Catholic Biblical commentary, Church Fathers, saints, etc. The best answer will reference these.

cf. Leviathan and Behemoth - JewishEncyclopedia.com.


texts: According to Catholicism and/or Eastern Othodox, if we have Guardian Angels do we also have an assigned Demons?

texts:
The idea of having a demon assigned to us isn’t new to anyone who is familiar with C.S. Lewis and the Screwtape letters.  Since the idea (according to Catholic and Orthodox Tradition) is that God “assigns” us each a Guardian Angel is it likely we also have a demon assigned to us?

I can’t comprehend how the world of angels and demons exists but if there is an eternal struggle for our souls it would make sense.

From a biblical perspective Acts 12:15 New International Version (NIV)
15 “You’re out of your mind,” they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, “It must be his angel.” - Seems to support the notion of guardian angels.

King James Bible  Matthew 18:10
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven - Is another example.

Through my research the term guardian angel or guardian demon is not found within scriptures.


texts: What is the source for Martin Luther's quote against the use of pipe organ music?

texts:
I've heard it said that Martin Luther condemned the use of pipe organs, saying that they were somehow evil.

What is the source for this quote? Or is it falsely attributed to Luther?


texts:
One person told me that since disciples called Jesus rabbi and since he taught in synagogues he couldn't have been a carpenter as only rabbis were allowed to teach in synagogues.

Has this matter ever been covered in Christianity? If yes, can anyone, please, give an overview on this matter?

Could Jesus have been both carpenter and a rabbi? How did a person become  qualified rabbi in those times?


texts: Did Moses leave his wife and kids? If so, why?

texts:
Is this passage implying that Moses left his wife and children before he went into the wilderness?

If that's true, why did Moses leave his family?

  Exodus 18:1-7 ESV Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses and for Israel his people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt. Now Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her home, along with her two sons. The name of the one was Gershom (for he said, “I have been a sojourner in a foreign land”), and the name of the other, Eliezer (for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”). Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God. And when he sent word to Moses, “I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you with your wife and her two sons with her,” Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him. And they asked each other of their welfare and went into the tent.


texts: Why did the authors of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 callout the pope as being the antichrist?

texts:
In chapter 26 paragraph 4 of the 1689 LBC, the authors called the pope the antichrist:

  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 exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

What was the reasoning behind labeling a single man/office as The antichrist, when scripture itself does no such thing (and indeed says there will be more than one {1 John 2:18})?


texts: What is the significance of dead saints being resurrected to life at the crucifixion of Jesus?

texts:
Matthew records that immediately after the death of Jesus, many Old Testament saints who had died came back to life, went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many people.

  51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.  Matthew 27:51-53 NASB

I think it is interesting that this occurred at the death of Jesus and not the resurrection, and I'm not sure what the reason for this could be.  My main question though is what the significance was of the Old Testament saints coming back to life physically at this time.  This appears to be a sort of "Zeroth" resurrection (borrowing from the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, that was asserted after there was already a first and second).


texts: What does the Church have to say about the Pope's latest statement?

texts: It is alleged that Pope Francis recently said that There Is No Hell Fire and Adam & Eve were Not Real. What does the Catholic Church have to say about it?


texts: What is the Biblical and historical basis for Christian pacifism?

texts:
My understanding is that early Christians were generally pacifists.  Today (at least in the U.S.) Christian pacifists are a bit hard to come by.  Many quote Romans 13:1-3 to support Christian involvement in war:

  1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

In light of this verse, and other Biblical or historical evidence, what is the case to be made for Christian pacifism?


texts: How can we trust the Bible after it has been translated to another language?

texts:
Islam considers the Qur'an to be authoritative only in its original language. Many teachings even claim it is a sin to read in any language but it's original, and while not all adhere to this belief, learning Arabic specifically to read or recite the Qur'an is common even in countries where it is of no other use.

On the other hand Christians openly encourage translations into other languages.

What does Christianity believe about the Bible that makes this possible? Are translations generally considered authoritative in their target languages in the same way that the original text was?


texts: How did Calvin view the use of religious icons to facilitate worship of God?

texts:
Recently I was told in a chat room on this site that the use of icons in the church 'wasn't offensive to anyone'!? I was so amazed that anyone would ever say such a thing, but since I have never had an interest in this sort of history,  I had some doubts.

The question is, 'Well what is it? Were many reformers deeply offended with the use of religious icons in worship, or is this just an unfounded claim?

Note: I am now researching many details about real church history on similar topics as I realize I am weak in being able to answer questions about it.  This question therefore is part of a series of historical questions as I learn myself. Please do not think I have fallen into 'negative theology' it is merely an academic quest to sort out some facts.


texts: Who exactly is resurrected and reigns in the millennial city in premillennialisim?

texts:
Who is resurrected at the second coming prior to the commencement of the millennium (according to premillennial theology)? Is it:

All who are saved–alive and dead
NT Christians–alive and dead
Christians who were martyred during the tribulation and/or Christians still alive?

To clarify, I'm not sure if there is consensus on this and I am not sure if there is a different view in either 'historical' and/or 'dispensational' premillennialists. So that may impact the answer somewhat.  If there's disagreement within premillennialism, I'd like an overview of positions.


texts:
I often hear the argument that the veracity of Christ's claims in the gospels can be considered reliable based upon two things: miracles and fulfilled prophecy. This pre-supposes the validity of the gospels. When scripture authors such as Isaiah have provably written their works before Christ acted, we can consider the gospels as accounts of fulfilling these prophecies.

It is my understanding that there are early historians such as Josephus who wrote in support of these topics, but it is believed that most writings like this contain interpolations from Christians at later times.

My question is in two parts:

1) What fulfilled prophecies most validate the gospels?

2) What may we look to for assertion that these are indeed fulfilled prophecies and note merely works of men who had access to the prophetic writings and used them to invent stories that appear valid?


texts: Why do we use the Hebrew name for Daniel, but Persian names for his companions?

texts:
Reading the book of Daniel, an odd thing struck me: all four of the men were given Persian names and yet it's only Daniel that is now called by his Hebrew name.

Why is that we call his companions Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and not their original names of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah?


texts: Did St. Thomas Aquinas write anything about historiography?

texts: I was curious as to whether or not St. Thomas Aquinas every formally laid out any principles to be adhered to when writing/studying/interpreting history or ever elucidated a theory of the "nature" of history itself.


texts: How does Absalom's death foreshadow Christ?

texts:
Absalom dies on a tree (2 Samuel 18). He's rebelled against his father, David, and taken the throne. He'd rallied all Israel to his side. David has fled, but he's sent in his army and they've totally crushed Absalom. Absalom is fleeing into the forest when he gets caught, hangs on the tree, and eventually gets speared to death by Joab (the leader of David's army). Reminds me of Jesus's death on a cross.

After hearing of Absalom's death, David is sad. really sad. So sad he can't even rejoice that he's gotten his kingdom back.

Is there any Christological significance to this scenario? What about David? Does he play a metaphorical role?


texts: Do any Christian groups consider divorce sufficient cause for excommunication?

texts: If a man or woman divorces their spouse, would that be a sufficient reason to excommunicate them from the church according to any Christian groups? Does the fact of whether or not they remarry, or whether or not they repent, make a difference regarding excommunication?


texts: Why is Mary's perpetual virginity a Catholic dogma?

texts:
I know Catholic dogmas must be accepted to become Catholic. They are non-negotiables as distinguished from doctrines or theological opinions. I know most Catholic dogmas relate to some essential truth about God or Jesus which must necessarily be true in order for Christianity to be true. Others are refutations of various heresies.

Since one must accept dogmas in order to join the Church, what essential truth of or about Christianity relies on Mary's perpetual virginity? If she had relations with Joseph at some point after their marriage, what truth of or about Christianity would be damaged? How is Christianity diminished if she did not remain a virgin?


texts:
Is it true that Jews during Jesus' lifetime were binitarian, that is believing that God was one being in two persons similar to how Christians have historically believed and taught that God is trinitarian having the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

From "Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan Segal".

  Though it was difficult to date the rabbinic traditions accurately in
  many cases, the results showed that the earliest heretics believed in two
  complementary powers in heaven while only later could heretics be
  shown to believe in two opposing powers in heaven. The extra-rabbinic
  evidence allowed the conclusion that the traditions were earlier than
  the first century. Furthermore, in comparing the literature, it was possible to define a number of dangerous scriptural interpretations central
  to the heresy and show how the rabbis countered them by bringing in
  other scriptures which unambiguously stated God’s unity. From this
  evidence it became clear that the basic heresy involved interpreting
  scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in
  heaven was equivalent to God.

"Two Powers In Heaven Early Rab Segal"

Hopefully this will remove the downvotes.

Edit
This might also help.

  Then the Lord  rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, - Genesis 19:24

I'm told the clear reading is that there are two YHWH's but I only know a little Greek and no Hebrew.


texts: Does Joshua the high priest make the list of figures of Messiah in the Bible?

texts:
There are unequivocal figures in the bible that point to Christ, namely;

Micah 5:2

  But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you be little among the thousands
  of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth unto me that is to be
  ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from
  everlasting.

Zechariah 9:9

  Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
  behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation;
  lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Not forgetting Isaiah 9:6 and plenty more.

The question is, does Joshua the high priest make this list of figures considering the peculiar terms mentioned below concerning him ?

Zechariah 6:12

  ‘Behold, a man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from
  His place and build the temple of the LORD.


texts: Why do we celebrate Easter only 2 days after Good Friday?

texts: I have always wondered why we celebrate Easter only two 24 hour periods since Good Friday. Throughout Scripture we see the Apostles and Paul talking about Jesus's Resurrection was three days after his crucifixion according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4). I feel like I read somewhere that a day back in the 1st Century meant something different than what we believe in the 21st Century. This should be something that we are taught when we are young instead of me asking when I turn 17 in 2 months.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, does abortion need to be confessed, and is it a mortal or venial sin?

texts:
I am not Catholic yet, but am attending RCIA and my first confession is next week. I had an abortion years ago.

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church:

Do I have to confess this?
Is this a mortal or venial sin?


texts: What is (the source of) this quote about God's turning any evil into good?

texts:
This is a quote-identification, except I don't actually know the quote. So bear with me, please. It's something like

  There is no sin so great that God could not turn it to good.

or

  The greatest trick God played on the devil was turning everything he did to good.

or something like that. (Though the second is obviously colored by The Usual Suspects.)

I suspect it's an aphorism from someone like Balthasar Gracian (not him, though) or Meister Eckhart, or it's a quote from Augustine or Francis (any--pick your favorite), or some famous teacher or commentator summarizing/paraphrasing one of the greats.

It could be related to or derived from either of Gn 50:20 or Romans 8:28, or not. It isn't either of those, though.

I tagged it Catholicism because I'm an American Catholic, and went to a Catholic college, and virtually all of my religious education has been from those sources. The ancient Greeks (not likely, though, for this one!), Church Fathers, monastics, Aquinas, &c. are likely suspects. C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Thomas Merton....

I probably heard it at least fifteen years ago, so no need to consider 21st-century sources.

Does this ring a bell? Is there a notable quote by a notable author/speaker/teacher in Christianity that fits this mold?


texts: Why did Jesus use bread to turn into His body?

texts: In the Catholic church you have communion, in which you receive the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.  Why do bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, rather than other elements?


texts: Did Luther have any disagreements with the teachings of Augustine of Hippo? The Wikipedia page on Luther doesn't mention any, and from my limited knowledge of Luther's books, I can't recall any either. However, there might have been some.


texts: According to the wider hope/inclusive framework, why does the church still exist?

texts:
In the wider hope/inclusivist theological framework, very simply put, people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and destined for hell.  Given that understanding, why does the Church exist and why has it lasted as long as it has?

For example, one commonly stated purpose of the church is to evangelize the lost.  But is that actually necessary in a wider hope/inclusive framework? (see related question)  If not, then what is the purpose?

Is the purpose that God is waiting to bring a certain number of people to salvation?  That doesn't seem to follow either, since he could have simply saved more people before the coming of Christ, or done a mass conversion the day of resurrection and then immediately enter into the next age.

Given the amount of suffering that has gone on for the last 2,000 years, it seems like God would need a good reason to allow the church age to continue the way it has.  But I don't see such a reason.  What do wider hope/inclusive theologians say about this?  To them, what is the purpose of the church and why has the church age lasted so long?


texts: According to Catholicism, how did Jesus go in secret (disguise) to the Feast of Tabernacles?

texts:
In John Chapter-7, we see  Jesus going to the Feast of Tabernacles in disguise:

" But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near,  Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. ....... Jesus told them, “.........I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.”  After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. "

One would be interested in knowing  as to what form Jesus took to make himself un-identifiable, even to his disciples,  in the temple . Did he put on some make-up, say, with  a clean-shaven head ; or did he just assume another face ? How  does  the Catholic Church explain the manner in which Jesus went in disguise to partake in the Festival ?


texts: Why is "She" used in the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 3:15?

texts:
So this portion of scripture is very famous and important, its called the "proto-evangelum". It is often counted as the first spoken promise of salvation from God to man.

Here is the verse in a modern english version

  I will put enmity between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring[a] and her offspring;
  he shall bruise your head,
      and you shall bruise his heel.” (ESV)

I was reading another question on this site, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/64450/36043

This question quoted this very familiar verse, but with a minor, but serious difference.

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " Genesis 3:15 (Douay-Rheims)

This version says that "SHE" shall crush the serpents head, while every version I have seen always says "he".

This is a very serious discrepancy. The post referenced included a painting of Mary, a song about Mary, a prayer to Mary, and the poster mentioned he/she liked the song included because  "The song also emphasize Mary's role in salvation beuatifully in a very simple way."

So, if one is coming from that perspective, this verse would certainly lend some credence to Mary veneration. So I see why someone who holds that disposition would like this translation.

As for a criterium for the answer to this question, answering any of these questions will be enough.

Why does this translation use "She"?
Do other reliable translations render it this way?
If not, why the discrepency?
Any related historical information, or tie in to catholic/protestent doctrines about Mary would be a fun plus.


texts:
Numbers 5:11-31 gives us an adultery test used by the Hebrew people in their early days.

11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.
...
29 ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, 30 or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the Lord, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. 31 Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.'"

I think the "man" in v.31 is referring to the adulterous woman's husband. If so, what guilt is the man 'free' from? If all he has is a righteous jealousy for his wife, then why is there any mention of his guilt? If it's not him, then the verse must be talking about the man who committed adultery with this woman. If so, why is he free from guilt?


texts: Did St.Thomas really throw water in the air (in India) and it remained airborne?

texts:
I was told this during childhood, that this is how St.Thomas converted certain Hindu Brahmins to Christianity. Also on Wikipedia:

  Historical legend records that when St. Thomas landed at Palayur, he
  witnessed the sight of Hindu Brahmins, after their ablutions in a
  local tank, offering prayers by chanting mantras (the Vedic tradition
  of India for spiritual transformation) hymns to god in the form of
  Argyam or Tharpanam (water held in the palms) of water to the Sun god,
  a practice also said to be followed in Harappan and Persian cultures.
  Amused by the sight of water being thrown up by the Brahmins, from the
  palms of their hands, which was falling back, he challenged the
  Brahmins stating that the water they were offering was not being
  accepted by the Sun god as it was falling back into the tank. He made
  a deal with them stating that his God would accept the offer of water
  if he threw it up in the same way as they did, but water would not
  fall back. If he proved this then his God was superior and the
  Brahmins would have to embrace Christianity. He performed this miracle
  (summoned the Holy Trinity, completed the sign of the Cross and threw
  water held in his palms up into the air, which remained still in the
  air at a height) and with this miracle he converted a number of
  Brahmins and Jews in Palayur to Christianity. Thereafter he baptised
  the converts in a nearby water tank.

Is there any evidence or similar documented text outside India which confirms this miracle?


texts: What are the different names of God in the Bible and what do they mean?

texts: I see that our current-day Bibles only refer to God as LORD.  Can you explain to me what the different names of God are and what they mean?


texts: Where did the translators of the New World translation study the Biblical languages?

texts:
In Crisis of conscience, written by Raymond Franz, the translators of the New World Translation are identified as Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel.

Where, if at all, did any of these study Biblical Hebrew or Greek?


texts: How does God reconstruct your brain if it has been destroyed in the afterlife

texts:
(Disclaimer: Sorry, I'm not a native english speaker, feel free to correct my english if it is poor)

In which state your brain is restored after death ? Does the bible said something about that ?

I have long been asked that question to myself, what memories do you brings with you when you die ? What God choose to bring back if your brain were destroyed in, for example, a car accident ? You know, it is common to read some news about people that loose their ability to pronounce some kind of word our doing something in particular, it is restored ?

Worst to answer, If someone suffered of a Alzheimer disease, in the begining of the sickness to keep your ability to memorize some things but you loose progressively your mind. Which moment does god will choose ? I mean, Which state of your brain will be choosen to be restored ?


texts: According to Augustine, what's the difference between regenerate life and that before the fall?

texts:
In Augustine's four stages of the Christian life, is the Reborn Man in the same state as the Pre-Fall Man?

In which state was Christ the man while on earth?


texts: Will there be "new people" or reproduction in heaven or "the next life?"

texts:
I'm looking for a Biblical answer to this question: will there be any new people in heaven? An equivalent question: are the people created in this life (on Earth) the only people who will ever exist?

I'm aware that Jesus said:

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

But that is all that I can find, except a clue in Revelation 21:5: “I am making everything new!”


texts: According to Catholicism, why was Jesus angry with the money-changers at the Temple?

texts:
At Mtt 22:19-21 we see Jesus outwitting the Pharisees who inquired of him whether it was right to pay tax to Caesar:

"Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

We also see at Mtt 17: 24 when it comes to paying of the Temple Tax :

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” - Matthew 17:24

Clearly, Jews used separate sets of  coins viz. the Roman coin denarius for paying tax to the Roman Emperor and the Greek coin drachma to pay the Temple Tax. Presumably the money changers at the Temple were accepting Roman coins and giving Greek coins to the Jews in return, after deducting their commission, so that the latter could use them as offering in the Temple.
But at Mtt 21:12 we see Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers, apparently for the reason that they were over-charging the devotees and thereby `making the Temple a den of robbers '(Mt 21:13). My question therefore is: What was the role of money-changers at the Temple, and why was Jesus harsh with them? What explanation does the Catholic Church give to the angry reaction of Jesus to the money-changers?


texts: Why are the Psalms numbered this way in some Catholic Bibles?

texts:
I am looking at a Catholic Bible and I see the following:

PSALM 1
[...]
PSALM 9-10
[...]
PSALM 51 V50 Miserere
PSLAM 52 V 51
[...]
PSALM 150

Please see image below.

What accounts for this numbering?

It is not a straight 1 thru 150 numbering. For example there is Psalm 9-10 and Psalm 51 has V50 alongside it.

I am looking for a Catholic explanation sought but I assume a Bible scholar ought to be able to explain it.

Image produced from The Jerusalem Bible Popular Edition.


texts: How does the Catholic Church handle documents worldwide nowadays?

texts:
Marriages and baptisms certainly generate certificates that the church needs to store somewhere. Catholic schools such as the Marist Brothers and La Salle Brothers, with hundreds of thousands of students worldwide, also most probably report information back to the Catholic Church.

I was wondering how the church handles all this information. Are they stored locally, regionally, nationally or does the Vatican receive everything back? Can someone in the Vatican in higher positions inside the church easily look up if a certain someone born in another continent was baptised or got married? Or maybe if someone studied in a Catholic school?

And how much of the church's bureaucracy is digital nowadays?


texts: In LDS Doctrine, is the Resurrection a Priesthood Ordinance?

texts: I have heard some LDS members say that the act of resurrection is actually a Priesthood ordinance. Is there scripture or words from LDS leaders stating such? Or is this an assumption?


texts: What percentage of self-identifying Christians believe Jesus was not God, and instead was a messenger of God?

texts: Does such sect inside Christianity exist?


texts: Are tithes allowed to be food items in the Mormon church?

texts: I know that the Mormon church requires members to tithe regularly. Otherwise, their membership may be restricted, until they tithe. My question is, do members have to tithe in money? Are they allowed to tithe in food items? Maybe a Mormon has a garden of orange trees in his or her backyard, and decides to tithe 10% of the yield to the church. Would the church put a minimum requirement on the quality of the oranges, or is the mere existence of the orange sufficient? Maybe a Mormon is very good at cooking and prepares a wonderful dish of casserole for the church. Are prepared foods allowed? Can they serve as a replacement for tithing in money?


texts: I grew up around the Amish, and Mennonite communities. However, my family was half Protestant half, well.. Not religious. I am a 21 year old dairy farmer, and not baptized. It was always left open to me to find what I believed, and follow that. I've always looked in to the Mennonite religion, with strong desire to learn more. However where I live now, there are no close-by Mennonite churches. I agree strongly with the way things are viewed in this religion and I'd like to follow the church as well as the lifestyle. I believe it's time. And its something I take seriously. My question is, would I be welcomed as a visitor in a Mennonite church? And if so, could I become a member if I truly decided that's what I want?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for moral absolutism?

texts: In this world of moral relativism, do any Christians make a scriptural (Biblical) case for moral absolutism? That is, how do they use the Bible to make the case that there is such a concept as absolute "right" and "wrong"?


texts: According to Catholic moral theology, does the State have a right to force its baptized citizens to procreate?

texts:
St. Alphonsus di Liguori, Theologia Moralis vol. 2 lib. 6 tract. 5 de matrimonio (p. 687), addressing question"938. Marrieds per se are bound to render (the debt) and sometimes even to exact (the debt).":

Neither is bound, speaking per se, to exact the debt, even if per accidens he is sometimes bound to, either out of charity (e.g., to avert the immanent danger of incontinence of the spouse.) … or out of legal justice, in which which public health (salus publica) is endangered without the birth of children.

Integralism ref:10.15

where populations are declining or threaten to decline, the civil power may offer inducements to married couples to have children.

But does St. Alphonsus go further, arguing that the State can force marrieds (including those baptized) to have children?


texts: Did Martin Luther publish any doctrinal material of managing one's own physical death?

texts: As Christianity often comes hand-in-hand with the subject of death we often associate an RIP tombstone with a priest, pastor, or some religious representative at a burial site.  However as we usually live many years before 'meeting our maker' I was wondering if their was any reformed perspective on managing our preparation for that eventual certainty?  For instance, someone like Luther, who represent Protestant thought in so many ways; Did Luther publish any doctrinal perspectives on managing our death, aside for the obvious rule of faith in Christ to ensure a blessed hereafter?


texts: Seventh day Adventists...will the saved ultimately take on a new form in the kingdom of God?

texts:
What is the SDA explanation of the following.

1 Corinthians 15:49-50 states:

  And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

We as Christians pray for Gods kingdom to come {Matthew 6:10}; but if flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom as is stated in 1st Corinthians above; does this not then logically mean the saved will have to take on another form?


texts: What is the importance of reading the Bible?

texts:
I have heard many pastors encouraging their members to read the Bible daily.

Why do we have to read the Bible daily?

Is going to church and listening to sermons not enough?


texts: According to Calvinism, is it possible to believe in predestination, yet reject Christ?

texts:
This question is different from: Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination?

One asks "Does A => B?" the other asks "Does B => A" ?

Given:

  Revelation 22:18–19 (KJV)
  18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I'm very hesitant to argue about salvation apart from "believing in Jesus"

Now, intuitively, it seems to me that it's very hard to believe in the doctrine of election without believing in Jesus. However,

  James 2:18–19 (KJV)
  18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

In this sense, even demons intellectually believe in the doctrine of predestination, yet it does them no good – thus perhaps there is the possibility that humans can intellectually believe in the doctrine of predestination, yet somehow not believe in Christ.

Anyway – these are my conflicted thoughts. Insights?


texts:
Acts 1:24-26;  And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen, to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Why did they want to have 12 disciples? There is a question about it but I wish to know the importance of having 12 Disciples.  Why could not there be only 11 Disciples.  I have tried a few websites but none gave any information about this.


texts: What is the baptism requirement for becoming a Mennonite?

texts:
Historically, Mennonites and other Anabaptists practiced adult re-baptism when a Catholic or Lutheran converted.  This got them in a lot of hot water at the time.

As a long-time member of a General Conference Mennonite Church (now the Mennonite Church USA), and a current member of a Mennonite Brethren church, my impression is that when a Catholic (or other person baptized as an infant) becomes a Mennonite, they are generally given the option of re-baptism, but it's not considered a requirement.  But admittedly, this doesn't happen very often in the U.S.

And in Mexico, where practically everyone is born Catholic (and therefore baptized as an infant), re-baptism seems quite common; but in Mexico the Catholic and protestant churches are often quite at odds with each other (Mexican Catholics think "Christian" is a dirty word).

So my question is:  What are the official rules among Mennonite churches regarding re-baptism of new members of the Mennonite church?


texts: I was just curious, who are the prophets that are being mentioned in Lamentations 2:14, Jeremiah 23:33-40, and Zechariah 13:2-6? Why are these verses condemning the ability of prophecy but yet there are still prophets that are revered to a high extent. Lastly how long can a prophecy last? Ezekiel 12:27 indicates that prophecy seems to be short, and long term prophecies are looked down upon. How does this relate to long term prophecies by Daniel? Thanks.


texts: Is Christianity more friendly to its own Scripture translation than other religions? If so, why?

texts:
Christianity seems to me to embrace translation of its scriptural writings far more than other religions, and to give such translations nearly equal weight with the approximations of the original manuscripts based on surviving texts and textual analysis.

Is this actually the case? If so, why is Christianity so friendly to scriptural translation?

(Christianity's emphasis on proselytizing ("make disciples of all nations") and de-emphasis of traditional cultural exclusion and conversion ["neither Jew nor Gentile"] are factors. The adoption of Greek scriptures requiring understanding of two languages [plus a minimal amount of Aramaic] may also have made translation more attractive. An emphasis on inward belief over outward practice and on universal calling may also have increased the importance of making the scriptures more easily and broadly understandable. A [more Protestant?] emphasis that the Bible is generally clear and that individuals are responsible for knowing the Scripture would also seem to be a factor.)


texts: What do the Catholic officials intend to do for unity with the Orthodox Church? [2017]

texts:
I have heard that Pope Francis said the Catholic Church would not impose any preconditions for the unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Church.
Is that true? And if so what does it mean for the Church?


texts: How would Biblical Inerrantists resolve perceived tensions between 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 7:18?

texts:
2 Timothy 3:16 says:

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... (NIV)

From the perspective of Biblical Inerrancy, how is this compatible with Hebrews 7:18, which speaking of the law of Moses says:

  The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (NIV)

?

If there are various approaches that are too disctint and sufficiently nuanced to be comprehensively covered here, what is a basic overview of such approaches?


texts: On what basis do Christians sometimes claim to know what God's intentions are?

texts: For example, some Creationists will explain dinosaur bones as "God placed them there to test us" - even if God did place them there, isn't it presumptuous to speculate what the motivations were?


texts:
Known:

The seraphim, possibly among the most powerful of created beings, cover their face in the presence of God:

  Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

For Christians, one of the highest (if not the highest) privilege of heaven is seeing the glory of God.

  http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/books/god-is-the-gospel--2

Question:

Satan -- before his fall -- did he observe the glory of God?


texts: What does the Church say about the statements that the Pope Benedict XVI made in the book "God and the World"?

texts:
In response to my earlier question, apocalypse_info_click_here answered:

  While that article in particular is a hoax... Each point in particular
  has been made and is old news.

  Benedict XVI said that Genesis is based on a myth
  Benedict XVI said that Heaven and Hell are not actual places
  Benedict XVI abolished Limbo of the Children.
  Francis says that atheists can be saved.

  Benedict XVI called Genesis a rehashing of pagan myths The pagan
  creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based end
  without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this
  case is situated in the cycle of the do ut des.” “Cardinal” Joseph
  Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord, 1995, p. 86:

  Benedict XVI abolished the Limbo of the Children and rejects infant
  baptism "This state people called limbo.  In the course of our
  century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us.  This was
  one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing
  infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable"
  “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 401:

I'm a Catholic, and I'd like to know what the Catholic Church says about these controversial statements.


texts: Significance of different colored vestments worn by Catholic clergy

texts: What color vestments are worn by the Catholic clergy (Roman rite) during Mass, and what is their significance?


texts: How did Aquinas and Reformation-era Protestants disagree on God's will?

texts:
Thomas Aquinas distinguished between God's antecedent and consequent wills. Meanwhile, the Reformed confessions (eg Westminster Confession) distinguished between God's decretive and revealed wills. How do these categorization systems differ?
Aquinas discusses God's antecedent and consequent wills in Questiones Disputatae de Veritate Question 23:

The divine will is fittingly distinguished into antecedent and consequent. An understanding of this distinction is to be got from thee words of Damascene, who introduced it. He says: “Antecedent will is God’s acceptance of something on His own account,” whereas consequent will is a concession on our account.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism discusses the two decretive and revealed wills of God in questions 7 and 39:

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God? A. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.
Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man? A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.


texts: Can you proof trinity by Jesus's words alone?

texts: Is it possible to prove the concept of Trinity from using the actual sayings of Jesus himself in the bible?


texts: I would like to know the meaning and the importance of the word 'ICTHUS' among Christians. I have learned that this is some sort of symbol. Can anyone help me on this?


texts: How can Heaven exist if we know that people in Hell will suffer?

texts:
Suppose for the following scenario that both the Christian Heaven and Hell exist.

My mother is a good Christian and loves me dearly.

I am an atheist, and will therefore go to hell upon death. [If you don't agree that I will go to hell for being an atheist, simply consider me a sinner who will go to hell.]

When my mother dies she will go to Heaven.

How can my mother possibly experience eternal happiness with the knowledge that her beloved son is being tortured for eternity?

Note: I do not know the originator of this argument. I know that Matt Dilahunty has made it before, though do not know if he came up with it. I ask because I think it poses a valid inconsistency and I would to hear the Christian response.


texts: In what sense do Presbyterians consider Christ's sacrifice "perfect"?

texts:
This question concerns in part the following quote heard regularly by Presbyterian Pastors:

  “Catholics deny the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross and by doing so, forfeit their salvation.”

The Idea is explained in the following terms:

  Christ's sacrifice was perfect, and nothing we can do, not works, not anything, can save us.  (Which a Catholic believes) but Catholics have to “DO” things, (as explained by many Pastors): doing Christ in the Eucharist, doing other Sacraments, doing works of Mercy, doing intercessory prayer, doing the Mass each and every week, fasting, alms giving and Prayer.

The idea that Catholics “DO” these graces instituted by Christ rather than “Receiving” them, seems to dominate the thinking of many Presbyterian brethren.

According to Presbyterians, what would be more perfect, and on what Biblical basis do they justify their choice?

(Presbyterian Position)That Christ's Good works cover the sins of men with his sacrifice to the father, So that he no longer sees the the sinful nature of the Person, but rather sees the righteousness of the Son, and we are sanctified by that covering (No Actual Change to the Believer Is necessary after acceptance through faith), or,
That Christ actually does more than cover up our sins by the meritorious actions of the Son, but provides for us a Church with Sacraments, Graces for us to  help work out our salvation in fear and trembling, to actually increase our sanctity in a fallen world, to avoid the temptations of the flesh and not just to cover up our sinful nature, but to actually change and become sanctified by his Grace (Actual Change to the Believer is necessary after baptism).


texts: Is 'Non-Catholic Non-Orthodox Modern Western Denomination' an ok definition of Protestant?

texts: One meaning of the term "Protestant" is "a church drawing its roots from the Reformation and the denominations of the Reformers in particular".  I have also seen the term extensively used to mean "a modern non-Catholic non-Orthodox western denomination" with 'modern' meaning dating back no earlier than roughly the time of the Reformation and 'western' generally meaning embracing western scholasticism and enlightenment thinking in general.  I have recently been told that the latter meaning is "just wrong".  Is the latter definition 'wrong' in some fundamental way and what reasons are there to use or avoid using it?  If it is wrong, what term (not "modern non-Catholic non-Orthodox western denomination" please, that's just way too long) would be better for this broader usage?


texts: What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Orthodox/Greek/Eastern View)

texts:
As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ.  I note that scripture addresses salvation, and that in Paul's letters being justified is proclaimed to be of importance.  I have spotty understanding, at best, of Greek/Eastern Orthodox doctrines/beliefs and how they differ from what is familiar to me: Catholic teaching and belief.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified?  I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

The issue of justification arises in verses like Luke 18:11-14(NAB):

  11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself,
  'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity - greedy,
  dishonest, adulterous - or even like this tax collector.
  12 I fast
  twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
  13 But the tax
  collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to
  heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a
  sinner.'
  14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the
  former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one
  who humbles himself will be exalted."

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

This question is asking for the Greek/Eastern Orthodox view on the distinction.


texts: As you might know,  Jesus willingly submitted himself to crucification and therefore death on good friday. If he had not done so,  nobody else would have died. Hence does that mean that Jesus committed suicide and is henceforth sinful as he took his own life and the net loss of life due to his voluntary crucification would always be +1?


texts: Any research done on the Narrative of Zosimus & Lehi's "Tree of Life" Dream in 1 Nephi (LDS scripture)? Similarities? More info on N. of Zosimus?

texts:
The other day I overheard a professor briefly mention an ancient Hebraic document known as the "Narrative of Zosimus" that wasn't known to Western scholars until the late 1870's.

As his reference was tangential, I didn't gather much information beyond the fact that the story line/narrative concerned a "righteous" family that was instructed by God to leave Jerusalem before the Babylonian destruction, and that they were led to a land preserved for them. Additionally, their journey to the "blessed" land involved: a dark mist, an ocean, a great tree that bears sweet fruit, etc. (I can't remember all of it exactly, I apologize). Also, the account detailed that the family supposedly recorded their history on metal plates.

Is there more information about this ancient text?
Where can I find an English translation of the text so I can read for it myself?

While I realize that this is an ancient text that predates Christianity (supposedly, I don't have information on it), what struck me as particularly interesting was that it seemed to contain many, many parallels to Lehi's "Tree of Life" dream in 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon.

Is there a correlation between these two texts? Are the parallels remarkable or just coincidental?

What have non-LDS scholars researched and stated about the Narrative of Zosimus?
Have any LDS scholars noted the extreme similar nature of these texts and conducted research on them? Have they proposed any theories to explain why they are so similar?


texts:
What does Neo-Scholastic Thomism say about the Charismatic Renewal movement?

Contemporary Thomist philosopher Dr. Ed Feser, in The Thomistic Tradition (part 1), defines "Neo-Scholastic Thomism" as follows:

  1. Neo-Scholastic Thomism: The dominant tendency within Thomism in the first decades after the revival sparked by Leo’s [1879] encyclical [Æterni Patris], this approach is reflected in many of the manuals and textbooks widely in use in Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries before Vatican II. Due to its emphasis on following the interpretative tradition of the great commentators on Aquinas (such as Capreolus, Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas) and associated suspicion of attempts to synthesize Thomism with non-Thomistic categories and assumptions, it has also sometimes been labeled “Strict Observance Thomism.” Still, its focus was less on exegesis of the historical Aquinas’s own texts than on carrying out the program of deploying a rigorously worked out system of Thomistic metaphysics in a wholesale critique of modern philosophy. Its core philosophical commitments are summarized in the famous “Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses” approved by Pope Pius X. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange[, O.P.] (1877-1964) is perhaps its greatest representative.


texts: What does the Bible say about praying too much?

texts:
I don't understand how these verses:

"Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." - Ecclesiastes 5:2
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words." - Matthew 6:7

Can be reconciled with Luke 18:1-8 where Jesus gives a parable about praying with persistence.
Is it possible to pray too much about something?  Is it possible to pray continually yet with few words?
What do other parts of the bible have to say on this issue?


texts: What biblical basis is there for written records being kept around Jesus's time

texts: I'm wondering if there is any historical information or biblical references that describe the ability to write and record information around the time of Jesus and his disciples.  I.e. to what extent were they able to record what happened at that time?


texts: Did Jesus' disciples believe Jesus was God or a prophet?

texts: Did the disciples believe that Jesus was God or a prophet?  I presume that their opinion changed when he died.  They called Jesus "Lord".  However, "Lord" was a somewhat common title back then.


texts: Catholics: how can the book of Wisdom be inspired if the author pretended to be Solomon?

texts:
This is a sincere question, not one of those sneering ones that try to make the one being questioned look bad.

The church fathers unanimously considered the Book of Wisdom to be inspired and Dei Verbum (official teaching of the church) states that all inspired scripture is infallible. But when you read it, the author clearly pretends to be King Solomon even though the book was written many hundreds of years after Solomon was dead.

  You told me to build a temple on your sacred mountain, an altar in Jerusalem, the city you chose as your home. It is a copy of that temple in heaven, which you prepared at the beginning. (Wisdom 9:8)


texts: When did the Lion of the tribe of Judah take the book from the One sitting on the throne?

texts:
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat
  upon the throne (KJV, Rev. 5:7)

When did this moment happen? When did the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Jesus) take the book from the right hand of the One sitting on the throne (God the Father)?

(Has this moment already happened in history? If yes, when? Or is it still to take place in the future? Or is it something that is the reality outside of the realm of time and, therefore, has its impact in various degrees and ways on all ages of human history?)

Anyway, how is this question traditionally answered in Christianity? (By "Christianity" I mean those people who address Jesus directly by His name in their prayers.)

If there are differences in traditions (and, therefore, in the ways this question is answered) between different branches of Christianity, then I am more interested in how this question is usually answered in main-stream Protestantism.


texts: Offering Indulgences to the Poor souls in Purgatory

texts:
Obviously this Question is strictly for Catholics.

When all conditions are met from those being granted an indulgence, particularly a plenary indulgence for the souls in Purgatory.  Is it necessary that the individual be named or can the indulgence be offered by mode of suffrage to an unknown soul suffering the punishments of forgiven sins?

I have been unable to find a source for this, so by default have assumed that the indulgence can be issued to the unknown soul.


texts:
Evangelical Christians (of which I am one) consider the Bible to be inerrant - that is, given directly by God, and without error as original written.

If we trust Jesus' words, then the inerrancy of the Eleven, Paul, and Old Testament  can be confirmed directly by Jesus. However, the letter to the Hebrews is generally considered to be of uncertain authorship.

This answer explains that Calvin considered the book to be accurate in it's teaching, but not written by Paul. Instead, he suggests it was written by one of the disciples of the first Apostles (Hebrews 2:1). To me, this would suggest the book is helpful teaching, like that of Calvin or other faithful writers, but doesn't hold the authority of the Apostles.

Given Evangelical Christians are uncertain of who wrote the letter to the Hebrews, why do they consider it inerrant?


texts: Should we honor our parents even if it leads us to sin?

texts:
In What does the Bible say about "bad" words? a comment was made that "I cuss in all the (two) languages I speak fluently. It's just my upbringing, and we should honor our parents, right?"

  Exodus 20:12 NIV
  12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in
  the land the LORD your God is giving you."

Ephesians 6:4 tells us parents to not lead our children into sin, but to train and instruct them in the way of the Lord.

  Ephesians 6:4 NIV
  4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in
  the training and instruction of the Lord.

If we disobey our parents and do not sin as they have taught us, are we sinning by disobeying them?


texts:
In the LDS Church, there is what is known as the power of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of the Holy Ghost (not to be confused with the gifts of the Holy Ghost).

The power of the Holy Ghost is when some truth or principle is taught or testified to you by the Holy Ghost, or, in other words, it is His authority to testify. For example, the Holy Ghost can testify that the Jesus is the Christ, or that the Bible is the word of God. It often comes when we ask God questions through earnest prayer.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have the Holy Ghost as your constant companion at all times and in all places, as you remain worthy. It is received by the laying on of hands.

Under what conditions can one experience the power of the Holy Ghost?

(Ref: https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/holy-spirit)


texts: Do any local churches in the lands evangelized by the apostles celebrate a particular feast of that apostle?

texts:
In Catholic and/or Orthodox traditions are there any liturgical feast(s) that are celebrated by local dioceses in the regions evangelized by the apostles in the honor of any of the apostles? The feasts in question should reflect an historical event of an apostle during the apostolic age and not found in the General Roman Calendar or its' equivalent in the Orthodox Churches.
For example the Catholic Church in Malta celebrates the Feast of the Shipwreck of St. Paul on February 10 each year.
Another example could be the Chair of the Church of Saint Peter is celebrated every 21 February in Antakya, Turkey!

Saint Peter’s Church at Antioch (from the 4th or 5th century)


texts: Is it accurate to say Jehovah's Witnesses do not view Jesus as divine?

texts:
I am fully aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah and Jesus  are separate beings.

However  their translation of John 1:1 says that "the word (logos) was a god.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow that Jesus is indeed rightly called divine though not equal to Almighty God?


texts: Why do Cessationists consider recent testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit less reliable than 2000-year-old evidence for the resurrection?

texts:
Arguments for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus rely very heavily on testimonial evidence.  Defenders of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection typically argue that the writings of the New Testament are supposedly reliable first- or second-hand eyewitness testimonies in support of the resurrection, despite arguments to the contrary indicating the scientific impossibility of the event (according to contemporary science), the degree of uncertainty introduced by the antiquity of the writings (they were written about 2000 years ago) and the impossibility to interview the primary sources (the alleged eyewitnesses are all dead by now). Simply put, the evidence for Jesus' resurrection consists of (1) the alleged first/second hand eyewitness testimonies compiled in the NT and (2) the willingness of early Christians to die for what they believed to be true. Many find these two pieces of evidence compelling enough to warrant their belief in the resurrection (although many skeptics do not share this opinion).
To the best of my knowledge, cessationists find no problem in accepting the miracle of Jesus' resurrection on the basis of the line of reasoning presented above.
However, when it comes to contemporary testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit, an implicit double standard appears to be at play on the cessationist side. Testimonial evidence for the current availability of the gifts of the Spirit abounds. Thanks to the blessings of the internet era, our generation enjoys a unique privilege to access a plethora of first-hand eyewitness testimony about healing miracles, words of knowledge, discernment of spirits, tongue speaking (in real human languages by the way, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), miracles on the mission field, spiritual warfare, demonic deliverances and many other supernatural events taking place today. New testimonies are published all the time, from all parts of the world, and all this information is readily available to anyone, if we only endeavor to search. In many cases we can even talk to the actual eyewitnesses of contemporary miracles and interview them, something that is impossible with the eyewitnesses of the resurrection.
Surprisingly, despite the abundancy, recency and accessibility of contemporary first-hand testimonial evidence for the gifts of the Spirit, cessationists usually disregard this evidence altogether, viewing it as unreliable, while at the same time paradoxically accepting the testimonial evidence for Jesus' resurrection as reliable. Isn't this a case of double standard? What kind of logically consistent epistemology can simultaneously regard (1) limited 2000-year-old testimonial evidence as reliable and (2) abundant, recent and accessible testimonial evidence as unreliable?


texts: Was Jesus handsome according to Psalm 45:2?

texts:
You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon
  your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever. (Psalm 45:2)

Is this psalm about the Messiah or about David himself? Can "handsome" mean something else in this context?

Was Jesus handsome according to this psalm?


texts: Reading through Ephesians 5 - is there any record of what Paul is quoting?

texts:
This is a quote recorded by Paul in Ephesians 5, regarding a saying about Christ. Was it something He heard when Christ came to Him or does the early Church record this quote originating elsewhere?

I've Googled the quote and came up with a commentary from St. John of Chrysostom. He compares them to John 3:20 (and naturally 21) and Matthew 22:32.

I'm curious if anyone knows if this is from an epistle or gospel that is not in the 66 Protestant books of the Bible?

  (Ephesians 5:14 NKJV)  Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise
  from the dead, And Christ will give you light."


texts: What is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"?

texts:
In 1 Sam 16:14-23 (RSVCE), David Plays the Lyre for Saul, the passage opens

  14 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

God is said to be infinitely good, intelligent, wise, just, holy, etc. [cf. The Nature and Attributes of God | New Advent].

Given these perfections of God, what is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"?

Needless to say, in keeping with the criteria for acceptable questions and answers, this question is not eliciting personal opinions but scholarly and/or authoritative exegesis.


texts: Can people in Heaven communicate with each other?

texts:
Can they communicate with each other?

For example, in Islam they believe that people in Heaven cannot talk or communicate to each other, because they are in some kind of "nirvana" (this is the wrong word, but I am not native EN speaker) or a happy-hybernated-statis state, and they can talk to each other. Something like in the movie The Matrix where the bodies are connected to a computer and they cannot move, but feel happy.

What does the Bible say about people in Heaven communicating with each other?


texts: What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be not merely physical/biological?

texts:
From the perspective of the tripartite nature of man--that men and women have a body, a soul, and a spirit--is there a biblical basis for the position that gender is not merely present in the body or the physical nature, but that it is also present in the soul and even a person's spirit?

A few other ways to ask the question...

Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely biological/physical?
Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely something that distinguishes a person's body type, but also a person's soul type or spirit type?
Is there a biblical basis that suggests masculinity and femininity something that distinguishes not just the the body, but also the soul and possibly the spirit as well?
Is there such a thing as a masculine or feminine soul or spirit?
Is gender identity (being male or female) temporal or eternal? Will we continue to remain as men/women  after our death, in eternity?


texts: What does Paul's "we will judge the world and the angels" mean?

texts:
1 Corinthians 6:1-4
1 When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! 2 Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? 3 Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.

What does the passage above mean when it says "believers will judge the world and the angels"?


texts: Does Pope Francis recommend giving communion under both kinds to the laity?

texts: I've heard that Pope Francis recommends giving the communion under both species (i.e. the bread and the wine) to the laity, but I can not find proof of this. Is it true and could somebody provide official links to his recommendations?


texts: How do the Eastern Orthodox interpret this verse from Psalm 69:3?

texts:
O God, be attentive unto helping me; O Lord, make haste to help me.
  Let them be shamed and confounded that seek after my soul.
  Let them be turned back and brought to shame that desire evils against me.
  Let them be turned back straightway in shame that say unto me: Well done! Well done!
  Let them be glad and rejoice in Thee all that seek after Thee, O God,
  and let them that love Thy salvation say continually: The Lord be magnified.
  But as for me, I am poor and needy; O God, come unto mine aid.
  My helper and my deliverer art Thou, O Lord; make no long tarrying.
  (Psalm 69, The Psalter according to the Seventy, Psalm 70:3 in Western Bibles)

What is meant by "Well done. Well done."?

I am interested in answers from authorised Eastern Orthodox sources.


texts: How do Catholics understand how the title “Lord” for Jesus is dependent on his resurrection at Ro 14:9 if it means he is God?

texts:
Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living (KJV)

How does being revived (lived again, ASV) make him Lord of both the dead and the living?

Catholics appear to teach that after Pentecost Christians understood that calling Jesus Lord was the same as calling him God.

  In the Gospels, Jesus is rarely called "Lord", with the exception of a few times in Luke and John. The Apostles and first disciples did not come to the full realization that Jesus was God until after his Resurrection and after they had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Once they had reached that realization they did not hesitate to attribute to him the divine title of "Lord" as used in the Old Testament. (Catholic Education Resourse Center)


texts: I recently made a donation to a Catholic organization and was told that, as a thank you, a mass would be offered for me. What does this mean? Does this mean that I have "sponsored" the mass in the same way that an organization might sponsor a television program? Is it a special kind of prayer for me? What is the purpose of offering a mass for someone?


texts: Why did St. John Paul II add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary?

texts:
I started praying the Rosary after St. John Paul II added the Luminous mysteries to the Rosary, so I virtually no remembrance of a Rosary being prayed before they came on board.  When he writes about them in Rosarium Virginus Mariae he kind of just slides them in and says what he thinks they should be.

  Moving on from the infancy and the hidden life in Nazareth to the public life of Jesus, our contemplation brings us to those mysteries which may be called in a special way “mysteries of light”. Certainly the whole mystery of Christ is a mystery of light. He is the “light of the world” (Jn 8:12). Yet this truth emerges in a special way during the years of his public life, when he proclaims the Gospel of the Kingdom. In proposing to the Christian community five significant moments – “luminous” mysteries – during this phase of Christ's life, I think that the following can be fittingly singled out: (1) his Baptism in the Jordan, (2) his self-manifestation at the wedding of Cana, (3) his proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with his call to conversion, (4) his Transfiguration, and finally, (5) his institution of the Eucharist, as the sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery.

So, does anyone know what prompted him to add more mysteries?  He explains why he chooses the individual mysteries in the letter, but he doesn't really say why he thinks that the Rosary needed more stuff.


texts: How does fasting affect violent situations not under my control?

texts: I read an article yesterday about Pope Francis announcing a day of fasting on Sept. 7th for the situation in Syria. According to Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican doctrine, exactly how does my fasting affect violent situations in the middle East?


texts: What does the Bible say about ecology, or how we should relate to nature?


texts:
Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life.  However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth).  And this seems to be well supported in Scripture:

John 10:28 (ESV)
28   I give them eternal life, and  they will never perish, and  no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Revelation 21:4 (ESV)
4   He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and  death shall be no more,  neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall.  My question is, Why?  What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God?
Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.

Possible responses I have considered

There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin

But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?

After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin

But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?

Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us

But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.

We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God

The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience.  Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?

We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us

This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy.  It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect


texts: Who was St. Jane of Chantal's first spiritual director?

texts:
Before St. Jane de Chantal met St. Francis de Sales, she had a very strict spiritual director,

a priest at the nearby shrine of the Black Virgin at
Notre-Dame-d’Etang. He undertook her direction by burdening her
with a great many formal exercises of devotion: long vocal prayers,
elaborate meditations and mental considerations sealed with the stipulation that she speak to no one else but him of her spiritual life.
The rigidity and exteriority of this director’s scheme served only to
increase her anxiety and alienate her from the drama going on
within.—Bond of Perfection: Jeanne de Chantal & François de Sales, Wendy M. Wright, p. 34

Who was this "priest at the nearby shrine of the Black Virgin at Notre-Dame-d’Etang", exactly? Was he a Jansenist?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have a written rule on the depth of a grave in a cemetery?

texts: There is an old saying which goes like this : "A dead man is the landlord of six feet ! " It most probably owes its origin to the custom of burying the dead under six feet of land. I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has a written rule or protocol governing the depth of the grave in a cemetery that a grown-up dead faithful can be buried in.


texts: What is the LDS Church's affiliation with the Boy Scouts?

texts:
The LDS church sponsors scouting programs for their boys, and I understand that many LDS young men attain the rank of Eagle, the highest rank in Boy Scouts.

Regardless of the possible implications of the imminent decision of the BSA related to gays in scouts, what is the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting? What religious significance does the Boy Scouts have with Mormon young men?

Update: The LDS Church recently issued this statement about their partnership with the Boy Scouts.

Another Update: One more statement by the LDS Church regarding the Boy Scout membership policy decision.


texts:
Since

God transcends all humans and all their artefacts; and
almost all revelation occurs within human languages, which are in a definite sense human artefacts;
isn't it the case that Divine Revelation must necessarily be “incomplete” to some extent in order to be carried by a limited medium such as the human language?

edited as per suggestions


texts: Can a person prove that Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament without going to the New Testament?

texts:
Sometimes as christians when we are talking to the Jews, we tell them the Old Testament refers to the coming of Jesus Christ. It's like we are forcing our beliefs unto them by using references from the Old Testament and adding Jesus Christ there.

How can you prove or is it possible to prove to a Jew from a book (New Testament) that they already reject that indeed Jesus is the awaited Messiah?

Without the New Testament, I think it's impossible to prove that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah. It's like a Muslim telling us that Mohammad is the comforter by using the Qur'an. While we already know that it's the Holy Spirit.


texts: According to Catholics (and Mark 7:19) what happens to Jesus' flesh after it is ingested?

texts:
According to a commentary by Thomas Aquinas, [pita] bread (and I suppose those extremely leavened (aerated) wafers) become "the indestructible flesh of God, the Son":

...The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”...

But if the flesh is indigestible, won't it end up being flushed down the toilet?:

  Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Has this been considered and addressed?


texts:
Julian of Halicarnassus (d. 527) was condemned at a council in Constantinople in 536. In denying a distinction between ousia (common essence) and physis (particular nature), Julian was faced with the problem of explaining how the one nature of Christ (which was both human and divine) could suffer, since impassibility was a natural property of the divine nature. He argued that since the corruption of sin is the source of suffering and weakness, the Son took on human nature as it was before Adam's sin (a prelapsarian humanity), and therefore His body was incorruptible from the moment of the Incarnation—before as well as after the resurrection. He maintained that it was not the necessity of nature that compelled Christ to suffer the weaknesses of human nature, but that He had subjected Himself to them for the economy of salvation.
Many moderate Monophysites were uncomfortable with his extreme solution to this question, because it strongly suggested that Christ's humanity was only an appearance and seemed to lead to Gnostic docetism. Severus of Antioch, a Miaphysite, became one of Julian's most vocal critics, arguing that Christ's human nature before the resurrection was corruptible and passible because He took on our fallen human nature as it was after Adam's sin from the Theotokos.
In Lutheran and Calvinian Christology, although Christ took on human nature fully, it was a human nature without sin. Whereas Adam became subject to suffering, death and corruption after his sin, Christ was born of the virgin Mary, by taking on human nature as it was before Adam's sin. In this way He was not enslaved by sin, nor was His human body corruptible. From the very beginning of His Incarnation His sinless human nature was perfectly united with His divine nature without confusion or change, and for this reason one in being with God can be said of the Son. After His resurrection, Christ appeared glorified in the flesh. This glorification was not something which was added after the resurrection. Instead, it was only after the resurrection that His perfect humanity, which He had possessed from the very beginning of the Incarnation (and which was revealed to the disciples on Mount Tabor), became apparent to all.
Historically speaking only extreme Monophysites who hold Aphthartodocetism, even Severus a Miaphysite condemned this heresy. The basis of this heresy is not in the incorruptibility of Christ's flesh but in its insistence that He took on human nature as it was before Adam's sin. It's this later view which was held and shared by Luther and Calvin, including all early reformers.
Were Luther and Calvin Aphthartodocetists?
To answer this question I can think of two plausible approaches:
First by arguing to the contrary that they believe Christ took on human nature as it was after Adam's sin (a postlapsarian humanity)
Or:
By arguing that a belief in Christ took on a prelapsarian humanity is not Aphthartodocetic. Plausible difficulty one needs to face if choosing the first approach is to explain how from a Lutheran or Calvinian theology a postlapsarian Christology wouldn't make Christ guilty of original sin, while if choosing the second approach I believe it would be even harder to show.

[W]e want to discern what evidence we may find within the history of Christology and soteriology which would found, advance, and confirm our proposition that Jesus was born of the fallen race of Adam and that such a condition was absolutely indispensable for our salvation.
Thomas Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ, 1993, p. 21.


texts: Does ‘palm branches’ in Palm Sunday draw meaning from Jewish culture, or Greco-Roman culture that the Jews adopted?

texts:
Two verses connected two 'palm branches' are:

They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!" (John 12:13, NIV)
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Revelation 7:9, NIV)

It seems that this ‘palm waving’ is understood by everybody as a symbol of triumph and victory, but which culture did this practice come from? Was it a Jewish tradition, or was it only Jewish tradition as part of a wider cultural tradition at that time of world history?
Of course by asking the question I do not have any hidden agenda against Palm Sunday, its just a curiosity as I have not researched an answer.


texts: The differences between the NKJV and KJV Bible translations

texts:
I am planing to get one of these translations for my personal use. If these are too different from one another, I would like to get both.

I love to compare (for my personal study) different versions (even different languages within the same version) of Bible. I own many Bibles, but as of KJV or NKJV I presently do not own any translation. This is why I want to get some knowledge about each before deciding which one I will get...

I have read a Wiki webpage about NKJV, but the results there are not enough, as I'm not about modernized English language. I'm interested for the accuracy to the original scriptures.

What are the differences between NKJV and KJV translations?


texts: Why could not Mary Magdalene touch the resurrected body of Jesus?

texts:
In John 20:17 it is written that, when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene after resurrection, He says to her:

  Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father

However, Jesus does tell to other disciples to touch Him, after resurrection. For example, later on, in John 20:27, when Jesus appears to His disciples for a second time and Thomas (the Doubter) is with them, He says to Thomas:

  Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.

Similarly, in Luke 24:39 it is written that post-resurrection Jesus said to His disciples:

  See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Thus, I fail to understand why Jesus would negate Mary Magdalene to touch Him but not to His disciples.

How have theologians and the teachings of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox or Protestant churches interpreted the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene? How is the fact that He had not yet ascended to the Father related to Mary not touching Jesus? Surely, once He was gone to the Father, it would be impossible to her for touching Jesus!

One possible explanation is that Jesus did not have a physical body (e.g. this or this  discussion). Personally, I do not believe this was the case, as it it at odd with the other texts (where Jesus says that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have"). Neither did Aquinas.


texts: What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID NOT have the ability to sin or give in to temptation?

texts:
While some people believe that Jesus could have given in to the temptations He suffered and sinned, others do not.  They believe that Jesus could suffer temptation, but did not have the capacity to give in to them and actually commit sin.

Therefore, the redemption of mankind was never really in doubt, because Jesus was never going to sin.

What are the theological arguments in support of this position?


texts: Whom does Jesus refer to as 'infants' at Luke 10:21?

texts:
At Luke 10:21 we see :

  At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

Elsewhere, we see John addressing the faithful, so:

  My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. (1 John 2:1)

My question is: to whom was Jesus referring as infants at Luke 10:21  -- to the infants around, or to his followers of simple faith? What does  the Catholic Church teach us about the usage of 'infants' in the above-said context?


texts: Why did Mary need to remain a virgin during pregnancy according to those who deny the perpetual virginity doctrine?

texts:
After much editing and clarifying through comments this question seems to have asked and had answered from Catholic perspective why Mary stayed a virgin throughout her pregnancy.

Yet  many Christians do not agree with perpetual virginity doctrine but still  agree that Mary did remain virgin until after giving birth based on Matthew 1:25:

  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS (KJV).

What biblical reasons are there for the necessity of Mary refraining from sexual relations with Joseph during the time she was carrying the baby Jesus?


texts: What is the Catholic teaching on the use of animals?

texts:
During a conversation on crocodile farming for production of meat and leather in the Third World, the person I was talking to found that it was cruelty against animals and that humans, in the 21st century, must rethink the animal condition.

Does the Catholic Church say anything about how we should use, consume or treat both domesticated animals like cattle, and wild animals?


texts: Did Jesus heal a person with a chromosome defect?

texts:
Is there anywhere in the bible a hint or something saying Jesus healing someone with a chromosome defect? For example somebody with a Down Syndrome or similar.

What about today's healings? Was it ever recorded a Down Syndrome person miraculously healed?

If not what is the explanation for why this type of handicap God doesn't choose to heal? (for this sentence I need a Catholic view).


texts: According to Catholicism, does the depositum fidei include the proper interpretation of scriptures about Jesus?

texts:
While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1

Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3

According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the depositum fidei) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth.

Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the depositum fidei?

Footnotes

1 Luke 24:27

2 Luke 24:32

3 Luke 24:45


texts: According to a ‘forgiveness in Christ alone’ framework how did ‘sin offerings’ make atonement for sin under the Mosaic Law?

texts:
How did the old ceremonial sacrifices made atonement? What was really going on externally and internally to the person who brought the ‘sin offering’ to God? What did it mean that their ‘sins were atoned for’? Did it make a difference if the sacrifice was made by faith or not?

Note: I am specifically looking for an answer under a ‘protestant framework’ that assumes all real forgiveness must be by ‘faith in Christ alone’.


texts: Are there books that are included in the Protestant Bible that were disputed as canonical?

texts:
The topic of how the Bible was compiled, including the determining factors for which books are included is well-documented.  There were some basic criteria as listed at http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/how-was-the-bible-compiled/

Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?
Was each book’s teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of God?

We've also had several questions on the site about why [Name an apocryphal book] was not included in Scripture.  However, I've never seen the question asked:

Are there books that are included in Canon that were once disputed or questioned, that remain in the Bible.  If so, why were they disputed, and why did they "pass the test"?


texts: It might be "1st" class; a 3" high metal cross with a flat round container of a liquid at cross beam This has some lettering surrounding it. A male figure in "bibical dress" holding a tablet(?) is on the reverse, several symbols next to him and EVSINOBITVNRO PRAE SENTIAMVNIAMVR (what I can make out) written about the image. Three small holes at foot and hands position may have held a gem or stone originally. Any ideas? I doubt this is a treasure. I came across it in my husband's what-not drawer and have no idea where it came from.


texts: Where does this Augustine quote come from?

texts:
"Sin is believing the lie that you are self-created, self-dependent and self-sustained" -Augustine

Which work is this from?


texts: Do the church fathers ever include quotes of Jesus that aren't from the Bible?

texts:
Jesus Seminar believes that Parable of the Empty Jar in Gospel of Thomas is authentic saying of Jesus:

  The kingdom of the father is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking on the road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty. - Gospel of Thomas 97

Now, I am not an expert (and I am aware of many flaws of Jesus Seminar), but I think arguments for authenticity of this parable are good.

However, what I want to ask is:
Is there any other saying or parable of Jesus that is not recorded in the New Testament, but is remembered in the tradition? Do some Church Fathers quote some words not found in the New Testament, but attribute them to Jesus?


texts: To the YEC, did God make a single male/female pair of each kind of animal?

texts:
Genesis 1:21-22

  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing
  with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to
  their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw
  that it was good

  God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and
  fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

Genesis 1:24

  And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
  their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground,
  and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

For example :
A. God create a bunch of elephants, cows, doves, eagles, penguins, dolphins, dogs, ants, snakes, etc etc ... here and there across the earth - male and female.

B. God create 2 elephants, 2 cows, 2 doves, 2 eagles, 2 penguins, 2 dolphins, 2 ants, 2 snakes, etc etc ... male and female for each type and they are all in one place ---> Something like when on the 6th day we go to a zoo or to an African Safari, many types of animal are there - but there are only two for each type, male and female.

C. Almost like B, but the two elephants on the most North of the earth, the two doves somewhere on other part of the earth, the two penguins on the most South of the earth, the two snakes exactly in the Eden Garden, etc etc. In other words, the size of the "African Safari" is as big as the earth size :).

So, according to the YEC - is it A or B or C ?

Thank you.


texts: How do one know that the Bible is absolutely true and is not a "make believe" fiction?

texts: From the agnostic/skeptic side of view not my side because I am a Catholic: there is the possibility of the Bible fulfilled prophecies being made up in the new testament to make it match up with the old testament prophecies and Bible writers using existing historical names and places to write a make-believe story in order to keep people good and to point to archaeology as evidence and to make it look like it really happened and Bible reliability just a coincidence of many copies of the handwritten Bible. How would one refute these claims? How do one know that the Bible is absolutely true and is not a "make believe" fiction, now off course one may say faith, but one can have faith in the Quran that it is true just as one has faith in the Bible, but that doesn't mean what it says is true. So how do you determine that the Bible is in fact indeed true?


texts: If John wrote the 4th Gospel, why did he not name himself or his brother?

texts: I've read in Ellicott's commentary that the "other" disciple of John 18:15 might be James, for it stands in contrast to John's supposed self-designation as "the beloved disciple". But that got me wondering: why did John not directly name himself or his brother within the entire gospel? Is there any church traditions or research out the that disseminates why John may have not wanted to name himself or James within his own gospel?


texts: Is abortion okay if it is medically necessary?

texts:
I'm sure that most of us agree that abortion is sinful and certainly not okay...most of the time. However, I'm thinking of two rare circumstances that may be exceptions.

The mother would die but the baby would (probably) live if an abortion is not performed.
The mother AND the (still-living) baby would die if an abortion is not performed.

Does the Bible (or some other significant work) provide any perspective on these questions?