texts: What is the current Vatican's position on the Council of Constance (regarding John Wycliffe) in 1415?

texts:
Wikipedia documents the following which occurred after the death (from a stroke) of John Wycliffe in 1384, at the age of 64 :

  The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively both excommunicating him retroactively and making him an early forerunner of Protestantism. The Council decreed that Wycliffe's works should be burned and his body remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[24] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

What is the current Vatican's position on the digging up of Wycliffe's body and its being burned ? And why did the Council require this ? Was it to prevent John Wycliffe from arising from the dead in the resurrection ?


texts: Does Christianity allow for believing on someone else's behalf?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 7, verse 14 (ESV) we can read:

  14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But in verse 16, Paul goes on to say:

  16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

So, what exactly does "holy" mean? Is it the same as "saved"? If not, what is the difference?

Does verse 14 refer to the relationship between husband and wife, and the relationship parents have with their children in particular, or is it better understood as "any believer in a househould will make all other members holy"?

Are there other bible verses about this topic that might help clearing this up?

Apparently, Acts 16, verses 31 to 34 are similar:

  31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

It's not clear to me what exactly the jailer did and what his family members did. Sometimes it sounds like the jailer's action were sufficient to save his family. On the other hand, I don't understand if, for example, the jailer would have been saved if his daughter (or maybe even his sister or other relative) had started believing in Jesus.

If there are different views depending on denomination, I would be interested in hearing them.


texts: How do Catholics interpret Romans 10:9-13?

texts:
How does the Roman Catholic church interpret the simplicity of Romans 10:9-13?

  Romans 10:9-13
  9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”


texts: How did the Virgin Mary's title "Mirror of Justice", used in some Catholic prayers, originate?

texts:
The Catholic prayer often known as the Litany of Loreto1 contains a number of descriptive titles of Mary, the mother of God—for example, "Mirror of Justice", "Seat of Wisdom", "Star of the Sea". Some of these titles are mentioned in a Wikipedia article entitled "Titles of Mary".

Neither of the linked Wikipedia articles, however, gives much historical information about the origin of the titles. What history has been collected about their origin (presumably prior to their incorporation into the Litany)? In particular I'm interested in the title "Mirror of Justice", as that doesn't immediately seem applicable to Mary in the way that (for example) "Refuge of Sinners" does.

1. cf. The Loreto Litanies - The Rosary - Holy See.


texts: Why do Pentecostals believe in a closed canon?

texts: Pentecostals believe the gift of prophecy continues to the present day. From what I understand, most Christians believe the gift of prophecy is what enabled the writers of Scripture to write "inspired" works. So why do Pentecostals believe in a closed canon if they believe in continuing revelation?


texts: According to Catholicism, does the eighth commandment (Do not bear false witness) obligate us to always tell the truth?

texts:
According to Catholic Teaching, does the eighth commandment

  You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

obligate us to always tell the truth?

Are there times when we are under no obligation to speak the truth?

Can one withhold the truth without violating the commandment?


texts:
In 1 Kings 21-10 (KJB) you can read

  And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

I've seen many translations that use "wicked men" or similar phrases, but there are many other translations that use "sons of Belial" too.

Who were these men? Do we know of some kind of priest that was under the allegiance of Belial in the times of Ahab and Jezebel?

There are two other occurrences of this phrase:

Deuteronomy 13:13

  Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

and

Judges 19:22

  Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

Thanks for your responses and God bless you.


texts: The rules on how and when people can wear a cross

texts: Which principles govern the wearing of crosses? Do some denominations require that it touch the skin, or that it never be removed? Will a cross hung on the neck and one on an ear have different implications? Do any doctrines actually ban people from wearing a cross?


texts:
On a recent trip a nice nun took a picture of my family.  I noticed that the nun was wearing a wedding band on her left hand.  I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that nuns are considered to be “brides of Christ”, which leads to my two-part  question.

Do all nuns wear these symbolic wedding bands?  If not, is this practice limited to certain religious orders, or is it an individual choice?


texts:
I heard that it is only through the gift of God's grace that we have the impulse to do good and that it is always with us - but the source that I heard this from was questionable, and in the context of Catholicism.

This got me thinking about the concept of grace in general, and when it applies, so this is a question of applicability.

In general Christian theology is it possible to be without God's grace? Either withdrawn/withheld/forfeited from a person or place.

What is the general overview, and are there specific sub-areas of interest to pay attention to in these matters?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the concept of 'balance' between 'two extremes'?

texts:
Any Christian at some point will be labeled an extremist. Also every Christian at some point will call other Christians extremists.
Even in any given local church, some will label each other this way.

The question is from what Biblical basis can we say 'balance is good', and therefore what kind of extremes should a person avoid?

For example, most Christians would agree that never reading God’s word but just being blown around by the Spirit would be an extreme position. In the same vein, always reading God’s word but denying the importance of the Spirit for understanding the Word would be the opposite extreme. Is this Biblical for me to paint extremes as bad things this way?

What is the scriptural basis for balance and what might be some commonly held views that are considered 'extreme' by most Christians, regardless of denomination?


texts: Were all the various systems of Gnosticism Docetist?

texts:
From Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition:

[The Savior] is also a way of distinguishing between Gnostic and non-Gnostic species of
Christianity, for one of the characteristics of Gnostic doctrine was its denial that the
Savior was possessed of a material, fleshly body .... an explicit effort to protect the
person of the Savior from involvement in matter and in suffering soon became a hallmark
of most Christian Gnostics.

Is Docetism a necessary feature of the label "Gnosticism", and are all Gnostics necessary Docetist, or are there examples of Gnostics that were not Docetist?

If Docetism is a necessary feature of Gnostics, why is this so? Pelikan mentions that they were very concerned with preserving the conflation of the Savior with matter.


texts:
This is a two-part question.

First: Throughout the Old Testament we read of the “imagination of the heart” and in Genesis 6:5 “imagination of the thoughts of the heart”.

In an earlier question “curiosity” was singled out and I wonder if there are any historical Church teachings that link the imagination of the heart with Holy curiosity?

Secondly: Are their any Christian teachings as to why God gave man an imagination?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, if God is just and loving why is Nature so needlessly brutal and cruel sometimes?

texts:
This question was brought about after reading a quote from Charles Darwin saying he couldn't believe in a benevolent creator due to the existence of parasitic wasps (which paralyze insects so that their young can eat them alive). I have to ask why would God created things like this and allow the world he created to be so awful and full of suffering. I understand that Adam and Eve sinning would lead to them being punished but why would God also make the existence of other innocent creations so awful and create living things whose very existence means suffering for others.

I am looking for an answer rooted in Catholic doctrine specifically.


texts: Are there any passages in the New Testament where Jesus himself condemns the practice of contraception? As a virgin and the product of a miraculous conception himself it would seem odd for Him to have a strong opinion on the subject.


texts: According to Roman Catholic teaching, did people who died in Old Testament times spend time in Purgatory?

texts:
I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that people today spend time in Purgatory after they die prior to going to heaven.

However, this teaching does not appear to have been taught in the Old Testament or been believed by Israel during that time.

Does the Catholic Church teach that people who died before the atonement of Christ, like Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc., also spent time in Purgatory before going to Heaven?


texts: How do those who reject both predestination and purgatory justify their beliefs?

texts:
For the sake of this question:

Predestination = from the foundations of the universe, God chose who will be saved.

Purgatory = a place where people suffer / are purified, and afterwards, they go to heaven.

Now, the difference between heaven and hell is quite large (positive infinity and negative infinity). In the predestination case, the gap between those that go to heaven and those who go to hell is justified as follows: God chose to save some, and Jesus's blood was paid for their debt. In this case, salvation is a binary choice by God.

In the purgatory case, everything looks more continuous: the gap also makes sense in that: depending on how "sinful" one was, one spends less or more time in purgatory.

Now, what I don't understand about the Armenian case is as follows:

*) there lacks a binary choice by God (since there was no predestination)

*) yet, the suffering/punishment after death is not continuous -- there's no purgatory

Thus it seems very weird that on a continuous scale of human sinfulness, in the absence of a binary choice by God, the gain/loss after death is so different.

Note

Suggestions / clarifications to this question welcome.


texts:
Christianity does not have a clear and unambiguous definition. Rather, I see Christianity as an umbrella term that includes a variety of multiple branches, with many shared beliefs, but also not exempt of notable points of disagreement. In some cases, the disagreements have been so extreme that they have led to major divisions within the Church. I'm totally aware of this fact and, therefore, I do not seek arguments for individual branches. Instead, I'm interested in the main arguments used to defend the veracity of several core beliefs of Christianity, shared by the majority of Christendom, which are specific enough to distinguish Christianity from other religions.
To the best of my knowledge, the following are core beliefs of Christianity that are accepted as true by the vast majority of Christians:

Monotheism: there is one God, who created the universe.
There is a  spirit realm beyond the physical.
Miracles are possible (or at least are believed to have occurred in the past).
Angels exist.
Satan exists, demons exist, and the world is (and has been) heavily under their influence.
There is an ongoing spiritual battle for the eternal destiny of each human soul (eternal salvation vs eternal damnation).
The Bible was inspired by God.
The resurrection of Jesus was a historical fact.

I'm not sure if there are other core beliefs that I'm missing, or if the beliefs listed above should be reworded to be more accurate (if so, please let me know in the comments). That said, I think that these eight core beliefs are sufficient, in the sense that if they are proven to be true, they together would create a very compelling case for the veracity of  Christianity over any other religion.
I quickly searched the literature for examples of what apologists usually argue for and noticed that most apologists tend to focus on beliefs #1 (Monotheism: there is one God, who created the universe) and #8 (The resurrection of Jesus was a historical fact). This makes sense, because the former makes the case for monotheistic theism in general, whereas the latter complements by making the case for Christianity specifically.
That said, point #5 (Satan exists, demons exist, and the world is (and has been) heavily under their influence) is definitely a core belief of Christianity too. Satan is all over the place in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus casted demons out of people left and right during his ministry, according to the four gospels. The fact that the Scriptures teach about the existence of Satan and his minions is overwhelmingly clear and undeniable, to the point that I'm not sure if it is even possible to be a Christian and not believe in the existence of Satan and his army of demons.
Question: Has any Christian Apologist ever published arguments for the existence of Satan, demons and their ongoing influence over human matters?


texts: How common is intinction in the Catholic Church?

texts:
Intinction at communion is "the practice of dipping the bread in the cup and partaking the elements simultaneously".

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) at their 2012 General Assembly narrowly voted in favor of an amended version of Overture 30, which would prohibit celebrating communion by intinction. (But this will not actually happen unless 2/3 of the presbyteries, and the next GA, also approve it.) Many lengthy arguments were deployed on both sides.

One of the minor arguments on the pro-intinction side is that the practice is common among Catholics and the Orthodox, and it would be a welcoming gesture if this mode of celebration was explicitly authorized. There are also other Protestant denominations, including Presbyterians, that allow it among other options. I believe that this is indeed the standard way of administering communion in the Eastern Orthodox churches, but I'm not so sure about the Catholics (specifically, Catholics in the USA). The General Instruction of the Roman Missal allows it, but the language seems like it's being authorized only as an alternative method.

How common is intinction in Catholic churches in the USA? Is it seen as a relatively normal thing to do, or is it controversial?


texts: Modern religious law it still applicable?

texts: Leviticus 20 literally is associated with Israelites. Why is there a necessity for association with modern law?


texts: What did Jonathan Edwards have to say about the fact that he owned slaves?

texts:
I recently learned from a John Piper podcast that Jonathan Edwards owned slaves.

Edwards lived in the early and mid 18th century, long before the American Civil War, and passed away decades before Wilberforce would begin his abolitionist work in England.* Nevertheless, many believe that ownership of slaves seemed uncharacteristic of a man like Edwards who, in his preaching and writing, placed such an emphasis on piety and holiness.

What did Edwards have to say about his ownership of slaves? Did he ever address the issue of slavery in any of his published works?

* Of course, that's simply context, and not an excuse.


texts:
Can a secular government ever be a moral authority?  For example, if there comes a day in the future that a secular government decrees that murder is no longer a criminal offense in that nation, should a Christian living in that nation feel confident that they do no wrong if/when they murder someone because they strongly believe that their secular government is a moral authority?

Furthermore, when that Christian dies and stands before God on Judgement Day and they tell God that they strongly believed that all the laws passed by the secular government were morally good, will God automatically forgive that person of the murder(s) they committed?


texts: According to Acts 20:7, which day was the first day of the week?

texts:
According to Acts 20:7,

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (KJV)
Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν τοῦ κλάσαι ἄρτον ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου

early Christians used to assemble on the first day of the week. But, was this assembly on Saturday night, since Hebrew calendrical days were reckoned from sunset to sunset? Or could the Gregorian calendar have impacted the way this verse was translated since it was the standard calendrical system when the King James Version was published?


texts: Has there ever existed a Catholic local church feast at Rome in honor of the Domine Quo Vadis?

texts:
The Church of St. Mary in Palmis at Rome, originally was called the Church of Domine Quo Vadis. The title of this church takes its' name from a pious tradition that St. Peter one day decided to leave Rome because of the persecutions. As he was leaving the city Jesus appeared to Peter. The apostle then asked Jesus, "Where are you going" (Domine quo vadis)? To which Jesus responded, "To Rome to be crucified again!" After this courage was restored to St Peter and he returned to Rome. Has there ever been a feast celebrated in the honor of this pious legend?

Traditionally, if a Local Church has a particular title to it, it should have a feast day associated with it!

Quo vadis? (on Wikipedia)
Church of Domine quo vadis (on Wikipedia)


texts: What is the will of the (Catholic) Church when she baptizes?

texts:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that, in an emergency, any person with the right intention can baptize. And “the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.” (CCC 1256)

I can’t find anywhere a clear description of what it means to will to do what the church does. Any suggestions? I would appreciate a solid reference.


texts: Who is entitled to partake in the Lord's Supper?

texts:
1 Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

What does this mean, "unworthily"? (cp. 1 Cor. 11:29)

Religious denomination practices range from churches where only the leaders are entitled to take communion whereas other churches encourage communion even for those who didn't prepare for it.

So how can we make sure that we don't approach communion "unworthily"?


texts:
A conversion presumably severs the spiritual ties with one's baptismal godparents. I am reading about a convert from Russian Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism, who apparently converted around age 20 and was confirmed around age 50. The confirmation, his only surviving sacramental record, names a godfather that he could not possibly have met until he was an adult.

In a comment, curiousdannii reveals that the term of art is "sponsor" (thanks!). Do converts to Catholicism always have exactly one sponsor? Does sponsorship differ from godparenthood? When do they get the sponsor?


texts: How could a seventh-century heretic have possessed papal infallibility?

texts:
More specifically: How does the Roman Catholic Church reconcile the doctrine of Papal Infallibility with the Sixth Ecumenical Council's pronouncement regarding Pope Honorius?

The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681 CE) posthumously declared Pope Honorius to be a heretic because he had embraced the doctrine of monothelitism.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, formalized in 1870 but said to have been an accepted teaching for many centuries, says that when the Bishop of Rome speaks "ex cathedra" he is necessarily infallible.

Even if Pope Honorius did not speak ex cathedra when discussing monothelitism, it seems problematic that the same church which declared an individual capable of infallible speech could later find that the same individual was also a heretic.

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever formally addressed this seeming tension, and if so, where and how?


texts: Was the tabernacle ceiling straight or pointed?

texts:
Which image describes the Tabernacle ceiling or roof as mentioned in the Book of Exodus, and what verse explains that?  Was it straight or pointed?

1:

Or 2:

Or 3 (straight from inside, with a covering pyramid like layer around it?):


texts: What is the biblical basis for humans becoming angels after they die?

texts:
Many Christians, and many people living in predominantly Christian cultures, believe that people who die become angels.

This belief is reflected in numerous popular novels and movies, such as the classic 1946 American movie It's a Wonderful Life, in which a guardian angel named Clarence occasionally refers to events of his life (and death) as a human being on earth.

And when someone has died, family members and friends of the deceased person commonly speak of him or her as being an angel in heaven now.

What is the biblical basis for the belief that human beings become angels after they die?


texts: Could there have been a pragmatic purpose for the OT legal dietary restrictions?

texts:
Were swine prone to transmit disease in the conditions around the time of Moses? This consideration and similar are what I'm interested in.

Please answer only if you have a clear and solid source to back up the scientific foundation of your claims, wikipedia being okay for this purpose.

UPDATE:
To clarify what I mean by dietary restrictions, due some of the discussions that followed:
I do not mean ritual cleanliness, but rather the diet itself, i.e. ruminates, fish, locust.

As I have mentioned in the comments a complete answer can not be expected, but if someone has studied this subject, they will still find an open slot for an accepted answer.


texts: What are the theological implications of "filioque"?

texts:
Depending on your tradition, the Nicene Creed may or may not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father:

  (Greek) τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον - who from the Father proceeds
  (Latin) qui ex Patre Filioque procedit - who from the Father and the Son proceeds

This has been a point of contention between the Orthodox and Western churches, the latter category including both Catholics and Protestants, for at least a thousand years, contributing to the Great Schism. I have read about the history of "filioque" but I have basically no idea what the theological difference is meant to be. I understand that there is some doubt about whether "ἐκπορευόμενον" means the same thing as "procedit", so both versions could be right (and apparently we all agree it would be wrong to insert "and the Son" into the Greek) but I don't see what either version of "proceeding" is meant to imply about the nature of the Trinity.

If the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father alone, what does that actually mean for our understanding of God?


texts: Have any Orthodox clergy expressed a belief in an impending doomsday/judgment?

texts:
For a few months now, I have been receiving unsolicited letters, pamphlets, and bulletins regarding the 'end times', 'coming prophetic storm', 'God's impending judgement', etc.

I have family members who are extremely concerned about Jonathan Cahn's bloodmoon judgement literature (he says the four recent lunar eclipses are a sign from God telling us something crazy is about to happen, I can't distinguish this from astrology).

It seems that a significant percentage of the Protestant church in America believes God will produce some type of upheaval, whether it's the Second Coming or a smaller-scale judgement event, very shortly. Have any Orthodox priests or deacons expressed this belief?


texts: How to verify if a "message from God" came from God?

texts:
If I doubted on the authenticity of a "message", must I automatically associate it with the enemy's attacks?

Message here refers to any information that might be related to God's Will in our lives.


texts: Does St. Gertrude's prayer have any (semi-)official standing in the Catholic Church?

texts:
I'd like to know if there was any official or unofficial statement given by the Roman Catholic Church on the St. Gertrude's prayer that saves 1000 souls from purgatory?

Is there even any record from her biography that she received this prayer and information that the prayer has this power?

Source


texts: "God desires all men to be saved" from a Calvinist perspective?

texts:
If I understand correctly, Calvinists believe that God selects certain people for salvation based solely on His will... that is, the selection has nothing to do with the people themselves.
My question is about the following passages:

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  1 Timothy 2:3-4
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.  2 Peter 3:9
Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. . . . For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord God. “Therefore, repent and live.” Ezekiel 18:27-32

It seems ... like God wants everyone to be saved and "live", and does not want people to die and go to Hell.  If this is the will of God, and God decides who will be saved based solely on His will ... then why isn't everyone going to be saved?


texts: According to the scripture, when and how is the world destroyed?

texts: There is a lot of talk about the end times. But where and when in the scripture does it recount the world actually being destroyed? In the end of John's Revelation we have the new heaven and earth, and at the beginning the old. More specifically, at what event and by what means are the old heavens and earth destroyed?


texts: Similarities and differences between the priesthood in the Catholic and the LDS Church

texts:
As a follow up to Similarities and differences between the priesthood of all believers and the LDS priesthood, I ask what are similarities and differences between the priesthood in the Catholic and LDS Church?

Some obvious similarities are the hierarchical structure, and emphasis on education. Obvious differences include the ratio of priesthood holders to non-priesthood holders, and the formality of education required.

Note: I'm just looking for an overview/summary. Every similarity and difference would obviously be too big for this site.


texts: How do Cessationists explain extreme manifestations of shaking and trembling observed in religious settings?

texts:
In some religious settings, e.g. Pentecostal and Charismatic gatherings, there are people who experience extreme cases of body shaking and trembling. There are many illustrative live recordings of these phenomena freely available on the web. Check out my related question on Psychology.SE where I list several examples and even first-hand testimonies. Some of these examples are quite dramatic. For instance, some people cry, shake dramatically and fall to the ground as if overwhelmed by something the preacher "transmitted" onto them (like here, here, here). Others do not need a preacher around them to trigger the experience and claim that the source of the shaking is God's overwhelming presence (like here). Some people perform very strange shaking movements allegedly because a demon was being cast out of them (like here, here). Some people tremble dramatically as if being electrocuted (like here, here, here, here). Here you have examples of a child and an elderly shaking and fainting. Finally, here you have a first-hand account of a demonic deliverance recently uploaded to YouTube where the individual testifies about extreme involuntary and uncontrollable shaking. These are just a few examples I'm highlighting for illustrative purposes, but feel free to find more on the Psychology.SE question I mentioned before or by searching on your own.
Also, the reality of this phenomenon is even acknowledged by peer-reviewed papers such as this one and this one. Both papers explicitly mention shaking and trembling as a manifestation experienced by some people in certain spiritual experiences. However, neither of them provides a scientific theory that explains what is causing the shaking and trembling in the first place. In other words, they acknowledge the phenomenon, but don't provide a scientific explanation for it. In fact, my question on Psychology.SE has been open for a good while and has not received answers yet providing a scientific explanation (which is what you would expect with any kind of supernatural phenomena - if it is indeed supernatural).
So, in the face of these undeniable manifestations, I'm interested in the official position taken by Cessationists. I foresee two possible positions a Cessationist could take (both leading to tricky dilemmas that I would like to know how Cessationists address):

The phenomenon has a natural explanation: if this is your position, then please provide a scientific explanation of the phenomenon, otherwise you would just be stating a speculative opinion.

The phenomenon is supernaturally caused by demons: if this is the case, that would mean that demons are performing counterfeit manifestations today. But if demons are performing counterfeit manifestations today, wouldn't that mean that the Holy Spirit is producing genuine manifestations today also? Because if there are counterfeit manifestations, that means there is a "real thing" being counterfeited. But that would contradict the Cessationist assumption that "real things" ceased 2000 years ago and there is no "real thing" for today, correct? Moreover, believing that demonic possessions are for today would logically entail believing that casting out of demons is also for today, but wouldn't this be another contradiction with Cessationism?

So, how do Cessationists explain these evidently undeniable manifestations of extreme shaking and trembling in religious settings?


texts: What if Genesis 15:6 is translated incorrectly?

texts:
I had this thought looking at the context and looking at the four words usually doubled in length - what if our entire interpretation of this passage is wrong?
English:

[Gen 15:6 KJV] 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him
for righteousness.

Masoretic:

15:6  וְהֶאֱמִן בַּֽיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָֽה׃

If we were to simply look at these four words in their most fundamental meaning:
emunah (trust / fidelity / believe / steadfast)
YHVH (Lord / Yehovah)
hasab (counted / accounted)
tsedeqa (just / righteous)
In the greater context back to Malkiy-Tsedeq in the prior chapter, Abram broke bread and drank wine with the King of Righteousness - High Priest to YHVH. Then YHVH makes a promise to Abram, and why did Abram trust YHVH? Because Abram knew that YHVH is not a man that he would lie, that he would follow through on his promise.
Abram trusted YHVH to be counted just.
Now my questions:
Is there any translation that prefers this interpretation?
Is there any reason my logic in this for the context and the four words used could be flawed?
What if the "accounting" is Abram telling us he trusts YHVH because he knows YHVH is just?


texts: Why was Tamar more righteous than Judah?

texts:
Genesis 38 tells the story of Judah and Tamar. At first Tamar was married to Er (Judah's firstborn son) but he was wicked and killed by the Lord v6-7. So Judah tells Tamar to wait until his youngest son, Shelah, grows up v11 (to marry her?). Years go by and Tamar is never given to Shelah as a wife so Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute and Judah sleeps with her since he doesn't recognize her. When he finds out she's pregnant, he wants her burned to death but she proves he is the one who impregnated her to which Judah replies, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah" v26.

Why does Judah say that Tamar is more righteous than himself? I feel like I'm missing something.


texts:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to these people who are guilty of scandal

Teachers who provoke their children to anger
CCC - 2286

Is that teachers who are just being mean to their children (I would think that would be malice or some other sin, not scandal) or teachers who are provoking their children into becoming angry activists?


texts: Did the metphor of double-edged sword originate in Psalms?

texts:
We see at Hebrews 4:12:

  Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

We also see at Psalms 149:6:

  Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand

My question is: did the writer of Hebrews have in mind the Psalms while using the metaphor of double-edged sword for the Word of God ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church speak about the possible origin of the metaphor used in Hebrews ?


texts: If according to the Jehovah Witnesses that "there was a time when God was alone," who was with God at John 1:1?

texts:
The source for my question is found at the Jehovah Witnesses own web site: The Watchtower :

  His Origin Was From Early Times: "Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone."

It then asks a rhetorical question:

  Who was his first creation?

They say:

  The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as "the beginning of the creation by God." (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation." Source: Watchtower 2005 9/15 pp. 4-7: Who Is Jesus Christ?

From the NASB it says at John 1:1,

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was God."

According to the context the "Word/Logos" is identified as Jesus Christ. John 1:1-14.

  He was in the beginning with God and He was God.

If you're with somebody your a distinct person from that somebody.

Moreover, there is only one beginning. John's "beginning" is referring to the Genesis 1:1 beginning. At the Genesis 1:1 beginning it states, "In the beginning God created. So the Genesis "beginning" is telling us WHAT HAPPENED "in the beginning."

At John 1:1, "in the beginning" the emphasis in on WHO EXISTED "in the beginning." And verses like John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being. Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10 and even Revelation 3:14 backs up John 1:1. At Revelation 3:14 Jesus is the "arche/beginning" or the source and origin of the beginning of time and space. We get our English word "architect" from the Greek word, "arche."

The following confirms what was stated and if more information is needed, that can be suppied as well: John 1.


texts: Greek- what's the difference between Ιησοῖ, Ιησούς, and Ιησού?

texts: I've been looking through the Septuagint and NT Greek manuscripts online and seen these different forms of the name for both Joshua and Jesus. Can someone please explain to me the differences?


texts: How do those who believe man is tripartite respond to Gen. 2:7, "the man became a living soul"?

texts:
Those who believe that man is bipartite (a soul consisting of body and spirit) cite Gen. 2:7 as proof that man does not have a soul, but rather, man is a soul. Consequently, they deny any assertion that a soul continues to exist after the death of the body (i.e., disembodied soul). Yet, certain scriptures seem to confirm the existence of an embodied soul, such as 1 Thes. 5:23,

  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. (KJV)

How do those who believe that man is tripartite answer the objection (from those who believe that man is bipartite) that a man is a living soul and therefore does not have a soul, based on Gen. 2:7?


texts: What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3?

texts:
The English translation of 2 Thes. 2:3 according to New American Bible, Revised Edition:

  3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, NAB, 2011

The Greek text of 2 Thes. 2:3 according to the Textus Receptus states,

  Γ μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας TR, 1550

For the purpose of this question which requests an answer from Catholics, let us assume Catholicism represents the true Christian faith.

Has the “the apostasy” (ἡ ἀποστασία) already occurred? If so, what is it, and when did it occur?
If not, what criteria would the Pope and magisterium use to identify the apostasy when it occurs?
Has “the man of sin, the son of perditionÌ (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας) been revealed? If so, who is he, and when was he revealed?
If not, again, what criteria would the Pope and magisterium use to identify this individual when he is revealed?

Note: The text seems to imply that “the apostasy” is not simply one individual’s apostasy, as individuals have been apostasizing since the beginning of the Church. Rather, it appears more evident, easily discernable, not en masse, but certainly more than a handful of individuals apostasizing from the Catholic Church (assuming the Catholic Church is the Church, the body of Christ).


texts: Where was God prior to creating the ***Heavens*** and the Earth?

texts:
Genesis chapter 1:1 says:

  Genesis 1:1 NKJV  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That verse has always been an enigma to me. It clearly states that God created more than one Heaven. So before creating multiple Heavens, where did God abide, and even more intriguing is did God; who is Spirit even need a place in which to abide?


texts: Why does the LDS church  (Mormon) put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do?

texts: Why do Mormons put so much more emphasis on the family than most other denominations do? What about their doctrine causes this? Or is it more because of culture/tradition?


texts: Did the Emperor Constantine ever present explanations for putting off his baptism?

texts: The Emperor Constantine who favored Christianity as early as 312, and convened the Council of Nicæa in 325, postponed baptism till 337. Did he provide any reasons for doing so?


texts:
In St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, it said

  But to know distinctly what is contained in the universal
  whole is to know the less common, as to "animal" indistinctly is to know it as "animal"; whereas
  to know "animal" distinctly is know it as "rational" or "irrational animal," that is, to know a man
  or a lion: therefore our intellect knows "animal" before it knows man; and the same reason holds
  in comparing any more universal idea with the less universal.

(Answer of Question 85(3))

  Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its
  property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it
  possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly
  to name a man, we should call him a "rational substance," but not an "intellectual substance," which
  latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property,
  and to man by participation; nor do we call him a "sensible substance," which is the proper name
  of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent
  way than to other animals.

(Answer of Question 108(5))

So human being is defined as rational animal(or rational substance), and animal is sensible substance. However, androids with AI have complete rationality too, and they can be sensible with sensors. So is android a kind of mankind?
Androids seems also rational substances, thus they are men by the definition. However in common sense they don't have souls, hence mustn't be mankind. That seems a paradox.

So my question: Are androids have souls? Are androids rational substances? If they are rational substances but don't have souls, are they mankind? Why?

Note: 'Android' in here means a kind of intelligent robot which is similar to ours, not a kind of Google's OS.


texts: Jesus Christ received the Holy Spirit when he was 30 years old. Wasn't that supposed to take place much earlier?


texts: How do JWs reconcile the belief that Satan was cast to earth in 1914 with Job 1:7 and Job 2:2?

texts:
Based on this other question, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the events depicted in Revelation 12:9, 12 happened in 1914.

The text in these two verses says (from KJV here):

  9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
  Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

  12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to
  the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down
  unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a
  short time.

My understanding is that other denominations have other beliefs on when these events happened. For example according to the answers to this other question, the Catholic viewpoint is that it happened very early in the creation.

Also, if I look at the book of Job for example, I see that Satan describes himself as roaming on the earth in some sense. For example the book of Job (completed thousands of years ago) says in 1:7 (KJV)

  7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan
  answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and
  from walking up and down in it.

A similar statement by Satan is also found in Job 2:2 (KJV).

Also if Satan was the one who tempted Eve, he should have been able to be on earth long before 1914.

Are these parts not in conflict with the idea that Satan was cast to earth in 1914? How do Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile them with the belief that Satan was cast to earth in 1914?


texts: How do human rights and Christianity relate to each other?

texts:
Now it is really getting interesting - this is the third question in a row (after this one and this one). So please make sure you read those two to understand this one in context.

Caleb wrote:

  human rights is another issue! That is another example of something
  that is not wrong for God but very much wrong for humans. I do believe
  in human rights (by virtue of being created in God's image AND being
  his property that man should not dare to trespass and abuse) but that
  might be the topic for another question in itself.

Continuing:

  However I would still assert that Christianity is not in conflict with
  undeniable human rights. In fact they are absolute in so far as they
  are granted by an absolute God.

My question is:

How is God allowed to breach these undeniable human rights for example by extensive torturing people?

Again: Please make sure you read the other questions and especially this and this answer and the comments to make sure that you understand the context of this question! Thank you!


texts: Alexander Helios disappearance-Scriptural Nephites?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, Alexander Helios is the son of Cleopatra VII. He disappeared fleeing Egypt with his people (roughly 50,000) after being defeated by Octavian in 31 BC.

His parents committed suicide after finding out about his disappearance. Alexander Helios was never found again. There are some theories that Egyptians came to America and left loads of treasure in the Grand Canyon.

They carved out a cave that looking as if it could hold 50,000 men. There is also a theory that they had built a pyramid inside the grand canyon somewhere on the North Rim. Here is a LINK to a News Paper Article of past findings.

The Nephites in the Book of Mormon are considered very Egyptian and CAME to America. Is there a possibility that Alexander's group of people were the Book of Mormon Nephites?


texts: What is the meaning of the large statue of a pine cone in Vatican City?

texts: What is the meaning of this statue in Vatican City?


texts: Who is the best prophet in Christianity? and is he the best human being in the eyes of God?

texts:
The degree of how well God is worshipped varies from person to person, some do better deeds, have better morals, or do greater sacrifices than others, so it seems natural that there will be some human who is the best human in the eyes of God. I'm curious if Christians have some consensus on who is the best human or the most perfect human being, in terms of following God's orders.

I am asking this question with the assumption that Jesus is not human and does not worship someone/something since He is God himself (my assumption may be wrong). I guess my question is more about who is the best worshipper of God? If it's Jesus then did Jesus actually "worship"? How so?


texts: According to LDS (Mormon) theology, is friendship eternal?

texts:
I am familiar with the doctrine of the sealing power, which "refers to the marriage of a husband and wife and to the joining together of children and parents in relationships that are to endure forever." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

It's obvious that family relationships will endure beyond the grave, however what about deep friendships? There are those who might even consider certain friendships to be as strong as family ties. What is the official position of the Church regarding whether these also "are to endure forever"?

The larger meta-question is "what is the nature of the celestial society?" What kind of associations will there be among those who aren't sealed to each other as opposed to those who are? If there isn't a statement addressing this directly, what can be reasonably inferred from existing statements and doctrine?


texts: Why is use of the phrase "for God's sake" often considered sinful?

texts:
I often hear this on some people even in games, who use the phrase "for God's sake" or something similar ("for God's sakes," etc.)

I don't see how this can be considered sinful or blasphemous, considering passages like Isaiah 43:25 and Matthew 10:22:

  Isaiah 43:25
  "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, For My [God] own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

  Matthew 10:22
  You will be hated for my name sake

Here's the meaning of Sake -

The no.3 definition used this phrase. My question is:

On what basis is it said that a sin is committed when using this phrase?  Why is it blasphemous?

I suspect that this will be considered "taking God's name in vain."  But how could that be distinguished from me saying "For His name sake I will repent or I will do this and that."  In the back of my mind, I know this depends on how strong the phrase is delivered and the context / circumstances. I just want to a little enlightenment to this.


texts: According to the Bible, is cremation an acceptable Christian practice?

texts: I have heard some people speak against cremation for Christians, because of the ties it has to some eastern religions.  But what does the Bible actually say about cremation, or any other burial practices?


texts: Was chaos the initial state of the earth at creation?

texts:
We read in Genesis 1:1-2

  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Does this mean that God initially created the heaven and the earth in a chaotic state? This is contrary to all creative processes that we find either in nature or that are the results of man's actions. Therefore should we understand Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as sequential events that occurs one after the other in time or would that mean there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and that during that time the earth's state degraded and God reshapedit to make it a suitable home for Adam and Eve?

Thank you for any help on this.


texts: What was earlier the Earth or the Solar System?

texts:
My question is concerning the Creation (with literal interpretation, but accepting that the Earth could be millions of years old with the gap theory).

The Bible starts with a statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." At this point there is no reference to the Sun or the other planets.
The next verse show us Tohu and Bohu. Some say that between these two verses there is a gap, so the second verse is actually the picture of the Earth after a doom.

The next verses about the Creation concerning the Earth: light, darkness, vault, water, land, seas, plant, trees (interesting that according to this, plants were created earlier than the Sun). After these, we read that "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars". And what about the other planets? These are not mentioned here.

So, according to the scripture it seems to be clear that the Earth was earlier than the Sun. However more interesting question is about, what was earlier the Earth or the other planets (e.g.: Mars, Saturn)?

Later in the book of Job (26,12) [you can find it as well in Isaiah 51,9] there is a mysterious verse: "By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces." [in Hebrew means shake or smash] Of course, this Rahab is not about the hero of faith. There is an interpretation that here Rahab is about a rebel being or a planet (some say it's the Earth before Adam), which was penetrated (if it's a planet some say, then it could collide with an other smaller planet). Here we can mention that there are theories concerning that the Earth collided with a smaller planet (it could be a doom). Some say that there are angels whose tasks is to protect planets. Anyway the angels are told to be connected to stars as well. What is more, in many culture planets are connected to gods or spiritual beings (Venus-Aphrodite, Mars, Hades-Pluto, Hermes-Mercurius, Kronos-Saturn, Poseidon-Neptune, Zeus-Jupiter). So one of the angels could be the protector of Rahab. The above mentioned things would be references to pre adamic planets.

What do you know about this topic?

Thank you for your answers in advance!


texts: A female demon name starting with the letter "S"

texts: Is there a female demon in christain or pagan mythology who's name starts with the letter "S". In a TV documentary titled "A haunting" on Discovery, I herd her name but have forgotten. I think its "sarah" or "sera" or "seri". I don't remember correctly.


texts: Does John's Gospel explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John?

texts:
Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and none were written by eyewitnesses. [Wikipedia]

Doesn't John's gospel explicitly state that it was written by the disciple John?


texts: How does Jesus describe God in the Gospels

texts:
How did Jesus explain the nature of God in the NT narratives ? Please cite only the relevant verses where Jesus himself describes the nature of God.

I wanted to again clarify , that I am interested in Jesus's sayings  firsthand and not someone else interpreting it what he said.


texts: Is Jesus God, as well as the son of God in LDS?

texts:
I have not yet been able to find the answer to this question, about LDS Mormon beliefs. I think, because Mormon belief is different from orthodox / mainstream Christianity, that this question provokes anxiety and anger, and is not wanted among Mormons.

  The Question: Do Mormons consider Jesus to be God, as the Father is God and as the Holy Spirit is God?


texts:
1 Kings 22:19-28
19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.
“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”
24 Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from[a] the Lord go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.
25 Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”
26 The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city and to Joash the king’s son 27 and say, ‘This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.’”
28 Micaiah declared, “If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me.” Then he added, “Mark my words, all you people!”

So God sends a spirit enticing Ahab in order to attack Ramoth Gilead. If I may dare ask, why does God feel the need to send a deceiving spirit? Would this not go against the Commandments God has given? And why was such a spirit even within the close proximity in the presence of the Lord in the first place? I wish to know how to reconciling this text with others.


texts: Where did Augustine say that the same fire that tortures the damned purifies the elect?

texts: I've seen it quoted on internet sites that Augustine said that the same fire that tortures the damned purifies the elect. Supposedly he meant by this that the fires of Purgatory and Hell are the same. Where does this quote come from?


texts: The Blessing of Herbs on the Feast of the Assumption?

texts: Is there any confirmed historical evidence as to the origins to support the tradition that the Blessing of Herbs and Fruit is associated with the Feast of the Assumption?


texts: What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain?

texts:
Quoting Biblical text is technically a dicey proposition.  While the original manuscripts are obviously public domain, not every translation is.
Indeed, the NIV even posts the following copyright notice on BibleGateway:

Copyright Information
The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows:
THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale.

Given this, what significant translations of the Bible can I actually quote at length?


texts: The book of revelation as comfort to persecuted early Christians

texts:
I have heard* that the book of revelation was written to provide comfort to persecuted Christians in the early days during persecution from Rome. And that the contents are best understood as metaphors for the the end of that persecution, the imagery as evocative of certain persons/institutions of the day.

Is this a commonly held belief, or a doctrine of any churches or movements?

*My grandfather was a minister in the United Church of Christ. He discussed this topic with my mother, when she asked him about it. She then related it to me many years later when I asked her about it. (Personal story included to ward off claims of unsourced opinion.)


texts: Do paedobaptists suggest that a baptised infant is really 'born again'?

texts:
This question is for Protestant Trinitarians and addresses the divide among the various denominations of Protestantism, particularly Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Anglicanism, who baptise infants rather than adults.
I was, myself, 'baptised' as an infant, but late in infancy as my father was a Church of Scotland clergyman in the remote Highlands of Scotland and was not permitted to baptise his own child, so the matter was delayed and I remember it vividly at the age of five. But after conversion at the age of sixteen I volunteered to be baptised in a Baptist assembly (and my father graciously attended).
Among all the arguments to and fro about circumcision and 'sanctification' it is still not clear to me if those who baptise infants actually claim that the child is 'born again' in the various senses in which that term is used in the New Testament, that is to say : born from above (anothen); born anew (anagennao) ; born again (paligenesis) ; born of God ; and born of water and Spirit.
What exactly do paedobaptists believe is happening (in New Testament terms) during the ritual of placing water on a baby ?
And if they regard it so (that this is genuine 'new birth') then can such infants not be recovered if they (initially) reject the gospel in childhood since that would be regarded (in New Testament terms) as being a castaway, having been 'born again' only to reject Christ ?


texts: What proportion of Christians worldwide identify as Christian for social/cultural reasons rather than religious conviction?

texts:
In 2007 survey showed that only half of the French who identify themselves as Catholics believed in God.

  Some respondents indicated that for them, Catholicism involves a social or cultural identity rather than a religious commitment.

I was wondering whether global figures were known, i.e. do we know how large globally is the share of Christians (alternatively of Catholics) which believe in God?


texts: Is the incarnation of Jesus permanent, according to reformers like Luther or Calvin?

texts:
Before, I thought that by the time Jesus died, that's the end of His incarnation state after He fulfilled His role, spilling His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Below is an article I found in this link about the purpose of the Incarnation :

  Second, it was necessary for the Savior to shed His blood for the
  forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). A blood sacrifice, of course,
  requires a body of flesh and blood.

So... from the article above (my own conclusion) :after the purpose of the Incarnation achieved – God return to His original/default state which is a spirit (without flesh) and has one nature only. This state doesn't mean that God cannot "flesh" Himself anymore.

But I just know it today from the internet that God incarnation is permanent. Just like if today there is someone say, then he say : "God in heaven now is not just a spirit but a spirit with a human flesh - God now is not only with one nature but two natures".

My question:
Is there any reading about this matter from Luther or Calvin or any other Reformed Church's father?


texts: Which, if any, Protestant bodies affirm punishment in the afterlife for the unrighteous prior to the general resurrection and the Day of the Lord?

texts:
In the old testament, when people died they were said to descend to Sheol. It wasn't particularly spiritualized as much as it was just an understanding that dead people go to the grave and the grave swallows them up. There was an understanding that the spirit is not annihilated, but not a completely articulated theology of some division into those in punishment and those in paradise.

In Greek Sheol is Hades, and in English, Hell. Within the New Testament, we are confirmed that the thief on the cross with Jesus would be with him in paradise "today", i.e. not on the last day in the resurrection. Paul also assures us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, presumable, if you are saved.

So it's relatively clear that upon the resurrection there will be a resurrection unto life with a new heavens, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem. There will be a resurrection unto death with a lake of fire and the smoke of their torment rises forever. What is not completely clear to me is that presently dead individuals immediately enter into a state of torment while awaiting the resurrection.

The go-to proof for this is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. On the one hand, it seems to discussing Sheol, not the resurrection. On the other hand, it is after all a parable and might not be a good place to draw a complete theology of the afterlife. In addition, it would introduce a paradox. To be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", but the rich man apparently has a tongue which wants water, and his body is in anguish. He seems to have a body. This isn't a problem if it is indeed a parable, but it also would take away the legitimacy of using this parable to tell us something about the unbelieving dead, right now.

Jesus also spoke about "Hell", but as Gehenna, not Sheol/Hades. It is clear that this is a place that "soul and body" are destroyed in flames. The alternate of "entering life" is something that Jesus seems to say is something that it would better to "enter lame". Again, problematic. I thought the body is restored and glorified in life. Many people point to this passage as an example of hyperbole. Some (universalists) postulate that in these passages, Jesus is referring to the literal Gehenna where idolaters and idols perished with an allusion to the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, as if to say that the immoral would literally die in this manner. There might be an implication this is true, but even so, it would be true in an apocalyptic sense as well, in which human events with spiritual meanings are said to take on a cosmic dimension. Thus it would make sense that Jesus is actually talking about the second death and might be foreshadowing their first death in the siege.

But so it's all quite confusing. What happens when the unbeliever dies before the resurrection? Do they suffer a bodily torment while absent from the body and prior to the verdict of their judgment? What then is even accomplished in the judgment? In Revelation, the martyrs seem eager for their blood to be avenged. If there is torment in the intermediate state, what's the difference between the lake of fire and torment after death?


texts: What is Church of England's doctrine on unbaptised dead infants and how was it formed?

texts:
The penultimate rubric in the Book of Common Prayer Public Baptism Service reads: "It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." Clearly this statement refers only to baptised children.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that throughout Western Christianity the traditional belief has been that, although we may have some hope in the case of unbaptised infants we do not have certainty.

However in the Book of Common Worship, note 2 to the Emergency Baptism Service reads "[parents] should be assured that questions of ultimate salvation or of the provision of a Christian funeral for an infant who dies
do not depend upon whether or not the child has been baptized." This seems to say baptism is not needed.

Taking the two together it appears that the Church of England now teaches universal infant salvation regardless of baptism.

My question is, am I right in thinking this is now Church of England official doctrine, and if so is it a change and, again if so, how, by whom, and with what authority was this doctrine changed?


texts: What's the goal of Catholic/Protestant ecumenism?

texts:
In a small town, the height of ecumenism is a joint Christmas choir concert.  We certainly tolerate each other enough not to throw our respective clerics/elders out of our steeples.  But we don't really come to any sort of understanding of each other.

I've learned more about protestantism in 2 weeks of this website than I have in the last 20 years of parish life.  Which raises the question, what is the overarching goal of ecumenism?

It would seem to me that there are two natural ends.

Reconciliation, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed on our different courses towards salvation in harmony with one another or
Reunification, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed with our one course toward salvation in a sonorous melody.

perhaps there are more goals, but are there any ecumenical documents to show that we're making any progress toward these goals?  Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?


texts: Why do Catholics have to go to regular confession to have their sins forgiven if they pray The Lord's Prayer and ask for forgiveness daily?

texts:
This question is more for Catholics I suppose. The Lord's Prayer is a prayer that should be prayed daily i.e. "Give us this day our daily bread".
Why do Catholics have to go to regular confession to have their sins forgiven if they pray The Lord's Prayer and ask for forgiveness daily i.e. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those etc?


texts:
According to the Book of Mormon itself, it was written by many ancient prophets. The authors of this study made the assumption

  that the writers of each verse, or partial verse, could be identified according to information given in the text.

The authors of the study found their assumption accurate.

  Through the process of assigning each quoted segment a source, we identified over one hundred authors or originators.

Unfortunately the study was conducted in the infancy of the internet and I haven't been able to locate the database of verse-author assignments.

What available resource provides the author of each verse according to internal authorship statements?


texts: Most Christians celebrate the birth of Christ (Christmas) on December 25. But was this really the day of Christ's birth? What was the actual date of Christ's birth?


texts: How do Arminians understand the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement in a way that does not make God unjust?

texts:
The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ died for all mankind, but only paid for the sins of those who believe in Him.  If this is the case then either Jesus already knew who would believe and paid only for their sins (which sounds like limited atonement), or he paid for everyone's sins, but those people who do not believe are still viewed as guilty before God and are still punished. Hence, their sin receives a double payment. This though would seem to make God unjust (which I know He's not.)

Let me give an example why I say this.  Let's say there was a man who got a speeding ticket and stood before the judge.  The judge tells the man that the fine is $200.00 or one week in jail.  The man says he doesn't have the money, but before the man is escorted to his cell, another man comes forward and pays the $200 instead.  The fine is paid.  Now what if the judge, having accepted the $200, still sent the man to jail.  Wouldn't that make the judge unjust and wouldn't it make the person who paid the $200 feel used?  In short it would mean the judge was demanding double payment for the penalty.

Because unlimited atonement is an Arminian teaching, I would like answers from Arminians.


texts: What is the LDS church's stance on the curse of Cain?

texts:
Since the restoration, the LDS Church has taught that certain dark skinned people were cursed to be cut off from the presence of the Lord:

  20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto
  me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they
  shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they
  were cut off from his presence.

And that their darks skins were a sign of the curse so that they could be recognized as being cursed:

  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore
  cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened
  their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint;
  wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,
  that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause
  a skin of blackness to come upon them.

  22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
  loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

  23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed;
  for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord
  spake it, and it was done.  (2 Nephi 5:21-23)

Today, the official stance of the church is this:

  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that
  black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects
  unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are
  a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are
  inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally
  condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (Race and the Priesthood)

Does this mean that the Church is disavowing that people of African descent were ever cursed and bore the sign of the curse? Or does this mean that since the curse was lifted, and in 1978 when the Preisthood was officially offered to all worthy males, that the "sign of the curse" was no longer a sign of anything except mortal heritage, and that those spirits being born with those phenotypes today are no longer born to those lines based on premortal favour?


texts: When and by whom was the Exsultet written?

texts: On Wikipedia I found the Latin text of the Exsultet, but it is not clear when exactly it was written, or by whom.  What is its origin?


texts: According to Catholic teaching; how long do we go to Hell for?

texts:
When people are sent to Hell, is it really for eternity, or does the amount of time spent in Hell depend on the Sins/Crimes committed on Earth?

I find it difficult to accept/believe that people who do not believe in a Book (the Bible) in a World where every man lies through their teeth just to sell you something or just to manipulate you because they have their own agenda - will go to Hell for eternity.


texts: If the Son does whatever the Father does (John 5:19), does that mean the Father also incarnated for the Son to incarnate?


texts: Why is the Old Testament included in the bible if we are no longer under those old laws?

texts: If we are no longer under old laws, why is it necessary to read the Old Testament?


texts: How does one reconcile Sola Fide with the parable of the talents?

texts:
When I consider how my light is spent
    E're half my days, in this dark world and wide,
     And that one Talent which is death to hide,
     Lodg'd with me useless, though my Soul more bent
  To serve therewith my Maker, and present
     My true account, least he returning chide,
     Doth God exact day-labour, light deny'd,
     I fondly ask; But patience to prevent
  That murmur, soon replies, God doth not need
     Either man's work or his own gifts, who best
     Bear his milde yoak, they serve him best, his State
  Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
     And post o're Land and Ocean without rest:
     They also serve who only stand and waite.

John Miton, "On His Blindness".

  The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work

Matthew 25:16, NET.

The face meaning of the parable of the talents is surely "Use what you have, don't bury it" and Milton alludes to that in his sonnet. Milton is saying that God gave him gifts and now, due to blindness, he can't use them.  Someone like Jenkins would, it seems, be totally clueless why that would matter.

Since sola fide adherents say that actual good deeds don't matter (and sometimes, in extreme cases, seem to strongly imply that doing good deeds is actually a bad thing), how do they interpret the parable of the talents?

(Question inspired by a discussion of the Left Behind books by Tim LaHay and Jerry Jenkins, both the main post by Fred Clark (which discusses how the doctrine of sola fide affects the writing of the books), and the comment by Mary Kaye (which brings up the parable of the talents).)


texts: Do Seventh Day Adventists believe people who attend church on Sunday will go to hell?

texts: My children attend a Seventh Day Adventist school. One teacher often mentions that 'people who go to church on Sunday will go to hell'. Is this consistent with Seventh Day Adventist belief?


texts:
How do one get to be in Christ? Is it same as to be righteous before God? I consider Romans 8:1 as axiom.

  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,


texts:
The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past.  Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either.

There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they?


texts: What are some of the recent doctrinal controversial matters in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

texts: What are some of the recent doctrinal controversial matters in the Eastern Orthodox Church (say, within the last 10 years), that are yet to be solved? Are there any? Or, perhaps, there are no such ones at all? If not doctrinal, then some matters related to differences in practice would suffice. I heard that Russian Orthodox Church refused to participate in the latest all-Orthodox meeting. Was it due to some of such  differences?


texts: Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture?

texts:
Doctrinal differences abound in Christianity. This is attested to by the numerous times the Church has suffered splits and given birth to different denominations, branches, and sub-branches. The question Can somebody summarize the different “branches” of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place? gets this point across tremendously well.
But this inevitably leads us to ask the question: Why did God allow something like this to happen in the first place? If we look at the root causes of the many divisions in the history of the Church, one main reason that immediately stands out is the many different ways in which the Scriptures have been interpreted throughout history. And this is nothing to be surprised about when you have Scriptures that are inherently ambiguous, lending themselves to different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, interpretations.
And just to make matters even more complicated, even before we get to interpret anything, the question about what is considered part of the canon of Scripture and what isn't is also controversial in and of itself (for evidence of this, simply take a look at the many questions that have already been asked on the topic of the canon of scripture).
If God was behind the scenes inspiring and guiding the compilation of the Bible, then it follows that the existence of ambiguity in Scripture (what should be included in the canon, how Scripture should be interpreted, etc.) couldn't have been a coincidence. It had to be intentional. God, for some unknown reason, deliberately and intentionally allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture.
Why?

(*) Note: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that too.

Related: Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?


texts: What is the theory that there is more than one "Satan" called, and what is its basis?

texts:
I'm remembering back to a conversation that I had with an individual who was adamant about the fact that Satan was a made up Angel. That instead of Satan being a singular object, satan was actually the term for an angel.

He was claiming that there is more then one satan in existence and they did the bidding of God.

If you know what this theory is called or if there is any evidence being it, please let me know.

  Matthew 12:26 NKJV

  If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will
  his kingdom stand?


texts:
Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded? The Roman Catholic Church holds that the first pope was St. Peter, and his burial became the St. Peter's Basilica. If I remember correctly, National Geographic Inside the Vatican seems to support the idea that the first pope was St. Peter. Anyway, is the present-day version of the church the same church on which it was founded? In what ways has the church changed or modified to deal with the times?

The obvious:

Different popes
Different worldly events
Different cultures

Doctrinally, how is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same or different from the one led by the first Pope in Rome?


texts: How do Protestants deal with pre-Reformation heresies?

texts:
Have any of the old heresies (i.e. Manichean, Arian, Nestorian, Iconoclasm) been resurrected and repackaged by main-line denominations

-or-

Do Protestants, in general, still accept the pre-reformation doctrine which was formulated specifically to denounce such heresies? (i.e. Hypostatic union, Consubstantiation)?

...I'm pretty sure that heresies and doctrine I mentioned are widely denounced and accepted respectively among Protestants, so I'm not asking about those in particular.


texts:
Can somebody explain, who is the comforter?

John 16:12-13

  12I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
  13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all
  the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever
  He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come

But in

John 16:7

  "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go
  away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
  if I depart, I will send him unto you."

Jesus say that if I go then the comforter will come but the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, so how come the comforter is Holy Spirit?


texts: Drawing of a Christian helping his own assailant

texts:
A few years back I saw a drawing of a Christian priest helping his own assailant to get up.
It was on a wiki page that I cannot remember.

I am hoping that some one here knows the page, and maybe even know a longer story behind that drawing.


texts: Is there tradition in Judaism about seeing God through nine mirrors?

texts:
I have a vague recollection of hearing that in Jewish tradition, it was not possible to view God directly because of his holiness/ majesty/ awe.  The only way to survive seeing his face was if it were reflected nine times through mirrors. I'm sure I heard of this tradition in some commentary on the NT passage, "now we see dimly through a mirror..." Q: Is there such a tradition?

But I cannot remember the source. I recently repeated this to some knowledgable friends at a bible study and they were flabbergasted. I cannot seem to find it at Google, but their results seem to pick 2-3 words at random from your query.


texts: Samson is an Old Testament character that is often depicted from the pulpit as a womanizer of marginal character.  However, there seems to be a growing perspective that Samson foreshadows first advent Christ.  Is there any record in Church history that would support this growing perspective?


texts: Which manuscript was the LDS Book of Moses translated from?

texts:
There is a whole Book of Moses that I cannot find any original manuscript for. Internally it clearly says that it is a translation "from the Bible":

  An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830–February 1831.

What Bible would Joseph Smith be referencing and what would have been his source manuscripts? Also, were there fragments of this manuscript found with the Dead Sea Scrolls?


texts: Is Christianity just a belief system, or is it also a system for organizing and governing society?

texts:
Works like "Mere Christianity" try and address common Christian beliefs and help recognize the diversity of belief systems within Christian sects.  The question is whether this is what all of Christianity is, or is there more?  Do Christian religious texts provide guidance on how to organize society and govern it with justice and fairness?

Added after reviewing comments through morning of 1/13/12:

Is it true that the family & social laws in the Old Testament texts are to be ignored?  Yes/No? (provide supporting information)
If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts?  I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws?


texts: What is the general Christian view on fantasy works such as Tolkien's Silmarillion?

texts:
I've just read Silmarillion for the second time in my life. The last time was 20 years ago. In short, it's basically a "fantasy bible", starting out extremely abstract with how God creates these beings called "Ainor" which produce "music", and one of them, Melkor, makes his own, disharmonic music, and developers from there into the "Lord of Darkness"/Devil.

Interesting to note is that the author, J. R. R. Tolkien, was very much Christian. Apparently. But how does that fit with this fantasy vision of the world? Because, as he says himself in an interview, it is meant to be about the early history of this, our planet/world -- not some kind of distant alien planet or an alternative dimension.

This really got me thinking. After all, one of the commandments is all about how you aren't supposed to "depict other gods", but he very much does so with Silmarillion, which doesn't at all fit with the old or new testaments of the Christian/Jewish/standard bible.

I'm probably going to attempt to read the bible again soon, but I stopped when they got to the point, pretty early on, where they just started listing names for pages upon pages. Silmarillion has a very similar issue; it becomes extremely "heavy" to read due to the numerous names and aliases for everyone and everything.

Another major "problem" (or potential point of conflict) is that, in Tolkien's vision, humans are not the first creatures created after the initial beings/gods (called Ainur/Valar/Maior) -- instead, it's the elves, and only much later do humans appear, and when they do, they are made out to be very easily lured into evil deeds and horribly traitorous acts by Melkor, the Satans of Silmarillion.

This got me thinking a lot: what do Christians in general think of a work such as Silmarillion? Is it "disgusting heresy" or "an interesting fictional alternative history which of course isn't true but nevertheless interesting to read about, much like the other actual religions/beliefs which are obviously false but still have some interesting storytelling"?


texts:
In the Hebrew language we hear God speak...thus study directed toward learning this language might rightly be called a kind of worship.

This quote shows up several times on the internet attributed to Martin Luther, but I have found no proper attribution nor have I found out what goes in the ellipses.
Is this a quote of Martin Luther? What is a good citation of it? What is the rest of the quotation?


texts: Refute perceived differences in the Gospel between Peter and Paul from Sola Scriptura perspective

texts:
What is the biblical evidence in keeping with the Protestant, Sola Scriptura perspective, for refuting a claim that Paul's gospel differed from Peter's gospel?
I see in Scripture:
2 Peter 1:1-2

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

and 2 Peter 3:13-15

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Final Words
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.  And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

And then from the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 17-22

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is easy to find Scriptures where Paul clearly affirms that justification is through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and made accessible by grace.  What are the Scriptures, other than the one from 2 Peter above, which clearly indicate that this is the same Gospel of Jesus Christ which Peter received and passed along?


texts: The seven churches that were condemned; did any of them repent?

texts: In Revelation, there were seven churches that were told of their actions and were told to repent of their sins or there will be consequenes. Are there any written words that told whether the seven churches actually repented?


texts: In which denominations are Sunday school classes categorized distinctly by grade/age level?

texts:
There was one time, a long time ago, somewhere between mid- to late-1990s, I went to a church with family at night. I thought the adults would worship on the first floor, while the children were taken to the basement, where there would be a cafeteria that led to both the kitchen and the classroom. There was only one classroom. No room for another. All the children went to that classroom. There was a chalkboard, books, posters, a big desk for the teacher, and some smaller desks. For a while, that greatly influenced my perception of church layouts. The narthex-like hallway that led to the sanctuary or nave on the first floor, everything else in the basement.

Fast-forward many years to the early second decade of the 21st century, I visited a Baptist church, a Methodist church, and a Lutheran church, and they all seemed to have many classrooms, arranged by grade levels. Only the tiny family-oriented non-denominational church had a kids room, which was called a "nursery", empty and outgrown. And for the Catholic church, I couldn't find a classroom anywhere except the detached but affiliated Catholic parochial school nearby, presumably filled with many classrooms. In the basement, the Catholic church had a gift store. There were children but they participated in worship with adults.

Anyway, since when did churches begin to categorize religious education by grade level? And in which denominations is this so?


texts: What is the source of the Martin Luther's quote, "We all carry about in our pockets His very nails?"

texts:
It is easy to find this on a quote site, but I can't find where it is in Luther's writings. I know Luther means that each of us are personally responsible for crucifying Jesus, but wWhat is the context of the statement? What exactly did he mean, according to scholars and church leaders who have studied his theology?

Originally, I thought the quote was about universal responsibility for Christ's crucifixion, but it now appears Luther was writing about another issue, probably showing our faith by our actions. I have therefore changed the title to refer only to the quote.


texts: Why did Israel under Moses take a longer route to Canaan?

texts:
Following is an excerpt from http://free.messianicbible.com/holiday/crossing-red-sea-god-brings-us-long-way/

"When Moses took the Hebrew children out of Egypt, he could have taken a direct route and made it to Canaan in a little more than a week, even though he was shepherding over two million men, women and children.  Of course, we know that was not the route taken.He took them the long way, a route that was indirect and involved the need for yet another miracle: the parting of the Red Sea so that the Israelites could cross on dry ground..."

My question is : Why did Moses go in for a longer route than was actually required for Israel to cross the desert on their way to Canaan. What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell on the issue ?


texts: What is the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation?

texts:
I am a Confirmed Catholic and am currently learning about and doing casual research on Christian doctrinal differences regarding the nature of the Eucharist. I know that Catholic doctrine states that the bread and wine change ("trans") into the different material ("substance") of the Body and Blood of Christ. I've heard this called the "real presence." Wouldn't that term align more with the doctrine held by some other sects of Christianity that the substance is not changed, but Jesus is simply present in the Eucharist, though? And, if it in fact does align well with the Catholic standpoint, then what is the major difference between the doctrines? Is it perhaps believed in Catholicism that the presence is truly physical, in that the bread is truly human flesh and not unleavened food?
I hope someone can enlighten me on this topic so that I can more clearly attest to my faith. Thank you and God bless!

To those who have marked this a duplicate, I've replied to the first comment on the page with a clarification-related question that is sort of geared at the problem I'm having personally with understanding the doctrine that perhaps other conversations would not have been able to duplicate for me. Maybe I should have searched before I posted, but I hadn't thought about it because this is my first time here. Sorry about that.


texts: Was the serpent's temptation necessary for Eve to sin?

texts:
It was once said that Satan is God's Satan.  I understand Eve's act of sin plays into God's hands and His glorification, but are there not other ways this can be done without Satan's interference?  While Eve acted on free will, the serpent's temptation was catalytic, and the fact that God allowed the serpent to be there, it seems to me that God was passively hoping Eve would sin.

This question is not about free-will or the forbidden fruit, for it obvious that for free will to exist there must be choices (i.e. between obeying and disobeying God's command to not consume fruit from the forbidden tree).  However, by introducing the serpent into the picture, God seems to be caring more about his glorification than Adam and Eve's best interests (a perfect environment i.e. Garden of Eden).  If He truly wants to show that mankind would eventually sin, shouldn't He let Adam and Eve sin without foreign interference (say one day Eve decides to eat the forbidden fruit out of curiosity)?   That way, God can claim that no matter how perfect and controlled the environment is for free-will, mankind will sin.


texts: Marks of the true church in Protestantism or Catholicism?

texts: Although this very related question about the marks of the true church in Reformed Theology has already been asked, my question is whether other Protestant traditions or Catholicism have an equivalent set of requirements for what they consider the true church?


texts: I get that "Bema" is the Greek word translated "judgment seat" in the NT. But how did the term "Bema Seat" come to be used? It's a little redundant, like saying "PIN number", but catchy. I'd just like to know how it caught on. Who first said, "We're going to call this not-White-throne judgment the bema-seat judgment"?


texts: If "Old Law is done away with",then what about bestiality and incest?

texts:
Leviticus 18:7 states:

"Do not violate your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her."

Isn't saying that the old law is "done away with" by logic, giving an excuse to say that people can now have sex with their mother?

Leviticus 18:23 states: “A man must not defile himself by having sex with an animal. And a woman must not offer herself to a male animal to have intercourse with it. This is a perverse act.

If the old law is "done away with" then doesn't this also mean by logic, that bestiality is now okay?


texts: Election, Gods Sovereignty and Is Cain Saved?

texts:
Does Calvinism (and those who believe in Unconditional Election) teach that Cain was elected to Salvation?

This is my source for defining Unconditional Election.

  Unconditional Election:
  God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Source: https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

My question is sincere, as I struggle with many of the doctrines of the Protestant Revolt, and find countless objections to the new teachings of especially Calvin.  How do you resolve the issue of Cain in Gen 4:6-7?

  “The Lord said to Cain, “why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

In my understanding of Protestant doctrine of Election, God would have created Cain for destruction, or else he would have created him for Salvation.  God says that if Cain does well he will be accepted and if he does not well he will be consumed by sin?  If God created Cain for destruction, would not he have said,  “I have molded you for destruction, it is not in your power to do well, rather, I have made you this way for my Glory.” or something to that effect?  It seems rather that the dispensation of Cain resides entirely on his own free will, at least on the surface. Why would God offer to him something directly opposite to the purpose for which God created him, making it sound as if he could do otherwise than what he has done.

If the tradition of Unconditional Election is Truth, then Cain must have been a member of the Elect of God.  Otherwise, God would not have told him that he would be accepted if he did well.

I struggle with these Protestant doctrines because they seem to go against the grain in every case, like a jigsaw puzzle piece jammed into the wrong space.   When I hear sermons or teachings by the likes of James White or R.C. Sproul I hear what they are saying and unlike onlookers who nod in agreement having what appears to be a shared understanding that they too are fortunate to be part of the arbitrarily chosen elect, unlike myself destined for eternal damnation.  Which leaves me, if I was somehow convinced of Unconditional Election, to be the only person who accepts the Doctrine with the understanding that I’m not one of those elect!

Please explain how Cain might not be the Elect of God if his acceptance is subject to what he does.