texts: Something produced by Jehovah's Witnesses that explains their basic beliefs?

texts:
I'm interested in understanding what the core/basic beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are, but I'm struggling to figure out how to get a basic overview of their core beliefs without starting a continuous Bible Study with them (would be interested, just don't have time at this point in my life)

I've received a copy of "What Can The Bible Teach Us?" from a Witness I'm in regular contact with. In taking a tour from him of the local Kingdom Hall, I've learned that this is one of two books typically shared with people interested in learning more about Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm struggling with the "Teach" book. I've found that the writing style of the book is aimed more at an audience of people who are possibly interested in becoming Witnesses. I find that the writing often seeks an emotional connection or response, rather than offering information in a simple way. I also find that some of the logic makes leaps that I struggle to follow, and which are often irrelevant to explaining the belief.

I have no problem with the non-informational writing style - it seems that it would work well in a Bible Study setting. But as a person who is simply trying to understand what the basic beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are, from a source produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, without starting a Bible Study, this book is really hard to get clear information out of.

So, is there a piece of literature produced by the Witnesses that is written to be purely informational in explaining what their most important basic beliefs are? Or is all literature aimed at an audience of those who are investigating, or already joined with, the religion?

I know that a person could go to JW.org and find the basic beliefs scattered throughout articles. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for one pamphlet, one book, or one intentional series of small booklets. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produces 3 small pamphlets covering core, basic beliefs plus 5 small pamphlets covering some big lifestyle-affecting beliefs (ex. Tithing or the word of wisdom). The missionaries pass out these pamphlets like crazy where I live. The answer doesn't need to be a series of pamphlets in that exact format, but those simple pamphlets are:
1. Short
2. Easy to read
3. Communicate the basics without me needing to invite LDS missionaries into my home

Every time I ask a Witness for literature that explains their beliefs, I get asked to start a Bible Study with them. I've been told multiple times that their beliefs can't be shared by printed literature. I guess I just want to find out if that's true or if I just happen to have stumbled across a few Witnesses who really, really want more Bible Studies.


texts: By what authority does the Catholic church have priests?

texts:
What does the Catholic church consider their priesthood? Is it a power and authority to administer the church or is it a brotherhood of people who follow Christ?

Since Christianity, in general, is based on Jewish tradition and they have a tradition of a priesthood like the Levites who pass down their authority from generation to generation. Does the Catholic church have a similar tradition?

Basically, can anyone just set themselves up as a priest or is there someone that has to ordain them? And if that is so, who originally gave this authority to the Catholic Church to ordain priests?


texts: Did the notion of "Youth Group" exist in the early church?

texts:
Some modern churches have the notion of a "Youth Group", it is characterized as the following:

a dedicated "Youth Pastor"
consists mostly of younger (middle school + high school + college students)
a bit more modern in worship (drums + guitars)
some belief that adults / youth should receive different messages

I am not aware of any such distinction mentioned in the new testament.

Is there any historical evidence that "Youth Groups" existed in early church history?


texts: Are there published testimonies from Christians with a diagnosed personality disorders like psychopathy about their experience of sanctification?

texts:
Some personality disorders like psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are considered by clinicians to be difficult if not impossible to treat. Wikipedia summarises the difficulties with treating psychopathy as follows:

Psychopathy has often been considered untreatable. Its unique characteristics makes it among the most refractory of personality disorders, a class of mental illnesses that are already traditionally considered difficult to treat. People afflicted with psychopathy are generally unmotivated to seek treatment for their condition, and can be uncooperative in therapy. Attempts to treat psychopathy with the current tools available to psychiatry have been disappointing. Harris and Rice's Handbook of Psychopathy says that there is currently little evidence for a cure or effective treatment for psychopathy; as yet, no pharmacological therapies are known to or have been trialed for alleviating the emotional, interpersonal and moral deficits of psychopathy, and patients with psychopathy who undergo psychotherapy might gain the skills to become more adept at the manipulation and deception of others and be more likely to commit crime. Some studies suggest that punishment and behavior modification techniques are ineffective at modifying the behavior of psychopathic individuals as they are insensitive to punishment or threat. These failures have led to a widely pessimistic view on its treatment prospects, a view that is exacerbated by the little research being done into this disorder compared to the efforts committed to other mental illnesses, which makes it more difficult to gain the understanding of this condition that is necessary to develop effective therapies.

Christians believe however that there is no class of person that is beyond the hope of the Gospel, and that when a person is united to Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, God begins the process of their sanctification, which will be completed in the resurrection. Christians should therefore be increasingly empathetic people as God teaches us to love others with his overflowing love.
Personality disorders like psychopathy are characterised by reduced or in severe cases seemingly non-existent empathy for others. While we may not have developed any psychotherapeutic strategies for teaching those with personality disorders to genuinely love others, God can accomplish what is impossible for us. So I was wondering if there are any Christians who have been clinically diagnosed with a personality disorder like psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder who have written or given spoken testimonies about their experiences of the power of God to sanctify and transform their lives, and whether that sanctification has included an increased sense of empathy?


texts: What is the basis for the belief that the name of the Messiah is יָהוּשׁוּעַ (Yahushua)?

texts:
There are some1 who assert that the name of the Messiah is יָהוּשׁוּעַ (which would be transliterated into English as Yahushua). What is the basis for this assertion?

Note: The question is not asking about the name יְהוֹשׁוּעַ but a slight variation of that name, viz. יָהוּשׁוּעַ, which certain people believe is the actual name of the Messiah, as opposed to יְהוֹשׁוּעַ.

1 See Google search for the word "Yahushua."


texts: How do Traditional Latin Mass going Catholics usually prepare and receive their sacraments of initiation?

texts: Our parish is starting to off a Traditional Latin Mass and there's a group in our diocese that has their children confirmed in the that form as well.  It's quite a bit different, we were wanting to do this for our kids, but we found out about it way too late.  But I'm wondering, what are the ages and what kind of preparation do Traditional Catholics do for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and their First Communion?  What ages are appropriate for receiving these sacraments?  Is First Communion generally withheld until after Confirmation?


texts: What is the basis for understanding commandments to be anything other than compulsory?

texts:
People come with the impression that everybody has a choice to do something or not (choices all around everybody), but where in the bible do we as people get the right of choices?

In the Bible I can give a list of commandments and what is expected/what we should do, and if it is done any different it is seen as sin. So where does society come of that we have free of will to make our own decisions as we already were given commandments?

Legally, as God's creation, it could be expected that His created creatures are required to follow His laws.  Yet, in Scripture, there are many cases in which the wicked seem to prosper, and people in foreign lands are allowed to worship their own gods without retribution.  Why is this the case?  What is it in God's nature that affords a tolerance for those who do not keep God's commandments?


texts: What was the earliest Papal condemnation of slavery?

texts: Could someone tell me what the earliest Papal statement or encyclical was where the Church condemned the institution of slavery? A Magisterial document would also be accepted if there are earlier teachings by the magisterium.


texts: What is the significance of priest breaking the bread (Host) in a Catholic mass?

texts:
In a Catholic mass, just before the distribution of communion to people, the priest breaks the Host in to pieces and people simultaneously acclaim: Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.......

What is the significance of this fraction of bread (Host)?  Does it have any parallel to the act of sacrifice for atonement of sins:  like sacrificing of lambs in OT and then sacrifice of Jesus himself for our sins?

Also the shape of this fractioned Host is different at different times. Are there any laid down norms for this?


texts: What roles do faith and works play in the LDS/Mormon understanding of salvation?

texts:
A primary point in the Reformation was the issue of sola fide--the position that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.  This was to distinguish the position that works were necessary for salvation.

In LDS/Mormon theology, what is the position on faith and works in salvation?  Is it sola fide or something else?


texts: Weight of importance on the belief that Jesus is Michael for Jehovah's Witnesses?

texts:
According to this and this other question, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is the same as Michael the Archangel.

I am curious about the importance of this viewpoint.

Is this a "core tenet" for Jehovah's Witnesses (one that possibly other beliefs rest upon), i.e. is it something similar to, say, the belief in Trinity is for the Catholic Church?


texts: Is partaking of the Holy Eucharist the key to incorruptibility of the saints?

texts:
The Incorruptibles by Joan Caroll Cruz has many stories about incorruptible saints.

These saints with incorruptible bodies are Catholic, and I never heard any Protestant, other non-Catholic Christians, or even other religions claim they have members whose bodies are incorrupt. Does the Catholic Church have a good explanation on why this is?

Does the Holy Eucharist have something to do with the incorruptibility?


texts: Does God encourage hurting or killing others in his name in the Bible?

texts:
In the Quran there is this passage:

  And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. (Quran 9:5)

As seen here, extremist interpretations of this verse push Islamists towards violence against others.

Does the Bible have anything similar to this, encouraging hurting or killing people who defy God?

I know there is Matthew 10:14-15, but that is reserved for the Judgement day.

So is there any place in the Bible where God encourages or commands others to be harmed or killed in His name?


texts: What is the meaning of the word "ONE" in the Bible?

texts: In the Bible it talks of Jesus being one with the Father John 10:30 but also says that we should be one with them John 17:11. In the Bible's original Greek text, is the same word used for both, or is the word that describes our oneness with them different? The scriptures that speak of our heavenly Father and Jesus as being one are often used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. (The Trinity being of one nature and one substance.) Does the original Greek word denote a physical oneness in substance, or a oneness in unity, purpose, action, and nature?


texts: When & where did the word "Christian" originate?

texts:
The word "Christian" very rarely used in the new testament to refer to those that trust/believe on Jesus.

Mostly they were simply called "believers".

When/where and by who coined the word "Christian"?


texts: What does James mean when he says that Judging a Brother Equals Judging the Law?

texts:
James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

How is judging a brother equal to judging the Law? What does this mean?

Then again if 'A' judges 'B' as wrong (this I understand as based on the Law) and speaks evil of 'B', how is 'A' speaking evil of Law?

Is there a logic behind this reasoning?


texts: What Christian denominations/groups believe in biblical prophecies based on number of The Beast being 666?

texts:
The actual Number of the beast is only mentioned in Revelation( 13:18).  In the Greek manuscripts, the  number is rendered in Greek numerical form as χξϛ, 666, or sometimes literally as "six hundred and sixty-six".

In 2005 Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum revealed the discovery of the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 which gave the beast's number as 616 χιϛ.

Which Christian denominations/groups that believe in biblical prophecies based on number 666?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for requiring someone to have faithful children to become an elder?

texts:
Just had an enlightening chat with a preacher of a faith I'm not familiar with. When I congratulated him on his new pastorship, he corrected me saying that he wasn't a pastor, and among other things he believed he needed to have faithful children before he could become a pastor or elder.  He indicated that there was scriptural basis for this, but I don't recall which scripture he used, other than the New Testament in the KJV bible.

What scriptures support the idea that faithful children are needed prior to attaining a certain office or title?


texts: Is there other non biblical evidence of Herod the Great ordering killing of babies at the time of Jesus Birth

texts:
I note that Jesus is said to have be born in either 4 B.C or shortly after.
Herod the Great died in either 4 B.C or 2 B.C. depending on whether one accepts Schürer's account or the traditional one.
Is there any credible evidence of the command by Herod ordering the killing of babies 2 years and younger being carried out from non-biblical sources?


texts: Clarification of what sexual immorality is?

texts:
to my understanding the following is what comprises Sexual immorality.

Male homosexuality, incest, adultery, and bestiality.

I want to know if oral sex is included even if it's done in marriage?


texts: According to Trinitarians, did the human Jesus worship the divine Jesus?


texts: When were the Hades and the lake of fire created?

texts: Has the matter of when the Hades and the lake of fire were created ever been considered in Christianity? Were they, for example, created before the fall of man or afterwards? Are there any well-known works devoted to this topic? Any major common thoughts?


texts: What is the origin of the account of Lucifer found in Milton's Paradise Lost?

texts: In Paradise Lost, Milton describes how Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast into Hell as a result. I've always wondered about the origin of this account since as far as I know, it's not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Is it part of the Catholic creed (or the creed of any Christian denomination?) If so, what is the basis for it?


texts: What is the significance of Jesus' baptism for a theology of baptism?

texts: It seems that any robust theology of Christian baptism must incorporate and draw from the fact that Jesus himself was baptized, but I rarely hear it mentioned in discussions about baptism. What place does it have in a theology of baptism?


texts:
Psalm 144:5

  Bow Your heavens, O LORD, and come down; Touch the mountains, that they may smoke.

What are these moutains and why do they smoke?

According to the RCC


texts: How were the quarter-millennium anniversaries of the resurrection of Jesus commemorated?

texts:
I am wondering how the 2034 Easter celebration will look like from the perspective of various Christian churches. I am mostly interested in the Roman Catholics. Since we can only guess, I would like to ask about the past instead.

What were the 250th, 500th … 1000th … 1750th anniversaries like? Was there anything special, beyond the Masses and the gathering at that square at Rome and the usual "Urbi et Orbi" speech?


texts:
In John 5:31 Yeshua says:

  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

If the second person of the triune god bears witness of himself, why is it not true?


texts: According to Catholicism, how should Christians react when an unbeliever dies?

texts:
I was reading the following passages, and they seem to indicate that we should rejoice when God brings about His judgement:

"Righteous art thou, O YHVH, and upright are thy judgments." Psalm 119:137

Also:

"But, O YHVH of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause." Jerimiah 11:20

And:

"Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of YHVH, because he cometh to judge the earth.
O give thanks unto YHVH; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever." 1 Chronicles 16:33-34

One more:

"But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am YHVH which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith YHVH." Jeremiah 9:24

I'm seeing several, maybe even hundreds, of verses that confirm God's judgment is righteous and good. Unless I'm missing something, God's judgement seems to be something Christians should be excited and happy about.
So according to Catholicism, should Christians (of any sort) rejoice when an unbeliever (specifically those that have outright denied Christianity: ex. Atheist, Muslims, Hindu) dies and God subjects their flesh to be burned for eternity?


texts: What is the LDS Church's position on spiritual gifts

texts:
I am a regular listener of the Glenn Beck Radio Program.  Glenn Beck is a Mormon and, while he doesn't directly discuss his Mormon beliefs, he does often speak about spiritual and moral matters in our society.  Some of the things he's said, indirectly, about his personal faith and his church in general have made me curious about the official position of the LDS Church on spiritual gifts.

For instance, Glenn Beck has said that his church believes in proclaiming/granting spiritual blessings on people (like Abraham giving blessings to his children).  He has also alluded to listening to the voice of God to give him direction in his life and he regularly encourages others to do the same.

So, my question is, what is the official position of the church on spiritual-gifts in general?  For instance, what does the church teach regarding:

Prophecy
Speaking in tongues
Tongue interpretation
Blessings

Do they teach that these, or any other kinds, of spiritual gifts are commonly given today?  If so, do they teach that they are available to all members, or only to certain people within the church?  Are their beliefs in spiritual gifts more-or-less consistent among all members, or does it depend heavily on the local congregation?


texts: How do Protestants interpret Matthew 16:13–20?

texts:
The verses read like this:

  13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
  14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
  15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
  16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
  17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [NIV]

I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself.

However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.


texts: What is the New Testament basis for capital punishment?

texts: It is evident that capital punishment is still in vogue in a few Catholic countries, despite the Pope having spoken in favour of abolishing of the penalty. I wish to know how the New Testament is interpreted to permit awarding of capital punishment for criminal offences like murder.


texts: Can the Word of God and God's wisdom be beneficial to an unbeliever?

texts:
More specifically I'm wondering in the way that we go to the Bible and to God about concerns or issues that we are facing for instruction and wisdom, can we think biblically about another's concerns or issues that they are struggling with in order to help them, and in overall hopes of leading them to Christ?

I'd like to give a non-believing friend some Biblical advice, but I don't know if it will even benefit him (to be honest, I'm not quite sure what I would even say yet).


texts:
What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between the early Church Fathers of the second century?

EDIT: The unanimity of the early Church Fathers is something that is often presented as an indisputable fact. However, while they were all in agreement about some major points of faith, there might have been some disagreements on some minor things. This question is about that.

EDIT: As for the definition of "Church Father", I just follow Wikipedia's list.


texts: Why didn't Jesus give proof to the priests?

texts:
On several occasions the High Jewish priests asked Jesus, that if He is the son of God, then demonstrate by doing X or Y.

I assume in all of these cases, he could have fulfilled the requests to show who He was - so why not just give them some proof?

Why did Jesus have to beat around the bush ?

Why not prove Himself for exponentially more followers?


texts: Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

texts: My full question is; which of the New Testament books were written after AD70? Assuming there are several, why did none of them mention the 'earth-shattering' events of AD70? The destruction of the temple by Rome fulfilled one of Jesus' own prophecies (Matt. 24:1-3) and its theological significance was central to Christianity. (John 2:19-22) It would have at least been alluded to, surely.


texts: Are the word of faith/prosperity doctrines biblical?

texts:
From my understanding and study, here are some of their main teachings:

God wants us to be prosperous in this life (health, wealth, relationships etc)
If we don't receive we don't have enough faith (faith is a like a force)
we are little gods; we have creative power to speak things into reality (i.e think positively and that thing will come to pass - often related to success) (name it, claim it)
Jesus was tortured in hell/hades by demons, for 3 days to atone for our sin (the cross wasn't the end of his suffering.
There are some other niches of teaching within these doctrines I simply can't remember currently (these are the main ones above)

From listening to some of these preachers they do use verses to back up their claims; are these actually what the bible says, or are they being twisted?

I do have my own thoughts about the truth of these teachings, however I am not going to include them, as I still want to neutrally approach the topic/question.


texts: How does one "leave his wife" for the Kingdom of God?

texts:
What is an overview of doctrinal statements made by Christian theologians regarding Jesus' statements in Luke 18:

  Luke 18:29-30 ESV  And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

I'm especially interested to know how one can leave his wife for the Kingdom of God when Paul tells us to love our wives the way Christ loved the church.

  Ephesians 5:25-28 ESV Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Jesus made it clear at his ascension that he would never leave his church.

  Matthew 28:20b ESV ...And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.


texts: Why does Jesus say this about disciples forgiving others their sins?

texts:
John 20:20-23 ESV Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Why does Jesus tell his disciples "if you forgive the sins of any...if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld"?  Since we are all his disciples, does this mean if I withhold the sins of someone who sinned against me that God will also withhold His forgiveness?  What does this scripture mean?


texts: How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father?

texts:
One of the key points in the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is that the traditional understanding of the Trinity - three persons in one God - is mistaken.  Instead, God is seen as having three "essential components." Lee Woofenden does a good job of explaining what this means in this article on his blog.

However, there are some passages in the Bible where Jesus prays to the Father, says he has incomplete knowledge, and so on, which would seem to suggest that he is a distinct person, at least at that time. This apparent personhood, distinct from the Father, is especially poignant in a passage such as Luke 22:42:

  "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."

Here Jesus seems to have his own personality, knowledge, desires, and so on. My question is, how are these sorts of passages explained within Swedenborgian thought?


texts: Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Unfaithful Wife

texts: In Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on Numbers 5:11-31 (The Test of the Unfaithful Wife) there are several references to Luke 5:18-32 (Jesus Heals a Paralytic Man). How does the Old Testament test of an unfaithful wife relate to the New Testament healing of a paralytic man?


texts: What are typical Christian responses to The Grand Inquisitor?

texts:
Upon reading this chapter in the Brothers Karamazov I find myself confused as to why The Grand Inquisitor is considered to be such a powerful argument for atheism and against theodicy. What are typical Christian responses (apologetic) to this argument?

Please also address the following areas which confuse me:

The chapter itself seems to state that Jesus set the bar much too high for man with respect to salvation, but isn't it true that humans were never intended to reach the level of holiness that Jesus attained and that salvation is a gift to those who repent?
Why is Ivan's description of the suffering of children such powerful ammunition for rejecting God?

I will accept answers sourced from any reputable apologetic organizations, or well-known apologists/theologians.


texts:
My pastor (Calvary Chapel) referred to God as His father, then once said that God is everywhere and in everything (i.e. - inside each person) and then that God is Love.

So now I am confused as to what God is.

How does Christianity describe God? If that is not agreed upon, what are the main Christian doctrines on what God is?

For example, if God can be with/inside everyone at the same time and hear all our different individual prayers at the same time, is it wrong to think of Him as a sole entity, like being just a father to me? Should Christians view God as a multidimensional or unquantifiable being?

What is the Christian perspective on the description of God?


texts: How is Jesus God's final word? (Protestant Perspective)

texts:
The Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church states plainly (emphasis added):

  In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. He is God's last Word.

Indeed, some modern English translations of the New Testament present Chapter titles for Hebrews 1 that echo this sentiment: God's final word: His Son (NIV), God's Final Word in His Son (NASB), God's Supreme Revelation (NKJV). Hebrews 1:1-2 says,

  God, having spoken earlier at many times and in many ways through the Prophets, spoke to us in these last days by the Son, who he established heir over all things and through whom he made the ages.

From a sola-scriptura protestant perspective, what does it mean that Jesus is  God's last word? Has God spoken to man in the time since Jesus' teaching? If so, by what method has he done so?


texts: In the Church of England, can one accept communion without being confimed?

texts: If someone is baptised as a child, but never confirmed, can such a person receive communion? I'd like the viewpoint of the Church of England.


texts: Is 'sola gratia' as a soteriology traceable in the period leading to the Protestant Reformation?

texts: Protestants often consider the Roman Catholic church to have significantly distorted the gospel. Were there Christians prior to the Reformation who had essentially the same understanding of the doctrines of salvation (particularly sola gratia) as the later Reformers did? I'm interested in people between Augustine (approx. 400 AD) and Luther (1517 AD).


texts: Where within Biblical Scripture does it mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials?

texts:
Where within biblical Scripture does it mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials?

Catholic and/or Orthodox church's may point to (2 Tim. 2:2)"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

However, (2 Tim. 2:2) could be interpreted as simply pastors/preachers passing on teachings to other pastors/preachers.

(Just thinking out loud, even though Biblical Scripture might Not mention anything similar to the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials, Biblical Scripture does Not condemn/contradict the official Catholic and/or Orthodox church's hierarchy of church officials.)
Please comment so that there is more clarification on this said topic.


texts: Are the Gospels considered anonymous by historians only or by the Catholic Church also?

texts:
I have read that the Gospels were anonymous, and much later they were named Mark, Mathew, Luke and John (and Luke, Mark and Mathew very similar compared with John).

Now is this more of from a historical perspective, or is this something the Catholic Church will also agree too?

Is it a heretical belief?

Is that stated in each of the Gospels themselves that the authors were inspired by God, or is this a belief that the Catholic Church has stated?


texts: If Israel is the vine that prefigures Jesus, the "true" vine, isn't Israel's purpose fulfilled?

texts:
The question of which vine is being contrasted when Jesus claims to be the "true vine" (John 15) received this answer that the vine contrasted with the "true" vine is Israel; taken from Egypt, planted in the promised land, grown great under God's faithfulness and yet uprooted and fruitless, cursed on account of their own faithlessness.

Psalm 80 describes Israel as a vine. Brought out of Egypt, and planted like a plant potted and travelled and transplanted in a foreign land. Grown vast, with boughs like cedars. But, latterly, burned with fire, in judgment.  Wasted, and forlorn. Fruitless. Carried off to another land, uprooted.
A similar figure is the fig tree, which Jesus cursed, which bore no figs at the proper season, that is to say the season of the coming of the Son of man. Thus, cursed.  But He, himself, is the true vine. Not a figure of that which is yet to come. Not a figure which, itself, failed even to properly, in faithfulness, represent that which it was supposed to figure.  But he, himself, is come, the true vine and the branches which are fixed in him shall be fruitful.

The answer builds upon the notion that those things which are intended to prefigure or foreshadow greater things have fulfilled their purpose once that which is foreshadowed arrives.  This is carefully expounded in Hebrews chapters 7-10, summed up for example here:

Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. - Hebrews 9:23-28

What are the implications of this for those who hold that God has separate plans for Israel and for the Church (dispensationalism); who hold the eschatological idea that the Church will be raptured out of the world so that God can once again turn His attention toward Israel during 7 years of tribulation followed by a literal reign, of Christ on earth, from a Jerusalem with a rebuilt temple and a re-instituted sacrificial system?


texts: In 2 Samuel 21:1-14, we see that Saul committed an awful crime, and this caused famine in Israel. David then goes to Gibeonites and asked to make amends. They agree to the death of seven of Saul's descendants. Why were two of Saul's sons and five of Saul's grandsons killed for a crime they didn't commit? Is there something I'm missing?


texts: What is the difference between the two creations of humans, according to those who believe they are in chronological order?

texts:
In Genesis 1:27, it says:

  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In Genesis 2:7, it says:

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is common among Christian denominations to believe that these two verses are describing the same event.

However, some denominations apparently believe that these events are in chronological order: that Genesis 1:27 happened on the sixth day, and Genesis 2:7 happened after the first seven days.

Since both events are about the creation of the human being, but happened on two different days, how do Christian denominations that read these events as happening in chronological order, rather than as two different accounts of the same event, understand this?


texts: If God were going to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us?

texts:
It goes without saying - Before 'The Flood of Noah', God warned Noah that it was coming.

But I wonder - If most of humanity turned evil again, and God was about to send another Biblical flood, would He warn us? And if so, would He warn us by way of the Pope? Or would he tell a prophet?

Basically I'm wondering if there's anything in the Bible or in any Christian teaching which would give us reason to believe that God would send advance warning of another flood.


texts: In Romans 16:7, are Andronicus and Junia apostles? AND... is Junia a woman? How did the Church Fathers interpret this?

texts:
In Romans 16:7, are Andronicus and Junia apostles? AND... is Junia a woman?

  Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with
  me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ
  before I was. (Romans 16:7).

Does "they are prominent among the apostles" mean that they are
respected by the apostles or that they are numbered among the
apostles?
From several commentaries and footnotes, I am reading that "Junia" is possibly a feminine noun and may also be an alternative name for Julia?
How did the Church Fathers interpret this passage? Did they consider these two in prison with Paul to be apostles as well? And did they consider Junia to be a woman or a man? What does this imply for the leadership of early Christianity?


texts: Is there any specific difference between a "Christian" and a 'true' disciple of Christ?

texts:
What is the Biblical definition of "disciple"?

Can you be "merely" a 'follower of Christ' or a 'Christian' and not be a 'disciple'?


texts: When the early church was formalising the canon, what did they understand by the word 'Inspired'?

texts:
When the early church was formalising the Biblical canon, what specific definition of the word 'inspired' did they have in regard to the biblical literature?

I'm curious about how this relates to the Bible and other non-Biblical texts. I have seen many people say that other writings are not inspired and I'm not sure what they might mean.  Is the ground they are standing on fundamentally characterized as if it isn't in the Bible then it isn't inspired?

  Example: ..., this document is almost certainly reliable, although not divinely-inspired Scripture, not to be included in the Bible canon.

I ran across an interesting piece of text that pointed out (and I don't know if this is true) that the purpose of canonizing the Bible was purely liturgical.   If this is true, then by definition it makes no sense to say what I see some use as an argument if it isn't the Bible then it isn't Inspired.

On a personal note I sense the pitfalls of having an open canon, but I find it very troubling that we have locked future potentially accepted inspired works up in fear of what that might bring.


texts: Looking for Nanjing Mandarin Colloquial version (南京官话译本) of the New Testament

texts:
The Nanking Mandarin Colloquial Version (南京官话译本) of the entire New Testament (新约全书) was, supposedly, released in 1860~1861.
It was translated by Walter Henry Medhurst (麦都思) and Wang Tao (王韬) and published by The London Missionary Society Press (墨海书馆).
It seems to be the only "Southern Mandarin" translation that exists, which is referred to on Wikipedia's List of Chinese Bible translations page:

Mandarin Chinese
Southern Mandarin
New Testament, 1856

I think Matthew was released in earlier, hence the disparity in dates.


texts: How come Easter is associated with Eggs, Bunnies and Flowers?

texts:
On the note of soon to pass Good Friday, Good Friday is the time of the year where we remember the death of Jesus, and Easter is where we remember the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I am wrong.

However, people seem to associate Easter with egg hunting and bunnies and chocolates. I wouldn't mind a little celebration considering that it is the day Jesus rose from the dead, however I would like to know what in the world eggs and bunnies have to do with it.


texts: Are there any written or oral OT guidelines on who the 'poor' are?

texts:
We had a discussion about giving to the poor as many Christians tend to do.  Our small group had a big argument on who qualifies as "the poor".  Some said it is anyone in need, others said is only believers who are struggling, and then some picked places in the middle to stand.

Basically we were just all giving our opinions and had to solid ground to stand on.

Sometimes I feel like the whole idea isn't about the poor, but rather me.  That by giving I show care for others, I trust God to care for me, I show others God cares for them, that I'm not attached to material things or making an idol out of them by hoarding, etc.  Are there any details on "the poor" in the old testament?  I ask because, if the bible doesn't focus on who the poor are or try to qualify them, then maybe I shouldn't either.

Maybe there is something back in the Pentateuch which I have not read all of.  Do you know any Old Testament passages that help define who the poor are?

Is there any Jewish oral history that relates to this topic?


texts: Does the story of the Rich Young Ruler preclude Jesus from having any money of his own?

texts:
Jesus, himself, said this:

  Matthew 19:21 If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Ref.  http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-21.htm

And yet, Jesus clearly had some money that was kept, for Judas was, according to John, 'the one who held the purse.'

My question is, when Jesus was a carpenter, did he give his wages directly to the poor immediately after having earned them?  It would seem contradictory if he would have kept the money he earned and spent it on himself - for that would not be "perfect" by his description in Matthew 19:21.


texts: Papal resignations and participation in subsequent conclaves

texts:
If a pope abdicates, after his successor's death, would he able to participate in the conclave, and if chosen is there any ruling to prevent him from being able to be pope again?

The only examples I can find of popes having more than one spell are Benedict IX (whose abdications and returns to power were more than a little unconventional) and antipopes who are elected as pope after their challenger has died, but there's no examples of this for a legitimate pope.


texts: What role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't?

texts:
In trinitarian doctrine, what role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't / doesn't?
My understanding is, that according to trinitarians:

The Father is a spirit
The Holy Ghost is a spirit
The Father can indwell someone
The Holy Ghost can indwell someone
The Father bears witness of the Son
The Holy Ghost bears witness of the Son

The Son, after his incarnation, has a body so it seems clear that he has a distinct role, and those point don't directly apply to him. But it's unclear what makes the Holy Ghost different enough in trinitarian doctrine to make him a distinct person / have a distinct role.


texts: How do Catholic theologians explain that there is no name for Noah's wife? She is mentioned multiple times in the book of Genesis and she kept everything in order in the ark for 12 months, so I think it is strange that she isn't named in the Bible.


texts:
John 3:5-7
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Knowing the 120 were born of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and that no one can enter into the Kingdom without a new birth, and aware that His disciples had no commission to baptize until after the Resurrection, where were the disciples born of the Water?


texts: Why did not Jesus personally baptize anyone?

texts:
We see Jesus telling Nicodemus in Jn 3: 5:

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. - John 3:5

We also read at Jn 4: 1-2:

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples).

One wonders why Jesus did not personally baptize anyone in spite of his having emphasized the importance of Baptism. My question therefore is: Why, according to Catholic Church, did not Jesus  personally baptize anyone?


texts: According to the LDS faith, if our spirits lived with God before this life, why is spiritual birth during life on earth required?

texts:
I am a member of the LDS faith, and based on the belief that our spirits lived with God before this life, then why is spiritual birth ("Being Born of the Spirit") during life on earth required? Based on scripture, in Rom 8:14 brought me to this question. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Now if all mankind had previously spiritually existed with God prior to our existence on earth, then shouldn't everyone be the sons of God, regardless of whether they are led by the spirit of God or not? I bring this point up due to my faith being firm on the Bible, and the scripture in Romans 8:14 is leading me to doubt spiritual pre-existence with God.

My take on this is that when born into this world after the Fall of Man occurred, we automatically obtained a spiritual death, which requires spiritual rebirth. If this is true, then a prior spiritual life with God before our earthly existence could be valid. As a member of the LDS faith, I wanted some advice on how I should think of this, without having to read the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) and/or The Pearl of Great Price, which came after the Bible. God's Word will not contradict itself, and in my belief in the LDS faith, scriptures among all the books (The Bible, The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price) should be in one accord and in line, not contradicting one another. If that is not the case, I need to reconsider my beliefs.


texts: At what age should my daughters start wearing a head covering when they pray?

texts:
Catholic tradition has generally dictated that women wear a head covering - be it a veil, mantilla, etc. - while at Mass. First and foremost, the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: "...women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, ..." The abrogating 1983 code seems to have eliminated this requirement, and so many women today do not wear a veil to church anymore. However, I believe that it is still required, as 1 Cor. 11:4-6 says:

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

In addition, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, and Nancy Reagan, all wore short veils (not only during mass times, but all throughout the Vatican) during their visit with the Pope:

That's because the State Department makes sure that all American dignitaries follow the protocols and customs of the foreign governments they visit. So, clearly there is a requirement - or at least expectation - that women wear a veil to church, as the State Department clearly advised Michelle Obama to do so, and would not have had there been no expectation. Vatican canon law also says that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite. Based on this, we can assume that the tradition is still alive:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

I remember my mother wearing a veil when she took our family to church in the 1970's, but all of our family stopped going after I entered high school when my father lost his job. I never wore a veil to church. So now, in the present, I am married and I currently have two daughters, one is high school age and the other one is a toddler. I would like to have them wear veils at some point, as I remember my mother wearing one and I believe that it is my duty to pass this custom onto my children, especially since I never wore one when I was young. However, I am wondering if it is appropriate. The Bible and Christian traditional only requires that a "woman" wear a veil. So at what point does a girl become "woman" enough where wearing a veil would be appropriate, and what type of veil should be worn?
I've looked this question up online, and answers vary. Some parents have their daughters wear a chapel veil or bonnet as soon as they can hold their heads up while wearing one (around two or three maybe). Other families believe after First Communion, some say puberty, others say age eighteen (the age of majority in the Catholic Church), and yet others say marriage. Some say no veil at all, which I don't support. Many others that I have asked personally say that it shouldn't be done because it is no longer required. But, what do tradition, Catholic teaching, and the Bible say about this? What is a good age to begin my children with a veil?


texts: If Adam and Eve were exempt from death, why did they need to eat?

texts:
Genesis 2:17 gives the implication that Adam and Eve were exempt from death prior to eating from the tree of knowledge, and indeed many literalists take this view.

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

If Adam and Eve could not die, what would be the purpose of them eating, according to those that believe the premise?


texts: What is to be understood by Mary being the "mother of the church"?

texts: Ever since St. Ambrose of Milan there has been a line of thinking that Mary is the "Mother of the Church" - what is to be understood by this title?


texts: Is it correct to say "any effort using scientific way to prove or disprove God is in vain"?

texts:
Am I right in saying that we can never use science to find the physical existence of God, neither could we disprove that?

I am in academic, I am surrounded by so many "science-is-the-ultimate-answer" friends.

I'd like to hear and learn from you how you guys are sharing the Gospel with non-believer friends who are so believing in modern scientific achievement. My way is usually this, but I am not sure, if this is a good one.

Science is correct as long as it is telling the truth;
Science have never and will never disprove the possibility of God;
You will always have an ever-enlarging unknown zones if you are trusting science;
It is fully logical and possible (50%) and make sense if a supreme God is in control;
So you are disbelieving, is not because science shows God is not there, but because you choose to interpret scientific results with a no-God conclusion, you are shutting down the other 50~100% percent of possibilities.
To know God, actually one has other ways (then I will go special revelations, like Bible, sin, testimony, even though most of them are not supernatural)
Ask him/her to think about her personal life, the problems, the families, the relationships. Which means I will go in this part ask him/her to think many un-scientific data.

PS: Any goog books that are very updated and also sound in teaching that I can read? Thanks


texts: Is the Christian concept of the Trinity influenced by Philo's philosophy?

texts:
Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived at the same time as Jesus (albeit in Egypt) and during the time of the early church, taught a trinity very similar to what the Scriptures teach concerning the Trinity.

Philo taught that there were three divine Beings, the first, God, the second, the Logos, and the third, the Divine or Holy Spirit, and that God created the Logos and the Divine Spirit from his own "essence".

He said that God created through the Logos, and he said that the Logos was the "first-born", the Governor and Administrator of All Things, a High Priest, and that Adam was made in his image. He also said that the Logos would be the Messiah, sent as a son to do the will of his father, who is God.

Philo taught that the Divine or Holy Spirit would possess people, be breathed on people, and would lead them to seek God, and that it proceeds from God.

Christian doctrine teaches all of these things, except that the Logos and the Holy Spirit were created by God, but instead teaches that they themselves are God, although subordinate to the Father. Philo, however, was born significantly before the advent of Christianity, and died just around the time that Saint Paul would begin writing his letters; in other words, he came before Christianity.

How can it be shown that Christian theology was not influenced by Philo's philosophy, or that they at least came to the same conclusions using that same source, namely, the Old Testament?


texts: What does the Orthodox church consider to be the defining features of Christian meditation?

texts:
There are many different kinds of meditation or prayer, Christian and non-Christian. However, I am confused regarding actual difference because these varieties, both Christian and non-Christian, seem largely to be arbitrarily constructed.

This question asks specifically about the rosary vs a mantra while I am interested in all methods generally. This one asks about sharing Bible references on the correct way to meditate but I think falls short as I do not believe the Bible is a meditation textbook. I also think none of the answers address my question as they seem to straw-man eastern meditation as harmful, demonic, or dulling.

That said, what do the Orthodox consider to be the characteristics that distinguish (for example) hesychasm from Patriarch zen? The practitioner of Patriarch zen assumes a still posture and remains attentive while removing all thoughts or images from her mind.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says (regarding hesychasm):

  ... that the primary task of the
  Hesychast is to engage in mental ascesis. This mental ascesis is the
  rejection of tempting thoughts (the "thieves") that come to the
  Hesychast as he watches in sober attention in his hermitage.

Sober, attentive watching. Is there a clear, defining line between meditations that are acceptable for Orthodox Christians and those that aren't? If so, what is it? If I don't yet have the opportunity to learn from a starets (please forgive me if that is the incorrect term), should I learn Patriarch zen from a righteous man who believes it will lead Christians toward God?

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes because it is the intention, correctness of practice, and unending goodness of our Lord that determines results. However, I would much rather admit my own fault than attempt to outsmart two-thousand years of great saints. Answers should reference official statements from authority figures in the Orthodox church. Thank you very much!


texts:
If my interpretation of the ultimate purpose of human existence according to the Bible is correct, humanity exists to glorify the existence of God. In Isaiah 43:7, it is stated "everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” This outlines humanity's purpose as a device to glorify God.

But if God is a perfect being, why does he desire to be glorified? Normally, this characteristic would be associated with a being that is insecure or narcissistic, which are not to my understanding perfect traits.

Surely this  is a pretty fundamental attribute of God for which Christianity surely has a doctrine. In there a specific theological term used for this topic? And what do different Christian theological traditions teach about this issue? Is there there a general explanation that is broadly agreed on explaining this attribute of God or are there different explanations?


texts: Where is the prophecy of the star that the wise men followed?

texts:
Is the star that the wise men saw that caused them to come to Bethlehem prophesied in the Bible? If so, where is that prophecy?

The wise men spoke about the star here:

  1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matthew 2:1-2, KJV)


texts:
I don't get this part.

Did Jesus die for our sins so that we could sin as much as we want to?

And if so, why is it a sin to eg. lie, steal, cheat, if Jesus already died for us so that we could sin?


texts: Have Jehovah's Witnesses cancelled the 2020 Memorial on April 7?

texts:
Recently I was looking at the statistics in the latest Yearbook for Jehovah's Witnesses and noted that the Worldwide Memorial Attendance in 2019 was 20,919,041. In the USA it was 2,416,752 and in the UK it was 222,033.  This year the memorial is scheduled for Tuesday 7 April at sundown.
The Memorial of Christ's death is the most important annual event for Jehovah's Witnesses.  Those who belong to the "anointed remnant" - those with a heavenly hope - partake of the bread and the wine.  The last statistic I have for memorial partakers is 2018 when 19,521 Witnesses ate the bread and drank the wine. Witnesses do not use the expression "communion", but I've had to use that tag because it's the only one I could find that is relevant to taking the bread and wine.
I have statistics for memorial partakers going back to 1935 (when 52,465 partook of the emblems) and, as far as I am aware, the only year when there were no statistics for memorial partakers was in 1937. If that is not the case, I would appreciate being corrected.
Given the current pandemic with most of Europe and the U.S.A. in a virtual lockdown, and public gatherings of more than 10 people banned in the U.S.A. (more than 2 in the U.K.), how are Jehovah's Witnesses going to commemorate the death of Christ this year?  This is of particular importance to those who belong to the 144,000, the "anointed remnant".
I would ask my local friendly Witnesses, but they can no longer display their literature in the town square and their Kingdom Hall is closed.  Neither have they posted a memorial invitation through my letterbox.  I've been told that the Governing Body has issued a video telling all Witnesses to follow the directions of government authorities, but also to obey Jesus’ command (in Luke 22:18) to celebrate the Lord’s evening meal.
Has the memorial been cancelled this year?  If not, how will it take place and how will the statistics be recorded?
EDIT to provide updated information on the 2020 Memorial Service from the official Jehovah's Witness website: https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=2020+Service+Year+Report
The 2020 Memorial Service took place worldwide in spite of Covid restrictions.  Here are a few important statistics and a comparison with 2019 statistics:
2020 Grand Totals: Memorial Attendance: 17,844,773  (2019 was 20,919,014 attendance)
Memorial Partakers: 21,182 (No figures for 2019)
Average Monthly Publishers: 8,424,185   (2019 was 8,471,008 publishers)
Total Number Baptized *: 241,994    (2019 was 303,866 baptized)
Percentage Decrease Over 2019: 0.6% (2019 was Percentage Increase of 1.3%)


texts: When did Christians switch from an ‘immediate baptism’ to ‘after years of instruction and scrutiny’ baptism, such as in the Apostolic Tradition?

texts:
According to this article ‘Catechumen’ means one receives instruction from “a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism”. I understand that some churches have this before baptizing people. I do not criticize this practice, but I am curious when this idea may have developed. In the scripture people are baptized immediately upon believing and there does not seem much delay in the matter. For example:

  But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (NIV ACTS 8:12)

The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition.

Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized only after three years of catechism.

  17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years...When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens will pray by themselves, separate from the faithful...After the prayer, the teacher shall lay hands upon the catechumens, pray, and dismiss them. ...When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition)

I am wondering is there any evidence that this switch occurred before 215-400 AD, or not? Do some churches still practice a three year regiment?


texts: What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

texts:
I've been comparing the same events written across different gospels recently, and although I was aware of the differences between the gospel accounts of Jesus's very last moments before death I really was stuck when I started to look at them in depth.

Mark and Mathew are very similar, though once you get to Luke, then John seem to diverge.

Mark 15:33-37

  At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
  When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”
  Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.
  With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Matthew 27:45-50

  From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
  When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”
  Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
  And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke 23:44-46

  It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 19:28:-29

  Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Its easy to reconcile many events in the gospels using telescoping (they just skipped over large sections of time, without mention) but here they are talking about such discrete moment in time that its hard to use that explanation. Also, there is a clear cause and effect sequence, especial with Luke ("When he had said this...") and John ("With that..."), its hard to reconcile.

Is there an answer other than at least two gospel writers just got it wrong? Or they weren't reporting on Jesus's actually words but only making theological points?

And a secondary question is, if presumably Luke had a copy of Mark when he was writing and perhaps a copy of Matthew as well, then why would he deviate when it was right in front of him? And of course John may or may not have had a copy of any of the others in front of him.


texts: War between the ‘inner being’ and the ‘fleshly nature’

texts:
When people are saved, what is God’s purpose for not sanctifying the ‘flesh’ when the spirit is reborn to prevent the struggle believers have in obeying Him?  (Evangelical perspective)

The Apostle Paul:
Romans 7:22 (ESV)

  For I delight in the law of God in my inner being, 23 but I see in my
  members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making
  me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched
  man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks
  be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the
  law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Galatians 5:17 (ESV):

  For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires
  of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each
  other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.


texts: What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?

texts:
Related:

  What are the differences between the different millenialisms?
  What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?

Historical Premillennialism is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that evil will continue to increase (but the church will hold strong), then Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a Thousand Year Reign. (something like that. Historic. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above related question)

What is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages?

If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.


texts: What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis?

texts:
Documentary Hypothesis assumes that the text of the Torah as
  preserved can be divided into identifiable sources that predate its
  compilations by centuries, the Jahwist (J) source being the oldest,
  dating to as early as the 10th century BCE, along with the Elohist
  (E), the Deuteronomist (D), and the Priestly source (P), dating to the
  8th to 6th centuries. The final compilation of the extant text is
  dated to either the 6th or 5th century BCE.

What specific verses or parts of Pentateuch drive to the above hypothesis?


texts: How do indulgences remit temporal punishment?

texts:
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment
  due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful
  Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed
  conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of
  redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the
  satisfactions of Christ and the saints." (CCC 1471)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, temporal punishment is the consequence of one's sin. However, it is said that indulgence can remit temporal punishment.How does indulgence remit temporal punishment?

I'll give two scenarios to work on the question:

Scenario # 1

David was forgiven his adultery with Bathsheba, but still he had to endure the pain of seeing the child die.

It is clear that David payed the penalty of temporal punishment. There is no indulgence in this case.

Scenario # 2

Nicolas was forgiven of his promiscuous behavior, but still he had to endure the consequence of his sin which is HIV.

In this scenario, how does indulgence remit the temporal punishment?


texts:
What Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4?

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures


texts: Does suffering in this life really matter?

texts:
So, recently I had the thought: suffering is irrelevant. I arrived at this conclusion using the idea of limits in Math.

Say that suffering could be measured in units as a function of time (frowns per second? Level of pain * frowns / consolation???. It doesn't really matter how it is measured though).
In heaven, suffering is 0, meaning that once someone is in heaven, suffering becomes a constant.
Heaven is also eternal (time approaches infinity).
Therefore, since the suffering is a constant, and it is being expressed in terms of an infinite value, it follows that all suffering normalizes to 0 (even if we do care about suffering in heaven... which we won't).

While this thought makes sense, I can't help but feel that somehow this is too simplistic of an explanation. Have I missed some piece of logic? Is this a heretical thought somehow?


texts: Are there theological explanations for why God chose the Church to preach the gospel instead of more effective and efficient alternatives?

texts:
If the end goal is the preaching of the gospel to every human on the planet, then it would not be hard to come up with very efficient and effective methods to do so. For example, God could send hundreds of millions of angels to preach the gospel around the world, and in a matter of minutes every person would be evangelized. Or God could give dreams and visions to every person simultaneously revealing the truth of the gospel, causing unprecedented large scale conversions all over the globe (by the way, there is anecdotal evidence that this appears to be happening to Muslims to some degree). And likewise, one could creatively think of myriads of other possible ways in which the gospel could've been preached sooner, faster or more effectively. Yet, God chose to use human beings, the Church, to carry out the great commission. Why?
I don't want this question to be opinion-based, so I would prefer answers that draw on reputable sources pertaining to the subject matter, e.g., the works of reputable theologians. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, I would be interested in knowing that too.


texts:
I'm wondering if heaven and hell was created or it always existed.

If it was created obviously God created it right? Because He is the only one capable of creating something like that. If so why make a torture chamber for you "children" if they disobey you. Even most human parents won't do something like that to their children no matter how bad they become.

But if it always existed along with God, then he did not create everything. Maybe there more things that have always existed that we don't know yet.

What is the truth according to the Bible?


texts:
I'm very confused. I understand why Jesus died for us on the cross to pay for all of our sins and I understand how there had to be a virginal birth, so that Jesus could be perfect and without sin.

I'm so lost though as to why when God paid for our sins, the son had to do it? Why not the father? Is it related to the redemption covenant? I only briefly looked at that earlier. I'm new to the Bible and haven't looked in-depth at that yet.


texts: Is there a special name for the day between Easter and Good Friday?

texts:
I have always called it Sad Saturday in an effort to highlight the despair the disciples must have felt after seeing their Lord killed.

This answer covers a lot of those days in there (most clearly come from Catholic tradition), but only refers to the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter as the last day of the Holy Triduum.

Is there a special name, from any tradition, for the day between Easter and Good Friday?


texts: Why and how do Creationists agree with microevolution but disagree with the idea of macroevolution

texts:
We had the question about the speed of light. But why do Creationists agree with microevolution and disagree with the idea of macroevolution at the same time?

Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.

Macroevolution, as I understand, is nothing more than a lot of microevolutions chained together and is fundamentally the same. If you agree with one, how can you disagree with the other?
A good example, why both are the same is for example our own live. If we had pictures of each day in our life, look at one of it, both the picture of the day before and day after would seem to look the same. But if we skip a few years between the pictures, the difference would be remarkable. Altough we have only small changes each day, if we observe a longer timeframe the change is huge. And noone can say at what day we stopped being a baby and are a toddler now or went from adulescent to adult.
Its the same with species, there are a lot of different transitional states, but you can't say where it stopped to be one species and starts to be another. This seems obvious to me, but Creationists disagree with it. What are their arguments?


texts: Is baptism a form of exorcism, or is that just a Hollywood myth?

texts:
I never watched this film, but the synopsis alone is eerie. Read this article.

  She then runs to the safety of a church, knowing that baptism is a
  form of exorcism.

Is this true? Can baptism be a form of protection against Satan? Is Satan really a person, or does this film carry a strong Faustian theme? Why would Satan be afraid of baptism and not a Jewish mikveh? Is baptism made up of holy water?


texts:
In Luke 24:12 it states that Peter stooped down to look through into the tomb, but omits any mention of hims actually going into the sepulchre itself. Only after he briefly stoops down does he run away from the location.

John 20:3–6 contrasts this by clearly saying that Peter fully entered the tomb and did not just stoop down to see from afar.

How would one reconcile these events?


texts: Why are Holy See-PLO's relations "special"?

texts:
In an official Pope's discourse it is said:

  The Holy See currently maintains full diplomatic relations with 179 States, to which must be added the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. It also has relations of a special nature with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. (emp. mine)

Can anyone explain why the nature of Vatican - PLO' s relation is 'special'? What is 'special'?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Peter being the leader of the apostles?

texts:
The Roman Catholic church claims that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that he was the leader of the other apostles/bishops, and that since the pope is the rightful heir of Peter's title (according to the Church), the pope would also be the leader of the bishops.

What is the biblical basis for this claim? Does the Church take any specific verse as evidence for this claim?


texts: What is the Catholic view of the Bible's teachings on marrying widows?

texts: What is the Catholic Church's view on marry widows, and the Bible's teachings about it? Is it considered a good thing or a bad thing?


texts: What is the biblical basis of the "goats are evil" trope?

texts:
Having spent some time cuddling and playing with goats, which are delightful creatures, I have to ask:

What is the biblical basis of the association, common even among Christians, of goats with Satan and the occult?

Examples:

Baphomet - Wikipedia

The Witch: A New-England Folktale - 2015 horror film


texts: Why do some Bible Translations omit John 7:53-8:11?

texts:
When I tried to look at the verses quoted in this question Ihttp://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5903/what-did-jesus-write-on-the-ground/
I found that in the New World  Translation of the Holy Scriptures  John 7 ends at verse 52 and John 8 starts with verse 12 so the whole story about Jesus writing in the dust and saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone does not exist in this translation
A foot note states that many consider the omitted verses to be of questionable sourcing

Why would some bibles have these verses and others leave them out?


texts: What is the historical cause between the discrepancy of evangelical approaches to original sin and Jewish ones?

texts:
(Modern) Judaism is usually described as not subscribing to the original sin doctrine, where humanity is seen as inherently doomed per the actions of Adam and Eve. (It looks like it's a generalisation, but I've seen similar statements made elsewhere. It's not an unreasonable reading of the beginning of Genesis as far as I'm concerned, but I digress.)

Now, the Christian understanding I grew up with (somewhat evangelical in nature, prone to "pop-theology") was that we cannot save ourselves -- we cannot achieve goodness because of Adam's actions:

  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. (Romans 5:12-13, NRSVA).

So this is not merely about Adam's actions causing death, since "sin came into the world through one man". (Whether or not this is the correct reading of Genesis seems ambiguous, but that's irrelevant here, and I probably wouldn't be able to solve that question without drastically improving my Hebrew knowledge.) This is reinforced by the earlier statement that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

What is the historical cause of this disparity in Jewish and Christian (per my experience of Christianity) attitudes to human nature? Was this an influence of some contemporary (New Testament times) strain of Jewish thought, or perhaps it is linked to other influences ("foreign" ones, or perhaps ones that came later)? Or, to put it another way, what is the history of this doctrine in the Christian church - did the early church have similar views as modern Christians, or did the doctrine evolve over time?

Note: I'm almost certain I might have simply missed some of the context of the Epistles, but I'm asking as it seems like a more efficient way to figure this out.


texts:
It is a common concern in all humans to know about the afterlife, but what do religions say about the beforelife? Some religions say reincarnation, and I think the vast majority of the rest just takes the subject very tangentially (since practically nothing is said about this too publicly). I would include the Christianity that is commonly taught in this category, since I don't think there is a public (non-academic, at least) discussion about this.
What does the Bible say about this?


texts: Protestants and Sola Scriptura adherents: When was scripture alone sufficient?

texts:
Sola Scriptura is defined as "the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness."

Is the concept of Sola Scriptura only applicable to Christians under the New Covenant, or (in hindsight) would it have also applied to Jews under the Old Covenant (e.g., Mary, David, Moses, etc.)?

In other words, scripture (the written word of God) alone was sufficient for Jews in the Old Covenant, or contrarily, it wasn't sufficient for them but it suddenly became sufficient for Christians in the New Covenant. Which would it be?


texts:
Is there any Biblical or historical evidence that Peter ever went to Rome? If not, how can Peter be considered the first Pope?

Please note that unlike the following questions (What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome? and What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma?), this one does not limit responses to biblical proofs and to 1st century evidence or asks how St. Peter is connected to Catholic dogma.


texts: What is the very least a Catholic needs to believe about Genesis 2 and 3?

texts:
There have been a couple skeptical questions asked here recently based off of what some people think are either false premises or assumptions or something.  But I am still confused as to what the Catholic Church requires her members to believe as actual fact concerning Genesis 2 and 3 and what lessons there are to be learned from a literal reading of these Chapters which aren't also contained in the moral, metaphorical and anagogical senses of reading of these chapters.

Could someone create a verse-by-verse breakdown of what is a metaphor, what is a fact, and what is a basis for such-and-such a dogma?


texts:
This is something I noted once when reading Genesis, and am still wondering if there's any meaning to it.

Genesis tells us that Noah was 599-600 years old1 when the flood came.

  Genesis 7:11 (ESV)
  In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

We can also find the age difference of Methuselah and Noah in Genesis 5, and it's 187 + 182 = 369 years2:

  Genesis 5:25-29 (ESV)
   25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. 26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
   28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands."

So, if Noah was 600 when the flood happened, Methuselah was 600 + 369 = 969. That is, he died around the time of flood.

Did Methuselah die in the flood? Does the Bible refer to this anywhere else? Is this in any way significant?

1 I don't know Hebrew, so I'm not gonna guess. The tenth year of my life was technically when I was 9 years old. But even in English the phrase might also mean being 10 years old.

2 More precisely, the age difference is in the range of [369 years; 370 years + 364 days]


texts: If someone is forced to take the punishment for sin (Jesus), doesn't that mean that God never forgives?

texts: Even if Jesus is God Himself and He took the punishment Himself, that would still mean that He never forgives, because He would rather punish Himself than show forgiveness for sin, right?


texts:
According to Wikipedia, Spiritual drunkenness

refers to a phenomenon seen in some Christian denominations, particularly those associated with Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement, in which individuals who are said to be experiencing intense momentary visitations of—or even possession by—the Holy Spirit exhibit a range of behaviors resembling signs of moderate to severe alcoholic inebriation, including unsteadiness, uncontrollable laughter, silly expressions or gestures, verbal or nonverbal shouting (not typically in the form of glossolalia), sudden intense fatigue, and temporary unconsciousness. The phenomenon typically occurs during Pentecostal and charismatic church services, usually at the prompting of a preacher or pastor, and most often involving multiple members of a congregation at a time, generally after having been "transferred" from one person to another via respiratory blowing or laying on of hands.

You can find several live recordings of this phenomenon on a related question I asked on P&N SE.
What is the biblical basis for "spiritual drunkenness"?


texts: What's the difference between Actual Grace and Karma?

texts:
I was thinking about donating to the Best Podcast in the Universe but they always give out "Karma" for donors, and being a Catholic, I don't believe in Karma, but I do believe in Actual Grace and I do believe that Actual Grace is something God gives you to continue doing good things.  Can it be in reward for doing good things and to perpetuate the doing of good?  Are our good deeds tantamount to a prayer?

Note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this about "actual grace":

  Actual graces ... refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

(paragraph 2000)

Excellent answers are wholly Catholic, apostolic, etc... And should contain the word Distinguo or at the very least the phrase "It would seem that..." (meaning please don't disregard the premise offhandedly until you've defeated the premise with your artful and oh-so-scholastic rhetoric).  They would also speak to a wholly superficial knowledge of Hinduism and Karma, which is all that I have; which I gleaned from playing Fallout and watching Dharma and Greg as an adolescent.


texts:
I'm trying to find a certain sermon of Martyn Lloyd Jones.   It contains a passage which is often quoted, but I'd like to find out in which sermon (or volume of sermons published by Banner of Truth) it is.

In this sermon he is talks about the Baptism in the Spirit, and says that some Christians believe they don't have to seek anything, because they received it when they were born again.   In other words They've got it all - there is nothing else to seek.    And he continues,  "If you've got it all, where is it?   If you've got it all, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians?"


texts: How does C. S. Lewis define the "natural" and "supernatural" in his book Miracles?

texts: In the second chapter of Miracles, C. S. Lewis sets out to define the terms "natural" and "supernatural" as well as the term "sub-natural". I'm interested in help drawing out what Lewis is saying in concrete terms. I'm also interested (as an aside) in any other Christian sources which would be of help. Are Lewis's definitions novel in this regard?


texts:
I'm trying to track down an Arabic bible which contains all the books, rather than the 66 book protestant canon.

I'm finding this hard to do. There are many Arabic translations out there but often it isn't clear whether they contain the deuterocanonicals or not.

Please guide me to a Catholic Arabic translation? Ideally purchasable online in Hardcover.

(The Sharif bible keeps coming across my radar and looks appealing and affordable: does it contain all the books?)


texts: Why is Jesus portrayed and remembered in a state of suffering?

texts:
My observation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is portrayed, worshiped and promoted in his state on the cross: suffering, crucified, having wounds. I don't see what sense this makes. This seems like a form of sadism.

Why is he not portrayed healthy? Why aren't his good deeds before the last supper remembered instead?


texts: In Scripture - Was Prophecy That was Spoken in Good Faith, ever Corrected?

texts:
1. Question - A Reference Request:

Is there any occasion in scripture where someone prophesied to another and made an honest mistake, or were later corrected?

Note: This is apart from any discussion regarding false prophets.*

2. Context:

"Schools of Prophecy" often claim that "Words of Knowledge" to others can be mistaken, or subject to personal fallibility, (Shawn Bolz on Accountability / Fallibility);

Is there a Biblical Basis for this?

Other Closely Related Questions:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50906/in-scripture-was-gods-voice-ever-mistaken-when-spoken-privately
Historically, How was “Word of Knowledge” Understood?
What is the Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy"?
How to know whether God truly spoke to you?
What is the Biblical basis for testing the truthfulness of every statement made by Prophets or Apostles who have been confirmed as 'real'?


texts: Is there Biblical support for the concept that 'Whenever a man lies with a woman...a transcendental relation is set up between them'?

texts:
Inspired by an earlier question, I'm not disagreeing with the opinion of C.S. Lewis, but I'm unable to think of any direct biblical support for it.  What is the Biblical basis for Lewis's quote?

  The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.


texts: What ethical considerations, if any, should Catholics have about cryptocurrencies?

texts:
Is there anything intrinsically evil in the "wave of the future" in cryptocurrencies?  My father-in-law was going to set up some accounts for my kids and I was thinking.  Hmm, I should think about this a bit.  I see bitcoin mining to be a bit like gambling, but only in the sense that mining in general is kind of like gambling and I see several categories that a Catholic sense of justice might be troubled in terms of accessibility and accountability.
But what issues, if any, have Catholic moral theologians, ethicists and purveyors of natural law (i.e. popular bloggers) came up with concerning Cryptocurrencies.


texts: What is known about the Apostle Paul's family?

texts: Did Paul's wife travel with him and then he became a widower? Does Pharisee of Pharisees mean that his family goes back several generations, father, grandfather, etc. of Pharisees? What does Roman by birthright mean?


texts: What is the Lutheran doctrine of "Law and Gospel"?

texts:
I was reading about Lutheran doctrine regarding the Law and Gospel, however, I'm having a hard time understanding to what the "Law" is referring.

I found this quote by Martin Luther:

  "Hence, whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture."
  Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche Schriften, St. Louis ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), vol. 9, col. 802.

It sounds like the Law and the Gospel are taken separately and both enforced equally.

Part of my confusion with this is that when I hear "Law" in relationship to the "Gospel", I think it is referring to the Old Testament laws.

Is this "Law" of ("Law and Gospel") referring to the Old Testament law?  If so, do Lutherans believe that these Old Testament laws should be enforced as equally as the rules set forth in the New Testament?


texts:
In James 1:5 it says that God gives Wisdom, whereas in Proverbs 4:7 it teaches to seek wisdom.

How would one reconcile these two verses.


texts: Some traditions state that Jesus visited India between the ages of 12 and 33, in order to study and learn. What evidence is there that he did or did not visit India?


texts: Christening - what exactly does a Godparent have to promise to do / be?

texts: I have been asked to be a godparent to my nephew.  However, I'm not a Christian.  In a Church of England ceremony, what exactly is asked of the godparents?


texts: Does taking communion break the fast? Is there a Scriptural or Traditional case to be made either way?

texts:
Now, once, I was fasting. I was destined to fast for three weeks. Now the church that I went to had Communion once every month, and it happened that my second last Sunday of fasting was my church's Communion.

Does taking the communion break my fast? If so, should I leave from taking the Communion? Is fasting a "good enough" reason?


texts: Which, in Catholic belief, is the higher form of prayer - the Lord's Prayer/Our Father, or the Eucharist?

texts:
In his answer to a related question, Andrew Leach has discovered a text of Pope Benedict XVI to the effect that the Eucharist is the highest form of prayer in the Church:

  The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive "nourishment".

("Homily for the Ordination to the Priesthood", May 3 2009)

Similarly, the "Instrumentum Laboris" or planned agenda for the 2005 Ordinary Synod on the Eucharist states that

  The Eucharist is the most sacred and highest form of prayer. It is the Great Prayer.

(Chapter I, Section 34)

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has a section on prayer focusing on the Lord's Prayer, states (quoting from St. Thomas Aquinas):

  The Lord's Prayer is the most perfect of prayers. . . . In it we ask, not only for all the things we can rightly desire, but also in the sequence that they should be desired.

(Paragraph 2763; the quote is from the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 3, Article 9, "Whether the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer are fittingly assigned?")

Do these two statements form an opposition or contradiction in the mind of the Church? If so, has this contradiction ever been resolved or even discussed by Church officials or by major Catholic theologians?


texts: Did the disagreement between the Catholic Church and Protestant Church on the issue of salvation by grace alone end in 1999?

texts:
This is question is for an effort to understand the current movement of bringing unity among Christian denominations.

A question was asked before: Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views from the traditional Catholic Church in the doctrine of salvation & teachings about marriage?

So I am asking this question with that one as the background.

There is a video BISHOP TONY PALMER DIES - Watch full original Pope Francis video here ! in which Bishop Tony Palmer & Kenneth Copeland are present and Bishop Tony says around the 26th minute that in 1999 a document was signed between Catholic Church & Protestant Church regarding the Doctrine of salvation that salvation is by Faith Alone equipping us for good works. And that it ended the protest between Catholics & Protestants.

Is that true?
If it is true which is that document?
Is that document in the Catholic Church website as Bishop Tony claims?

Bishop Tony further shows a video that he claims to have been taken by the request of the Pope. In that, the Pope requests Kenneth Copeland for unity among Christian Denominations and also his prayers.

Does the official Catholic teaching now agree with the Protestant church in the doctrine of salvation?
Is the division between Catholics & Protestants now just propaganda of some evangelical leaders as Bishop Tony claims?

What is the Catholic Church's official response regarding this call for unity with Protestants from the Pope? Where all have the Catholic churches and the Protestant churches agreed on doctrine after Luther brought the reformation?

Are there no irreconcilable differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church on fundamental doctrines?


texts: What are the differences between Mormonism and Islam, and how do Mormons react to comparisons with it?

texts:
Before anything else, a point of order.  This question has the ability to be construed as mean-spirited towards my Mormon brothers.  I'd like to hope that I have the credibility on this site to be believed when I say, this question is NOT intended as a forum in which to bash Mormons.  Answers that are not respectful to Mormons will be downvoted by me and will NOT be accepted.

So, when I was with Baptist missionaries in Kazakhstan, I first heard the line that "You know, Mormons and Muslims are almost exactly the same religion."  They both claim that the Bible needed updating, they both deny the Trinity, they both tend to emphasize works over faith, they both are revelations by an Angel to a conveniently placed prophet, they both divide heaven into different levels for increasing belief, etc... And, recently I watched this 6 minute video from a Lutheran making a very similar claim.  To an evangelical or another Christian predisposed towards rejecting Mormon claims, it's very persuasive stuff.

As such, I'd like to hear the counter-claim.  How does the Mormon church react to being so closely compared to the Muslim religion?  My suspicion, of course, is that the Mormon church rejects such comparisons, but I wonder what aspects of the faith they would use to differentiate themselves from Islam.  Likewise, the video linked above is short enough to be fact-checked and debunked.  Lutheran Satire is normally fairly level-headed (although deliciously funny, such as when they skewer Westboro Baptist Church). So, what is the case that Islam and Mormons have nothing in common?


texts: What is the meaning of God's omni-powers?

texts:
It is a common understanding among Christians I know that God has these four attributes:

Omnipresence
Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnibenevolence

A grammatical interpretation would explain them as unlimited or maybe absolute, but I'm interested in the biblical approach to this matter. What is the meaning attributed to each of these "powers" in the Bible?


texts: Has God created anything since he rested on the 7th day?

texts:
Genesis 2 indicates that on the 7th day after creation God rested.

  Genesis 2:1-3 NIV

  1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast
  array.

  2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so
  on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the
  seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
  work of creating that he had done.

Is there any indication that he has created anything since then?  Will he create again?


texts: According to Protestants, is it sinful to practice Yoga?

texts:
I know a lot of people who claim to be Christian but practice Yoga.  I always thought (and Wikipedia seems to back me up on this) that Yoga was about meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism.

Is practicing Yoga a sin since you're actually following another religion?  Or is it possible to practice Yoga in a Christian manner?  Also, if you are able to practice Yoga in a Christian manner, is there a conflict with that and the problem with the weaker brother?

Specifically, I'm seeking a mainstream Protestant viewpoint on this.  I suspect that they will all be the same, but if they differ, let me know so that I can refine the scope.


texts: Can a Bishop forbid some literature to the faithful under his rule?

texts: Can a Bishop, forbid the reading of some books (or any kind of literature) to faithful under his rule, in such a way, that it would be sinful for the faithful to not follow his advice?