texts: Confusing argument from GotQuestion (Calvinist) about 24 Elders

texts:
I read from this link:

  A. Some people believe these twenty-four elders represent Israel,
  but at the time of this vision, Israel as a whole nation had not yet been redeemed.

  B. The elders cannot represent tribulation saints for the same reason
   not all had yet been converted at the time of John’s vision.

  C. The most likely option is that the elders represent the raptured
  Church which sings songs of redemption (Revelation 5:8-10).

What made me confuse is because on point-C, I can also say :
but at the time of John’s vision, there is no raptured Church yet.

So, the question is :
Did Calvinist say (in point-C) that at the time of John’s vision there is already raptured Church?

On the other hand,
If what Calvinist meant (in point-C) is at the time of the "End Time",
Then why the argument in point-A and point-B use at the time of John’s vision ?


texts: Did Neanderthals have a soul? From when do people exists/have soul?

texts: Does the church agree with some kind of Darwin evolution and big bang theory? If so, from when does human exists? If we think of human as we have soul, did Neanderthals had one? Was it like this individual does not have soul yet but from now, his children do have a soul and are the first people that could go to heaven?


texts: Reconciling Peter in Acts with Deuteronomy/Psalms on the burden of the Law?

texts:
Peter is cited in Acts 15:10-11 as saying to the Jerusalem Council, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?". And yet, in Deuteronomy 30:9-14:

  The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he
  delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the Lord your God and keep
  his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and
  turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
  Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or
  beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask,
  “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may
  obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will
  cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No,
  the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so
  you may obey it.

God states that not only is it possible for the average Israelite to obey the Mosaic Law, but implies that the Israelites' ancestors successfully did it (cf. Genesis 26:5, where God says that Abraham obeyed "My commandments, My statutes and My laws").

In addition, the author of Psalm 119 appears to assume that it's possible for a person to follow the Law properly (vv.88, 145, 146) and praises such a person (vv.1-2, 33-34, 55), then claims to properly follow the Law himself (vv.14, 22, 31-32, 69, 129, 157, 167-168).
In Deuteronomy 11:13 (and v.22), God says ("if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today — to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul") that the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:36-38) is one of, or a shorthand for, the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law.
Two people in the Gospels are recorded as asking Jesus what to do to inherit "eternal life". Each time, he responds by asking what is written in "the Law" or "the commandments", several examples are quoted from the Pentateuch and then Jesus says to the person to go and do them and "live" (Luke 10:25-38; Matthew 19:16-20).

So on what basis does Peter make the claim that the Mosaic Law is impossible to bear?


texts: What is the biblical basis for modern-day prophets?

texts: I've been seeing people lately who have claimed to be recipients of divine revelation from God (if not in that exact language) and that we all need to heed their warnings or -insert consequence here-. They say that essentially, God didn't cover everything that would ever happen in the bible, so he uses people to communicate his will to people today. Is there biblical basis for this being true? If so, how can we verify that it is from God?


texts: How can I find this letter from Ambrose?

texts:
In more than one work I encountered the following format:

(epist. 50[25],2f)

or

(epist. 49[59],3)

In referring to letters(?) written by Ambrosios of Milan, "epist." is explained as "Epistulae." which seems obvious.

But what does this indexing scheme refer to?

I would like to read the letter in the first example in either English, German or Latin.


texts: When did a Catholic church council first recognize the need to forbid forcing or outwardly compelling unbelievers to the Christian faith?

texts: We all know the sorrowful history of the subject. The very early church would have never felt a need to have a council on the subject, just as they would have been no council declaring that Christians should not commit adultery, or theft. However, assuming that the church did degrade itself into this non-Christian behavior when did a council first condemn it?


texts: Why do the Abrahamic religions tend to keep sexuality in the private sphere?

texts:
The three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, generally view sex and sexuality as a taboo: Private matters, restricted from the public sphere (both the practice and discussion of it).

The Abrahamic religions tend to sanctify sex and sexuality as a matter between a man and a woman in a private institution. Pornography is deemed sinful. There are also many restrictions on sexual actions and relations, for example incest, homosexuality, anal intercourse, and masturbation.

This tendency is not seen among other religions. For example, in pre-Meiji Japan (before strong influences from the West) shunga pornography is a common public consumption in urban areas. Sex is understood as a worldly pleasure and should be embraced - it could be seen on how in transaction among merchants, prostitutes is sometimes offered to smooth the deal. In pre-colonial Nusantara (contemporary Indonesia), the story of Prince Puger of Mataram who performed oral sex on his recently deceased uncle is widely believed among the masses as a legitimation of his rule. Practice of homosexuality was also common in Japan and Nusantara. Kamasutra, the popular sex manual which actually also includes sexual mores, originated from ancient India, is available for public consumption and didn't draw complaints from priestly authorities.

This makes me wonder: What was the social context that provided a background for this tendency? Why does it prevail in three different religions that arose in three different eras?


texts: Jesus said he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, so what is their destiny, according to Catholicism?

texts:
Jesus said:

  I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

It is safe to say he was rejected by the Jewish people (in general, excluding the few who may have believed he was legitimate)

This means who ever did not follow Jesus from the lost sheep of Israel are considered unbelievers and will be in Hell forever correct?

From a Catholic perspective.


texts: How has the Chinese Patriotic Society modified the Bible in China?

texts:
Listening to The World Over Live from April 8th 2021, Raymond Arroyo said that Xi Jianping was adding the "Ten Commandments of Xi" into the Bible.  That might have been hyperbole, but does anyone know what kinds of modifications that the Chinese Catholic Church has modified the Bible?
Do Chinese Catholics have access to vatican.va to see the Chinese Bible posted on their resource library?


texts: Catholic teachings on the new life in resurrected body

texts:
I have a question on life after the resurrection. After the resurrection, will our souls have a room to feel a desire for some things that doesn't necessarily have to do with God (such as desire to have a good friendship/relationship with other resurrected beings in heavenly state, or perhaps some thoughts like "I wish I had a chance to do certain things before I experienced my physical death, etc)? or will we desire God and God only as resurrected being, and nothing else?

Thank you,


texts: What name was Yeshua baptized in by John the Baptist.  Could it be The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?


texts:
Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthinians:

The First Epistle to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians

In my experience, people use all kinds of colloquial language to refer to Chapters and verses inside these. For example:

  "Two Corinthians Three Seventeen"

has the same semantic meaning as

  "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter three verse seventeen."

It seems to me that the cultural style of reference has no correlation to knowledge of the Bible.

My question is: Is there any substantive difference between the verbal reference "second Corinthians" and "two Corinthians"?


texts: Is the idea that God is infinite in all ways accepted by all Christians?

texts:
From a Catholic site:

  "When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every *conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest *conceivable way."

*I presume this means 'conceivable by God' as infinity is, by definition, unable to be fully pictured by us.

This seems to imply that every single good thing (literally every good thing) is an aspect of God and is one of His many infinite attributes that has (again, literally) unending quality.

Do all Christians agree with this idea?


texts: Is secularizing Christian symbols blasphemy?

texts:
I'd like an orthodox Catholic answer to this question, but any thoughtful well referenced one will suffice. (I know C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject).

My kids are asking me to see The Rise of the Guardians because their Cheerios were advertising it with free books. I read one of the books, about the Tooth Fairy, but it had Siberian Santa and the Macho Easter Bunny in it.  And I love these guys, as saints and symbols that clearly point to Christ. But does the Catholic Church hold repurposing Christian symbols as secular heroes and guardians part of the heresy of Secularism or just a reversion to the paganism that secular historians hold were their source in the first place?

And, if it is part of a heresy, and the heresy is defined somewhere (like Belloc's the Great Heresies or a papal encyclical) with all if its ramifications, where can I read more about it?


texts: What should a Catholic Religious Ed. class be taught about the Reformation?

texts:
I'd like to incorporate some information from this site in my Religious Ed. class.

I teach a weekly class to 8th and 9th graders and none of them really understand what the difference is between us and Protestants.  I live in a small town in Wisconsin which is pretty much devoid of religious tension, so I don't want to stir the pot and tell them about the gruesome details 30 years war or the martyrs of Queen Elizabeth from a completely Catholic perspective, nor do I want to sugar coat the way Catholics have treated Protestants over the past 500 years (i.e. the Tudors).

Therefore, how does one present children with an accurate depiction of Reformation history without wavering (and losing all credibility) or covering up the truth while still maintaining the children's innocence and not instil any prejudices in them?


texts: Temptations, of course, cannot be avoided, but because we cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, there is no need that we should let them nest in our hair.


texts: What a beginner need to study to be a good christian?

texts:
What are the main topics a beginner need to study to be a good christian?
Is it important to know the catechisms (catholic, westminster, lutheran)?


texts:
If Baptists do not believe in the formalized confessional creeds of the church, then how do they catechize children?

In the Small Catechism, Martin Luther notes that learning the Creeds is very important in the Christian education. If Baptists avoid confessionalism, then how do they teach the children the exact doctrine of the church?


texts: What were the specific changes to the canonization process introduced in 1983?

texts:
I understand that in 1983, the canonization process was changed via the document Divinus Perfectionis Magister. I see from Wikipedia that the role of Promoter of the Faith (a.k.a. Devil's Advocate) was reduced and the process was made "less adversarial".

However, I'm having a hard time understanding what specifically was changed (e.g. how was the Promoter of the Faith's role changed, what rules involving miracles changed, etc). Wikipedia has an article about the 1914 canonization process that was previously in effect, but it's not immediately clear what things are the same between the 1914 and 1983 process and what things have changed.

So what were the specific changes to the canonization process introduced in 1983?


texts: Are Catholics allowed to celebrate the Reformation?

texts:
This is going to be published in my local Catholic parish's bulletin this week.

A SPECIAL EVENT: REFORMATION 500 COMMEMORATION
Wednesday, April 26 @ 7:00pm
In honor of the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation,
St. John’s Lutheran Church will host an ecumenical vesper service. Congregations in Evansville will gather to embrace our commonalities. Ministers from the various congregations will be discussing our similarities and differences regarding Holy Baptism and Holy Communion in a relaxed atmosphere, followed by refreshments. This event is in collaboration with our partner congregations in Evansville. The whole community is invited; invite your friends and neighbors of all faith traditions!

Has anything changed in the last 500 years that Catholics should be commemorating the Reformation?
For some odd reason I thought we were against that...


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, how old will our resurrection bodies be?

texts:
How is the resurrection of the body supposed to work in Catholicism? For example, if I die at 90, will I resurrect with the body of an old man? What about babies—will they simply resurrect as very young people or will they have a chance to grow into adults?

If there is a definite answer, how was it determined?


texts: Is there a term used by transgender Christians who don't want to transition because of their faith?

texts:
I know that some gay/same-sex attracted Christians who choose to follow traditional church teaching and pursue celibacy call themselves "side B" or "gay celibate" Christians.

Is there a corresponding term used by transgender Christians who, despite a desire to, believe that Christian teaching means they should not transition but should live as their assigned gender at birth?


texts: No non-Latin prayers in European churches before Reformation?

texts: Is this true that before the Reformation, all Christians in Europe would have to study Latin in order to understand the prayers pronounced during Masses in Roman Catholic Churches?


texts:
It is said in the bible that God is omniscient but if he is omniscient how can he regret his actions?

I'm especially interested in this question in context of Genesis 6:6:

  The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.


texts:
The story about Abraham sacrificing Isaac: Gen 21:12

  But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your
  slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through
  Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.

and later: Gen 22:2

  Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and
  go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on
  a mountain I will show you.”

Abraham used to dispute with God previously (Gen 18:23). If he listened, shouldn't he answer something like "And what about his offsprings, huh?"

Couldn't be the point something like Do you remember what I told you? It is hard to believe that the message is Be fanatic. The Gen 22:12 could be a polite way how to say Stop it, fool!

I'd like to know if there is some inconsistency in this explanation and consequently: if Abraham passed or fail his test.


texts: Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist?

texts:
In many denominations of modern Christianity the Antichrist is the evil world leader who forces people to take the mark of the beast. After reading through Revelation and seeing for myself that the Antichrist is not mentioned at all, I began to search where, then, in the Bible is the Antichrist mentioned.

According to 1st John 2:22, anybody who denies Christ is antichrist. Furthermore in 4:3 John tells that any spirit that denies Christ is of the spirit of antichrist. Neither of these passages make a case for the Antichrist with a capital A. To me it merely tells that there are many who oppose Christ, in the past and in the future, and they can be identified in such and such a way.

It turns out that when people talk about the Antichrist, they really refer to eg:

The son of perdition
The man of lawlesness
The beast of revelation (seemingly forgetting that there are two)

Why is it that the term Antichrist is so bluntly exchanged with these other terms? I have been unable to find the origins of this way of interpreting the Bible. Who did it first and where did it start?


texts: According to Catholicism, how many heavens are there?

texts:
I read in book of Enoch there are 10 heavens God created. Most Christians believe in 1 heaven and Muslims I think believe in 7 heavens.
The purpose of each of 10 heavens was described in Book of Enoch but my Christian friend said in Bible there is one heaven and hell. I think the 3rd heaven in the book of Enoch is said to contain that heaven and hell he is referring to from the Bible.


texts: What does R. C. Sproul mean by the 'essence' of God?

texts:
R. C. Sproul discusses and defends the Trinity in this book, What is the Trinity? He explains that God is one essence, composed of three persons, and that the existence of three persons in one essence does not contradict the law of non-contradiction. Now, what does he mean by 'essence'? Why does he use the term 'essence' instead of 'entity'? Does he use the term 'essence' in the same way he would use it in 'the essence of a squirrel' or 'all the squirrelness about the squirrel that makes up the squirrel'?

I realize that there is a similar question: What do we mean by person?  But this one is more focused on the word, essence, which I believe is a technical term in Christianity, not the word person.


texts: Was charging interest on loans ever forbidden to laymen in the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, when was this promulgated and when was it revoked?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) forbade clergy, but not laymen, from charging interest on loans.
Wikipedia also states that "later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity", but the reference given shows this occurred only in Catholic councils after 1150AD.
The Catholics had a Lateran III council in 1179, where they totally excommunicated anyone who charged interest. To me, this implies that before 1179, there had been no ecumenical council, Catholic or Orthodox, that prohibited usury among laymen.
Assuming this Wikipedia article is comprehensive, it appears that no ecumenical council ever forbade the charging of interest among laymen. However the article appears to only give the Catholic side.

My question: Did the Eastern Orthodox church as a whole (via an ecumenical council for example) or in part (via a local council for one synod, for example), ever condemn as a sin, which required repentance or even excommunication, the act of charging interest on loans among laymen?


texts: Are there reliable statistics about divorce rates in Christian churches?

texts:
I just read an article claiming divorce rates are much lower than commonly believed among Christians, but there are no references.

Church-Divorce-Rate-Way-Lower-than-Anyone-Thought

According to the article, it is a common belief that divorce rates are around 50% and about as high in Christian churches as in society at large.
Are there reliable statistics available for specific denominations or categories of Christians that would help us evaluate these claims?


texts: Did any church fathers after Chrysostom believe that Mary committed sin?

texts:
The belief that Mary never committed sin has been around a long time, much longer than the final formulation of the doctrine of her immaculate conception (which happened around the 13th century).  Augustine (d. 430), despite his doctrine of original sin, apparently carved out an exception for her, as summarized in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity's entry on Mary:

  Augustine, drawn into the problem of Mary’s holiness by Pelagius, affirms against the opinion of his adversary that Mary, propter honorem Domini, is the
  only woman without sin (De nat. et gratia 36,42).

On the other hand, Augustine's contemporary John Chrysostom (d. 407) apparently didn't go quite so far:

  Even John Chrysostom (d. 407), although attributing some imperfection to Mary, nonetheless holds her up as the example of the woman who overcomes human weaknesses (Co. Io. 20-21).

I'd like to know if any after Chrysostom believed that Mary committed sin.  I'd guess that the influence of Augustine would reduce the likelihood of finding this view in the West, but perhaps one or more fathers in the East continued to hold that she was less than morally perfect.

This question follows typical definitions of what a "church father" is, but to spell it out, they are "ancient and generally influential Christian theologians" (as Wikipedia says), not those closely associated with heretical movements (such as the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum), and not the anonymous authors of popular apocryphal stories.  And we'll say that the last of the church fathers is John of Damascus (d. 749).


texts: What was the forgers intentions for doing their forgeries?

texts:
I've been reading on some of the Apocrypha lately and a question arose. Why would people make forgeries of such important texts? I understand that the writers were trying to gain followers to their own theological views, but didn't they feel any remorse on creating false texts? If someone would spend so much time on forging a fake "Gospel according to X" or a fake "Acts", or the "Epistle of Pilate to Tiberius" (which is the one forgery that made this question to arise in my mind) then this person would take his faith seriously enough as to justify such an effort. But then again, how come this author doesn't worry about falsifying what Jesus really said, or what his contemporaries thought about Jesus?

I'm really puzzled about this.
Thanks to all of you for your replies and God bless you.


texts: What was St. Robert Bellarmine teaching on human cooperation with grace?

texts: What did St. Robert teach on grace and cooperation with it? Did he accept the Thomistic doctrine of grace? Did he agree with Báñez or did he side with Molina?


texts: Is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven?

texts:
I was reading up on an article that was talking about rewards in heavens. Then it struck me, is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven ?

What does the Bible have to say regarding doing works for the sake of rewards in heaven ?==
Side question: What is the difference between "seeking personal gain" and "selfish ambition" ?


texts: What do the words Catholic and Protestant mean?

texts: Also, what is the history of use and what languages do they come from? Is it a fitting name today or is it outdated? How do the two relate to each other?


texts:
First I am going to post these 3 verses from Genesis (King James Bible):

Genesis 36:2 :

  Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

Genesis 36:24 :

  And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

Genesis 36:20 :

  These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah

So I have two questions regarding these verses:

1- Is Anah a he or she? In the first verse Anah is referred to as the daughter of Zibeon and in the second verse Anah is referred as a he.

2- Is Zibeon the father of Anah? In the first two verses it is mentioned that he is the father but in the last verse it seems that they are brothers!


texts: What is the difference between "love" and "worship"? Do "love God" and "worship God" mean the same thing?

texts: I've never quite understood the concept of worship and how it differs from the concept of love. Are worship and love the same thing? Or is worship = love + something else? If someone loves God, does that automatically imply that they worship God or vice versa? I would appreciate it if answers include illustrative examples of how these concepts materialize in a concrete way in everyday Christian living.


texts: How do we know the words accredited to Jesus were the words Jesus actually spoke?

texts: were people making notes of what Jesus said at the time or are the accounts in the N/T just people trying to remember what they were told he said?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that separation from God is in itself sin?

texts: The normal understanding in Christianity is that sin brings separation from God. However is there biblical basis for holding to the belief that separation from God is in itself sin rather than a consequence of sin?


texts:
In Acts 1 we're told:

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Acts 1:9-11 (NIV)

It is not clear to me what the angels mean by Jesus being taken "into heaven". Some Christians believe that Jesus must still have his physcal body, and therefore is present somewhere in our universe. Others interpret "heaven" to mean the spiritual realm, and therefore Jesus in some way transitioned out of our physical realm, although that leaves the question of what happened to his body.
How does Reformed Theology understand where Jesus went when he ascended, and what is their explanation for where Jesus' physical body is now?


texts: Why was Lot's wife judged for looking back?

texts:
Was the warning from the angel to not look back solely a test of obedience or may there have been more of a reason? Ex.33:20 says “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
  God (Son of God) is seen in veiled form in His interactions with Abraham just prior to this. When veiled, He is able to be in the presence of fallen man. In Gen.19:20, Jehovah (God in His glory, not veiled) authors the destruction.
"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven".
  Could it be that God's presence was going to be manifested and the warning & judgment were in relation to Ex.33:20?


texts: Is it against the Bible not to have a funeral for a family member who dies?

texts:
So is a funeral something the Bible requires, either directly or indirectly, if an unbelieving family member dies?
Would it make a difference if the dead person was a Christian, whether to have a funeral or not?


texts:
I am LDS and had a discussion in Seminary the other day. Our Heavenly Father is all knowing, meaning he can see our past, present, and future. Let's say that according to Heavenly Father, I am not going to the Celestial Kingdom. He already knows that. How do we change what he already knows? I know it can change perspective for us, but how can we change it for him? How do we Change our Determined fate based on what Heavenly Father already knows?

God knows the future of what the free-will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. Is this True?

If he already knows everything though, how can it be that we make any different choices than what he already knows we will make?


texts: What evil things did Alexander the copper-smith do to Paul in 2 Tim. 4:14 that led to Paul saying God will recompense him?

texts:
In 2 Tim. 4:14, Paul said that

  Alexander the copper-smith did many evil things to me; the Lord will recompense him according to his works.

Is there any tradition on what exactly Alexander did here?  That is, what did the Chruch Fathers have to say about this passage?  Assuming there is some tradition, how much credibility have modern scholars assigned to it?


texts: What is the basis of my fractured understanding of  "Sola Scriptura"?

texts:
As a Catholic, I'm often baffled by other Christians who base their faith purely off personal interpretation of the Bible as the be-all-end-all proof for everything under the sun (which is what I mean by Sola Scriptura).

I understand the need to figure out what's going on in the bible and the need to live your life according to wisdom of the prophets and saints and especially heed the words of Jesus. But where did the idea come from that everyone can interpret the bible for themselves?  Is this just a common Catholic prejudice or a misunderstanding?


texts: Other claimants to throne of David besides Jesus?

texts: Since Jesus was in the royal line, it seems likely he had contemporaries in the royal line also. Is it possible to estimate how many legitimate candidates for King of Israel lived at the time of Jesus, based on genealogies? Do we have any historical record of such people?


texts: What cautionary advice have evangelists given that address Gandhi's concern about "Rice Christians"?

texts:
Not too long ago we had a question here that raised the issues of bribery, cultural "destruction," and use of harsh language against nonbelievers during evangelization efforts in developing countries.   There is actually a Wikipedia article on Rice Christians.  It offers a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth:

  Only Christianity was at that time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity.

From this quote, we see that issues of cultural extinction, harsh language, and use of bribery in evangelization is an ongoing problem, from Gandhi's 100 year old testimony to the prior question of last week.

My question is to what extent have evangelism-training leaders (or great evangelists) already noted these problems, and what words or scriptural references (or church-fathers-quotes) have they given as caution?


texts: How does the feast of Corpus Christi fit into the church calendar?

texts:
Looking at the calendar today, I noticed that it's Corpus Christi, which celebrates the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Maundy Thursday recalls the day the rite was first observed and seems the natural day for such a commemoration.  The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates the reason a separate feast was established:

  [Maundy Thursday], however, was in Holy Week, a season of sadness, during which the minds of the faithful are expected to be occupied with thoughts of the Lord's Passion. Moreover, so many other functions took place on this day that the principal event was almost lost sight of. This is mentioned as the chief reason for the introduction of the new feast, in the Bull "Transiturus."

As a movable feast, Corpus Christi has some connection to Easter in the church calendar.  But what is the connection?  It makes sense to celebrate on a Thursday, the traditional day of the week of the Last Supper.  But why celebrate the Thursday after Trinity?


texts: What is the meaning of this excerpt from Foundation of the Christian Faith, by Karl Rahner?

texts:
Please help me understand the excerpt. English is not my first language.

From my understanding:

The 20th century Catholic theologian Karl Rahner is here talking about the importance of faith in Jesus as well as the importance of keeping the tradition of the original church.

Any help would be great.

  We regard Holy Scripture as the church's book, the book in which the church of the beginning always remains tangible as a norm for us in the concrete. Indeed it is a norm which is already distinguished from those things which are found in the original church but which cannot have a normative character for our faith and for the life of the later church. If the church in every age remains bound to its origin in its faith and in its life; if the church as the community  of faith in the crucified and risen Jesus is itself to be in its faith and in its life the eschatological and irreversible sign of God's definitive turning to the world in Jesus Christ, a sign without which Jesus Christ himself would not signify God's irreversible coming into the world and would not be the absolute savior; and if this church of the beginning objectifies itself in scriptural documents at least in fact, and also does so necessarily given the historical and cultural presuppositions in which the church came to be, then in all of this together we have a point of departure for understand the essences of scripture.
  It is also a point of departure from whose perspective we can arrive at an adequate and at the same time a critical understanding of what is really meant by the inspiration of scripture and by a binding canon of scripture. Since scripture is something derivative, it must be understood from the essential nature of the church, which is the escatological and irreversible permanence of Jesus Christ in history. It is to be understood from the perspective as something normative in the church.


texts: Are scientific findings a test to Christians' Faith?

texts:
Science suggests that the earth is millions of years old, and many Christians accept this premise. Instead of accepting that God created everything in six days, they accept the finding of scientists based on "scientific evidence".

I am a literal interpretation Christian, and I have strong faith that God created the world in six days, less than ten thousand years ago. I believe that when Christians accept science, they do not trust God's Word as much as they trust Man's word.

Is it fair to make the statement that scientific findings are a test of faith?


texts: What is the evidence that the bones found under St. Peter's Basilica are actually St. Peter's bones?

texts:
There were some bone fragments found under St. Peter's Basilica in the 1940's. Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the bones were "identified in a way that we can consider convincing." What is the convincing argument that these bones are indeed's St. Peter's?

A perfect answer will include the details about how the bones were found.

On a related note, the bones have recently been made available for public viewing for the first time. During a Mass, Pope Francis seemed to venerate the relics, which may mean that the Church will officially declare them as St. Peter's bones.


texts: Why was Thanksgiving in the US traditionally the last Thursday before Advent?

texts:
Prior to a change instituted by President Roosevelt I understand United States Thanksgiving was the last Thursday in November.

This is invariably the last Thursday before Advent Sunday (Nov 27 - Dec 3).

My question is whether this was deliberately intended to be the last Thursday before Advent, or if not was there some other reason.


texts: Jeremiah 23:6 - “The LORD Our Righteousness” or “The LORD shall call him “Our Righteousness””?

texts:
In the Hebrew Aleppo, Leningrad And Cairo codices, there is a separation mark between Yahweh and Our Righteousness. This is how it looks:
״יהוה | צדקנו״, Separating God’s name from Our Righteousness. But, there are some English versions that say “The Lord Our Righteousness”, but I don’t know why. There is a Hebrew version online that says “the LORD Our Righteousness”, but the website says it’s based on the Leningrad codex, but the Leningrad codex has the separation mark. There is another version which is based on the Aleppo codex and “The manuscripts close to it”, and it also does not have the separation mark, but if we go to the Aleppo codex online, I think it has it. What is true and how? “The LORD will call him ‘Our Righteousness’” or “He shall be called: the LORD our Righteousness”?


texts: Why was Esther not sinning when she broke the law and approached the king?

texts:
Here's the text in question:

  Esther 4:15–16 (ESV)15 Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 16 “Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my young women will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law, and if I perish, I perish.”

The commentators I have read on this passage are unanimous in praising Esther for being willing to sacrifice herself for the sake of her people.  However, they do not attempt to reconcile this praise with their statements on obedience to earthly authority.  For example, the New Bible Commentary (1970) says regarding Romans 13:

  [E]very Christian has the duty [...] to obey lawful authority so far as such obedience does not conflict with God's law or Christ's authority.

Classic examples of permissible disobedience include Acts 5:29 and Daniel 3, where followers of God are ordered to do something in direct opposition to God's law, so they disobey.  That's not Esther's situation, apparently putting her action at odds with the common interpretation of Romans 13 and similar passages.

I am looking for any Christian commentator (regardless of background) who, while affirming the infallibility of the Bible, directly addresses this apparent conflict without resorting to a "the ends justifies the means" argument.  That is, I want a commentator who either

argues that Esther sinned on the basis of Romans 13, and should not have done what she did
argues that Esther did not sin, because the king and/or the law in question are not the sort of things referred to in Romans 13


texts:
Many people come to different conclusions around the seventy year exile prophesied I. Jeremiah 25:11. Some say they were 360 day prophetic years, others say "seventy years" is a phrase to mean a generation.

The dates for the captivity vary, ranging from 606 BC to 536 BC. Wikipedia and others say the exile lasted from 605 BC to 537 BC. That's 68 years. However, with those dates I've realised that, although it only makes 68 solar years, it makes 70 lunar years.

I know the Hebrew calendar is lunar based, with a typical year consisting of twelve lunar months and having an additional 13th month once the first month drifted from Spring (when the first month is supposed to occur). These leap months are now mathematical, consistent, and predictable, but back in the time of ancient Israel these leap months were off the cuff, only occurring of the high priest said so at the end of the twelve months. Therefore I'm assuming there had to be some general idea of what a "year" actually was, time wise. Otherwise people will could make pledges for X years without any knowing of how many months they had pledged for.

So maybe when Jeremiah prophesied the 70 year exile, the Jews at the time could've understood that as being a time duration of 70 typical years, or 70x12 months.

Is this argument plausible? What are your opinions?

I've looked into the Talmud for answers and it appears that there is a difference between someone making a pledge for "a year" or "this year" and someone making a pledge for "one year". "This/a year" would mean for the rest of the year, even if that year turned into a leap year, whereas "one year" indicates 12 lunar months. I don't know how "seventy years" would be viewed as in the Talmud.


texts: Why was the revelation that God has the Only Begotten Son not given in the Old Testament?

texts:
Of course, we have many indications to that truth in the Old Testament, but it was only with the coming of Jesus Christ that it was spoken to humans in plain language that God has the Only-begotten Son.

How is this matter explained in the Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestant Christianity?


texts: What doctrines teach that people are inherently good or bad?

texts:
Are we "basically sinful" or "basically good" (are we born fundamentally sinful, or are we born holy but then "fall to temptation?).

What I really want are the names of the doctrines associated with that age-old question - not the answers themselves.

I seem to think that it's a "Lutheran vs Methodist" argument, am I right? (But...  They seem to focus more on day-to-day living, not the "born sinful" part).


texts: When and why did the modern Young Earth Creationism movement gain such a large following?

texts:
Flimzy, in his answer here points out that

  Historically, Jewish and Christian scholars have not considered the creation account to mean a 6 literal day creation. The earliest scholars to even address the issue (around 13 B.C) believed that God instantaneously created everything, and that the 6 days were purely figurative of order and completeness.5

and gives the source for this information. Yet, today, the view that the Genesis account is literal (Young Earth Creationism) is widespread. Given that the early church seems not to have taken the Genesis account literally, when and why did the modern YEC movement gain such a following among Christians, especially in America? Is there a specific event or set of events that prompted this shift, or was it a gradual process over time?


texts: Why did foot washing become a common practice in Christianity?

texts:
I am aware that some, but certainly not all, Protestant denominations employ the practice of foot washing in their services.  I understand that this is based on John 13, where Jesus washes the feet of His disciples.  However, how and why did this practice become adopted as a literal practice rather than a general principle?

What is the origin of this practice in churches?  Does it predate the Reformation or was it practiced before that in either the Orthodox and/or Catholic church?  What denominations employ this practice today?


texts: How was circumcision practiced in Jesus' time?

texts:
Both John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised on the 8th day, according to Old Testament laws.

Luke 1:57-60 English Standard Version (ESV)

  Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, “No; he shall be called John.”

Luke 2:21-39 English Standard Version (ESV)

  And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Did a priest come to the home to perform the circumcision?  Were there formal traditions or prayers recited, and if so, what do we know about them and how do we know about them?


texts: What is the reason and meaning of the symbols on the garments worn by Temple-worthy LDS members?

texts:
I understand that the sacred garments worn by temple-worthy LDS members include symbols of 1) the square, 2) the compass, and 3) the navel mark, and 4) the knee mark.  I know that some of the symbols are also prominent in Freemasonry and that Joseph Smith had become a Mason early on, so perhaps the meaning of the symbols are similar.

Regardless, my question is why were these particular symbols chosen to be incorporated in the sacred garments and not anything else?  What do these particular symbols mean and is there any significance to the locations where they appear?


texts: If we say "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" can we say "God, God, and God"?

texts:
God is said to be "the triune god". He exists as "the Father" (who is God), "the Son" (who is God), and "the Holy Spirit" (who is God).

Since Jesus is "the son of God", then the Father is independently referred to as God. Otherwise, Jesus would be the son of the triune god, and he would begat himself.

Because of Communicatio idiomatum, Jesus is also referred to as God. So it is said "God died for our sins" or "God suffered".

So we have the Father who is referred to as "God", the Son who is refered to as "God", and there is also the Holy Spirit guy, who is likewise referred to as "God".

Is it correct to refer to God as "god, god, and god"?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for testing the truthfulness of every statement made by Prophets or Apostles who have been confirmed as 'real'?

texts:
In the case of 'real' Apostles and Prophets (who have passed the tests), what is the Biblical basis for continuing to test the truthfulness of every statement made by them as they continue in their office?

For background, I have encountered a famous individual who claimed to be a prophet and warned 'critics' who tested the validity of his healings and words as 'endangering themselves' as they were thereby 'resisting the Spirit' and would suffer the same diseases he was healing others of.  This attitude seems contrary to the scriptures. He basically implied that nobody should 'test' him as he was 'genuine' as proved by his many supposed miracles including raising the dead -- although he did seem to also suggest that one should test everybody else(?!)

Note: There are a couple closely related questions that might be answered within the answer to this question. Did 'every word' of the Prophets and Apostles carry the same 'infallible authority' as scripture, or does scriptural infallibility rise higher than each word that left their mouth? By what method were their words to be tested and therefore accepted or rejected, as they continued in their Apostolic or Prophetic office? Also, how did people know which to follow when two or more prophets disagreed on a matter?

Another interesting but not directly related question for good background reference: To what extent should the Apostles' speech be considered infallible?


texts: Was Jesus perfect his entire life? - Isaiah 7

texts:
Was Jesus perfect his entire life? This passage seems to suggest otherwise. I've never had a good answer to this question when referring to this passage.

  Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it
  be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask,
  and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O
  house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary
  my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold,
  the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
  Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the
  evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the
  evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be
  deserted. The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon
  your father's house such days as have not come since the day that
  Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
  ~ Isaiah 7:10-17


texts:
Can any one offer an educated answer of how the Christian Church moved from Passover on the 14th day of the first biblical month to the day we now call Easter?

(You can even pretend Passover and Easter are synonymous tittles!)

Making the question more clear:

The Bible clearly says,

Leviticus 23:5  In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

This is as well more elaborated in Exodus 12.

Jesus and the Apostles all would have used this date, see Luke 22, Mark 14 and Mathew 26.
Jesus disciples would have kept the Passover  according to the Jewish luni-solar and Agricultural based calendation of the day,  which calls the first month Abib,

Deuteronomy 16: 1  Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

Today the celebration in West now called 'Easter' is not held according to the prior calendar law of the Lord but is kept on 'Easter Sunday'.

How do Catholics and Protestants do this with scriptural authority?

Make your answer clear from the Bible.  Show where in the Bible a prophet, Jesus or his disciples/apostles tell chrisians how to keep this feast we call Easter?

Or if you believe you do not need scriptural authority please tell why in the answer you give regarding the question:

How did Christians get from the biblical feast of Passover to Easter sunday?

(Please do not give any Ishtar speculations, this question does not concern paganism...thank you.)


texts: According to full preterism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

texts:
In some passages from the Bible there exists sentences such as: Revelation 12:9

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

and Revelation 13:4

People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?"

Since I am assuming that 'Satan', 'the beast', etc are the same entity then
Who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?


texts:
The Nestorian Christians who accept just the first ecumenical council do not have marriage as a sacrament. It seems that matrimony was first insitutionalized as a sacrament in the Roman church at the Lateran council in the 1200s, but it is also a sacrament/mystery in the orthodox churches and this suggests that there is an origin in the ecumenical councils for marriage. Is there a common ecumenical origin of the sacrament of marriage for the catholic and the orthodox churches?

A clue to an answer may be the observation that the oriental orthodox churches, who do not accept the Chalcedonian ecumenical council, also have marriage as a sacrament.

If there is no pre-Chalcedonian ecumenical council that institutionalises marriage as a sacrament, it is of some interest that three doctrinal strands developed the same sacramental theology on marriage.


texts: Why not directly confess our sins to God?

texts: Why should we confess our sins to the Catholic priest, when God is everywhere and He listens to us every time? Is this the only way to be forgiven? What is the assurance that sins are forgiven?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is an apostle?
  How do we know Paul wasn’t a false Apostle?

Why is Paul considered an apostle rather than simply a disciple?  What Biblical references show why or why not?


texts: What are "all things" in "Let all things be tested, keep to what is good"?

texts:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 reads:

Put all things to the test: keep what is good [GNT]
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good [KJV]

What is "all things" here?


texts: What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching of baptism using a trinitarian formula?

texts:
Oneness Pentecostals and others who hold to "Jesus-name" (or "Jesus-only") baptism maintain that the trinitarian formula used by Nicene Christians and others is based on a misunderstanding of Matthew 28:19 and a failure to recognize that all recorded baptisms in the New Testament were done in the name of Jesus only.

The argument goes something like this:

Matthew 28:19 refers to a single "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that "name" is Jesus.
Baptisms and baptismal commands described in Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, and 22:16 all invoke the name of Jesus, with no indication of a trinitarian formula.

To me the second point in particular is not easily dismissed.  I'm thus interested in the history of the trinitarian baptismal formula.

What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching on baptism that contradicts "Jesus-name" baptism and calls for a trinitarian (three-part) baptismal formula?

To be clear, the word trinitarian here does not indicate a belief in Nicene trinitarianism: it simply refers to the three-part nature of the baptismal formula: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. So a church father whose views do not neatly coincide with Nicaea's could still employ a "trinitarian baptismal formula."


texts: Did John Wycliffe accept extreme unction?

texts:
According to Bruce Shelley, in Church History in Plain Language, John Wycliffe, the early dissident in Catholicism, accepted the sacrament of extreme unction:

  He retained belief in purgatory and extreme unction

However, this seems to contradict what Shelley writes next:

  he admitted that he looked in vain in the Bible for the institution of extreme unction [...] The standard Wyclif used to judge the Roman Church was the teachings of Scripture.

I have a feeling that Wycliffe's views on extreme unction were a bit more nuanced, or at least confusing, than that he simply accepted it.  So:

What did Wycliffe believe about extreme unction?

If he accepted it, on what basis did he do so?  Biblical (contra Shelley)? Or non-biblical?
If he rejected it, how did he explain James 5:14–15?

Do his writings indicate that his views changed during his life?


texts: According to open theism, did God know that the crucifixion of Jesus would benefit anyone after him?

texts:
Ronald Nash challenges open theism in his book, Life's Ultimate Questions, in particular on the point of God's foreknowledge during the crucifixion of Jesus.  Since God's knowledge of the future is "open" or "dynamic," according to open theism, he is not omniscient in the classical sense.  Nash argues:

  Think back to this God's conundrum at the time his Son was dying on the cross.  At that moment, the finite God of open theism had no way of knowing if even one human being would accept his Son as Savior.  This poor impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of his Son upon the cross would bring about the salvation of no one. (323)

Nash seems to be ignoring the case of OT saints (whom presumably God knew would be saved through the death of Christ).  But otherwise, is he right?  Is he fairly representing the view of open theism?  Do its adherents generally admit that God didn't know if Christ's death would result in a church, or indeed a single post-resurrection believer?  If he didn't know, did he have any purpose for sending Jesus to earth other than saving OT saints?

If there is disagreement on this among the various types of open theists, I'd like an overview of their positions.


texts: Which Episcopal Conferences set alternatives for abstinence on Fridays?

texts:
The canon law requires Catholics to hold every Friday (except certain solemnities) as a abstinence day (e.g. abstaining from meat), but also grants the episcopal conferences the possibility to require the abstinence from other foods or even to substitute other forms of penance. The applicable canons read as follows:

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

and

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

I've heard that e.g. many US-Catholics do only refrain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent (presumably making use of such an episcopal decision). Since I grew up in Germany this seemed rather odd to me.
Question (bundled together but related):

Which (other) Episcopal Conferences institute such alternatives to
abstinence?
Is it rather common or seldom to limit abstinence to such few
occurrances?
What other forms of penance are substituted in these cases?

Note: It seems the terminology in this question got a bit mixed up (See AthanasiusOfAlex' comment). In English "fasting" is currently described as eating less than two meals a day (as on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday in the Latin church); "abstinence" simply means no meat.  This question is about the latter.


texts: Is there a sect of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus?

texts: Is there a sect (dissenting or schismatic) of Christians that believe in the divinity of Mary, Mother of Jesus?


texts: According to Catholicism, if there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity?

texts:
If there is human dignity is there also an angelic dignity?

What does Catholcism say about this?


texts: What positions with regard to epistemology exist in Catholicism?

texts:
Mostly sparked by debates regarding evolution, I have become curious what epistemological positions exist in Catholicism.

I understand the doctrinal priority of biblical texts, so from a Christian point of view they take precedence over scientific ideas in case they clash. Once those central texts are accepted as revelation, this seems to be internally consistent to me.

My question is with regard to which specific methods are used to arrive at the conclusion that the central texts are divinely revealed. Usually talks about this are filled with words like "logical", "rational", or other terms of a similar nature. What I never saw is a description of what constitutes logical or rational methods, how they are derived, how they lead to acceptance of what Christianity considers revelation, and how they disqualify the validity of other methods in case of conflicting results. Also, how do those same methods applied to the claims of other religions lead to rejection of those claims while leading to acceptance of a Christian position?

I am interested in the epistemological methods that the school(s) of theology that exist(s) within Catholicism use(s) to arrive at the conclusion that the bible is revelation, which seem to me to be necessarily a priori to biblical texts, or in other words: they cannot come from commandments within the texts.

(I posted the same question with regard to Islam on islam.se. Strictly speaking I am interested in the epistemological positions of all major Christian traditions, but have been advised to focus on one.)


texts:
What is the Good News?

Is there a different meaning when Jesus mentions it and when Paul does?

Edit:

I'll clarify my question. Jesus mentions the Good News (or "gospel" in some translations) in Mark 1:15:

  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

It seems that His gospel is that "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." Does that relate to the time of His laying down His life for the sin of men, as the term "gospel" is understood after His death, or does the term have another meaning in Jesus' mouth?


texts: How much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved?

texts:
I have met some Christians who seemed to put a lot of emphasis on their realization of how sinful they were. Others, however, didn't seem to be stressing this point that much.

Honestly, in my personal experience, the joy of knowing the Lord, the joy of the very first prayer to Christ, and the joy of having fellowship with Christians came first. The first true realization of how sinful I am came much later. In fact, this realization is still progressing.

By looking briefly through the New Testament I can think of some examples of individuals' coming to the Lord with a considerable level of contriteness over their sinfulness, for example, the robber on the cross asking Jesus to remember him in His kingdom. On the other hand, there are also some examples of people coming to the Lord for the first time, in which this contriteness is not clearly stated, for example, the eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts 8.

So, my question is how much realization of one's own sinfulness is needed for a person to be saved?


texts: Why do (at least some) Messianic Jews celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 15th of Tishri?

texts:
In an (attempted) answer to the question of Why is Christmas on December 25th? from the perspective of Messianic Judaism, it was stated that Messianic Jews believe that Jesus (Yehu’shua HaMashiach) was born on the 15th of Tishri (falling in late September or early October in the Western calendar).

What is the justification for this belief? Is it a widespread belief in Messianic Judaism or only held by a minority? Is there any historical evidence that this belief was held prior to the 19th century?


texts: Is there any account of a religious marriage ceremony in the scripture?

texts:
I was studying the Puritans recently, and discovered something interesting about William Bradford. According to Wikipedia, he married his wife in a civil ceremony, because "the Separatists could find no example of a religious service in the Scriptures", which I immediately found interesting.

So my question is this: Is there any account of a religious marriage ceremony in scriptures? Did the Separatists miss something/exclude a book that is typically considered canonical?


texts: Which encyclical talks about the Mass as a sacrifice?

texts:
I am interested to know if there are any encyclicals which specifically compare the sacrifice of the Mass with the Temple sacrifices of the old Testament, wherein Jesus himself takes the place of the sacrificial animal.

I know this is standard Catholic Theology, and I know we Catholics talk freely about the sacrifice of the Mass (certainly the words of the liturgy points us in that direction).  But I want to read an actual encyclical where the link between Jesus and the animal sacrificed in the Temple of old is made explicitly clear.  The catechism of course mentions the Mass as a sacrifice, but it doesn't get into the exact details of what corresponds with what.


texts: What must a Catholic believe to be a Catholic? I know we must believe the articles in the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds and the Ex Cathedra statements about Holy Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption. What else must be believed, to be a practicing Catholic, according to the Catholic Church?


texts: Does any church still provide a pension for widows?

texts:
In 1 Timothy there is a passage that talks about widows receiving a pension from the church:

1 Timothy 5:9-16

  A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty
  years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 having a reputation for
  good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown
  hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she
  has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to
  every good work. 11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for
  when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to
  get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set
  aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be
  idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but
  also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to
  mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear
  children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach;
  15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. 16 If any woman
  who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the
  church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are
  widows indeed

Is there a historical record of this practice in the church and do any modern churches still have a similar practice?


texts: What is the difference between the Christologies of Nestorianism and Pelagianism?

texts:
Both Nestorius and Pelagius believed in a composite subject Christology that the person of Christ is a divine-humane person, the Logos and His tabernacle. Their Christology were condemned at Ephesus (431) and later repeated at Constantinople (553) where both Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo are declared as the Doctor of the Church. Nestorius teaches that the Logos is united with a perfect man. While Pelagius teaches that the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos. So that both teach the Logos unites Himself with a perfect tabernacle as a composite subject.
St. John Cassian under a request by Pope St. Leo the Great which at that time was an archdeacon wrote seven volume treatises to combat Nestorianism by connecting it with Pelagianism.

[T]he error of Pelagius ... that in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they [chose].
John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, 1:3, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff.

In similar fashion from a different perspective Marius Mercator accuses Theodore of Mopsuestia of being the father of the Pelagian heresy for teaching,

[T]hat the progenitors of the human race, Adam and Eve, having been created mortal by God, did not wound any of their descendants when they strayed by their transgression, but harmed only themselves; that they made themselves guilty of the command before God, but absolutely no one else.
Marius Mercator, Commonitorium, Patrologia Latina, vol. 48, 110D-111A.

Both John Cassian and Marius Mercator linked Nestorianism with Pelagianism. Richard Norris in his study Manhood and Christ observed that Antiochene Christology is aptly enough expressed in the dictum that, “The Nestorian Christ is a fit Savior for the Pelagian man.”1
So how are their Christologies differentiated from one another?

1 Richard Norris, Manhood and Christ, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 246.


texts: What is the relationship between the Catholic churches of various countries?

texts:
I currently live in Mexico, where the Catholic church is quite different than the Catholic church I'm accustomed to in the U.S.  This is most obvious to me by the hostility often shown by Catholics (especially clergy) against non-Catholic Christians.  As an anecdotal example, some good friends of mine were actually ex-communicated from the Catholic church in Mexico for refusing to end a Bible study they held in their home with non-Catholic Christians. Stories like this in turn mean that many non-Catholic Christians in Mexico have a very negative view of the Catholic church here, as well.

As I've tried to explore and understand the various differences between the U.S. Catholic church and the Mexican Catholic church, I'm left not really knowing where to start asking questions.

So my first question here is:  How are the Catholic churches in various countries related, and how do they differ?


texts: What is the origin and explanation of the Catholic teaching that Mary was and is sinless?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?

I saw on another post where someone indicated that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was, in fact, sinless at conception and remained sinless for her entire life.

It seems, then, that if she were sinless, she would have her own righteousness and not need salvation.  Furthermore, it seems that she would not be subject to death, since death results from sin.  Jesus' death was proof that He took on Himself our sins, since He had none of His own.

So, what is the origin of this teaching and how are these questions explained in Catholic teaching?


texts:
Is it the pain and suffering on the cross that was the main consideration to the crucifier and that is why that they did it? Or is there some other symbolic meaning for crucifixion?

How did the crucifixion come to be?


texts: According to orthodox Trinitarians, why did Jesus respond that only God is good?

texts:
18"Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18 BSB, Luke 18:19 BSB)

How can Jesus be God Himself (and part of the Trinity) when he says "no one is good except God alone"? And then if Jesus is part of the Trinity, shouldn't they all be equal? So then why does Jesus say the following?

  28"You heard Me say, ‘I am going away, and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father because the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 BSB)

If there are any duplicates, please suggest how I can edit this question to differentiate it from others.


texts: Do Protestants believe it is easier for New Testament believers to fulfill the moral law than it was before Christ?

texts:
Jeremiah prophesied that on the new covenant the law would be written on the hearts of the believer (Jr 31:33)

"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and
write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall
be My people."

and the prophet Ezequiel said that God was going to take the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh instead (Ez 36:26)

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will
take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of
flesh"

Do texts like these give enough ground for us to say that the Christian is more able to fulfill God's commands than the Old Testament Jewish believer was?
What is an overview of the major Protestant answers to this question?


texts: Did Paul write other letters that are not in the Bible?

texts: I've heard it said that Paul wrote other letters that didn't make it into the Bible, including at least one more letter to the church at Corinth, and a letter to the church at Laodicea. What is the source for these claims, and what might have happened to these letters?


texts: Why did Jesus keep some in the dark by using parables?

texts:
I once heard someone say that parables are the best way to teach, because Jesus used them.  Of course this makes no sense because parables are very difficult to understand unless explained.

Jesus said this when the disciples asked why he was speaking in riddles through so many metaphors:

  The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. (Matthew 13:10-13)

So the question is why would Jesus purposefully keep much of his teaching secret through parables? Why would he want some not to see and not to hear?


texts: How do Cessationists view "being filled with the Holy Spirit"

texts:
I'm aware that Cessationists do not believe in spiritual gifts. However, how do they view the process of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

Tozer's How to be filled with the holy spirit defines the process as a very dramatic, sudden process. Do Cessationists also take this view, or do they view it as a more gradual process?


texts: Why aren't Moses, Elijah, and other Old Testament heroes of faith given the title of "Saint"?

texts:
Many Old Testament figures led lives that are comparable to modern day saints. Yet none of them seem to be given the title of "Saint". Why is this?

My first thought was that perhaps a Saint needs a connection to Jesus, which all Christian Saints do. But part of Jesus' claim to legitimacy was that he was a descendent of people like David and Ruth.  Furthermore, Moses and Elijah were present during Jesus' transfiguration, so they have a direct connection to Jesus. Yet none of these have the title of "Saint". Why not?

There are saints like St. Moses, but they are different people than these Old Testament figures.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

texts:
This seems to be the generally accepted belief, and it's taught to children in Sunday School in many churches, but is there biblical basis for it? Here's the actual text:

  1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the
  Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye
  shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto
  the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But
  of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath
  said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
  4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For
  God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
  opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the
  woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to
  the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the
  fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her;
  and he did eat.

  —Genesis 3:1-6

What biblical basis is there for this belief? I did see another question addressing Satan being referred to as a serpent a lot in the bible, but then there are verses like John 3:14, where Jesus makes an analogy where he is a serpent:

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
  Son of man be lifted up:

People may say that this is a trivial and unimportant question, but I think it has serious implications on whose fault sin is. If it's Satan, who is still here today, maybe it is as some churches make it out to be, that the only reason anyone sins is because of Satan, and that if he were to be stricken from existence, we would no longer sin. If it wasn't Satan, that leaves open the possibility of us actually voluntarily sinning, back then and today. Thanks in advance :)

(This is the 6,000th question :))


texts: Where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin?

texts:
So I've read 1 John alot and I understand that I cannot continue to sin if I want to be a child of God's.

  1 John 1:6 (NIV)

  6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the
  darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

But then at the same time, if we accomplish the call to be holy and to be righteous and to be free of sin then we are not children of God.

  1 John 1:8 (NIV)

  8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth
  is not in us.

I'm personally struggling with this very line in my own life. I don't hate people, because I know that I'm commanded to love. But when it comes to my own desires of the flesh I continually fail. I have no self control, I cannot even get out of bed when my alarm goes off lol.

Where does God draw this line? does He give us any more insight into the battle with sin through scripture? So I ask again, where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin?


texts: Are there any universally accepted or non-Abrahamic based records in history that have mentions of longevity of prophets?

texts:
Reading from here and Genesis 5 we see that there are mentions of longevity among prophets:

Adam – 930
Seth – 912
Enosh – 905
Jared – 962
Methuselah – 969
Noah – 950
Shem – 600
Eber – 464
Abraham – 175
Moses – 120

My question is are there any other historical books (a book that has nothing to do with Abrahamic religions) that mention any of these ages? Basically what I'm asking was there any non-religious, secular book written that cites these ages? Or a book written by Abrahamic followers that is still somewhat universally accepted?

I personally consider the Old and New Testament as (partially history) books that can be referenced but consider that out of the scope of the question.


texts: How old is the idea of premillenial rapture?

texts:
Wikipedia claims that the doctrine of rapture was first formed in the 17th century:

  The concept of the Rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the 17th-century American Puritan father and son Increase and Cotton Mather. They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the Earth, and then the millennium.

Is this the earliest mention of the doctrine?


texts: Does the Roman-Catholic Church recognize the Quinisext Council?

texts:
Does the Roman-Catholic Church recognize the Quinisext Council and admit its proceedings and canons nowadays?

I know that it was rejected by Pope Sergius I. But at the same time this Council was accepted by the East for a long time before the East–West Schism. And nowadays the Catholic Church has made a lot of steps towards reunion with Eastern Orthodox Churches, so perhaps the Church's entire attitude to this Council has changed?


texts: How have commentators historically viewed the death of the fetus in Exodus 21?

texts:
The proper translation of Exodus 21:22 and the proper interpretation of Exodus have been battlegrounds in the contemporary abortion debate:

  When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out [other translations say "she gives birth prematurely" or "she has a miscarriage"], but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm [KJV: "mischief"], then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25 ESV)

From the birth of the church (circa 33 AD) through the 18th century (a rather arbitrary cutoff point, but one I'd like to keep), what is an overview of how Nicene Christians have understood these verses? I want to know which prominent theologians understood these verses to imply that ending the life of the fetus was a capital offense, and which ones understood them to mean it was a finable offense.

Related Mi Yodeya question: The application of “harm” in Shemot (Exodus) 21:22
Related Biblical Hermeneutics question: Exodus 21:22: is “mischief” related only to the mother or to the baby, too?


texts:
Paul refers to the gift of spirit that Timothy had in both I and II Timothy.

  KJV 2 Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

What gift did Timothy have? Was he afraid to use it?  The verse that immediately follows the verse above seems to suggest this.

  KJV 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

From the following verse, I can gather:

The gift that would be received by Timothy was foretold (given by prophecy)
It was given by Laying on of Hands (Paul's hands by first verse quoted)

  KJV 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.


texts: How did the early church fathers refute Adoptionism?

texts:
Adoptionism is a Christological heresy which denies the pre-existence of Jesus, and therefore denies Jesus's title as "God the Son" in the Trinitarian conception of the Christian God.

See the wikipedia article for the various manifestations, variations, and proponents of Adoptionism throughout history.  See Catholic Encyclopedia article (Adoptionists section) describing how the early church dealt with the leader of the sect: Theodotus of Byzantium.

According to this CARM article, Pope Victor I declared it as a heresy in the last decade of the 2nd century and Pope Leo III declared another resurgence as heresy at a 798 AD council in Rome.

A well written medium article explained how a case for Adoptionism can be made based 1) "minority" textual variants of Luke 3:22 and other verses related to Jesus's earthly father (Joseph), 2) ancient Jewish understanding of how the King is a Son of God, 3) seeing Jesus's baptism as coronation similar to the symbolism of the doves in the Roman transfer of power from Caesar to Augustus, 4) contemporary Roman imperial cult of adoption Caesar's adoption of Octavian.

Question: What were the arguments they used to refute adoptionism?

The purpose of this question is to

investigate whether non-NT sources were used in the arguments
learn how the church fathers use and interpret the NT passages to establish Jesus's pre-existent deity

I'm looking for quotes from any of the following:

declarations issued by the 2 Popes,
writings by early church theologians, or
council documents (not necessarily the 798 AD council, if adoptionism happened to be addressed at an earlier council)

Accepted answer needs to show how the quotes contribute to the refutation as well as the source of the quotes.

Motivation for this question

This question is motivated by some groups (like Jehovah's Witnesses) who do not think that NT books on its own is sufficient to establish the pre-existence and the God nature of Jesus, although hints are there (see answer to another question).

This question is related to a larger-scope question about how the church fathers refined the Trinitarian formula.  But this question focuses only on refutation of Adoptionism.


texts: Is "the observer on earth" view common among Creationists?

texts:
According to these sources, source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, the Genesis account was narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface.

  from source 1:
  As in any scientific experiment, you make observations of what is
  occurring.  It is extremely important to consider your “frame of
  reference” when interpreting any observation.  In other words, where
  are you observing these events from.  For the entire creation event,
  the key to this is in verse 2.  To an observer, standing on the
  surface of the earth, God was hovering over the earth.  The rest of
  the creation events must be interpreted as if the observer were
  standing on the surface of the earth.  Only with this “frame of
  reference” will you reach the right conclusions.

  from source 2: It is narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. This is the most important key to understanding
  Genesis 1. Most people view the creation account from the opposite
  direction: of someone in outer space looking down on the earth.
  Misunderstanding the proper frame of reference causes most of the
  confusion over this portion of Scripture.

As per this view, the sun was not created on the fourth day but rather was created prior to it (Day 1 or before) and became clearly visible from that day on wards. This can solve the problem of the sun, moon and stars seem to have been created after the earth, which is not in harmony with science facts.

In this question and here and here also, it looks like most of the people agree that the sun was created only on the fourth day.

  Genesis 1:16-19 (NIV) God made two great lights—the greater light to
  govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made
  the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the
  earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from
  darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and
  there was morning—the fourth day.

Looking closely at this passage, there is no mention of sun and moon explicitly but many readers conclude it as implicitly mentioned. source 1 says, "Here the atmosphere is finally clear enough for the observer on the surface of earth to observe the sun and the moon".

Question: Is it a common view among Creationists(OEC & YEC), to assume that Genesis account was narrated as if the observer were standing on the surface of the earth? Or, this view is not common at all?


texts: Do any Protestant denominations organize a canon starting from a collection of books other than the Roman Catholic Church's canon?

texts:
It is my understanding that most Protestant groups recognise a 66 book canon which is entirely a subset of the Roman Catholic canon and which was developed by removing the so-called apocrypha from the Latin Church's Old Testament. Are there any Protestant denominations which started from a non-Roman canon when developing their Bible?

For example, some Orthodox churches organize their Bibles to include some or all of the following works the Catholic Church does not include in her canon. Do any Protestant denominations include any of these in their Bibles, or specifically reject these books in the formation of their canon in the same way some Protestant groups specifically reject Tobit and Baruch?

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
Psalms 152–155
Jubilees
Enoch 1–3
Meqabyan
2 Baruch

Protestant in this sense should be taken to be used in the broader meaning: Any western non-Catholic non-Orthodox church founded during or after the Reformation, especially those founded in the United States of America.

(List from Wikipedia)


texts: How is one expected to ask for a dispensation to miss Sunday mass due to work obligations?

texts:
The Catechism for the Catholic Church says that missing mass on Sunday is a grave sin, unless there is a serious reason (like needing to care for others), or a dispensation is given by their pastor.

  2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

Say that a person wanted to get a dispensation from Sunday mass (perhaps they got a job at a restaurant that required them to work on Sundays, which is noted as something that may be necessary in 2187). How are they expected to go about getting this dispensation? Is it as simple as sending an e-mail (or otherwise communicating with their pastor)? Or is there a more formal process?


texts: In the belief of the Pentecostals, is God moral, immoral or amoral?

texts:
I've been studying on the nature of God and His character. While reading the New Testament I noticed that God operated in a different way in terms of His behavior. In the Old Testament, God had commanded that people be killed; men woman, children and even animals. I want to believe that in definition of terms, God would definitely seem immoral.

But Jesus who is God showed us a different character and nature of God. Jesus confirmed His unity and oneness with God in John 10:30. This on the other hand shows a "moral" God.

We are to believe that God remained the same in both Testament, unchanging; "He's the same yesterday, today and forever" and if this is so it would seem that both nature expressed in both Testament draws a huge parallel line.

If God is moral, in the light of the OT, what is the basis of his morality?
If God is immoral, is He then worth serving?
If God is neither moral or immoral, does that make Him amoral?


texts:
Why do Seventh Day Adventists change the moral law using the ceremonial law?

Seventh Day Adventists say that the Law of Moses is divided into two sets of laws, the moral law and the ceremonial law.

They say that the moral law is the ten commandments written on stone and placed inside the ark of the covenant. They say that the moral law is immutable and can't be changed in any way.

SDA's say that the ceremonial law was written by Moses in the book, and placed beside the ark.

SDA's say that the greatest and most important commandment in the moral law is that everybody in the world must keep the sabbath from sunset friday to sunset saturday.

However, if you search the moral law for laws about the sabbath, you find Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Nowhere in these verses can you find the words "sunset" or "friday" or "saturday".

So where does "sunset friday to sunset saturday" come from? The SDA's had a meeting in Battle Creek Michigan, in November 1855, where they decided that the sabbath should start at sunset. To support their decision, they select a few words from Genesis 1:5, and a few words from Leviticus 23:32.

Obviously Genesis 1 was not written on stone and placed inside the ark. Neither was Leviticus 23 written on stone and placed inside the ark.

Clearly Genesis 1 and Leviticus 23 are both "ceremonial law" according to the SDA definitions.

According to SDA definition of moral law, the moral law is only Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and nothing else. Only Deuteronomy 5:6-21 was written on stone and placed inside the ark.

Why do SDA's change the moral law by using ceremonial law? Isn't the moral law immutable and can't be changed in any way?

Do SDA's really believe that the ceremonial law has been abolished? Or do they tell people to obey whichever parts of the ceremonial law they select?

Dr McGowan asks for a reference showing that they decided this in 1855:

A division among them was arising over this question. So Elder J. N. Andrews, the best scholar they then had, was requested to study the subject and present his conclusion to the conference held at Battle Creek, Mich., Nov. 16, 1855. This he did, and decided that sunset was the Scriptural time to begin the Sabbath. The conference voted to accept his view....

“Then, four days after Andrews and the conference had settled it, Mrs. White had a vision in which an angel told her that sunset was the right time!!! ... In that vision she complained to the angel and asked for an explanation. She says: ‘I inquired why it had been thus, that at this late day we must change the time of commencing the Sabbath. Said the angel, “Ye shall understand, but not yet, not yet.”’ (‘Test.,’ Vol. I., p. 116).
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/756.2590


texts: Why is hell more prominent in the NT and not the OT?

texts:
This question came to me after reading the following excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Hell:

"Early Judaism had no concept of Hell, although the concept of an afterlife was introduced during the Hellenistic period, apparently from neighboring Hellenistic religions. It occurs for example in Book of Daniel."

Most evidence of Hell is from the NT and not the OT. Could this be because it was a doctrine influenced by adjacent religions like Greek mythology?


texts: For how long did the early Christians share all their possessions?

texts: According to Acts 4:32-37, the early Christians pooled all their possessions and had no private ownership. Is there any record of how long this lasted, and why it ended?


texts: Distributing the bread before consecrating the wine

texts:
Martin Luther's Deutsche Messe was first celebrated on October 29, 1525, and the text was published the following year. I was surprised to see that for the consecration and distribution of the sacrament, he uses the order

Consecrate the bread
Distribute the Body of Christ
Consecrate the wine
Distribute the Blood of Christ

as opposed to the more familiar (at least to me) 1, 3, 2, 4.

He writes in the preface that he is trying to emulate the order of events described in the Bible:

  Then the Office and Consecration proceeds, as follows: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night' (i Cor. xi. 23 ff). I think that it would be in accordance with the Last Supper if the sacrament were distributed immediately after the consecration of the bread before the blessing of the cup. So say, both Luke and Paul: 'Likewise also the cup after supper.' Meanwhile, there might be sung the Sanctus in German or the hymn 'Gott sei gelobet', or the hymn of John Huss, 'Jesus Christus unser Heiland.' And after this should come the consecration of the chalice and its delivery, with the singing of whatever remains of the above-mentioned hymns, or of the Agnus Dei in German.

It seems that there are quite a few variations among Christians about what sequence is to be used. How should a church determine which order to follow? And, in particular, is there any reason to object to Luther's method here?


texts: To a YEC, how does a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 distort the gospel?

texts:
In my conversations with Young Earth Creationists (YECs), I have on occasion heard the argument that I must interpret Genesis literally, otherwise the entire gospel, culminating at salvation, crumbles.

This has always sounded to me like the "slippery slope" argument--if I take the creation account as metaphor, why wouldn't I also take the resurrection as metaphor, for instance?

In this sense, I reject the slippery slope as a logical fallacy.

So beyond the slippery slope argument, what are a YEC's reason for believing that a metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account logically and necessarily leads to a failure of the gospel account?


texts: Why was God threatened by Man's cooperation to build the Tower of Babel?

texts:
Genesis 11:5 says this:

  And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them."

Clearly, God was concerned that Man's cooperation would allow them to do anything "that they propose to do." It seemed that for this reason alone, God elected to confuse them.

The next verse (Genesis 11:6):

  "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech."

What was the source of God's concern here? Why was Man's cooperation to achieve this goal something that God felt He needed to quash?


texts: What is the Catholic view on frozen embryos

texts:
We all know that IVF fertilization is against the catholic teaching. Recently I found out that when the treatment is carried out, some of the embryos are frozen for the future implantation in case if the couple want more children.

My question is: Do the catholic church allow couples to access the sacraments if they have children from IVF?

And if the couple realize the wrongness of IVF and have embryos frozen, what do they have to do with them according to the teaching? Let them die or try to implement them in woman's womb? Both, I see as wrong decision.


texts: Where did the belief that Saul fell from a horse come from?

texts:
Many people (especially Catholics; I don't know about others, but some say that Protestants usually don't believe this) think that Saul/Paul fell from a horse at the moment of his conversion, perhaps influenced by Caravaggio. As far as I know, there's no notion Saul did travel on a horse or fall from it in the Bible. In fact, the Bible suggests that Saul fell on the ground while standing and praying.

How old is the "fall from a horse" tradition (if it's less accurate than a century, tell why we don't know)? Can it be traced to a single author or a group? Is there any reason for it deeper than "everyone travels on a horse, so Saul must have been on a horse at the moment"?

EDIT: to be clear, this is NOT "Did Paul fall from a horse?" I consider further arguments against Paul falling from a horse off-topic and will downvote them unless they also answer the question of the origin of the believe they argument against. Even if those arguments are as good as Dick Harfield's links proving that only the rich could afford horses.


texts:
I am looking for materials and/or sources and answers to aid in my research of refuting the belief of British Israelism. Someone at my church is a believer in this and has provided me with materials by the late E. Raymond Capt, who was a proponent of this. After reading these materials, I am completely unconvinced of the claims of B.I. and its supporters. B.I. is the belief that the English, Scots and certain European peoples are descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Any assistance would be appreciated. If this is the wrong forum to ask this question, I apologize.


texts:
(I'd prefer a Biblically-based answer, but if an early-church author or someone like C.S. Lewis needs to be referenced, that's fine.)

Few Christians will dispute that we humans have souls, but the question is when we get it. Do we get it at conception? If so, what about twins? Surely the have different souls. Or perhaps we get our soul at some later point. In that case, is abortion okay (especially in the case of medical necessity) before that point?

Heh, is there even a widely-accepted authoritative source that answers this question?


texts: Summa question on his quotation of scripture

texts:
Been reading the Summa and ran across a verse, or maybe translation, that I couldn’t match up.  Aquinas quotes Psalm 11:2 several times and I thought it was a typo but I can’t find the text in any version any where in scripture.  Could someone elucidate why?

SUMMA THEOLOGICA
First Part (Prima Pars)
Question 16. Truth

SIXTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 16, Art. 6] Whether There Is Only One Truth, According to Which All Things Are True?

Psalm 11: 2, "Truths are decayed from among the children of men," says: "As from one man's face many likenesses are reflected in a mirror, so many truths are reflected from the one divine truth."


texts: How is the Catholic interpretation of the Woman of the Apocalypse as being Mary reconciled with the dogma of perpetual virginity?

texts: In the Book of Revelation, 11:19—12:1-18, where the Woman of the Apocalypse is introduced, the passage describes "she wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth." Catholic tradition identifies the woman and the child as Mary and Jesus. However, the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity is incompatible with labor pains. Do the church fathers address this issue?