texts:
John 19:38 - 40 (NLT)

  38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people
  and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime. 39 But you have a
  custom of asking me to release one prisoner each year at Passover.
  Would you like me to release this ‘King of the Jews’?”

  40 But they shouted back, “No! Not this man. We want Barabbas!”
  (Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

Why were they so messed up that they would choose the rebellious, murderous Barabbas over the innocent Son of God?


texts: Why did human lifespans drop after the Flood?

texts:
In Genesis 5, a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc.

But in Genesis 6:3, God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?


texts: What does the Catholic Church think about God being defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"?

texts: I think most modern Catholic theologians disagree with the claim that existing is greater than not existing, but what about the definition given by Anselm? Is that accepted? Why or why not?


texts:
For this question, I would like to first define that someone is a Jew if they meet the halakhic definition. This definition is just for the sake of moving the discussion toward an answer.

Is it possible for a non-Jew to join Messianic Judaism?


texts: Why do Anglicans kneel when Catholics would stand?

texts:
During the liturgy in both churches, there are several times (for example, at the Collect, just before the first reading) when a prayer is introduced by words, "Let us pray." At those times, we Catholics stand up, but I visited an Anglican church recently where they knelt. Is there any reason for that?

I am preferably interested in a theological interpretation or motivation.


texts: How do Seventh Day Adventists understand "a form of [a] God" in Philippians 2:6?

texts:
SDA is Trinitarian and believe that Jesus in his preexistence was Michael the archangel. Do they then believe that Jesus' preexistent form was that of an angel all the time or that Michael was a form he adopted when doing messenger work and such? In other words is Jesus an angel reincarnated as a man or some other "divine form" incarnated as a man?

And what do they say going on with Michael waging war in heaven post-resurrection?


texts: If Jesus is the son of God then why bother listing his genealogy?

texts:
Mathew gives the following geneolgoy:

  Abraham Isaac Jacob Judah & Tamar Perez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon
  Salmon & Rahab Boaz & Ruth Obed Jesse David & Bathsheba Solomon &
  Naamah Rehoboam Abijam Asa Jehosaphat Jehoram Uzziah Jotham Ahaz
  Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah Jeconiah Shealtiel Zerubbabel Abiud
  Eliakim Azor Zadok Achim Eliud Eleazar Matthan Jacob Joseph & Mary *
  Jesus

Luke provides this one:

  God Adam Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe
  Shem Arphaxad Cainan Sala Heber Phalec Ragau Saruch Nachor Thara
  Abraham Isaac Jacob Juda Phares Esrom Aram Aminadab Naasson Salmon
  Booz Obed Jesse David Nathan Mattatha Menan Melea Eliakim Jonam Joseph
  Judah Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Jose Er Elmodam Cosam Addi
  Melchi Neri Salathiel Zorobabel Rhesa Joanna Juda Joseph Semei
  Mattathias Maath Nagge Esli Naum Amos Mattathias Joseph Janna Melchi
  Levi Matthat Heli Joseph Jesus

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Shouldn't it just be God & Mary -> Jesus?

Also, don't all genealogies go through the masculine side? Since Josef the Carpenter is not the father of Jesus what exactly are these genealogies trying to prove?


texts: Are there any major Protestant denominations that meet every day and are together all the time like the early church was?

texts:
To my knowledge, most Protestant denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Non-denom, etc...) structure their church to meet once a week, with maybe a bible-study once a week as well. Though I am challenged when I read the devotion to fellowship of the first century church:

Acts 2:44-47 All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Act 5:42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.

I know that some Catholic churches have daily mass, but I'm wondering if anyone knows of any major protestant churches that structure their church to meet every day, whether in a designated building or in houses. I would especially be interested to hear how it's done first hand.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the phrase "God wants the best for us"?

texts:
"God wants the best for us" is a common phrase by Christians, but I struggle to identify with it. From the scriptures, I learned that what God gives us is good enough. I don't think it needs to be the 'best'. I feel that too many Christians are taking the word best too literally. They believe that there is only one best option that God would provide. Some churches extend the thought and only purchase the most expensive sound equipment or acquire the most expensive buildings because they feel God would give them the best.

So I'm asking for biblical references to support the phrase, "God wants the best for us".


texts: Did Jesus die for all? Is “for many” the same meaning as “for all “ in Matthew 26:28?

texts:
In Matthew 26, Jesus said,

Matthew 26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

And In Isaiah, please take note the word “many”

Isaiah 53:11b-12
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many,
and their guilt he shall bear.
Therefore I will give him his portion among the great,
and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty,
Because he surrendered himself to death
and was counted among the wicked;
And he shall take away the sins of many
and win pardon for their offenses.

Is “for many” the same meaning as “for all”? If Jesus died for all, this would mean it includes those other religion who don’t believe or reject Jesus as their God. If the answer is yes, this would contradict the passage in the Gospel of John,

John 14:6 (RHE): Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.


texts:
According to the new Style Guide of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, mormon should not be used to refer to the Church or its members, which mormon.org (which is owned by the Church) does in multiple places. Not only that, but the President Nelson has stated that this change is doctrinally important.

So, when is mormon.org going to be updated to reflect this?


texts: Or can someone who has been blessed by a priest do so? What if someone were stranded on an island and unable to hear confession?


texts: Is a Roman Catholic obligated to believe in the Trinity?

texts:
There are many people who are technicially born into Christian homes, yet they don't fully agree with the doctrine of Trinity etc.

According to the creed of Roman Catholic Christianity, if someone is not 100% comfortable with the concept of Trinity (that is, believing it without a doubt in their mind), does that automatically make them 1) a Non-Christian and consequently 2) go to Hell


texts: Will executioners of capital punishments be saved?

texts:
'(...)Look, today you drive me from the surface of the earth. I must hide from you, and be a restless wanderer on earth. Why, whoever comes across me will kill me!'
'Very well, then,' Yahweh replied, 'whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.'

Quote from Genesis 4, 14-15
God said that everybody who kill a murderer will have 7 times bigger punishment than him. Does that mean that executioners of capital punishments will be not saved ?


texts: Do Mormons believe in the Virgin birth taught in the Bible? (LDS)

texts:
According to Brigham Young, the second prophet and president of the LDS church:

  "The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of
  our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh
  and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

  (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

  "I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great
  deal more remains to be told.  Now, remember from this time forth, and
  for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."

  (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).

According to Orson Pratt the original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church of the Latter Day Saints:

  The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father.
  Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh,
  must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and
  Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the
  lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it
  would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed
  her or begat the Savior unlawfully.

  (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

According to Luke 1:26-28:

  31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.

  32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The
  Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

  33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom
  will never end.”

  34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

  35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the
  power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born
  will be called[a] the Son of God.

  36 Even Elizabeth your relative is
  going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be
  unable to conceive is in her sixth month.  37 For no word from God will
  ever fail.”

Since Brigham Young says Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost and Orson Pratt says Jesus required a mother and a father, does that mean the Virgin Birth spoken about in the Bible is refuted from an LDS perspective?


texts: Is there biblical basis for the claim that Pilate had no choice?

texts:
There is a trend among Christians to put the guilt of killing Jesus on Jews rather than on Romans.

Some Christians go as far as to proclaiming Pilate a saint (as did either Ethiopian or Coptic church if I am not mistaken).

I wonder is there biblical basis for such whitewashing of Pilate?

For example, some people on this site claimed in other answers that if Pilate did not execute Jesus, there would be a popular riot or Pilate could be fired from his position.

Is there biblical evidence that this indeed would happen and Pilate acted with no choice?


texts: What are Lutheran teachings on salutary effects of communion?

texts:
A long time ago, I complained to some LC-MS Lutheran pastors that my own hometown congregation had been full of racists, as evidenced by their comfort in using the "N word" around children.  Years later I can now understand that this should not be too surprising, if we understand the church to be a "hospital for sinners."  However, the pastors' rebuttal pointed to communion. They said if the sacraments were rightly offered, and if we believe that the sacraments have salutary effects, then the congregation would be where God wants, and it was wrong to criticize it for being insufficient in any spiritual way.

This raises the question, what do Lutheran teachings say about the salutary effects of communion are?  Who has said that the effects are "descriptive" (God did his work) as opposed to merely "salutary" (God will continue to work to improve you)?

Answers from any Christian group that practices any sort of real presence (as opposed to using only the terms "symbol" or "reminder")  are very welcome here.


texts: How were the authors of the four gospels literate?

texts:
I'm curious how the authors of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) actually knew how to write. They were fishermen and simple people, and very few people knew how to write back then.

Perhaps some will say that it was the Holy Spirit who gave them this ability, but I'd like to know whether there is some other historical explanation for the fact that they were literate.


texts: What is a Miracle and does it require Faith?

texts:
I was reading Matthew 8 today and I was pondering upon the verse (verses 8-13) interaction between Jesus and a certain centurion. To summarize, the centurion tells Jesus that his servant is paralyzed and he then asks if he will speak only a word and that will be sufficient for his servant's healing. Jesus after commending him for his faith sends him on his way and the centurion finds his servant healed that very hour. Would this encounter be considered a miracle, an act of God, or are they one in the same? I ask because if it was a miracle did it hinge on the centurion's faith or not? Another scenario could easily be thought up that doesn't involve faith such as an atheist going to a rock concert, gets into a 10- car pile up and is the only survivor. Would that be a miracle or just plain luck? I wish to know what a miracle is, whether it requires faith, and are we as a society using the word "miracle" wrong.

Thanks


texts: What, historically, was the age of accountability for Latter-Day-Saints before D&C 68:27?

texts:
In Doctrine and Covenants 68:27, the age of accountability is clearly defined as being eight years.

D&C 68:27

  27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their
  sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Section 68 was given November 1831, and is the earliest source for the age of eight as age of accountability that I am aware of. However it is clear from Doctrine and Covenants 18 and 20 (and the Book of Mormon), that the concept of "age of accountability" was known from the foundation of the church in 1830.

What was the "age of accountability" between April 1830 and November 1831, and what was it based upon (some scripture? (unrecorded) revelation?)?


texts: I ran across the phrase in this question, and a Google search just keeps bringing me to the Ten Commandments example found in the link on the question. I'm not finding a definition anywhere.  So what is a "Catechetical Formula"?


texts: What reasons do Catholics have for believing Jesus is God?

texts:
Through natural reason and personal experience, I have come to be convinced that many of the Catholic Church's teachings are good and accurate.  In addition, by reading Aristotle and Aquinas, I have come to see that there is a compelling natural argument for the existence of some sort of creator-God. I don't know that this argument convinces me, but I can at least comprehend it and think about it.

That being said, there are many things in Catholicism that cannot be determined by natural reason alone -- the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, etc. I find this sort of thing difficult to accept. Even more than difficult to accept, I find them difficult to think about. They are stories, they have value as stories, and there is certainly truth encoded in those stories. But are they factually true stories?  How could I know, and how do I even begin to think about that question? "God is one being with three persons" seems exactly as plausible to me as "God is one being with two persons".

One particular issue I am looking at right now is the assertion of the divinity of Jesus.  This is an idea that is at the core of Christianity and at the core of Catholicism. And I find it to be difficult to choose to believe:  putting aside the mental gymnastics of the Trinity, the idea that a man who walked the earth was actually 100% God, the creator of everything, etc., is a very big assertion.

So my question is this: what reason(s) might a non-Christian, non-Jew be given to be believe that Jesus is in fact God?  Historical examples of conversions and reasons for conversion are invited, as well as any other evidence or reasons.  I'm not looking for conclusive "proof" (a silly idea), but I am looking for reasons.  I am looking for ideas that parallel Aquinas's Five Ways or Chesteron's article Why I am A Catholic, but speak particularly about the assertion of the Divinity of Jesus.

Given that I am currently trying to understand the teachings of the Catholic Faith in particular, I am primarily interested in answers that have a Catholic background. I mean no disrespect to Protestants, Orthodox, or any other Christians.


texts:
Often in stain glass and other art, both Mary and Joseph are seen to have the 'halo' around them that also surround those of saints.

I was once told (by I think my religion teacher) that for Jesus, the son of God, to be born, he had to be born of parents possessing the holiness of God. Other than Jesus having to be of the house of David, were they any other requirements (preferably with a reference)? Or is this a distortion?

Also, if this was true, that only those with the holiness of God could parent His son, would that not require that all their parents before them have the same requirements to birth them?

Also, another thing I find interesting is I believe (as do my parents) is that we all possess the holiness of God, as we are all God's children with no favorites. While our decisions in this life effect our outcome in the after life, if not this one, does it in any way effect how God effects our lives other than our lack of letting him?

Sorry if I went off topic a bit with some additional questions, but if any of these are possible duplicate would love the link.


texts: Why does Nephi believe he can keep all the commandments?

texts:
I can't get the wording exactly right on this question, and it's gonna take some explaining.
Nephi says this about the Lord's commandment to get the brass plates,

  "for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (1 Nephi 3:7)

Later, when trying to keep the commandment to get the brass plates, he and his brothers failed twice, but he said,

  "As the Lord liveth, and as we live, we will not go down unto our father in the wilderness until we have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us. Wherefore, let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord;" (1 Nephi 3:15-16)

Later he says,

  "And it came to pass that thus far I and my father had kept the commandments wherewith the Lord had commanded us." (1 Nephi 5:20)

His last words in the Book of Mormon are,

  "For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen."

It seems clear to me that every commandment can be obeyed. But it's very hard, especially to obey constantly. I'd like to know why was he able to do it? I believe at the root of that is the question: Why did he believe he could do it rather than believing he would eventually fail? The obvious answer is that it isn't his own strength, but the grace of God that makes this possible, but what makes the enabling power of the Atonement available constantly rather than "every so often"? I'm not sure how to believe that obeying the commandments is really truly all the time possible, and I think I'm misunderstanding the doctrine of grace.


texts: Did Martin Luther ever admit that his approval of Philip's bigamy was wrong?

texts:
I recently learned that in 1540, Martin Luther secretly approved of the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse.  Philip had married for political purposes, and then fell in love with someone else.  Philip appealed to the example of the Old Testament patriarchs, and apparently his wife did not object to his marrying again, so Philip turned to several theologians, including Luther, as Woodbridge and James write:

  Philip sought out Luther, as well as Melanchthon and Martin Bucer, as to the permissibility of a bigamous marriage.  Luther had argued years earlier, regarding Henry VIII and Queen Catherine of Aragon, that bigamy was preferable to divorce. Luther fatefully approved the bigamous marriage, partly out of concern for Philip's troubled conscience and partly out of political expediency.  It was a decision that would cost many lives and nearly destroy Lutheranism itself. (Church History, II, 3.IV.A)

Naturally the secret got out and the resulting controversy seriously weakened Philip and, by extension, Lutheranism.  Luther died six years later, so he would have seen some of the results of his approval.

I'd like to know if Luther repented or otherwise expressed that it was morally wrong for him to have approved of this bigamy.  I distinguish that from a mere admission that the approval was inexpedient or unwise, but if only the latter is available, that would be interesting to see as well.


texts: According to the LDS faith, did Noah build the Ark in America?

texts:
According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman. Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1).

This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent.

Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?


texts: Did the 12 disciples represent all 12 tribes?

texts: I know that Jesus chose 12 disciples (apostles) to represent the 12 tribes. My question do we know if each of the 12 were from a different tribe of Israel?  In other words are all of the tribes represented in the 12 apostles?


texts: How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God?

texts:
This assumes that God conforms to the laws of logic as without doing so we can make absolutely no deductions about him, his existence, or any of his actions or attributes.

Within computer science, there is the notion of computability. This is the idea of whether it is possible to calculate something or not. It is provable that there exists a set of problems that cannot be computed. See the Halting Problem

If we take the attributes of the traditional Christian god, that he is all knowing, and all powerful, it appears this creates a logical contradiction. Here is an example:

Event A causes event B within the universe.
God decides that he does not want event B to occur so he stops event A from happening.
Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1.

This is a very simplified example, and suffers from the problem that it is grounded in the concept of time, and this would imply God is able to circumvent this paradox because of the fact he is outside of time.

However effectively the same occurs with the halting problem, except time is not an issue. If God evaluates the universe (all of space and time) and comes to a decision, he takes action but some actions will depend on what he originally observed meaning it must be re-observed and re-evaluated. In this 'new round' of observation he is now evaluating himself and his previous actions. In some cases, this can lead to infinite self reference which is logically undecidable.

This seems to leave us with 3 options:

God is not all powerful. He could be very close, but with the diagonalisation proof I think we can show there are conceivably situations that would not work.
God is not all knowing. Again, he could be very close to all knowing, but can't logically be entirely all knowing.
God does not conform to the laws of logic.

I would be really interested to hear any thoughts you may have on different parts of this. If anyone here has studied the halting problem in more detail than I it would be interesting to see where it doesn't hold.

Edit: I feel I should make a small clarification about the logic assumption. If you actually know what logic is, and I don't mean "things feeling scientific" or something wishy washy like that, I mean the laws of logic, then I think you will realise that saying God does not conform to them effectively makes the concept of God pointless.

I know Christians who agree and disagree with this, but it seems that the pattern is those who actually understand what logic is agree that God must conform to it.

It is possible to say that God does not conform to logic, however if you believe this you must also accept that, from our point of view, we can then say nothing about his nature, his actions or his existence.

I don't think this path of reasoning benefits anyone in any way.

Edit 2: Here is a short description of the halting problem. The analogy I am making is that God is essentially one of the 'oracles' referred to in the article, and after acting within the universe must re-evaluate the universe to see if more changes need to be made now that he can see the results of his actions, thus leading to self-reference.


texts:
I have noticed that even among theologians that postulated full separation of church and state, like Luther, they did not force the subject so fully as our modern world understands.  In fact there was a lot of religious intolerance among great denominational leaders up until recent times.  I was watching a television show the other day that implied actual separation of church and state was a result of multi-denominational settlers (mostly Calvinists) that obtained independence from England in America and needing to get along. This resulted in the American Constitution where the religious infighting of Europe became partially detached in the result.

Did the American Constitution and independence from England usher in the first full separation of Church and state?


texts: Was Arianism spread using musical jingles?

texts:
I found an interesting claim in Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, regarding Arius's methods of promoting his theology, Arianism:

  [Arius] put ideas into jingles, which set to simple tunes like a radio commercial, were soon being sung by the dock-workers, the street-hawkers, and the schoolchildren of the city. (107)

Shelley doesn't provide a citation, so I wonder what his basis is.  How do we know that Arius used "jingles" or "simple tunes" to promote Arianism?  How do we know that they were popular among these particular groups of people?


texts: How do restorationist Christian churches cooperate with mainstream Christian churches?

texts:
It's not hard to see how mainstream and nondenominational Christian churches cooperate with each other: it's common for them come together in community, charities, and many points of doctrine. This is refreshing, because there are many resources and discussions about the differences within Christianity. Some Christian churches even have classes about other ones.

How do restorationist Christian churches, which typically fall outside the notion of mainstream for their notably different/augmented beliefs, cooperate and coincide with other Christian faiths? What are their shared values?

In your answer, feel free to comment on lifestyle, culture, community involvement, service, morality, doctrine, charities, humanitarian efforts, missionary work, etc. You may mention specific restorationist churches using reliable citations (and official sources if possible).


texts: Why does Jesus say "Why have you forsaken me?"

texts: Why does Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is from the ESV version. It just seems so out of character.


texts: Where do Christians believe the Qur'an came from?

texts:
The "prophet" Muhammad stated that the angel Gabriel visited him with revelation and he put great importance upon Gabriel.

So my question is, where do Christians believe Muhammad's revelation came from and what Christians believe about Muhammad's claim about his revelations from Gabriel? Do they believe that he lied and made it up, or do they believe it was a demon rather than Gabriel who visited Muhammad?

The question is seeking answers based on doctrinal and official views of any Christian denominations.


texts:
Genesis 25:29-34 tells the story about Esau selling his birthright because he is hungry and despised it.

  And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Why did he (Esau) despise his birthright?

Is there a good Christian commentary that explains what "despised" means, and why Esau would have despised it?


texts: Did only Jesus human body remain in the grave for the three days?

texts:
Jesus told the thief at Calvary :

  Luke 23:43  And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

And yet he was not resurrected until after the Sabbath. So were the Souls and Spirits of both taken to Paradise that day while their physical bodies remained ?

Using only biblical texts and/or established traditions of the Nicene church, is there a consensus or even a limited set of positions on where Jesus' spirit was?


texts: According to Catholics when were names added to The Book of Life?

texts:
According to Catholics, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)? Including apocryphal writings or extrabiblical sources from within the Catholic spectrum.

I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added.

  “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Revelation 3:5 ESV

In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in?

What is the Catholic view?


texts: If Jesus is not God according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, why was He accused of blasphemy?

texts:
Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ.
John 5:18 states,

For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was
calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 8:59,

Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid
Himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:31,

The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him.

John 10:33,

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God.

Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation:

The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;"

What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death?
Related question asked here


texts: Do any Church Fathers speak about the similarity between εσωσεν and Ιησους?

texts:
The Greek verb for "he saves" is εσωσεν (esosen), and the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name of Jesus (Yeshua, meaning Saviour, but coming from the Hebrew yoshia, meaning "He saves") is Ιησους (iesous).1

I'm certainly not privy to the internal minds of ancient Greek speakers, but I can imagine that if I were Greek-speaking, I would (if not consciously, then unconsciously) recognize the striking coincidence, and perhaps comment on it (it's my understanding that the Fathers in general understood the meaning of the Saviour's name to mean "Saviour").

Question

Do any Fathers mention this similarity?

1 The only real different in pronunciation is the addition of "en" in the former (akin to the difference between "like" and "liken" in English, and the attendant unconscious recognition that the two are inherently related etymologically).


texts:
Is it true that there are 735 prophecies in the bible of which 81 % have been fulfilled literally and 19% not yet? This fact is from David Pawson( Old testament revealed )  Can you give example about prophecies that have and haven't been fulfilled?
For example I think below is one that has not been fulfilled yet.

  Now learn a parable of the fig tree(Israel?); When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things(v.4-30), know that it is near, even at the doors. [it: or, he]
  Verily I say unto you, This generation(which sees "these things") shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. - math.24:32-35


texts:
Is there a non-Catholic view of purification of the spirit after physical death?

This is related to the phrase "saved by fire" in 1 Corinthians 3:15.


texts: Can you renounce part of the bible, and still be a Christian?

texts:
A really simple question, the title says it all really. Just to provide some background as to what I'm on about:

I was raised Roman Catholic. As, I suspect, many of you know, the Catholics and Protestants have had their differences throughout history. Both "groups" consider themselves being Christians, but disagree on some of the interpretations of the Scripture.

However, as far as I know, none of the major Christian doctrines uses a Bible that contains more than the 4 Gospels (Mathew, John, Lucas and Mark). The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is left out.
The way I see it, throughout the history of Christianity, a selection of scriptures has been made to form the Bible as we know it today.

I'm not interested in sparking a historical debate on when these Gospels were written, who wrote them and what makes Gospel A suited for the Bible, and why Gospel B is not.
This fact just gives me the impression that various people and institutions, for whatever reasons, cherry-picked scriptures, in a way. Perhaps because the contents\, in particular of the Gospel according to Thomas, was deemed dangerous in its day.
If selecting, and cherry-picking was OK back then, why would I not be allowed to call myself a Christian, while at the same time disbelieving in parts of the Bible that I feel are dated, and in some cases proven wrong?

Note that with "proven wrong" I mean: I feel as though I have been presented with sufficient evidence to accept that what is written in the Bible is incorrect. If you don't feel the same way about these passages, then that is entirely up to you. Again, as with the subject of the various books of the
Bible being historic accounts: I don't want to go into any of those things.


texts: I'm Catholic and have made all my sacraments.  I'm going to Israel and am interested in being baptized in the Jordan River.  Is this allowed?


texts: Did the conversion of Paul occur before or after the Ascension?

texts:
According to the Bible, the conversion of Paul occurs when he is walking on the road to Damascus and suddenly has an encounter with the resurrected Jesus.  My question is, did this encounter occur before or after the Ascension? The Ascension is where Jesus is said to have ascended bodily into Heaven 40 days after the Resurrection?

If it happened after the Ascension, how would it have happened?  I thought Christians believe that Jesus won't come back to Earth after the Ascension until the Second Coming.  Am I wrong about that?  Did Paul just have a vision of Jesus rather than having a physical encounter with Jesus' resurrected body?


texts: Are OT verses in Hebrews 1 actually verses about Jesus?

texts:
In Hebrews chapter 1, the author notes several Old Testament verses as references to Jesus. I have read these Old Testament verses and some don't actually sound like they are about Jesus at all.

For example, Heb 1:5 says

  For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I
  have become your Father"? Psalm 2:7

But how do you actually know that Psalm 2:7 is pointing to Jesus? How do you actually justify these references to OT as "pointers" to Jesus?


texts:
The ostiarius was a person that guarded the church door to prevent unbaptized people from entering the church during the Eucharist. What ever happened to this role?

Relating to this subject, why do so many churches now have door greeters that actually welcome people (really anybody) into the church, even during the Eucharist, including allowing the participation of such unbaptized individuals at the Eucharist?


texts: Where do Saints go after we return with Jesus (Pentecostal perspective)

texts:
I was wondering where the glorified Saints go to live after we return with Jesus as described in Revelation 19:11–16:

  And I saw Heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
   His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
   And he was clothed with vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
   And the armies which were Heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the wineprsee of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Do we stay in Israel or do we return to our homes?

I am interested in a Pentecostal perspective.


texts: What is the biblical basis for Christians quitting their jobs?

texts:
Recently upon travelling from university I came across a fairly new Christian sect called Jesus Christians.

They were handing out DVD's which had a QR code linking to a Youtube channel called A Voice In The Desert.

According to this video, they claim that the three steps to revival in Christianity are as follows:

Quit your job
Sell everything
Preach the Gospel

I know in the Gospels Jesus asks His disciples to give up certain things, and there is at least one of each occurrence of each of the above in the Gospels but has Jesus actually commanded us to do the same or was it directed to the Disciples at the time?

Moreover; what does the rest of the Bible teach about giving up jobs for Jesus? From my understanding Paul worked very hard as a tent maker as a means to support himself in his ministry, I also understand that a lawyer was mentioned in the passage below.

  Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. Titus 3:13 (NIV)

What is the biblical basis for Christians quitting their jobs for their salvation?


texts:
According to Genesis 1:31, all that God created was good. However, not only in the human realm, but also in nature, there is much that seems violent and evil. Darwin, for example, could not conceive of a good God creating an animal such as the Ichneumon Wasp, or the Cuckoo. Could it be that the world, at least in parts, is a creation of the devil?
If this is a heresy, what is it called?


texts:
Many Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam is the Last prophet of God.

Does this belief of 'last' Prophet exist in Christianity as well? Do any Christians believe that any other prophet will come between Jesus and his second coming?


texts: What is the Scriptural basis for Catholics praying to Mary and the various saints?

texts:
While researching for this answer, I came across this quesion. In its answer it stated:

  Roman Catholics are taught to pray to Mary and various saints. Such
  prayers are not scriptural and are, in fact, an insult to our heavenly
  Father.

The question is, what is the Scriptural basis for Catholics praying to Mary and the various saints?

Please note that What is the basis for the solicitation of prayers from dead saints? is seeking 'how' these prayers originated - and categorically states 'it does not intend to get answers why these prayers are acceptable' - while this question is seeking the scriptural basis of these prayers, i.e. 'why' are they acceptable from scripture?

Please note that the acceptable answer will be one that does not just rattle off scriptural verses, but also demonstrates an understanding of the Catholic practice in light of scripture. The answer should also address: 'Roman Catholics are taught to pray to Mary and various saints.'


texts: How do Christian theologians view and/or use Jewish commentators?

texts:
I've been wondering about the status of Jewish commentators on the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc.) and other post-Biblical Jewish authors (e.g. Josephus) in Christianity. Are there prominent modern Christian scholars or strains of thought that make use of the writings of these figures? Are there examples of them being cited by well-known Christian exegetes?

Note: I'm not interested in the status of the Christian Bible itself as a commentary on the Hebrew Bible. I'm only interested in examples of purely Jewish sources being used in post-Biblical Christianity.


texts:
I saw the question here, but that's not exactly what I want to know about christianity, I just want frank explicit answers, not on the nature of God (that I accept that The full nature of the infinite God cannot be fully understood by the finite human intellect, mentioned by Patrick Szalapski here) but on how to be able to distinguish between God and his creatures in practice (not theory, by counting the God's attributes and explaining the lack of such attributes in his creatures)?

Let clarify my question better for your answers to be able to be more explicit. Those who believe in divinity of Jesus:

If God can be incarnated in a human appearance, then why God has sent many prophets before the Christ, instead of himself coming to the earth guiding his creatures? So the first question is "What's the reason for sending prophets?"
If God can be incarnated in a human appearance, why can't he be incarnated in animals' appearances, the plants' appearances, the stones' appearances? Is there any constraint to answer why he has come to his created earth only once before and in the appearance of one person, Jesus? If not, i.e. there is no such constraint, can you assure he is not right now somewhere in the form of a human being, an animal, an insect, a fish, a plant, a piece of rock or a star or else in his created universe? If there is a constraint please note it explicitly and if not please mention how you can get sure who/what is creature and who/what is God? (Certainly you should have a criterion for that which turns to be an implicit definition of God, without requiring to touch the quality of his infinite existence!) Then conclude what's the difference between an idolator and a Christian, both may pray a God in the shape of stones and stars and etc.? And last, is it possible that Pharaohs of the times of Moses and Abraham, who also used to claim to be God, actually have been God? If not they're guilty merely because they introduce themselves as another guy, being simple liers?
How God --creator of the senses-- may himself experience the feeling of e.g. pain, being teased on a cross and eventually die due to pain excess or lack of blood in his body? Is he able to live a life in a world made by himself? Requiring oxygen to breath, food to eat, sleeping, taking bath to get cleaned, going to WC and etc isn't considered as any weakness for a God who is to be perfect? I guess you probably say that wouldn't be a weakness for God the father anyway, but then if two existences are such different that one is perfect and the other is full of need how would you then express them one thing? Maybe you consider them as two aspects of one thing, then the question changes to asserts that the whole concept in general will then no longer be perfect, don't you think so? (A concept being perfect in one aspect and needfull in another aspect is not perfect as a whole, a total perfect should be perfect in all respects, shouldn't it?) If no, why?
Was Jesus PBUH worshipping and fasting any? If yes who was he praying if he was God?

Through the few past days that I was studying Christian beliefs these are the most questionable parts to me. I asked a similar question alongside my answer to this question, however decided to ask this one to get a clear explicit answer to my misgivings, anyway the Christians can defend themselves better than others defending them not knowing their beliefs as good as themselves.

Thanks in advance


texts: Can a married person be elected as the Pope?

texts: What is The Roman Catholic law for electing the Pope in regards to a married person? If a married person is elected, what will happen to his wife after becoming the Pope?


texts:
And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without
  hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of
  Christ;

  Colossians 2:11 (NASB)

  When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical
  procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away
  of your sinful nature.

  Colossians 2:11 (NLT)

Colossians 2:11 talks about circumcision which is removing a certain part of a male's fleshy body , specifically, the foreskin and Paul used this spiritually as an analogue to Christ's salvific act. What, then, does this have to do with the forgiveness of sins? The NLT translated the text to mean that the sinful nature was removed.Did Christ thoroughly remove the sinful nature? If so, why do believers still have the ability to sin?

What does Colossians 2:11 mean in light of Evangelical Protestant Soteriology?


texts: Where in the Bible does Jesus actually say He is the LORD God and that men should worship Him?


texts: What is the point Jesus is trying to make by comparing Pharisees with several objects?

texts:
I was reflecting on Matthew 23:23-28 .

And came across Jesus comparing the Pharisees with several objects: filthy cups, whitewashed tombs.

What is the point Jesus is trying to make here?


texts:
It is common to associate Abraham as "father of the faith" and the first Jew.

However, since  Abram's family came from the land of Ur, isn't it more accurate to say that he wasn't a Jew but - in reality - a Babylonian that became a Jew because of his faith in God?

This is open for answer by all denominations. I would like to hear their thoughts on the matter.


texts: How many books of the bible agreed on any Christian denomination?

texts: How many books of the bible (includes the new testament) considered to be agreed on all denominations / movements? What are the basic books that considered holy for all?


texts: Is chastity only expressed in virginity?

texts:
Blessed Alexandrina da Costa of Balasar

  On Holy Saturday of 1918, while Alexandrina, Deolinda and a young
  apprentice were busily sewing, three men violently entered their home
  and attempted to sexually violate them. To preserve her purity,
  Alexandrina jumped from a window, falling four metres to the ground.

Also

  Like St Maria Goretti, she was ready to die rather than consent to the
  man's lustful advances.

I'm sure there is more women who were saints and had similar story.
My question is how does a woman who is raped or forced to an unwanted impure act lose her purity? Does only a virgin keep her purity intact? I personally don't think they would lose their purity even if they "let" them to rape them.

I agree with what the saints did and see it as a heroic act. I just don't understand why do they say "and this way they preserved their purity" like they would lose it if they let them. This tells me that you can only be pure if you stay a virgin. What is the catholic church understanding on this?


texts: To "once saved always saved" advocates, what does it mean that church leaders "keep watch over our souls"?

texts:
Many evangelicals believe that people cannot lose their salvation due to disobedience. If that is so, why do we need people to "keep watch over our souls"?

  Hebrews 13:17 (ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.


texts: Why does the Apostles ' Creed not mention that Jesus rose again in body?

texts:
The Apostles'  Creed says of Jesus :
"...was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead..."
If Jesus descended into Hell while his body  lay dead and buried, he did so  in spirit. So, what rose again from the dead on the third day, was his body. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, why does the Apostles'Creed not mention that Jesus rose again in body ?


texts: How does mainstream Christianity view "Heaven is for Real"?

texts:
I was looking for books on what happens after death on Amazon, and came across Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back. I found this interesting review but I didn't get anything conclusive out of it.

I understand that there is a very fine line between using external sources to illuminate Bible verses and being deceived by the devil as in 2 Corinthians 11:14.

What is the biblical/Christian way to deal with this book (and others just like it)?

completely ignore it (since the Bible is sufficient)
read it, but only skeptically at an intellectual level
be prepared, because weird things = the end is near
[your answer here] ...


texts: What is the Unity teachings of Jesus' resurrection?

texts: The Unity church is unorthodox, however I was wondering what the exact teachings were of Jesus' resurrection.


texts: What is purpose of being ready for the End Times?

texts:
I have seen Christians study the Scriptures for clues as to how one can tell that the Second Coming, the Tribulation, the events of Revelation, the End Times are upon us.

What is the purpose for such preparation? Would it be to stop participation in a particularly bad sin? To be able to point things out to weaker-faith faith family members so that they can get assurance Bible is true?  What have prominent theologians who hold to the importance of an End-Times theology written about the necessity of preparation, or action upon knowing the signs (as opposed to everyday duties for Christians)?

Here, one theologian that doesn't fit this criteria would be Martin Luther, or others who might say it's an allegory.


texts: What is the justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine?

texts:
Every so often, I read about Christian parents choosing faith healing over conventional medicine for their sick children, in some cases with lethal results. This usually results in the parents being convicted of either severe neglect or manslaughter. (Rightfully so, in my opinion)

I know there are several accounts of miraculous healing mentioned in the Bible, and I don't see a problem with prayer in addition to medicine, but what is the justification for opting to rely on prayer alone?

Is the answer different when it's an adult making the choice for themselves rather than for their child?


texts: According to Catholicism, what Old Testament text is referred to in John 19: 36?

texts:
We see at John 19: 31-36, how the early death of Jesus on the Cross staved off the prospects of his legs being broken to fasten death :
".... Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. .... But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs... These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
The cross reference of OT that one gets to the said Verse 36 are the following:
Psalms 34:19-20:
The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
Exodus 12:43-46
"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:... It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. "
Numbers 9: 10-12:
"" Tell the Israelites: .... to celebrate the Lord’s Passover,  ..... on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.  They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. "
While the references of Exodus and Numbers refer to the bones of the sacrificial lamb, that of Psalms refer to the righteous person. I wish to know as to which of the above is the OT reference that  the Evangelist had in mind at John 19:36 . Does the Catholic Church offer any definitive clue in this regard ?


texts: How come Good and Evil fruit brought from same tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden?

texts:
GOD's words will never change from the beginning of creation and forever.                   If we read in Mathew chapter 7 words 17-18  it says:

  17) Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
  18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I need to understand how this tree of knowledge bringeth forth GOOD and EVIL fruit which Adam and Eve eat.


texts: LDS Church and Genealogy Research (What is the connection?)

texts:
Forgive my ignorance in asking this question, or if I am making a sweeping generalization.  But I feel like my observation is a very common one, and I am surprised that nobody else has asked the question yet.

Why does the LDS church invest in genealogical research?  Not only does it seem like they own quite a few internet databases for family heritage, but the church also owns the largest library for genealogical research.

Being a protestant, this seems really weird to me.  Most denominations I know of are very "spread out" in terms of their investments - they will put a little into food drives, a little into missions, a little into seminary grants, etc etc.

But certainly (and this is where I hope I am not making a sweeping generalization..) the LDS church seems to have comparatively narrower investments, which are more focused and therefore more profitable.  These investments really confuse me though - why would a religious organization be interested in genealogy research?


texts: What is the difference between an Apostolic Exhortation and an Encyclical Letter?

texts: Pope Francis has just released an Apostolic Exhortation called Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). He also released an Encyclical Letter in the summer called Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith). What is the difference between these two types of documents? Is one considered to be more important than the other?


texts: How do Arminians reconcile free will with God's omnipotence logically?

texts:
I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was blown away by some of the statements Lewis makes. He mentions "even [God] cannot produce [a changed heart]  by a mere act of power...It is something they can freely give Him or freely refuse Him ." (Mere Christianity Book 3 chapter 10)

This brought up an interesting point in my mind: if you believe in the idea of Free Will with regards to Salvation or a changed heart, you indirectly believe that there is something God cannot do. This directly contradicts the scriptures including Matthew 19:26 and Luke 1:37 ( as well as many others, see http://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence) that talk about Gods omnipotence.

I grew up in a Calvary Chapel church where Free will was pushed ad nauseum and I was wondering how these Christians as well as other Arminians reconcile free will with something God cannot do.


texts: What is the meaning of: “a sword will pierce your soul”?

texts:
One of the joyful mysteries talks about that after Simeon talked to her, the Virgin Mary took the wound of sorrow and accepted God’s will.  What is that supposed to mean if I am trying to achieve a goal?

Thank you.


texts: What were the Nephilim, and what role did they play in the Bible beyond just being mentioned?

texts: Did the Nephilim that are mentioned in Genesis 6:4 do anything beyond just existing?


texts: Should Catholic christians be obligated to use in vitro fertilisation? If not, why not?

texts:
I've been talking with friends about different methods of contraception and the relationship of the Catholic church towards them. If I understand correctly, most widespread means of contraception (birth control pills, condoms etc.) are not acceptable as they contradict God's will (e.g. see Genesis 9:7).
However does this mean that one should try to have children by all means? If not, why not? Would Catholics be obligated to use Viagra, if it aided them to conceive a child? Wouldn't it be a moral obligation to use more invasive methods as in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection?

I think it boils down to the question, if God wants man to reproduce (as much as they can?) or if that should only happen with the available means without medical help. However then any medical help that prevents one from dying during childhood is artifically helping you to reproduce.

We merely had an amusing conversation about the topic and thought this was a funny provocative question to ask a Catholic. However I am seriously interested in an answer as I had not come across this question before and I'd be interested how it would be approached by someone with more insight.

This question was split in two and the striked-out part has been moved to: What is the Catholic Church's attitude to the use of Viagra in marriage?


texts: Origin and details of -10 to +10 model of becoming a Christian

texts:
I've heard of a model for showing how a person can become a Christian: they start at -10 (as far away from God as possible) and gradually work their way to 0 (becoming a Christian) and then, potentially, up to +10 (a fully committed believer).

I'm trying to find more information, specifically:

How this model originated and
If there is any further explanation of the scale, eg "at -8 a person is typically..."

So far all I have found is this page: The Bible For Students which states that the model comes from the Navigators.


texts: Why was Martin Harris punished for revealing the Lost 116 pages?

texts:
I am fully aware of the Messianic Secret in Mark, but I don't understand why Martin Harris would feel as though he should be punished for revealing the pages he recorded from Smith's translation of the Golden Plates.  After their loss, it is my understanding that Harris never again served as scribe. Furthermore, according to my tour guide, Smith also claimed responsibility for this loss, stating that "God had to humble him" by "giving into" Smith's desire to let Harris have the pages.

What was so sacred about these 116 pages that revealing them was so bad?  Was the theology contained therein of particular importance, or was the problem simply that Smith felt he should not have betrayed the command of the Angel?

Along these lines, I'm curious as to the theological significance of what he translated. What was in this material that needed to be protected?


texts: Is the song Baba Yetu actually used by African churches?

texts:
Recently I encountered someone who, upon hearing the song "Baba Yetu," a rendition of the Lord's Prayer in Swahili, assumed that it is widely used in the Swahili-speaking church in Africa.

However, the song was actually written by an American for a video game – not the church.  The song went on to win a Grammy and is now performed around the world by professional choirs and ensembles.

Wikipedia indicates that there have been some high-profile performances of the song in Africa.  But I want to know: To what extent has the Swahili-speaking African church actually incorporated this song into their worship?

I realize a definitive answer is likely difficult, but here are a few thoughts on what kinds of evidence might be good indicators:

inclusion in a published Swahili-language/African church songbook/hymnal,
demonstrated use in Christian conferences/seminars taking place in Africa
testimony of a local church leader/missionary


texts: In Proverbs 19:20 whom should one hear, receive from, and accept? God or any wise man?

texts:
Proverbs 20 Hear counsel, receive instruction, and accept correction, that you may be wise in the time to come. (AMP)

Please help to interpret the above. Whom should one hear, receive from, and accept?

Thanks,


texts: How can we be sure the Old Testament is accurate if Elijah was the only prophet left?

texts:
This morning in church the service was about Elijah with the Baal's prophets. I read this verse and some questions arose which I could not find an answer on.

  1 Kings 18:22
  Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

The following questions arose:

Was the Bible already written in the time of Elijah?
If Elijah was the only prophet left, how can we make sure that the Baal's prophets did not corrupt the scriptures? And more in general, how can we make sure that none of the bad kings back in this time did not corrupt the scriptures?


texts: What are the main points of Mormons' teaching that this group of people consider contradictory to the Bible?

texts:
Okay, before asking this question I want to establish the audience that I am about to address: people who consider themselves Christians and don't associate themselves with Mormons.

So here is the question:

What are the main points of Mormon teaching that a majority of those who consider themselves Christians, and not associate themselves with Mormons, consider contradictory to the Bible?

Please, refrain from mentioning here those points that did not originate from the Bible, but can't be either supported or disproved by the Bible - my question is not about that kind of points.


texts: I'm really terrible at faith.  I understand that it's a choice to have or not have faith, I'd really like to choose the former, but my very much neurotic nature often gets the best of me, and often holds me back I think...  So my question is "How do I get more faith?"


texts: Is money the root of 'all' evil or 'some' evil?

texts: I remember reading a Hebrew version of the Bible with English translation *right to left) many years ago and I am sure the English directly translated to 'some evil' rather than 'all evil'. Can anyone confirm this?


texts: Differences between first printings of folio AV of the Bible in 1611

texts:
I have a leaf that is supposed to be from the first edition, first printing, of the Authorized Version of the Bible from 1611. However, when I look at PDF versions, there are differences.

For example, looking at the 1611 The Authorized King James Bible, the chapter headings used "j" (as in xxiij instead of xxiii), the header phrases are partially capitalized, not all in lower case (eg, "for the Temple" instead of "for the temple"), and the spelling is different ("sonnes" instead  of "sons").

So either I'm looking at a PDF of one of the later printings, or I have a later printing.

Does anybody know for sure the characteristics of the true first edition of the AV, versus the later printings?

To be clear, this is a folio sheet so it could be the first printing and the PDFs on the Internet could be later printings of the folio. (I don't have the page for Ruth 3:15, which would answer my question by having "he" instead of "she".)

The matter is complicated by the 1611 editions being printed by different printers. The PDF I see online seems to be a first printing, since it has "he" in Ruth 3:15. But maybe the differences I refer to above are from different printers instead of different printings? I need someone with a detailed bibliography of the 1611 AV.


texts: What is the historical and theological basis for Protestant anti-Catholicism?

texts:
I am under the impression that Scripture teaches tolerance, not resentment.  However it seems there has been some tension between Catholics and Protestants over the centuries – to the point of war in some cases – take the Thirty Years War for example.  On a personal note, when I was going through Catechism classes, I found it a little irritating that the Catholic Church says it’s the only true Christian Church.  Yet, even amongst the Protestants, there seems be derision between each denomination and in today’s world, within a single denomination.

All in all, I was under the impression that Scripture teaches tolerance.

  Ephesians 4:30-32 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with
  whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all
  bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every
  form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving
  each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

I could even go as far as to add this from Corinthians as well:

  1 Corinthians 12:12-14 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts,
  but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.13 For we
  were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews
  or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to
  drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

So what gives with the grief - then and now?

This is a curiosity question that is both looking at things historically and psychologically, I don't mean to offend anyone (and if I have, I am sorry).  I know that things are more amicable these days, but it seems that there can still be some issues (take the IRA for example, so glad they've decided to put their weapons down!).

Tolerance is my main theme here however.  Thank you.


texts: How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?

texts:
I know psalms and other Biblical songs are often sung as hymns, read and cited, but I wonder to which extent is this understood as a prayer by Protestants.

To be more concrete, is the use of psalms mentioned in Ephesians 5:19 understood as prayer, "strange prayer", "something related to prayer" or "something completely different"?

Ephesians 5:18b-20:

  Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with
  psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from
  your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for
  everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This answer has awakened my old suspition that there is some hidden but grave terminological incompatibility between Catholic and Protestant understanding of prescribed prayer and praising God's name by Psalms and by words of Bible in general. For Catholics, singing/reciting psalms and other Biblic songs with intent to praise God is definitely understood as a prayer, in fact it's a base of Liturgy of Hours. The answer for the question Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours? seems to imply different approach.
That's why I ask this question.


texts: Are there any non-pacifist traditions that object to military chaplaincy?

texts:
I'd like to know if there are any non-pacifist Christian traditions or denominations, either historical or contemporary, that object to individual participation in the military as a non-combat chaplain, or to military chaplaincy in general.

I see several possible reasons why Christians might not serve as chaplains:

A view of pacifism that forbids any connection with the military
A view of the state that forbids association with the military in this particular capacity (e.g., concerns over state establishment of religion)
Moral opposition to a particular action that is required of chaplains (such as performing same-sex marriages)

I'm most interested in #2, but also #3.  I imagine that there are multiple examples of #1, but that's another question.

Regarding #3, I'm aware that there is ongoing fighting in the U.S. between Christian groups and the Pentagon over what chaplains can and can't do.  I'm not looking for an example of one that is fighting, but one that has rejected the idea entirely.


texts: Are there denominations which prefer using the name "Yeshu‘a" instead of "Jesus"?

texts:
The original name for Jesus in Hebrew-Aramaic is yeshu‘a. This was translated into Greek as Iēsous and then via the Latin Iesus into German, and eventually into English as Jesus.

Since Christians believe that using the name of Jesus/Yeshua in prayer adds authority and power, it could be argued that Christians should be using his original name (Yeshua) or at least something closer to it, rather than the somewhat convoluted translation "Jesus".

Are there any denominations or Christian groups that use "Yeshua" as opposed to "Jesus"?
Is there any evidence that other denominations have considered changing their usage from "Jesus" to "Yeshua" and are there any documented reasons why that suggestion was rejected?


texts: Why does the Bible talk only about the people of Israel?

texts: I am reading the Bible through these days, and I can say that I am a little surprised. I think God wants all the people, and that is why we are created. I don't understand why the Bible talks only about Israel, only about its people and its kingdom. In the Exodus, it is said that God killed every first male child of the Egyptians to let the Israel go. How can this happen, of course it can't be true. Why would God hate some of His people and love without conditions the some other people?


texts: Why did St. Monica defer St. Augustine's baptism?

texts:
St. Augustine's mother, St. Monica, was very devout, praying for St. Augustine's conversion, even following him to Milan and successfully getting Bishop St. Ambrose to baptize him, Easter 387. But why didn't St. Monica baptize St. Augustine when he was an infant? Was her husband Patricius, a pagan idolator, opposed to this? (How was St. Monica even validly married to a pagan? Mixed marriages, barring a special dispensation, are invalid.)
Fr. Alban Butler's biography of St. Monica says:

In his infancy she had ranked him among the catechumens; and once in an illness, all things were prepared for his baptism, but it was deferred.

Why did she defer his baptism? It seems an illness would be all the more reason to have him baptized sooner.


texts: Was eternal life promised by the Mosaic Law?

texts:
John 3:16 (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
  only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
  eternal life.

The New Testament clearly tells us how one can attain salvation or eternal life.

What about Old Testament? Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal life?

How can we understand this verse?

  Matthew 19:16 (NIV)
  Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing
  must I do to get eternal life?”

If the rich man was a Jew, he must have known how to attain eternal life from the Torah.


texts: Which was written first Noah’s Flood or the Gilgamesh Epic?

texts:
I am finding conflicting information on the web...

Was it Book of Genesis or the Gilgamesh Epic that was written first?


texts: What is the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation

texts: Is forgiveness and reconciliation the same thing?  What needs to happen for forgiveness to occur?  What needs to happen for reconciliation to take place?


texts:
I'm not talking about soul sleep here. I believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8) and I believe we are made up of spirit, soul and body. (1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews 4:12, Luke 1:46-47, Zechariah 12:1).
What I'm asking is when God creates the spirit of man does he create it immortal? Like, the spirit of man hasn't always existed like in Greek philosophies but when it does come into existence is it created immortal because from Gen 2:7 I understand that God Himself breathed the breath of life/spirit into Adam and God's breath is uncreated and eternal so shouldn't we be eternal too?


texts: How does the Reformed tradition understand Philippians 2:6-9 as it regards the Hypostatic Union?

texts:
Philippians 2:6-9

  (A) Though he was God,  he did not think of equality with God as
  something to cling to

  but  (B) emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being
  born in the likeness of men

  And being found in human form,  (C) he humbled himself by becoming
  obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

  Therefore  (D) God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the
  name that is above every name

I'm in the middle conversation with some of my Christian friends who hold Hypostatic Union. But although they hold the same thing, it seems there is still a different opinion of the verse between them.

Friend-1
Point A is talking before the Incarnation.
Point B is talking just about the Incarnation.
Point C is talking during the Incarnation.
Point D is because point C not because point B.

Friend-2
point-A is talking during the Incarnation.
point-B is talking during the Incarnation.
Point C is talking during the Incarnation.
Point D is because point B and because point C.

So, which one is correct according to the Reformed tradition?

Thank you.


texts:
I wonder, how does the suffering of Jesus/God show love?

I do not believe that Jesus suffered to forgive our sins. If God is love, God doesn't need to make a terrible sacrifice to forgive our sins. God can forgive without it. This explanation is really inconceivable to me.

It seems to me like part of the answer is to show that God suffers with us and that we don't suffer alone, but this answer doesn't completely satisfy me either.


texts: According to Martin Luther, which Councils contradicted each other?

texts:
At the imperial Diet of Worms, Luther famously said:

  I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other [...]

What did he mean? Is there a particular pope or Council that he is referring to?


texts: Why didn't God reveal all the answers to life?

texts:
Is there scripture that supports why all these questions have not been revealed to us?
As a Christian, I do not ponder on unanswered questions, however I would have to believe, somewhere within the bible there has to be an answer to this simple question.


texts: Why is everything created spiritually before physically?

texts: According to LDS doctrine, why are we created as spirits before we can receive a body? On earth, all creatures are born with the same bodies as their parents. In the preexistence, why are the children of God born/created out of different matter (spirits) than our heavenly parents? Our Father in Heaven is a physical being. If we are literal offspring of our Father in Heaven, then why aren't we born in the pre-earth life with a physical body, the same as our Father in Heaven?


texts: How do Young Earth Creationists counter scientific evidence for an old earth?

texts:
How do Young Earth Creationists defend their beliefs against articles like this:

100 million year old spider eating a wasp

  100 million years ago, when dinosaurs were still around, this spider
  had captured a wasp in his web. The wasp was going to be the spider's
  dinner. The wasp was going to die watching the spider kill him. The
  wasp was going to—SPLAT. At that exact moment—one hundred million
  freaking years ago—tree resin flowed over on top of them and froze the
  two bugs in time for us to see now.


texts: Do the Orthodox and Catholic Churches allow participation in each others' services?

texts:
Is it alright for an Orthodox christian to go into a Catholic church and vice versa? That is:

Does either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic teaching object to occasional participation of an Eastern Orthodox Christian in a Catholic service (Mass)? What about occasional participation of a Catholic in an Eastern Orthodox service (Divine Liturgy)?


texts: Was Adam mortal before he partook of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Has this matter been considered in Christianity? I believe there could be only two possible options here: "Yes, he was" and "No, he wasn't". But what main supporting points have been put forth for either of these doctrines?


texts: How have Protestants explained how Jesus could be born of mankind and be sinless?

texts:
Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless?

I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster.

The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view).


texts:
The following is what Joseph Smith said from "Doctrines & Covenants, Section 130, Paragraph 3 regarding John 14:23.

John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son can dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false."

Here is what the verse says

John 14:23,"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and my Father will love him, and We shall come to him, and make Our abode with him."

The "we" of "we will come unto him" refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In other words, the disciple becomes the residence of God. the Apostle Paul elaborates on this truth when he says, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Corinthians 3:16.
Paul also said, "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own." 1 Corinthians 6:19.
Other verses would include 1 John 4:15, "Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in Him, and he in God." Ephesians 3:17 and Revelation 3:20 also support God making His abode in believers.
It is my opinion on this is since Smith and his followers believe that God has a body of flesh and bone and cannot be everywhere present at the same time therefore God cannot indwell a believer.
I decided to look up the word "sectarian" that Smith used. "Denoting or concerning a sect or sects." Is not this the question that Smith asked God the Father and God the Son? "Which of all the sects was right that I might know which to join."
The answer he received was,

" I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of man, having the form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

So my question is:
On what basis did Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith declare  that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot indwell a believer?
I meant to post Romans 8:11 but simply forgot. "

But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies THROUGH HIS SPIRIT WHO INDWELLS YOU."

The following is the LDS view of the Holy Spirit, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/holy-ghost?
lang=eng
Notice the statement:

All honest seekers of the truth can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost, leading them to Jesus Christ and His gospel."

The Dictionary defines "feelings," Feeling is a general term for a subjective point of view as well as for specific sensations; readily affected by emotion.
The point is that "truth" is not based on subjective feelings or emotions.


texts: Why would God want his people to build tabernacle and the sacred rooms, only to destroy them after Jesus dies on the cross? Does that mean God has changed his mind?


texts: What major discrepancies exist between "versions" of the Bible?

texts:
Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson,

  'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement.

there is a belief out there that "versions" of the Bible apparently have "numerous discrepancies".  I'd like to know what these are.

What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology?

P.S. If you are going to cite the game of "telephone" please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many "discrepancies" this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online.  Additionally, there are several "Critical Appartus"es, the best are by Bruce Metzger, that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.


texts: By what process did the miraculous conception of Jesus occur?

texts: Is there an official position in Roman Catholic doctrine about the following: when Jesus was conceived, was it from an egg cell of Mary fertilised in a supernatural way, or did Jesus's embryo directly appear in Mary's womb?


texts: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on why God sanctioned eating meat after the fall if veganism was already the pre-fall standard?

texts:
Genesis tells us that Adam, Eve and all animals had originally plant-based diets, as God provided them with every plant and tree for food:

29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Genesis 1:29-31, ESV]

However, later passages of the Bible reveal that, after the fall, God approved of animal-based diets:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. [Genesis 9:1-3, ESV]

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. [Acts 10:9-16, ESV]

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. [Luke 15:22-24, ESV]

Question: Why did God eventually sanction animal-based diets after the fall if originally the norm across the board was veganism? Was it for nutritional reasons or something else?
I don't know if there is a unique answer to this question, so I'm posing it as a request for an overview of Christian viewpoints. Obviously, my intention is not to overwhelm you with a question that is impractically broad, so it would be just fine for me if an answer is posted simply enumerating some of the most compelling views according to e.g. a reputable Christian authority on the matter, etc.

Update based on the comments:
Answers can include viewpoints that reject the premise (that veganism was the norm right after Creation and before the Fall), I have no issues with that, as long as quotes or summaries of the argumentations given to reject the premise are included.

Update 2:
To those who reject the premise: you guys have inspired to ask a related question on Hermeneutics.SE: Does Genesis 1:29-31 leave any room for the existence of animal-based diets in the period between the Creation and the Fall?. Feel free to explain your reasons on that question.


texts: What have old Christian writers opined about a couple living with in-laws during marriage?

texts:
I understand a question has been asked and was closed on this topic previously, but I wanted to more specifically ask about Christian writings on it, preferably early ones.
Often people today use Genesis 2:24 to teach the 'leave and cleave' doctrine that a married couple should not live in the same residence as one of the in-law parents. Is this an historical interpretation of the passage? Has anyone in the church viewed the topic differently, or similarly? I.e, are there any old Christian writers who have suggested that it is acceptable for a married couple to live with parents?


texts: What's the meaning of this quote by C. S. Lewis, regarding the heart and head?

texts:
C. S. Lewis wrote:

  The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.

According to this, should we follow the heart or head?


texts: Did God's moral principles change with the change of OT times to NT times?

texts:
It is a universal moral concept in the Christian era that the family members of a criminal are not responsible for his crime (unless they participated in that crime), and that the subordinates are not responsible for the personal crimes committed by their superior (unless they participated in his crime). This morality now is characteristic of any Christian group and no Christian group would argue against it.
However, if we look into the Old Testament, we will see cases, in which God Himself put to death or was ready to put to death relatives or subordinates for the sins committed by one of their relatives or by their superior, respectively. For example,

But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You
are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a
married woman.” Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord,
will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, ‘She is my
sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this
with a clear conscience and clean hands.” Then God said to him in the
dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I
have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you
touch her. Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will
pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may
be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.” (Genesis 20:3-7, NIV)

On one hand, we can see in this chapter that God did not eventually kill Abimelek and even prevented Abimelek from sin. However, God did tell him that if he didn't return Sarah to Abraham, He would most definitely kill Abimelek and all those who belonged to him.
Another passage that puzzles me is this:

Then he sent to Elijah a captain with his company of fifty men. The
captain went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and
said to him, “Man of God, the king says, ‘Come down!’ ” Elijah
answered the captain, “If I am a man of God, may fire come down from
heaven and consume you and your fifty men!” Then fire fell from heaven
and consumed the captain and his men. At this the king sent to Elijah
another captain with his fifty men. The captain said to him, “Man of
God, this is what the king says, ‘Come down at once!’ ” “If I am a man
of God,” Elijah replied, “may fire come down from heaven and consume
you and your fifty men!” Then the fire of God fell from heaven and
consumed him and his fifty men.  (2Kings 1:9-12, NIV)

Even if one can argue that the first two captains here were too bold and disrespectful toward Elijah and, therefore, might have also been involved in the sinful behavior of their sinful king Ahaziah (barely), the soldiers that were under those two captains, were definitely innocent – they simply had no word in it and didn't decide anything. However, we don't see any hint in this chapter that what was done by Elijah (and, therefore, allowed by God, too) was in any way wrong.
So, does this mean that God's moral principles have changed with the change of OT times to NT times? Or is there any other explanation to this in the major Christianity?
(By major Christianity I mean Oriental Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and all the Protestant Churches that pray to Jesus in their prayers)


texts: How do Mormons view this prophecy Joseph Smith seemingly added about himself in Genesis 50:33?

texts:
Chapter 50 in the book of Genesis is part of the Joseph Smith Translation, written by Joseph Smith himself.

Verses 30 and 33 of this chapter says the following (emphasis added):

  30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto
  the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only,
  saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall
  have already gone forth among them in the last days;

  ...

  33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will
  remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be
  called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he
  shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth
  by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

With this passage, Joseph Smith added a prophecy to the Bible book of Genesis which was originally written thousands of years ago. This prophecy is about a future seer who was (to be) named Joseph after the name of the seer's father.

For a non-believer at least this looks like a possible attempt by Joseph Smith to retroactively insert a prophecy about himself into the Bible, considering that Joseph Smith was himself a son of a man named Joseph (Joseph Smith Sr.).

However I would assume that Mormons view this passage differently. How do Mormons view it?

Is the passage viewed as a reference to some other individual named
Joseph, who was also named after his father?
Or is the passage viewed as something that God somehow wanted
Joseph Smith to include here?
Or is it viewed in some other manner altogether?


texts: Is Mary's human soul pre-existent in eternity?

texts:
There is a statement in the Catholic Catechism that says that Mary is chosen from all eternity by God. Would this mean she pre-existed in eternity with God, or does "chosen" not really imply pre-existence?
Mary's predestination:

488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":
The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.

What does the Catholic Church teach on Mary's soul?  Is there an official doctrine explaining that Mary's soul pre-existed in eternity?


texts: Has the impact of a practitioner's theological framework on pastoral counseling methodology been studied?

texts:
Do any existing pastoral counseling programs take into effect how the theological framework concerning the doctrine of free will affects the counselor's therapeutic approach? For instance, an institution that gravitates towards theological determinism (such as Calvinism) might be more likely to adopt an approach based on radical behaviorism such as CBA (e.g. ACT, which has an underlying worldview of functional contextualism; or functional analytic psychotherapy), while an institution that leans towards theological indeterminism/libertarianism (such as Pelagianism or Arminianism) might feel more comfortable with standard CBT approaches.

From my experience, most pastoral counseling programs seem to teach some form of CBT without considering how the underlying worldview of the therapeutic approach conflicts (or agrees) with the theological ideologies of the institution and thus might create unintended countertransference. Has anyone dealt with this in scholarly publications or studies? Do any institutions who teach pastoral counseling directly address this issue?


texts: Did God promise to appoint prophets in each generation?

texts: I remember a TV show where one of the characters tells another person that God promised that there would be prophets in each generation. Is there Biblical support for such a view? If this view does exist what are some of the Bible verses that support? I'm interested in the main Catholic and Protestant view on this issue.


texts: When people go to heaven, does their spelling improve?

texts:
Note: by Heaven I mean the "temporary state before the resurrection".
In other words, do people keep their virtues, morals, skills, faults, wickedness when they go to heaven?
Or do they become better and get rid of all (or part) of their faults and wickedness?
And what about their virtues. Are they enhanced beyond what they normally were when living?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Docetism?

texts:
Docetism is the belief that Jesus never took a physical, corporeal form, but He was instead solely spiritual in nature. Passages such as 1 John 2:15,  Galatians 5:17, and Romans 7:18 could be construed to support their argument, but is there anything in the Bible that Docetists claim(ed) directly implies that Christ was not of flesh?

On another note, I'd also like to find documentation of a Docetist actually defending their belief with Scripture. Does anyone know of such a case or where I could find one?


texts:
Ever since I was a little tyke I have heard people say go up to Heaven or down to Hell.

Up and down would seemingly have its relationship to the surface of the Earth, and while down in that case can only mean toward the center of the Earth; Up would be relative to where you were on the surface of the Earth.

In the Bible Jesus himself appears to fortify that assumption in:

  John 3:12 and 13 KJV  If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?  13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

and again in:

  John 20:17 KJV  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So when:

  Luke 24:51 KJV  And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

So then if up is in relation to the spot where Jesus ascended from, would up on the opposite side of the Earth still be toward the clouds or would it be in the opposite direction?

It would seem more logical to me ascending and descending would be more in line with being closer to God or further away from him.

Has this been addressed before by any denomination, Theology, or Biblical Scholar?


texts: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Protestant canon

texts:
Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants?  I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway)

I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong.

  That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed

Wikipedia - Sirach

I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ.

I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.