texts: What are the differences/connections between the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches?

texts: I have done a fair amount of research but am still very confused about the difference between the two, the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches.  I know of the United Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but that is not what I am referring to with the Churches of Christ.  Are they the same thing? Are they different? In what way are they different? If anyone has any knowledge regarding this, please share. Thank you very much!


texts: Does the word ONE in the verses listed below denote a physical oneness of substance or a oneness in unity, purpose and nature?

texts:
The Bible it talks of Jesus being one with the Father in scriptures like John 10:30 and 1 Jn. 5:7 but also says that we should be one with them as  in John 17:11 and Rom. 12:5. If we look at the Bible's original Greek or Hebrew 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 which would be in conflict with the latter scriptures because we are not physically part of the Trinity. (The Trinity being of one nature and one substance.) Does the original Greek or Hebrew word denote a physical oneness in substance, or a oneness in unity, purpose, action, and nature?

Here is a list of other scriptures that speak of the oneness being discussed.

Other Scriptures Unity
Other Scriptures One


texts: Why do Seventh-day Adventsists believe in a great end of days conflict about the Sabbath day?

texts:
In an official statement on the Roman Catholic Church, Seventh-day Adventists claim that the Roman Catholic church will be wrapped up in a great conflict about the Sabbath day:

  Adventists believe, on the basis of biblical predictions, that just
  prior to the second coming of Christ this earth will experience a
  period of unprecedented turmoil, with the seventh-day Sabbath as a
  focal point. In that context, we expect that world
  religions--including the major Christian bodies as key players--will
  align themselves with the forces in opposition to God and to the
  Sabbath. Once again the union of church and state will result in
  widespread religious oppression.

What are the "biblical predictions" that this view is based on?


texts: From the Reformed Perspective, What are "The Secret Things that Belong to the Lord"?

texts:
Given:

Romans 11:33 (NIV) Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
Isaiah 55:9 (NIV) As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Deuteronomy 29:29 (NIV) The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

I would like to know the Reformed/Calvinist's general consensuses on which questions are "forbidden" for men to ask. Or rather - questions whose answers are "Man is not meant to know that" or "You just need to accept what the Bible says about that" or "That is a High Mystery".


texts: What liturgical calendar does the Anglican Ordinariate follow?

texts: Is the liturgical calendar that the Anglican Ordinariates follow the same as the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) calendar, or the Tridentine (Extraordinary Form) calendar, or perhaps it is the same as the calendar used by protestant Anglo-Catholics? Or maybe it is something completely unique?


texts: How do Roman Catholics interpret Luke 4:13, regarding the devil leaving Jesus "until an opportune time"?

texts:
Luke 4:13 (NIV) reads:

  When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him [Jesus] until an opportune time.

What is the Catholic interpretation of the phrase "until an opportune time"?  We do not find explicit reference to Jesus getting tempted by the devil after the temptations in the wilderness.  Is it that the devil was looking for opportunities, but did not find any? Or, is it that Jesus was frequently tempted to desert His mission all throughout His public life and on the cross? What are the Catholic teachings on such possibilities?


texts: Which group adhears to the idea of heavenly amnesia?

texts:
Ok related to this questions Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven? , either some individuals or indeed whole groups believe in some form of (for lack of a better term) "heavenly amnesia" where you have no memory of your life once you get into Heaven. Where did this idea come from? Is there any group that officially holds this position to be true, or is it some folklore. (I only say this because the first time I heard about it was from the old folk tale where death is trapped in a bag)
As was expressed in the other question scripture refutes this, but there are groups out their that believe things other than the scripture and use them to explain away plenty of other things.
How widespread is this idea?


texts: What does the symbology in this painting of the Trinity mean?

texts:
This image is in a Catholic hospital in Spokane, WA. I understand the Father/Son/Holy Spirit symbology, the ABBA reference, and the initials of the Christ. But three things in this image I cannot identify:

The dove/Holy Spirit in the circle/sphere(s)
The winged faces on the left and right of the image
The winged circle at the foot of the throne.

What do these parts of this image symbolize?


texts: What is the significance of taking hold of the horns of the altar?

texts:
I was wondering why did Joab take hold of the horns of the altar in 1 Kings 2:28? Or rather, what is the significance of him doing that? What is he trying to do?

1 Kings 2:28-29 (NIV)
28 When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the LORD and took hold of the horns of the altar. 29 King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the tent of the LORD and was beside the altar. Then Solomon ordered Benaiah son of Jehoiada, “Go, strike him down!”

And when Adonijah learned that Solomon was made king, he took hold of the horns of the altar :

1 Kings 1:49-51 (NIV)
49 At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. 50 But Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar. 51 Then Solomon was told, “Adonijah is afraid of King Solomon and is clinging to the horns of the altar. He says, ‘Let King Solomon swear to me today that he will not put his servant to death with the sword.’”


texts: Do Christians typically switch denominations?

texts:
This question involves a few intertwined issues, but generally the question is: is it normal for Christians to switch denominations? Or is it considered "flaky"? For example, my parents went to a Baptist Church but when we moved we started going to an Episcopal Church (I think there was no Baptist Church within a reasonable driving distance). It gets more complicated when you are Baptist not by affiliation with a particular group of people but in only that you believe in baptism by choice (believer's baptism); there seem to be, in fact, Episcopal Baptists. That aside, assume my parents went to a church of a denomination clearly distinct from their later choice of Episcopalian. Do most Christian's consider the move "unfaithful" in some way? Or is it normal for Christian's to jump around from one to another at their convenience?

I ask only because I was reviewing a question I asked and I noticed Mr. Stratton say that he "currently belongs to" XYZ Church. I thought it interesting to word it that way; as if one may change their mind from time to time.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that people who go to Church out of convenience or more habit (like my parents) will change their Church whenever it is convenient for them. They just go to Church so they can feel good at night, it's like a weekly community service to them. However, those who go to Church for the experience and atmosphere and actually care about the views of the people will tend to only join Churches which share their views on various topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). But maybe there are more factors that I'm not aware of, having not been to Church too many times in my life.


texts: Which sacraments can an intersex individual receive in the Catholic Church?


texts: What are Christian theologeans referring to when they talk about "God's glory"?

texts:
What is God's "glory" in Christian theology? (If it differs based on which branch of the church is using the term, give me a brief summary of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views.)

Are we talking about God's "glowing radiance" when we speak of His glory, or does it have more to do with other peoples' "recognition and honor" of Him?


texts: What are the first references to a tradition of fasting before partaking of the Lord's Supper?

texts:
I recently learned that in Roman Catholicism, it's expected that partakers of the Eucharist will fast for at least an hour.  Canon 919, §1 reads:

  A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine.

I'd like to know how long this practice has been around.  What is the origin of requiring a fast of some duration prior to the receiving of communion?

I know 1 Corinthians 11 is often referenced as a basis for this practice, but I find it insufficient in itself.  Verses 33–34, for example, could be read to suggest that one should eat prior to communion.  Thus I'm looking for clear evidence of this practice in the post-apostolic church.

Note that this is different from the twice-weekly fast in the early church, at least in theory.  I'm not aware of evidence that indicates that those fasts were done immediately prior to taking communion.

Related: What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's law regarding the Communion fast?


texts: How have Eastern liturgies changed in the past century?

texts:
In the Latin Church, the Liturgical Movement and the Second Vatican Council resulted in broad liturgical changes.
To what extent has liturgy changed in the Eastern churches during the past 50 to 100 years? I am interested in any or all of Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Catholic.


texts:
Tefillin1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done.

Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5  (NIV) reads:

  Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries1 wide and the tassels on their garments long.

It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees.

Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not?
If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous?

1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)


texts: Who, exactly, are James son of Alphaeus and Judas the Son [Brother] of James?

texts:
One note specifically is that some translations read that Judas (not Iscariot) was known as Judas brother of James, but most say Judas Son of James.

Luke 6:16 NIV

  Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Compare that to:

Luke 6:16 KJV

  And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

So, who were the apostles named Judas and James son of Alphaeus, exactly? If these apostles were brothers, wouldn't they share the same father? James is known as James son of Alphaeus...

Luke 6:15 NIV

  Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the
  Zealot,

In Jude, the author also introduces himself as the brother of James
Jude 1:1 NIV

  Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

However, this can also be Judas the brother of Christ and James, also the brother of Christ, but not necessarily the original apostles named Judas and James.

I ask because today at study, the individual giving the study was positing that Judas brother/son of James and James were both brothers of Christ, whereas I have it understood that none of Christ's brothers came to faith in him until the post-resurrection appearances.

Any help is appreciated!


texts: What is the origin of "cruciform theodicy"?

texts:
The philosophical Problem of evil concerns the existence of evil, specifically how it can be that evil exists in the world even though God is said to be both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good). If God was omnibenevolent but not omnipotent, then he may not be able to dispose of evil, or if he was omnipotent but not omnibenevolent he may not want to. But Christianity teaches that he is both, leading to the tricky conclusion that God should be both able to eliminate evil and desire to do so, and yet he has not. This is the Problem of evil, and there have been many theodicies (defences of God) proposed over the ages.

The Wikipedia page on the problem of evil cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer as the originator of "cruciform theodicy" when he wrote this in 1944:

  Only the suffering God can help.

But were there previous Christian writers who claimed that Christ's suffering on the Cross contains the answer to the problem of evil? What is the origin of cruciform theodicy?

Note: this question is not asking about the problem sin and evil as they pertain to us, of how we can be forgiven, saved, and restored to perfection. If your answer does not directly discuss the attributes of God it may not be a valid answer.


texts: Why is “faith” omitted as a doctrinal consideration in TULIP (five point) Calvinism?

texts:
Throughout the Bible “faith” coupled with God’s “grace” is essential for salvation.  The I in TULIP stands for irresistible “grace”, what role does “faith” hold in Calvinism and why is it isolated from "grace"?
Here are some scriptures with "faith" coupled with "grace/love":

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love
Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Ephesians 6:23 Peace [be] to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;
2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Romans 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace…
Romans 5:2 …we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God
Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us…according to the proportion of faith
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God
1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus
Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another


texts: Is There Any Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus like some papers or something?

texts:
Is there any historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus like some papers or something or from some sources that are not from the bible .

I am asking this because an atheist said to me something like the following:

  Give me a Roman newspaper with “MAN CRUCIFIED ARISES FROM CAVE!” dated
  around 30 AD and I’ll take your assertion seriously.

I have searched the web and only find some translated messages a the following:

The Messages of Pontius Pilate and Herod

The text of Nazareth is a historical guide to the resurrection of Christ from the tomb

However it needs translation into English.
I don't know why the first article author didn't mention the reference with links. He just said:

  These messages are located in a Syriac manuscript in the British Museum, dated to the sixth or seventh century there is a Greek copy in a Museum in Paris


texts: What is the relationship between commandments and salvation in Roman Catholicism?

texts:
Jesus during the conversation with the zealous youth, tells him:" You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” (Mark 10:9)

One would notice that Jesus is not keeping the order of the commandments in tact, as would have been done by a lay Christian of these days. And, when He gives us a fore-glimpse of the Day of the Judgement, He does not even mention the commandments, but rather enforces the  embodiment of charity and compassion in oneself.

My question is: Is following of the commandments NOT a guaranteed path of attaining salvation? What is the Catholic view on this?


texts: Why is Jesus referred as the Son of God instead of God?

texts: The bible never explicitly said that he's god. However, the bible referred Jesus as the son of god. The word "son of god" sounds as if he's not a god. Why is that the case?


texts: Was the "abomination of desolation" Caligula's proposed statue in the Temple?

texts:
In Mark 13:14 (and similarly in Matthew 24:15) Jesus is reported as saying:

"When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains"

A leading theory is that this refers to the Roman standards being placed in the ruins of the Temple after Titus destroys Jerusalem in 70 AD.

But there is evidence that Caligula wanted to place a statue of himself in the Temple thirty years earlier. He sent Petronius to Syria to lead an army into Judea to force the Jews to accept this statue. The Jews were getting ready to resist this imposition. Luckily Caligula died in 41 AD before this order was carried out.

Perhaps this is evidence that the gospels of Mark and Matthew were written at some time during the period between Caligula's edict in 39 AD and his death in 41 AD? By contrast Luke's description of these events in Luke 21:20-24, which was probably composed using Mark's gospel, seems to clearly indicate Jerusalem's fall so that puts the composition of Luke-Acts later than 70 AD.

The web page  http://virtualreligion.net/iho/pilate.html gives the following three passages (but seems to use 43 AD instead of the standard 41 AD for the date of Caligula's death):

Edict to Erect Imperial Statue in Temple [39 AD]

Now Gaius (Caligula) bore a grudge for being ignored only by the Jews in this respect [i.e., honoring him as divine]. So he sent his legate, Petronius, to Syria to take the rule over from Vitellius and ordered him to lead a large force into Judea. If they received him willingly, he was to place a statue of (Caligula) in the temple of God. But if they treated him with arrogance, he still was to do this after mastering them in battle ---  Josephus, Antiquities 18.261

Jews Prepare to Fight Caligula

Under Tiberius there was quiet. Then at the command of Gaius Caesar to place a statue of him in the temple, (the Jews) took up arms instead. But Caesar's death put an end to the commotion.
    --- Tacitus, Histories 5.9

Caligula's Death Averts War [41 AD]

Indeed, the Jews had given the appearance of rising up in revolt; (but) after the news of (Caligula's) murder there was no need for compliance (with his order). (Yet) fear remained that some emperor would command the same thing.
    --- Tacitus, Annals 12.343

P.S. In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul seems to imply that, after a rebellion, the "man of lawlessness" will have himself worshiped as a god in the Temple. Caligula and his proposed statue in the 40s AD seems to fit this description better than Titus' standards in 70 AD. Also Paul goes on to mention that someone is holding this event back. This could well be Petronius whom sources say was delaying putting up Caligula's statue in the Temple as he knew what trouble it would cause.


texts: Doctrine of biblical inerrancy and Pope Benedict XVI questioning the historicity of passage in the Gospel of Matthew?

texts:
"In his 2011 book, Pope Benedict XVI, besides repudiating placing blame on the Jewish people, questioned the historicity of the passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew which has the crowd saying, "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" (Wikipedia). How does this questioning fit in with the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

To make a clarification: I do not believe in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus then, or at any point of time. I do not believe in collective guilt at all for that matter.


texts: Are "sin" and "transgression" different in LDS terminology?

texts:
I noticed in the opening address at the October 2012 General Conference, that -- at least in the context of a speech -- the terms "sin" and "transgression" were stressed independently and each more than once.

The terminology used by the LDS church is often recognizably similar to that of other groups, but the exactly meanings given them is often different.

Is this just a a repetition to highlight the importance of the issue or do the terms have different shades of meanings according to LDS doctrine?


texts: Why is there such an emphasis on Jesus's suffering - particularly by the Catholic Church?

texts:
It seems too me that the suffering of Jesus is exaggerated.  I mean so many people have suffered tremendously for years. For example, handicapped/sick people, prisoners, holocaust victims etc.

I don't understand why one person who suffered just a few hours / days is so special.  What makes people want to magnify/emphasize the suffering of Jesus so much?


texts: How do I know that an "Orthodox" theological work is officially Orthodox doctrine?

texts:
Whenever I read theological works written by Roman Catholics I know that, as long as there is an "Imprimatur" from a legitimate Bishop, I can trust it to be official Catholic doctrine.

On the other hand, whenever I read contemporary Eastern Orthodox writings, I'm not 100% sure how to tell whether or not its trustworthy, or simply rogue theological opinion.

So far I've been clinging to anything recommended by St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary.


texts: Why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between his wife and God?

texts:
According to Catholic theologians, why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between pleasing his wife and pleasing God?
Can't a husband please God by pleasing his wife? Or is that what Paul meant?
1 Cor. 7:32-33:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.
But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.


texts: What is the LDS position on changing doctrine

texts:
One of the charges often levied against the LDS Church is that the doctrines change over time.  For example, from http://20truths.info/mormon/doctrine.html and http://wakeupmormons.blogspot.com/p/latest-changes-to-lds-doctrine.html:

  Changing Doctrine Over Time

  In one of his more regrettable statements, Hugh Nibley said that one
  of the hallmarks of Mormon truth is that it has never changed over
  time:

  "The gospel as the Mormons know it sprang full grown from the words of
  Joseph Smith. It has never been worked over or touched up in any way,
  and is free of revisions and alterations. Joseph Smith took the same
  elements that have proven so recalcitrant and so hopelessly
  conflicting in the hands of the churchmen and threw them together,
  with an awful lot of other stuff, to follow Brodie, into a single
  wildly chaotic mess. And lo and behold, everything fell into line of
  its own accord; all the haphazard elements in the bewildering heap
  fitted together perfectly to form a doctrine so commanding that not
  even a hint of rhetorical paradox is needed to support it, and no
  'Gregorian compromise' with a pleasure-loving world has been necessary
  to assure its vigorous growth." (Hugh Nibley, No Ma'am, That's Not
  History)

  The facts, however, show otherwise.

The site then goes on to list several doctrines that have, clearly, changed over time.

Other arguments levied by more "mainstream" Christians against the LDS Church include references to Malachi 3:6, which starts out "For I am the LORD, I change not;"  The claim is that the LDS teachings are in contradiction with this.

They say, "If God never changes, then Truth never changes."  They cite changing doctrine as evidence that the Truth taught in the LDS Church changes, and therefore, can't really be from God.

So, from an LDS perspective, what is the defense to this charge and these changes?


texts: According to Catholicism, does God want everyone to be Catholic?

texts: According to Catholicism, does God want all humans to be Catholic?  And if everyone became Catholic, would Satan be abolished? Is this acknowledged in the Bible or elsewhere?


texts: What are the origins of the theory, present in the "Didascalia Apostolorum", about the existence of a "First Law" and a "Second Law"?

texts:
I recently read a study on the "Didascalia Apostulorum",probably composed in Syria in the first half of the third century AD.

I was very impressed by the theory contained therein, according to which it is necessary to discern, within the commandments of the Pentateuch, between a "First Law", also simply called "Law", and a "Second Law". The precepts of the "First Law" are represented by the Decalogue and more generally by the rules of the Torah that the Creator issued before the Israelites committed idolatry by worshiping the golden calf.
The commandments of the "First Law" are eternal and constitute a "sweet yoke" for the human being; after the adoration of the golden calf, the Creator instead issued a "Second Law", made up of a "heavy burden" of rules which take on a substantially punitive and afflictive guise. In this context, Jesus Christ would come to repeal the "Second Law" and thus free the faithful from this burden.

Do you know the historical-theological origin of this theory?


texts: What is the Book of Mormon story of Christmas?

texts:
The Bible proclaims the birth and life of Jesus Christ. We all know the classic rendering of Luke 2 which is tradition to read every year, as well as all the prophesies concerning the Lord's birth throughout all the Bible.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon says:

  The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

Being that the Book of Mormon is comparable to the Bible as a volume of scripture, what is the Book of Mormon's story of Christmas? Is it the same (consistent with the Bible)?


texts: Do all believers receive the Holy Spirit at conversion but only a few are filled with the Holy Spirit post conversion?

texts:
The following passages seem to support that all believers receive the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion:
Ephesians 1:13 (NIV)

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Romans 8:9 (NIV)

9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

However, in the book of Acts we find examples of individuals who were already believers but still experienced a post-conversion infilling of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 2:1-4 (NIV)

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 4:31 (NIV)

31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Acts 8:14-17 (NIV)

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:44-46 (NIV)

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Acts 19:1-7 (NIV)

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Is receiving the Holy Spirit and being filled with the Holy Spirit different events, with the former happening to all believers at conversion whereas the latter may happen post-conversion, possibly more than once and not necessarily to all believers?
What is an overview of how Christian denominations answer this question?


texts: Was it possible for God to be a single person like in Islam and Judaism? Or is the attribute of "Trinity" an essential property of God?

texts:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Father "begot" the son from eternity. I suppose you could formulate my question as, did the Father have any choice in this? As in, could he have chosen not to beget the son, thus remaining a unity of persons rather than "becoming" a Trinity of persons?

Or is the Trinity of persons considered an essential property of God such that it simply couldn't have been any other way?

(I know that in one sense, the Trinity IS an essential property of God, because all of God's properties are essential. So I'm finding it hard to formulate my question accurately, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm asking)

I'm interested in answers from any "Critical scholars" as per Dick Harfield's comment


texts: What are the differences between the roles of husband and wife in a Christian marriage?

texts: Current culture has a lot to say about the similarities of the roles of husband and wife in marriage. What does the Bible have to say about roles in a Christian marriage?


texts: Are Catholics more likely to accept Platonism's idea of the Forms?

texts: No faith seems to directly accept the Forms, although I wondered if Catholics are more likely to agree with the idea of things in this World ( including thoughts) echoing a perfect and pleasurable version of themselves in Heaven? Just checking I'm in the right church! (I'm a Protestant Platonist)


texts:
There is a video/workbook series on prayer by Phillip Yancey  (which I highly recommend) (and based on one of his books) that talks about how we should pray openly about all things.
It even says that we should tell God when we are frustrated with God himself.  After all, (a) God wants to be part of our lives, (b) God already knows what we're going through and (c) if we reach out to him, he may answer our prayers or comfort us to reaffirm that he is our God.
All very valid and very useful points.
To illustrate this, he uses the illustration from Habakkuk.  In chapter 1, Habakkuk prays to God:

Habakkuk 1:2 (NIV)
How long, LORD, must I call for help,
but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
but you do not save?

God seems to respond favorably to this prayer:

Habakkuk 1:5 (NIV)
Look at the nations and watch—
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.

There's another example of this type of prayer (praying a complaint about God) in Jeremiah 12.

However, if we look at the book of Job, we see God respond unfavorably to Job's complaining.  Job goes on for 37 chapters to complain while his friends chide him for brining it on himself (when really, as we see in Job 1, God allowed Satan to do this to Job unprovoked).
Finally, in Job 38, God answers:

Job 38:1-3 (NIV)
1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

God goes on for four more chapters to rebuke Job to show how powerless and foolish Job is.
My question (finally):
How can we reconcile God's angry response to Job's complaining with God's favorable response to Habakkuk and Jeremiah's complaining?  What did Job do that was so wrong to bring on God's anger (in his response)?
Furthermore, how should we pray to avoid committing the sin that Job committed (in order to avoid God's wrath)?  I'm seeking the Protestant viewpoint, excluding the doctrine of reciting prayers.  This is more a question regarding open-ended prayer.  (see doctrine of prayer)


texts: If God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day what had been lighting the earth for three days?

texts:
Genesis 1:3-5 ERV

  Then God said, “Let there be light!” And light began to shine.  He saw the light, and he knew that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God named the light “day,” and he named the darkness “night.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the first day.

Genesis 1:14-19 ERV

  Then God said, “Let there be lights in the sky. These lights will separate the days from the nights. They will be used for signs to show when special meetings begin and to show the days and years. They will be in the sky to shine light on the earth.” And it happened.  So God made the two large lights. He made the larger light to rule during the day and the smaller light to rule during the night. He also made the stars. God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth. He put them in the sky to rule over the day and over the night. They separated the light from the darkness. And God saw that this was good.  There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the fourth day.

If the sun and the moon weren't created until the fourth day what was that which had been lighting the earth for three days?


texts: According to Protestantism why did God choose the persona of a Father?

texts:
Throughout the Bible, God uses the persona of a Father.  Jesus specifically refers to God as Father, and us as his sons.  Why is it significant that God is a Father? And why did God choose the nature of Father to commonly describe his character, as opposed to other relationships that God created, such as that of Mother or a non-descript purely spiritual nature?

How is this viewed in general Protestant traditions? And are their significant variances across these traditions?


texts: According to the Westminster Confession, what is the Biblical basis for the belief that the guilt of Adam and Eve was imputed to all mankind?

texts:
As a recent answer observes, the Westminster Confession of Faith explains:

Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.*

What Biblical basis does the Westminster Confession imply or state supports the statement, "the guilt of this sin was imputed"?  If the Confession itself makes no such support, are there authoritative commentaries on the Confession (and only on the Confession) that provide such basis, and, if so, what is claimed?
Please don't answer the more general question, "What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the guilt of Adam and Eve was imputed to all mankind?"  That is not what is being asked here.  (Thank you.)

* VI.1-3


texts: Someone said that Moses was a mass murderer having killed thousands of of his own people out of anger and frustration.  Where in the Bible does it state this, if anywhere?


texts: Did Tertullian forbid Christians from being school teachers?

texts:
While reading Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, I came across the following quote, in the context of how early Christians separated themselves from the world around them for fear of idolatry:

  Tertullian even forbade a Christian to be a schoolteacher, because such teaching involved using textbooks that told the ancient stories of the gods and called for observing the religious festivals of the pagan year. (page 42)

Shelley doesn't provide a citation for this claim or go into any more detail, so I wonder:

Where does Tertullian say this?
Was the entire profession off-limits, or only certain activities?
Did he also forbid Christians from studying under one of these pagan school teachers?


texts: In what way was the Law of Moses "a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished"?

texts:
I came across this quote from NT Wright:

  The Torah [the Law of Moses] is given for a specific period of time,
  and is then set aside—not because it was a bad thing now happily
  abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been
  accomplished.

I'd like to see this fleshed out in more detail. In what way is this true, according to Wright or others that hold this view?


texts: From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen? In many denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian), there is a concept called a catechumen, who takes religious education course called a catechumenate, that is taught by a catechist. So, what is the equivalent of such a role in a Fundamentalist/Bible Church? How do Fundamentalist Christians deal with prospective Christians (i.e. teaching church history, official doctrine and practices, etc.)? For Fundamentalist Christians, does that include teaching prospective Christians about the Scopes trial?


texts:
According to the Catholic Church, is belief in trinitarianism required for salvation?
Note: this is not asking whether trinitarianism is true, or whether a valid baptism is required, but whether one must believe in trinitarianism for salvation.


texts:
I’m wondering what people think of this interpretation of sermon of the Parable of the Fearful Investor.

I’ll provide this one example, but I have others if you'd like. The interpretation I usually see elsewhere, including with this forum, is that it is about investing to get something back, using money as a metaphor for your gifts. This interpretation gets to be a problem, and most preachers will tell you this, when the 3rd servant says the master is “hard” and reaped where didn’t sow. The parable doesn’t refute that and it has the master saying he should have taken interest on the money, which would be against Jewish law, so I just can’t map the master on to God.

As the link suggests, “Read the parable like someone living on a lake in Nicaragua or one of the “little ones” who followed Jesus around…”. Then, the lesson comes from the 3rd servant. He doesn’t play the capitalist’s game of exploitation and profit for profit’s sake. Yes, he’s cast out, but it’s cast away from the world that Jesus rejects in the rest of the gospels.


texts:
The Franciscan apostolic college of San Fernando in Mexico staffed the missions of California, then resembling an apostolic prefecture.

Since it was a Franciscan college they presumably owed some kind of allegiance to the Order of Friars Minor in Assisi. I'm not sure if the college would have interacted with the Archdiocese of Mexico.

The head of the college was called a Guardian. Did he follow a Franciscan rule book separate from canon law? Did he report to any superior?


texts: In which languages could the Tridentine Mass be said?

texts: I know that the Tridentine Mass was always said in Latin, but have there ever been exceptions to this rule? I heard that some exceptions were allowed, but have no known sources to back up this statement!


texts: How Does the Copper Serpent Relate to Jesus?

texts:
When the Israelites complained God sent serpents to bite them. As a way to reverse the plague, Moses put a copper serpent on a pole. Upon looking at the copper serpent, the israelites would be healed from the effects of the serpent bites.

I've been told this prefigures Christ in a way.

The symbolism is strange indeed, because serpents always represent ... the other guy... The Not Jesus.

How does the serpent on the pole represent Christ? Does the event have any other symbolic meanings relating to redemption?


texts: According to Roman Catholic Church, why should we pray to Mary and not just through her to her Son?

texts:
The Bible does not mention anywhere that we should pray to God through Mary.

Obviously she's Mother of God, and we owe her that, but even Jesus teaches to pray to God Himself.

But why does the Roman Catholic Church teach that we should pray to Mary and not just through her to her Son?


texts: What is Christian about Christian Kabbalah?

texts: There is a form of Jewish mysticism called “Kabbalah”. There is also a Christian form of this, called “Cabalah” or “Christian Kabbalah”. What is specifically Christian about Christian Kabbalah? How does it diverge from its Jewish roots to give a specifically Christian flavour to this form of mysticism?


texts: Who is the author referred to in the Pope's 4 April 2014 homily?

texts:
I'll keep my question short. Does anyone know to whom Pope Francis was referring in today's homily, when he discussed an author whose books were initially banned by the Church, but now this person is celebrated as Blessed?

  Many thinkers in the Church were persecuted, as well. I think of one, now, at this moment, not so far from us: a man of good will, a prophet indeed, who, in his writings reproached the Church for having lost the way of the Lord. He was summoned in short order, his books were placed on the index [the list of works that were banned or restricted to experts because of their problematic, erroneous and even heretical content], they took away his teaching positions – and thus, this man’s life ended – and it was not so long ago. [Now] time has passed, and today he is Blessed. How is it, though, that he, who yesterday was a heretic, is today a Blessed of the Church? It is because yesterday, those who had power wanted to silence him because they did not like what he was saying. Today the Church, who, thanks be to God knows repent, says, ‘No, this man is good!’. Moreover, he is on the way to sainthood: He is a Blessed.

Homily in Santa Marta, 4 April 2014


texts: What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the Trinity?

texts: If I am not mistaken (but do correct me if I am), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, i.e. three separate Gods. What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the “three persons in one God” view of trinitarianism?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Jesus being God incarnate?

texts:
In John 17:3 it says that Jesus called the Father the "only true God" and called himself sent by the Father.

Also, in Matthew 4:10, Jesus himself says to:

  ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’`

What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but "god in the flesh"?


texts: Does the seal of confession extend to bystanders?

texts:
A Catholic priest cannot reveal what someone has told him in confession. If he does reveal it, he will be defrocked and punished.

If a different Catholic than the priest unintentionally overheard the confession, and learned of something important, like a murder. Would the bystander be allowed to reveal what he had heard? Does the answer change if the bystander is also a priest?

Of course, a priest who received a confession of a murder would recommend that the person confessing should give himself up to the police. But assuming he refuses to do that, what would be expected / permissible?

This is a hypothetical question, but in the centuries since the seal of confession has existed, this must have come up.


texts: Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses church?

texts:
I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses church has structure and organization for its membership.

Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and what is their role? From whom do members receive guidance and counsel?


texts: When did the Church in the West begin communicating in Latin, instead of Greek?

texts:
Since the Gospels, Paul's epistles, and the other books of the New Testament were written mostly in Greek, as well as much writing of early Church fathers, it stands to reason that much – if not most – of the early Christian scholarly writings were in the Greek language. In addition, the languages that were spoken by those Christians are Syriac and Greek.

By the early middle ages, however, it is clear that nearly all scholarly writing in the West was done in Latin.

When did Christian scholars in the West begin writing and publishing works primarily in the Latin language, instead of the Greek language? Why?


texts: Was there doctrinal difference between Lollards and Waldenses?

texts:
Lollards and Waldenses are two historical movements that spread out of Catholic church, in England and France, respectively. I know they had similar views such as opposing the corruption of the wealthy church, advocating lay service, focusing on the scripture instead of ritual traditions and translating scripture so people could study the Gospel in their native language.

Were these two movements separated by anything but time and geography? Was there any significant difference in doctrine, belief or politics between Waldenses and the Lollards?


texts: Who is the most recent saint recognized by both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches?

texts:
Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize certain individuals as saints—particularly holy individuals who are believed to be in Heaven.  The most famous saints become popular objects of veneration and are catalogued in extensive (but not exhaustive) official lists, such as the Roman Martyrology.

The two churches have not been in communion for nearly a thousand years, and at the time they separated, they did not use today's more rigorous canonization and glorification processes for officially recognizing saints.  Many ancient and medieval figures are recognized as saints by both churches today because of traditions that long predate the schism.

What I would like to know is, who is the most recently deceased individual who is officially recognized and venerated as a saint by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches?  According to this answer, Vladimir the Great (956–1015) is one contender.  I'd be particularly interested to learn whether there are any mutually recognized saints from after the Great Schism of 1054.


texts: Has the Roman Catholic Church ever officially condemned the Croatian Ustashi?

texts:
I understand the Ustashi (or Ustaše) to have been a fascist organization that dominated Croatia during World War II.  This Wikipedia article reputes that Ustashi persecution of non-Croatians was so severe that the Nazi occupiers actually had to intervene to protect some persons.

One Eastern Orthodox Synaxarion commemorates several Serbian Eastern Orthodox clergy whom it claims were tortured and killed by the Ustasi:

Bishop Platon of Banjaluka was shod with horse shoes and forced to walk several miles before having a fire lit on his chest by Ustashi members
Bishop Sava of Krushedol was tortured and killed in an Ustashi concentration camp
Abbot Raphael Momchilovich was tortured and killed in an Ustashi concentration camp
Priest Branko Dobrosavljevich was killed with a hammer blow to the head, after witnessing the killing of his son at an Ustashi concentration camp
Priest George Bogich was strangled with his own intestines by Ustashi torturers
Priest Dane Babich was flayed and left to die by Ustashi torturers

This article from Veterans Today provides some of the gruesome details of the above and other atrocities committed by the Ustashi.  The article claims – with quotes from multiple sources – that many of the atrocities instigated by the Ustashi were prompted by Roman Catholic clergy members:

  Fra Marko Zovko consistently instigates the peasants to murder and rob
  the property of Serbs, patronizing them:“If only one Serb stays alive
  after the war, you will be paying the high price. That is why all
  Serbs must be exterminated“. Ante Pavelic, the Croatian fuhrer,
  decorated fra Zovko with the Order of Merit of the second degree.

  Catholic atrocities began with the destruction of Orthodox Churches as
  well as executions of Orthodox priests. Priest Samardzich  was killed
  in Kulen Vakuf. Ustashe kiled his wife and children before his own
  eyes, before killing him. Martyr’s death was destined for priest
  Milosh Vuich with many other Serbs from Slunj area. His wife was
  ripped apart, her unborn baby was taken out of her womb, another
  two-year old child was muredred as well.

Atrocities by rogue members of clergy from both east and west is nothing new, of course, but the aforementioned Wikipedia claims that the Ustashi was actually supported by the Vatican during and after World War II. In 1998, Pope John Paul II beatified Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb, who, according to some sources complied in the forcible conversion of Orthodox Serbs to Roman Catholicism.

There seems to be a lot of material on the web and in print that connects the Roman Catholic Church with the Ustashi, but frankly some of this seems quite incredible.

Has there ever been any official communication from the Vatican condemning or denying the atrocities carried out by the Ustashi that some have connected to Roman Catholic clergy?


texts:
Did some Christians ,before the 7th century read the Jewish Mishnah?
was it possible for some Christians to get a written copy of the Mishnah?


texts: Where did our spirit come from? (Overview)

texts:
Where did our spirit come from? Did it exist before we were born? Or did it come into existence when we were born or later?

What is an overview of the major Christian answers to this question?


texts: How do demotions work in the Catholic Church?

texts:
All other controversial materials aside, as I read this article about Raymond Burke, I'm curious about this line, and this line only (emphasis mine):

  Burke, who was recently demoted from the Vatican’s highest court to a
  ceremonial philanthropic post, also pointed to the introduction of
  altar girls for why fewer men are joining the priesthood.

I'm just curious, how do such demotions work?  Are they unilateral decisions from the Pope?  Is there some other established methodology for determining status in the Church?


texts: How long has the church been observing Lent?

texts:
At what point in church history did the Lenten season become a significant part of the church year?

Obviously Easter came first, but I don't see the biblical basis for 40 days of preparation for Easter.  I'm sure from that arose Ash Wednesday, and then a need for a Mardi Gras - but when do we see each of these parts of the Lenten season coming about?


texts: I happened to learn that Christian black/death metal bands, along with their niche community were a thing, and was curious when this started and what lead to such a movement, especially since the combination seems so fascinatingly oxymoronic. Is there actually a known rationale/history behind how Christian Death Metal came to be?


texts: Does God want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out?

texts:
This question may appear brief, but I think it is simple enough to not need much background. Basically, I'm curious about the nature of God and His desires. Does He want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out about these things?

Citations from specific literature (Bible or otherwise) where you have evidence of His wants would be particularly helpful. :-)


texts: What's the name of the process by which the scriptures were written down?

texts:
The word 'concoursis' was used by a Sunday school teacher to describe the process by which Scripture was revealed by the Spirit to the Apostles and then written down. However, I can't find the word used anywhere.

Is the word 'concoursis' used by any theologian to name that process, or is any other word used specifically as a name for the process?

To be clear, I'm asking for the name/word. While there are a variety of ideas about the specific manner in which the ministry of the Spirit moved men to effect the writing of Holy Scriptures. The word seemed to be used as an umbrella term for any process by which the ministry of the Spirit resulted in written Scripture.

Suppose the word is concoursis, to use it in a sentence. One might say "letter for letter, general dictation, and the divinely informed free hand are each held by different groups to be the means of concoursis."


texts: According to reformed theology, does reformed theology fall apart if one removes the doctrine of predestination?

texts:
Context:

I was recently pondering on why it took me so long to discover reformed theology, and how my beliefs changed before/after reading reformed theology -- and as I traced my thoughts, it seems like a key point I hit was the doctrine of predestination.

Before believing in predestination, my notion of Christianity was something like: God vs Satan is fighting in some huge battle. I get to play a part. I'm important. I choose who to serve, and I can influence other humans in either direction.

After understanding predestination, it was something like: wow, I'm absolutely useless. There's all these angelic beings worshipping God, God really doesn't need me, and I don't have much influence over whether God or Satan wins, and I don't have much influence even other whether people ultimately get saved.

This realization then somehow paved the door for understanding reformed theology -- i.e. the focus of the Bible is about God, rather than humans.

Question:

Thus, is the doctirne of predestination considered a core pillar of reformed theology? Are there any well known doctrines / documents (accepted by reformed theologists) that argue against predestination?


texts: How does the Arminian view of salvation account for God's sovereignty?

texts:
The Arminian view of salvation posits that man has free will and the choice to accept salvation is purely on our own free will.

The total sovereignty of God (while disputed in some theological circles) carries a lot of Biblical evidence with it. Just two examples:

  Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
  Psalms 135:6

  Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.
  Psalm 115:3

In light of those two statements, here is my question. How do Arminians reconcile the concept of a God who is in total command of the universe with the idea that humans can choose whether or not to accept His offer of salvation? Or do they not recognize God's sovereignty as total? Can a human being through His free will reject God even though God desires their salvation?

To clarify: I am not asking for judgement on the correctness of Arminianism, just how those who adhere to the school of thought would answer this question.


texts: Do any Christian traditions hold the belief that Adam was androgynous?

texts:
Genesis 1:27 reads:

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

The Hebrew word for "man" here is אָדָם (adam). This seems to imply that Adam was created with both genders. Some Jewish traditions propose this interpretation. Are there any Christian traditions that hold the belief that Adam was created with both genders?


texts: Why did the temple in Ezekiel have stairs leading up to the altar?

texts:
In exodus God expressly forbade going up the stairs to the altar.

  Exodus 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

So why does Ezekiel mention stairs to the altar?

  Ezekiel 43:17: The upper ledge also is square, fourteen cubits long and fourteen cubits wide. All around the altar is a gutter of one cubit with a rim of half a cubit. The steps of the altar face east.


texts: Why do many Protestant congregations not require attendance at services on Christmas and Easter?

texts:
It came to my attention from living, driving around and listening to Christian radio that many Protestants do not have any services on what Catholics would consider solemnities (Christmas and Easter in particular) and even the most lax Catholic will attend if only to appease their mother.

One of the precepts of the Catholic Church is to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, another is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, particularly during Lent. That's why Mass attendance ought to peak around Easter.  But it would seem that some non-catholic congregations in the United States have adopted an opposite position.

If you asked any given pastor what the reasoning behind this is, what might they say?


texts: Generational Curses vs Personal Resposibility

texts:
There are numerous passages that support the concept of generational curses - that children will be punished for the sins of their parents.

Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Jeremiah 32:18
You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them. Great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord Almighty,

There are other verses that say that a person will be treated according to their own actions and not the actions of ancestors or descendants.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20,30
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them...
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.

These seem to me to be in direct conflict. Has there been any scholarship or commentaries that address this difference? A Protestant response would be preferred but I would appreciate an answer from any tradition.


texts: How was the church structured during the time of 300 AD - 500 AD?

texts:
I know in 1054 AD, the Catholic & Orthodox churches had split - creating the great schism, but I'm curious to learn about the earlier history of the church.

Are there any historical sources which discuss the earlier structure of the church around the time of the Nicene Creed - specifically, the years 300 AD - 500 AD?

Was the church split up like in 1054 AD, or was it more consistently gathered together?


texts: According to Catholic doctrine, what effect does the Last Judgment have on those who are already in heaven?

texts: Catholics believe we are judged immediately after we die (Particular Judgement). Some of us will go to heaven. Then there is still the Last Judgement (or Final Judgement). What effect does the Last Judgement have on those who are already in heaven? Will anything about their existence change? The only thing I could find in the article I linked to says that their sins will be made known. Is that all that happens?


texts: Were Christians in the Roman Empire known to rescue abandoned babies?

texts:
I've read in a Christian publication that one of the things that distinguished early Christian groups in the Roman empire was that they would rescue babies that had been abandoned by their parents.

In Rome, it was considered acceptable to abandon a newborn to the elements if the family (specifically the father) decided not to raise it. Allegedly, Christians would collect these infants and raise them in their community.

What are the sources for this claim, if any?


texts: What is the biblical basis for switching between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as recipients during prayer?

texts:
I've noticed that some Christians seem to switch the recipient of their prayer as they pray. For example, they may begin their prayer by addressing the Father, but at some point they suddenly switch focus to the "Lord" and start praying to Jesus, then as the prayer continues they directly address the Holy Spirt, then they switch back to either the Father or the Son but you can't really tell which one, and sometimes they switch recipients so quickly that to me the whole prayer looks like a "multiplexing" kind of prayer where the 3 persons of the trinity are addressed in a confusing manner and you can't really tell which sentence is aimed at which person.
Have you ever come across someone who prays like this? What in the Bible supports this pattern of prayer?


texts: What Prayer/words are associated with the solemn sign of the cross?

texts:
With the normal sign of the cross you are supposed to say "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost" as you trace the cross on your body.

The solemn sign of the cross is the triple cross which is made on the forehead, lips and chest. In Catholicism this happens before the priest reads the Gospel during every mass. As we make the solemn sign of the cross we say "Glory to you O lord" in the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) or "Gloria tibi Domine" in the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form), but that is not the prayer which is strictly associated with the motion itself.

I'm wondering what words are supposed to be associated with the solemn sign of the cross, and if there are different words depending on your country?
For example I've heard that the priest is supposed to pray silently to himself "May Christ's words be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart" as he makes the motion, and I've heard that the congregation is supposed to pray something like "I believe with my mind, confess with my mouth, and live out in my heart, the gospel".

However I can't confirm this because google is giving me nothing and my memory is fuzzy.


texts: Is there any truth to the story that Martin Luther claimed he "bought" hell from a priest?

texts:
We have this in our country, I googled it but didn’t find something like this, just found that Martin Luther had something to do with Indulgences.
So is it true or is just some nice writing and good enough relation to Martin Luther?
Rough Translation:

In medieval times, priests sold pieces of heaven to people for a hundred coins, and people bought them.
A wise man was frustrated that people were buying them so he found a solution.
He went to a priest and asked, "How much is all of hell?
The priest looked surprised and asked, "Hell?"
"Yes," he said.
The priest without hesitation said: "Fifty coins."
The man gave him the coins and took the certificate.
He went and put it in town square, and said: "I have bought all of hell and I won't let any of you in."
This man was Martin Luther.


texts:
Under what conditions does the Catholic Church explicitly call the laity extraordinary ministers?

Extraordinary ministers are seen in almost every parish. For the most part, they help the parish priest in the distribution of Holy Communion, as well as a few other functions surrounding the administration of the Eucharist.

  In every celebration of the Eucharist, there should be a sufficient number of ministers of Holy Communion so that it may be distributed in a reverent and orderly manner. Bishops, priests and deacons distribute Holy Communion in virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord. When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons. If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, "the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may also depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162)." - Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass

The Catholic Encyclopedia says the following about extraordinary ministers and the sacrament of baptism.

  Extraordinary minister

  In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infidel or Jew.

  The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament.

  The Roman Ritual adds that, even in conferring baptism in cases of necessity, there is an order of preference to be followed as to the minister. This order is: if a priest be present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless modesty should require (as in cases of childbirth) that no other than the female be the minister, or again, unless the female should understand better the method of baptizing. The Ritual also says that the father or mother should not baptize their own child, except in danger of death when no one else is at hand who could administer the sacrament. Pastors are also directed by the Ritual to teach the faithful, and especially midwives, the proper method of baptizing. When such private baptism is administered, the other ceremonies of the rite are supplied later by a priest, if the recipient of the sacrament survives.

Thus my question: Does the Catholic Church explicitly call laity extraordinary ministers elsewhere in the administration of her sacraments or in her liturgy, other than the two mentioned above?


texts: Who was the first Church Father to argue for executing heretics?

texts: When was it first said in Christianity by a church leader that heretics must be put to death? Who came up with this idea and presented it?


texts: Is Israel referred to as the pronoun 'she' in the Old Testament?


texts: What does Reformed Protestantism teach regarding 'spirit and soul and body' (I Thessalonians 5:23)

texts:
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. I Thessalonians 5:23 KJV

Paul lists 'spirit and soul and body' in that order, which I take to be significant and which I take to mean that the spirit ought to be considered first in such considerations.

Hebrews 4:12 KJV, makes a distinction between soul and spirit in reference to the material body :

  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Here, the immaterial soul and spirit are likened to parts of the material body, namely the functional parts of the skeleton (the joints) which allow of movement and mechanical activity; and the living tissue of that functioning mechanism (the marrow) which is the living tissue within that mechanical structure.

Thus I understand that spirit is the unique living being of existence ; that soul is a non-material construct that allows the inner spirit to engage in non-material aspects of human existence (such as activities of the mind) ; and that the material body is the living organism functioning in the substantial world through the inhalation of oxygen from the atmosphere.

Is this what Reformed Protestantism teaches or does it teach something different from what I have understood from scripture ?


texts: What part do Monks play in the Christian church?

texts:
I'm really interested in the practices of monks, one of which is being quite confined from society.

I very much respect their practices and am curious to know what fruits they bear in the Christian Church? For instance: Jesus commands us to go and make disciples. Do the Monks find themselves making disciples with newcomers in their monasteries or are there other practices which take place which build up the church?


texts: Does the flesh of the peace offering get offered to women?

texts:
During the Laws for the sin offering in Lev Chapter 7, which Jesus replaced by his own sacrifice. A limitation for the actual food was given for only the Men to eat of it.

Every male among the priests may eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy. (Lev 7:6 NKJV)

Now directly after the sin offering, they could offer the sacrifice of peace offerings, this offering I am under the impression is described in 1 Cor 11.

11 ‘This is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings which he shall offer to the Lord: 12 If he offers it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer, with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil, or cakes of blended flour mixed with oil. 13 Besides the cakes, as his offering he shall offer leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offering. 14 And from it he shall offer one cake from each offering as a heave offering to the Lord. It shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace offering.
15 ‘The flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day it is offered. He shall not leave any of it until morning. 16 But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offers his sacrifice; but on the next day the remainder of it also may be eaten; 17 the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned with fire. 18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination to him who offers it, and the person who eats of it shall bear guilt. (Lev 7:11-18 NKJV)

Event-wise I am having trouble separating the two events. Therefore if the sin offering was to only be eaten my the men, is the flesh to be limited to only men?
Note the warnings of partaking of the flesh while being unclean:

‘The flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten. It shall be burned with fire. And as for the clean flesh, all who are clean may eat of it. 20 But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people. 21 Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing, such as human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any abominable unclean thing, and who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.’” (Lev 7:19-21 NKJV)


texts: Difference between Augustinianism and Calvinism

texts:
Is there a difference between Augustinianism and (Five Points) Calvinism as they relate to the doctrine of salvation?

If so, what is the difference?


texts: Does 1 Corinthians 2:9 mean Heaven will be more joyous than we can contemplate?

texts:
1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV) states:

  But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Does this mean that the joy of Heaven is incomprehensibly great or that some quality of the experience is beyond the current ability to contemplate?

For example, for foods that one has not tasted one might be unable to contemplate the particular taste (qualitative factor) but have had previous experience of the same degree of pleasure in tasting. Such tasting of new foods would be beyond contemplation in the second sense but not in the first sense.

So was Paul indicating that what is beyond contemplation is how much joy or some qualitative aspect?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity consisting of different persons?

texts:
In What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? we have explored the biblical basis for the doctrine that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

However, what is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that:

the Father and the Son are different persons;
the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons; and
the Holy Spirit and the Father are different persons?

In this answer, my question is addressed but not answered; other answers also attempt to explain how the three persons are one, instead of how the three persons are distinct.


texts:
Matthew 5:11 says,

  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: (Douay-Rheims)

From the sound of it, this verse has mostly to do with what people say or think of us. But what about when people beat us? or steal from us? or poison us? Does the same blessing apply in those cases as well? Would they also be examples of persecution?

Are there other verses from the Sermon on the Mount, or the Gospels, or the NT, that deal with the theme of injury and the blessing that comes with it?


texts: Does God Answer Every Prayer Asked In Jesus' Name?

texts:
In John 14:13-14, Jesus says the following to his disciples:

  And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be
  glorified in the Son.  You may ask Me for anything in My name, and I
  will do it.

It is my understanding that this passage (see also Matthew 7:7) does not teach that God answers any and all petitions we might ask in the name of Jesus (as if God is merely a cosmic vending machine).  Rather, it indicates that as we nurture our relationship with Him, our petitions will be more and more aligned with His sovereign will, which He will accomplish anyway.  As an example of this, consider Jesus' petition in the garden in Luke 22:42:

  Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
  but yours be done.

So it seems clear to me, again based on how I've been taught, that God answers those prayers that align with His sovereign will.  Am I thinking about this correctly?


texts: Is there a Catholic ceremony for virgins who are not nuns or sisters?

texts: I once saw online that there is a Catholic classification or special private ceremony for women who are chaste and do not engage in any form of sex. This is for women who are not nuns or sisters. Is there such a thing?


texts: Who was affected by the plague in Numbers 25?

texts:
"While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. 2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hang[a] them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.” 6And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand 8 and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. 9 Nevertheless, those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand."- Numbers 25:1-9

Did the victims of this plague refer to the execution of those who participated in the Baal-Peor incident? Or did it refer to Israelite bystanders who simply paid a major price for their sinful leaders?


texts: What are some scholarly biblical arguments for theistic evolution?

texts:
As I have done my research on theistic evolution, which is the theory that God created the earth and everything in it but let the process of evolution happen on its own.

Definition of Evolution:
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

My main question though is what evidence is there to support the variety of different claims that theistic evolution makes?


texts: What is the difference between the Edomites and the Amalekites?

texts: Esau is considered the ancestor of the Edomites. He is also the grandfather of Amalek. According to the Book of Genesis, Amalek was the son of Eliphaz and his concubine Timna. Eliphaz was the first-born son of Esau by his wife Adah. Amalek is considered the ancestor of Amalekites. Are the Amalekites and Edomites different names for the same tribe? Or are the Edomites a different tribe with a separate lineage to Esau?


texts: Which doctrine was formalised first: Infant Baptism or Original Sin?

texts:
What I mean is something like this :

Case A, Original Sin came first
because all newly born baby are going to hell if they die in their infant age
then let's do Infant Baptism so they don't go to hell if the infant die.
(here, Infant Baptism start to exist after the Original Sin formulated).

Case B, Infant Baptism came first
because the church do Infant Baptism
Then it must be because all newly born baby will go to hell if the infant die.
(here, Original Sin formulated because the church do Infant Baptism).

Here is what I read from this link

  Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal
  life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning
  that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally
  guilty of sin

From the same link

  In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who
  die without Baptism are consigned to hell ---//cut--- Liturgical practice confirms the Church's belief that all inherit Adam's sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light

From reading those sentences (especially the bold one), my own conclusion is case-B.
So, there is already an Infant Baptism ritual in that time.
Maybe Pelagius say "You don't need to baptize infant. If they die in their infant age, they won't go to hell". On the other hand, Augustine do not agree on what Pelagius say. In the pov of Augustine, Infant Baptism must be performed in order that if the infant die, the infant won't go to hell.

But since I'm not so sure, that's why I ask here.


texts: What is the biblical basis for believing that some sense of Deity exists in humans?

texts:
This view is called “Sensus Divinitatis” and is described as the natural capacity for humans to perceive God.
I understand from this Wikipedia article on Sensus divinitatis that although the concept is primarily associated with the writings of John Calvin it is also found in the work of other Christians:

Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner proposed an innate sense of God, which has been noted to share elements in common with Calvin's Sensus Divinitatis.

Jonathan Edwards, the 18th-century American Calvinist preacher and theologian, claimed that while every human being has been granted the capacity to know God, successful use of these capacities requires an attitude of "true benevolence".

Please be aware this question is not about philosophy.  The Wikipedia article presented what seemed to me to be a secular view but I have no interest in delving into a philosophical discussion. I am interested in finding out what a Christian perspective is, and what Calvin, Rahner and Edwards might have in common with regard to this subject.  However, for my benefit, it needs to be kept simple! I only stumbled upon this subject yesterday and what I read in that Wikipedia article made my head spin.
The Apostle Paul seems to suggest that humans have an inherent capacity to perceive God:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

What other Bible verses expound on this idea?


texts: Is the beast of Revelation 13 the same as the beast of Daniel 7?

texts:
There are several similarities between the Beast described in Revelation chapter 13 and the one described  in Daniel chapter 7.

Rev 13:1 and 2 KJV

  And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
  And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Dan 7:6  and 7  KJV

  After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
  After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Do any Theologians support this idea?


texts: Is there any historical evidence that would indicate where exactly the ark of the covenant is now located?

texts:
The Ark of the Covenant was presumably located in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple.  Is there any historical indication of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant and the other items inside the Temple at that time, such as Aaron's budding staff, the two tablets of the testimony (10 Commandments), the Brazen Altar, and the Table of Bread?

Were the Jews able to hide these things or were they captured?

(Assuming, of course, that Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark was not a documentary.)


texts: Does "Kehilat Bethlehem" community believe that the Law of Moses are the commandments Jesus is referring to in John 14:15?

texts:
Does Kehilat Bethlehem community believe that the Law of Moses are the commandments Jesus is referring to in John 14:15?

John 14:15: If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

And do they believe circumcision is or keeping any part of the Law of Moses is essential to be engrafted the household of Israel (called the commonwealth of Israel) to be part of the bride of Jesus?
They state that

We believe that salvation is by grace through faith as revealed in the Torah.

and give emphasis to the Law in the first five books of the Bible and are keen to follow the Jewish traditions which are unusual to both Catholics and Protestants.


texts:
Talking to a friend, he wrote:

  In the words (approximate) of C.S. Lewis, "Everytime a man sleeps with a woman, it creates a bit more of a spiritual connection that must be either eternally enjoyed or eternally endured."

This sounds like Lewis - but where is it from?


texts: Is there a difference between Scripture and inspired writings?

texts:
Take these two questions and their answers for consideration to this question:

What does "scripture" mean in NT writing?

What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?

I am having a small discussion in the comments on this post (I know I shouldn't but I think they add to the answer). I want to see if my current understanding of scripture and inspired works is Biblically supported and also come up with a useful, working definition for 'inspired works.'

Here is how I would summarize what I think they are: All scripture is God breathed; all scripture is inspired. Scripture comes as a direct result from writing the direct messages from God (prophecy, etc.). When Paul wrote that in 2 Tim 3:16 he was referring exclusively to the Old Testament, in whole (never mind the Catholic/Protestant argument here). Paul did not consider his own writings to be scripture, however, he did consider them inspired by God because he saw the risen Christ and was commanded to build up His church. Writing the epistles was a direct effect of Paul obeying God's command. It is clear that the epistles add little to nothing of what can be found in the Old Testament. All that is in the epistles can be read in the Old Testament (read my comments on the third post).

So this is the question: Is my reasoning biblical and is there a difference between inspired writings and Scripture?


texts:
Recently I have a doubt related to the Three Magi Kings. Although, we all know that there are "denominations"that celebrate a special day in honor of them, there are others that do not.
In Matthew 2: 1-8 it says:

And, having gathered together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, He began to inquire of them where the Christ was to be born. They said to him: "In Bethlehem of Judea; because thus it has been written through the prophet:
'And you, O Bethlehem  from the land of Judah, you are by no means the most insignificant [city] among the governors  of Judah; for out of you will come one who rules, who will shepherd my people, Israel. '" Then Herod secretly summoned the magicians and carefully ascertained from them the time when the star had appeared;and, when he sent them to Bethlehem, he said: "Go and make a careful search of the little boy, and when you have found him, come back and inform me, so that I may also go and pay him homage".

Also in Matthew 2:11 he mentions:

And when they entered the house they saw the little child with Mary his mother, and, falling down, they paid him homage. They also opened their reasures and presented gifts: gold, frankincense and myrrh.

From what I understand, what Matthew 2:11 says is the reason why some "denominations" celebrate a special day of "Magi Kings", giving gifts to children.
However, if I do not misunderstand the scriptures, they clearly condemn any kind of magic, as well as the Babylonian practice of trying to obtain information from the stars.
Deuteronomy 18: 10-12 says:

No one should be found in you to let your son or daughter pass through the fire, no one who uses divination, a magic practitioner or anyone looking for omens or a sorcerer, nor one who binds others with curses or anyone who consults a spiritualist medium or a professional event forecaster or anyone who asks the dead. For everyone who does these things is something detestable to God, and because of these detestable things your God is going to drive them out from before you.

Isaiah 47:13 mentions:

You have grown weary with the multitude of your counselors. Let them stand, now, and save you, the worshipers of heaven, the contemplators of the stars, those who spread knowledge in the new moons about the things that will come upon you.

The revelation that those men received did not have good consequences. Aroused the jealous anger of the evil King Herod, which, in turn, led to the flight of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt and resulted in the murder of all male children of Bethlehem "from two years of age to below"
Is this the reason why some "denominations" do not celebrate the day of the "Three Magi Kings"?


texts: Do any Protestant denominations practice meditative or contemplative prayer?

texts:
Having read David's answer to How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?, I wonder whether any Protestants practice meditative or contemplative forms of prayer, even if not so-called or even considered to be forms of prayer.

  2723 Meditation is a prayerful quest engaging thought,
  imagination, emotion, and desire. Its goal is to make our own in faith
  the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own
  life. 2724 Contemplative prayer is the simple expression of
  the mystery of prayer. It is a gaze of faith fixed on Jesus, an
  attentiveness to the Word of God, a silent love. It achieves real
  union with the prayer of Christ to the extent that it makes us share
  in his mystery. (Expressions of Prayer, In Brief)

Meditation, in Catholic terms, is an focusing of the mind beyond simple verbal, communicative constructs. It's an uplifting of the mind to God on a level beyond that of normal verbal conversation. It's an attempt at focusing thought, emotion, imagination, and desire on scripture, God, God's Truths, and is sometimes aided by a sort of mantra or rote prayer like the rosary, the Name of God, a particular verse, etc..

Contemplation, in Catholic terms, might be accurately thought of as the "falling" part of falling in love with God. It is sometimes the "next step" after a period of meditation. It's considered to be 100% grace -- you can't induce contemplation, you can only be "invited" in by God. The mechanics of focus in meditation are generally lost, and the pray-er submits God's awesome, perfect, unifying dialogue (not generally verbal though).

Do some/any denominations condone meditative and/or contemplative practices? If so, do they tend to refrain from calling these practices prayer -- and if so, why are they not considered prayer?


texts: Can we use KJV Bible version in mobile application

texts: We are using KJV version of Bible in our app distributed globally and we are based out of Canada. KJV is in public domain except UK. Does it mean that we should restrict the users in UK.


texts:
I know fear can mean multiple things. But what I'm getting out of Jude 1:23 is that people saved others by fearing something. Do they fear Satan? Or do they fear God? The whole time, I was assuming fear was a bad thing.

120 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
[KJV] my emphasis


texts: Does any church follow the Apostolic Tradition of Baptism ‘in the nude’, or was that never the tradition?

texts:
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 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not?

  21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition)


texts: What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura"?

texts: While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.


texts: Why are wise men common in contemporary [American] nativity scenes?

texts:
It is widely supported that the wise men were not present at the time of Jesus' birth. (ie. What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus?). However I only 'learned' of this quite late in my America/Protestant EFCA upbringing.

I've been perplexed since as to why the concept of wise men present during Jesus' birth appears to be propagated by Christians during Christmas1; the symbolism is common in Chistian paraphernalia/decorations, yearly 'Away in a Manger' plays mix shepherds/wise men, and such stories are [all too often] presented as 'truth' during such time;

Is the placement of the wise men at nativity scene common among churches that observe a 'nativity scene' Christmas?
When did the now 'traditional' nativity scene configuration become widespread? Was such tied to a religious (or cultural) movement? e.g. was there a Christian book that made such popular?

1 I realize that celebration of Christmas is very faith/church/culture specific and most such 'traditional' practices are not biblical-based. I also understand (and respect) that many Christians do not celebrate Christmas; or do not celebrate it in this manner.

I'm not looking for a defense, justification, or opinion of such, nor am I looking for a 'History of Christmas' except as such is immediately relevant to this particular perpetuated belief/story.


texts: What's the level of the teaching that we can't be sure someone is in Hell?

texts:
As far as I know, according to Catholic doctrine we can't be sure that any particular soul is in Hell. I understand the reasons (one can repent in the last moment, which is not observable by others), and I found some related doctrines (existence of Hell and whether it could be empty), but nothing indicating where in the levels of Catholic teaching the prohibition of proclaiming people to be condemned stands. I am almost sure it is not a dogma, but I've heard there are some canons against proclaiming that someone is in Hell, so it seems to be on some of the higher levels. If there really are such canons, I would like the answer to point to them.

EDIT: is it part of the infallible doctrine? If not, how strong is the view that calling someone condemned is a sin among Catholic moral theologians?


texts:
Mathew 15:11

  What goes into the mouth does not make anyone unclean; it is what
  comes out of the mouth that makes someone unclean.

Can Catholics eat food offered to idols?


texts: Had the Catholic Church a tradition of commemorating Abraham's sacrifice?

texts:
Eid ul-Adha or Bakrid is celebtrated all over the world by Muslims to commemorate the sacrifice that Abraham  offered in obedience to God.

My question is: Had the Catholic Church any tradition of commemorating, in a significant way,  the scrifice of Abraham as the forerunner of the scrifice that God the Father would later offer at Mount Calvary through His Only Son Jesus?


texts: What is the scriptural basis of the Tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament as in the Catholic churches?

texts:
This question extends from this one.

Is there scriptural basis of the Tabernacle WITH the Blessed Sacrament as in the Catholic churches?