texts: Are these citations from St. Ignacius of Loyola?

texts:
There are two very known 'quotes' of St.Ignacius of Loyola, sometimes also atributed to St.Augustine:

  “Pray as if everything depended on God and work as if everything
  depended on you.”

and

  “Let this be the first rule of your undertakings: confide in God as if
  the success of those undertakings depended completely upon you and not
  at all upon God; nonetheless give your whole self to the undertakings
  as if you yourself would be doing nothing in them but God alone would
  be doing everything."

Are they true? In which writing of St.Ignacius do they show up? I know the 1st shows up in the CCI, paragraph 2834, but I want to know the original work, where this supposedly shows up.

Any help would be appreciated.


texts: Are Christians required to believe the teachings of their own denomination?

texts:
My friend is struggling right now to discern what is right and wrong in the Church and his Christian life.

He has been brought up in a Catholic church where he had learned about Jesus and what he did for us.

Through friends (including myself) he has visited other denominations and congregations and is noticing the differences between them. He has attended traditional Church of Scotland churches, to Baptist Churches, to Pentecostal Churches and through each Church he is being told what to believe different things by different Christians. Some Christians have told him that he should not even question the pastor/priest, and must agree with what they tell him, as they are the anointed ones.

Does my friend need to accept all the teachings of whatever denomination he chooses to be associated with?

More generally, are Christians required accept the teaching of a denomination when they commit to it?  Or is there some freedom to pick and chose their own personal belief system?


texts:
Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witness and Seventh day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael?

Jehovah's Witness

  ...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. Source

Seventh day Adventists

  Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee."

Early Writings, p. 164.


texts: Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?

texts:
First off, a distinction between disciple and apostle - a disciple is a student, and the 12 disciples were Jesus' students.  An Apostle is one who was "sent out." Eleven of Jesus' disciples were sent out to preach the good news. Judas, of course, had committed suicide before being sent out.

The Disciples, recognizing the "need" for a 12th, cast lots and chose Matthias in Acts 1.  On the choice of Matthais, I've heard things similar to this:

  Also, we wonder if Luke was pointing out that casting lots, used all through the Old Testament, was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who became the source of wisdom and discernment for such decisions after Pentecost.

As Lloyd Ogilive says:

  What happened to Matthias? We are not told. He never is mentioned again. Did he defect or drop out? Probably not. I believe we would have been told if that happened, and Luke’s thoroughness would have included that data. What we do know is that the position was filled by Paul. There is no need to be down on Matthias. He responded to a call. He was ready with his knowledge of Christ and an open mind and heart to receive His Spirit. He was there at Pentecost—that’s all that matters. Whether his ministry afterward received the recognition of history is unimportant. The same is true for us. Once we have experienced what Christ said and did for us in His death and Resurrection and then returned to continue to do, titles, or history’s recognition, or even the accolades of people today become unimportant.

The question is thus this - Did the Holy Spirit actually intend for Paul to be the real 12th Apostle, or was Matthias not just an accidental, rash act on the part of the Eleven?

Or, put more poetically (as well suggested by Flimzy, when it comes to apostleship, should we put our trust in God or men?)


texts: Why do Christians seek to convert everyone?

texts: This may touch a nerve, but why do Christians seek to convert everyone, especially people who have no interest in being converted? It always comes off like a drug dealer saying, "Try it, you'll like it - trust me. Would I lie to you?" If the point is to make the world a better place, wouldn't a less aggressive approach be more effective?


texts: From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?

texts:
Many denominations teach that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God."  Detractors of Christianity, and even some denominations within Christianity, disagree with all or some of those three descriptions.  Quite often, they counter with examples of errors in the Bible, or in various translations that show errors (such as the Wicked Bible's translation of Exodus 20:14).

Various questions and answers on this site have touched on one or all of these three statements, but we've yet to have an answer that describes how all three of these Biblical statements relate to each other, and to the nature of Scriptures.  Granted, there are different understandings, and per the site guidelines, I want to keep this scoped to the classic Fundamentalist understanding of the statement - namely that of the Churches and traditions that hold that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

I want to have this in layman's terms, in order to address the straw-man arguments leveled against the statement.


texts: What are the historical and scriptural reasons why women are prohibited and/or discouraged from wearing pants in some churches?

texts:
Note: I'm little surprised that this question had not been asked before.
I've noticed that some churches place more emphasis on the issue of modesty than others. In more exaggerated cases, some churches go to the extremes of highly discouraging or straight up prohibiting women from wearing pants (and even makeup and jewelry), favoring instead more modest types of dresses, such as skirts.
Two questions:

What is the historical origin of these modesty-related prohibitions?
What is the biblical basis?


texts:
It seems to me that the only acceptable place to build the Third Temple according to modern Jews is the Temple Mount, where the first two temples stood, and where now is Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.

However, I read Ezekiel 45 today and was totally surprised to find:

  1 Moreover, when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation unto the LORD, an holy portion of the land: the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds , and the breadth shall be ten thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about.
  2 Of this there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred in length , with five hundred in breadth , square round about; and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof.
  3 And of this measure shalt thou measure the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand: and in it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place.

Does this not clearly state that the Temple shall be built in a newly allocated area instead? Note that the designated size (25000 reeds * 10000 reeeds, that several kilometres in each direction) far exceeds the area of the current Temple Mount, so to have it there would mean to destruct half of jerusalem.

So is everyone wrong about building the Temple on the Mount or how shall we understand this passage?


texts: Does a Catholic have recourse if a priest gives a ridiculously harsh or impossible penance?

texts:
Say that a person went to confession and confessed a sin, and the priest gives a ridiculously harsh penance (e.g. row across the Atlantic Ocean), or even an impossible penance (fly to the moon).

If the priest refuses to change that penance, does the penitent has any sort of recourse? Can they, for instance, get a second opinion from another priest? Are they permitted to report to a higher up, such as a Bishop?


texts: After resurrection, which one (if any) of the Mormon heavens will be here on earth?

texts:
This question is about the three heavens (or kingdoms) in Mormon cosmology: the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial.

The accepted answer to this other question says that

  After the resurrection of the body, all people (except the very worst)
  will live in one of the three heavens. According to a vision of Joseph
  Smith, God dwells in the celestial kingdom, and Jesus and the Father
  are enthroned there.

According to Mormons the reward in heaven is attained after the resurrection in which the individual receives a physical (non-spirit) body. For this reason it would be reasonable that each of the heavens are on some planet-like body that supports biological life.

Also, the accepted answer to this other question indicates that God's Kingdom would rule over the earth after the Second Coming of Christ.

So the questions I wanted to ask are:

Is the Kingdom of God that is expected to rule the earth the same
("politically" speaking) as any (or all) of the 3 heavenly kingdoms
(celestial, terrestrial, and telestial)?
Will the people living in any one of those 3 heavenly kingdoms
actually be living here on earth?


texts: Does The Revelation chapter 20 tell us that the Rapture will take place after the millennial reign of Christ?

texts:
1st Thessalonians 4:16  says that those Christians who have already died when Christ returns, will rise first

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

In the Revelation 20:4 and 5 it tells us that that will not take place until after the thousand year reign, if I understand it correctly;

Verse 4 as I read it says that those who were martyred for Christ will resurrect and reign with him, but the rest of us will not resurrect until after the thousand years.

Or am I misreading 1st Thessalonians, and it is referring to only the martyrs?

Revelation KJV

  20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

  20:5  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

  20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


texts: Crucifixion and the principle of double effect

texts:
Crucifying Jesus is obviously morally wrong. Being silent on another person's sin is also a sin. God is sinless.

How does, from Roman Catholic perspective, one explain the fact that Jesus didn't stop the Romans from crucifying him, therefore allowing for their sin?

I suppose it has something to do with the principle of double effect, but I don't understand how it works with the "morally evil act can't be used as means" thing.


texts: What are the different Categories of Charismatic Graces?

texts:
Definition of Charism, the theological term : The word charism or
  charisma (from Gr. χάρισμα) denotes a gift freely and graciously
  given, a favor bestowed, a grace. Charism as understood in the Bible
  is first treated, then its relation to the individual possessing it,
  and finally its meaning for the corporate Church.

I was wondering what the different categories would be, since evidently they are different. And I have even heard some say that things we would, these days, usually ascribe to pure genetic luck like super smart children (Bethoven for example) are forms of charisms given by God. So I'd like a clarification as well for the natural vs preternatural/supernatural charisms.

Ideally answer with Catholicism in mind, but as long as the categorization is the most exhaustive I'll be validating the answer regardless.


texts: What was/is different about the way the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass?

texts: I've been reading a little too into some recent Churchy news about the Pope "imposing an oath" on a Franciscan group I had heard nothing about.  I don't want to cast aspersions on the Holy Father in the least, but what is the deal with the way the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate celebrate Mass? How does and how can it differ from what's in the Roman Missal?


texts: What does it mean that God's wrath is infinite and what is its relation to existence of life on other planets?

texts: I heard on the first episode of Cosmos that astronomer Giordano Bruno was punished because he believed there are other planets with life on them. The Roman inquisition sentenced him to execution because they thought this belief violated the fact that 'God's wrath is not eternal'.  I would be appreciate it if you provide me a resource to read about it, or give me an explanation. I am not Christian and this idea is so new to me.


texts: Do protestants believe that the New Testament is the final covenant?

texts:
Do Protestants believe that the New Testament is the final covenant/testament? For example, many branches which built off Christianity believe the Bible is not complete and requires another revelation/modification from Jesus Christ (i.e. Mormonism, JW's)

If so, what are the arguments / biblical basis used to support this view?


texts: Does Orthodox theology emphasize "redemptive suffering" as much as Catholicism does?

texts:
Growing up Catholic I've been taught that "my suffering completes what is lacking" in Christ's sacrifice. Any time that I encounter suffering I should "offer it up." St. Bernadette, Francis of Assisi, and Ignatius of Loyola all suffered excruciating pain—rendering them super saints united to Christ's suffering.

How does suffering fit into the Orthodox spiritual life? Is it emphasized as redemptive as much as it is in Catholicism?


texts: Did Jesus suffer on the Cross in all possible senses?

texts:
I have read that it's more or less accepted that Jesus did suffer on the cross.
What I do not understand is whether or not He suffered all possible sufferings.

Imagine a war hero captured and tortured by the enemies. The war hero however does believe that his country will win the war and thus he does not experience all the possible sufferings for he does not experience a suffering of a man whose country has been defeated in the war.

However if Jesus does not experience a particular suffering then how Jesus can save a man who suffer such sufferings for then Jesus will not be knowing the man.

So it seems Jesus did suffer all the possible sufferings on the cross -- but then he must have suffered a suffering of someone who has discovered or wrongly felt that Christianity is false. How can that be, for Jesus surely could not believe that Christianity is false?


texts: May a Catholic have thier cremated remains poured out at sea?

texts:
My mother, a Roman Catholic in good standing, passed recently and wished to be cremated and her ashes poured out at sea.  A young priest at her parish, fresh out of seminary, indicated that such a thing goes against Catholic teaching while an older priest of 44 years in the same parish suggested not bringing the ashes to the memorial Mass and then doing whatever we wish.  It was also suggested that the entire urn could be tossed into the ocean but sprinkling the ashes out is the part that is disallowed.
What is the official Roman Catholic stance on:

Cremation
disposition of ashes at sea, particularly regarding sprinkling out of the urn


texts: Was the Roman Catholic Church responsible for the change of Sabbath to Sunday as day of rest?

texts:
Some historians--both Catholic and Protestants--make reference to Constantine, the emperor, circa 527, as paving the way for the Bishop of Rome as responsible for the change that historically took effect of transferring Sabbath sacredness to Sunday as an act of church authority.

Is there any official church document that confirms such claim?


texts: Is it permissible for priests who normally celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to concelebrate Mass?

texts:
Is it permissible for priests who normally celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to concelebrate Mass when saying the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite?? What about at some special occasions, such as the blessing of an abbot?
It seems fare to say that vast majority of priests who celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Rite do not concelebrate their Masses with other priests.
However, I would like to know, if in fact it is permitted under certain circumstances, either in our actual times or even historically (perhaps in some ancient variations that were employed in historical Latin Usages like the Sarum Rite)?
Has Rome ever allowed this particular practice in the Extraordinary Form?

Latin liturgical rites


texts: Why did John the Baptist say he wasn't a prophet?

texts:
According to John 1:21

  They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am
  not.” “Are you the prophet?” He answered, “No.”

Why did he said he wasn't a prophet?


texts:
I just had an interesting conversation at Ask The Atheist: http://asktheatheist.com/?p=1860

Essentially, I asked: Do atheists believe that everything came from nothingness or do they believe that something has always been?

The conclusion of the conversation was that there is an eternal imperative and that the eternal imperative is likely extra-dimensional.

This line of reason I am told is an old argument, is this in fact so and in light of new Scientific evidence that supports a divine creator; is this line of thought being advanced within Christianity today?


texts: If Hades is the name of a Greek god, why then did it find its way into the Greek translation into the New Testament? Wouldn't the NT writers refrain from associating their beliefs to Greek polytheism? Thanks.


texts: What is the Catholic Church's teaching on embryo adoption?

texts:
It seems like embryo adoption would be a good thing, given the hundreds of thousands of tiny frozen people in the United States.  I understand the rationale behind the Church being against IVF, but what is the Church's teaching concerning non-biological parents implanting embryos which would otherwise be killed or left frozen (and probably eventually die)?

Should it be avoided, celebrated, condemned, condoned, is it a sin, should we praise others whose conscience guides them to do it or counsel them against it?  Does it change matters if a surrogate bears the child instead of the adoptive mother?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the idea that people can't stop sinning?

texts: I had someone ask me to show Scripture that says people can't stop sinning. I had a hard time locating one.  What passage(s), if any, support this idea?


texts:
Does Malachi 4:1 and Jude 7 prove that hell is temporary?
I'm studying the bible and I found a few verses that seem to challenge the idea of an eternal hell forever and ever. Even though the bible says forever and ever and eternal. (Mark 3:29, Revelation 20:10)
These are the verses I'm referring to... (Malachi 4:1, Jude 7)
Malachi 4:1
“For behold, the day is coming,
Burning like an oven,
And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
And the day which is coming shall burn them up,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“That will leave them neither root nor branch.
Jude 7
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
So having noted the verses, here is my question. Malachi 4:1 says that the wicked will be burned up and will have neither root nor branch, and Jude 7 tells us that Sodom was an example and that the city of Sodom had eternal fire which is obviously not burning today.
So is hell temporary or eternal?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Christ living on earth during the Millennial Reign?

texts:
I can't find any passages that prove the Premillennialist viewpoint that Christ lives here on earth during the Millennial Reign.  I'm a Protestant, and have been taught that he reigns during the millennia, but couldn't that be done from Heaven?    I also realize in Revelation that he sets foot down on Mt. Olive, but it doesn't say he stays here.  I know he lives on earth when Heaven is established here on earth after the Millennial Reign, so I know he lives here after the Millennia.

What is the biblical basis for the belief that Jesus will physically live on earth during the Millennial Reign?


texts: What is an overview of the differences between Old Testament and New Testament?

texts:
I am a Muslim and I am trying to understand the Bible for educational purposes.

I've never known anything about the Bible apart from the fact that it exists. Now I have heard in many debates and Christian speeches of verses from The Old Testament and verses from The New Testament.

My question is simple, what is an overview of the differences between the Old and New Testaments? Are they still a part of the Bible?

Keep in mind I know nothing about Christianity so excuse me if my question doesn't make sense.


texts: Is interpreting Noah's flood as a civilization-wide event compatible with Roman Catholicism?

texts:
I heard an idea a while back that perhaps the flood described in the Old Testament wasn't necessarily a global, worldwide flood, but that it was a worldwide flood in a human civilization sense. In other words, it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the whole world in order to accomplish God's purpose of destroying corrupt humanity because humanity hadn't yet covered the whole world.

Is such a view compatible with the Catholic Church's teachings on Genesis?


texts: Was Islam originally considered to be a Christian sect?

texts:
There is some speculation that Islam was originally considered to be a sect of Christianity by those who claimed to be Christians, rather than a separate religion (e.g., Hinduism, Jainism). Do any early sources during the formative years of Islam make such an assertion?

Muslims certainly don't believe Islam to be a Christian sect, but the Christians can easily fit it into the "Christian sect" fold as they have done it with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, since if Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons can be classified as Christians then Islam also qualifies better for the Christians to qualify it as a Christian sect. So why keep Islam out?


texts: What relationship does the Harlem Gospel Choir have to Christianity?

texts:
Probably the most famous Gospel choir is the Harlem Gospel Choir. They are known around the world for their excellent performances of African American Gospel music. But to my knowledge, their origins are not in any particular church. Their founder, Allen Bailey, is an entertainment industry veteran who "had noticed the great number of tourists lining up outside the many Harlem Churches to hear and see the church gospel choirs. Allen thought it might be a good idea to take the Harlem Church experience to the places where the tourists lived." Their website talks about the "inspirational power of black gospel music" and says their "harmonious songs of love and hope and inspiration will touch the depths of your soul, lift your spirit, and take your breath away!" But it doesn't seem to say anything about God or the gospel of the cross. Most of the charities it supports do not seem to be Christian based or run organisations (not that this is a problem, but in my experience Christian organisations have generally preferentially supported Christian charities).

I'm left with the impression of a secular choir that performs the songs of the church for the sake of the music rather than the sake of God or the church. (This is far from unique of course, and many choirs and bands do likewise for other traditions of Christian music.) Is this impression accurate?

Some questions which would clarify the nature of the Harlem Gospel Choir are these. Answers don't need to answer them all if they can provide a general overview!

Are the personal religious convictions of Allen Bailey known?
Does the HGC have any official ties to a church or denomination?
Does it have a statement of faith?
Are any requirements of personal faith put on members?
Does it support through its charity any overtly Christian causes?


texts: Did Satan really not understand God's salvation plan?

texts:
I've always been told that when Jesus died on the cross, he ultimately defeated Satan and won victory over death. Satan was not aware of the secret plan and thought that he had defeated Jesus until Jesus died and he realized what had really been going on.

I don't find that so hard to believe, but I've been thinking about it lately ... Since there are a lot of prophecies about the son of God in the Old Testament -- and Jesus fulfilled them all -- shouldn't it have been quite clear for the Devil that God's plan was to sacrifice his only son, namely Jesus, on the cross to cleanse all of our sins? I figure that he should have the necessary intelligence to come to that conclusion. Or is it something along the lines that he's not able to understand the ways of love and truth, since he hates love and truth and all that is good, and has nothing to do with any of it?

So, my question is: Was Satan really taken by surprise when Jesus died on the cross?


texts: What does Ravi Zacharias mean when he says "Intent is always prior to content"?

texts:
I am a constant listener to Ravi's Podcasts and he always says "Intent is always prior to content." What does that mean?

Thanks


texts: Have Christians opposed "Good Luck" wishes?

texts: We have a great question about whether luck exists.  My question is to what extent have Christians frowned upon wishing someone "good luck" in church tradition.  Has it been frowned upon as a pagan practice?


texts: In what ways is the term "priesthood" used in Catholic tradition?

texts: In what ways does "priesthood" get used within Catholic tradition and theology? Besides "ministerial" and the "universal priesthood of all believers," does the concept show up in any other forms? What are these forms? Are these metaphorical priesthoods or substantive orders?


texts: Why is the Eucharist referred to as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν» in consideration of "transubstantiation"?

texts:
If indeed transubstantiation occurs, and the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, why does John of Damascus1 (as an example) refer to the Eucharist as «ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν», "a bloodless sacrifice" (or "unbloody sacrifice")?
1 John of Damascus: On the Immaculate Body which We Partake Of (Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν), Sec. I.
Compare the footnote on this page:

1988    unbloody Priesthood, ἀναίμακτον ἱερωσύνην, i.e. “sacerdotium,” not“sacrificium.” This, not θυσίαν, is supported by the Codd. The Eucharist is often called by the Fathers “the unbloody sacrifice” (e.g. Chrysost. in Ps. xcv., citing Malachi), and the Priesthood which offers it can be called “unbloody” too. Cf. Greg. Naz. in Poem. xi. 1—
῏Ω θυσίας πέμποντες ἀναιμάκτους ἱερῆες.
While these terms assert the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, might they not at the same time supply an argument against the Roman view of Transubstantiation, which teaches that the actual blood of Christ is received, and makes it still a bloody sacrifice?


texts: Revelation 10:4: "Don't write this down....?" (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Reading into the book of Revelation, there seems to be some mystery behind it.

Particularly:

  When the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write. But I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Keep secret what the seven thunders said, and do not write it down." - Revelation 10:4 (NLT)

Why wasn't John (assuming he actually wrote the book of Revelation) allowed to write down what he heard? Was it to prevent false interpretation and/or claims of the end times? What was the purpose of keeping what the "seven thunders" said a secret according to a Catholic perspective?


texts:
Many popular Protestant gospel explanations and frameworks define the essence of sin as rebellion against God.
Two Ways to Live:

The sad truth is that, from the very beginning, men and women everywhere have rejected God by doing things their own way. We all do this. We don’t like someone telling us what to do or how to live—least of all God—and so we rebel against him in lots of different ways. We ignore him and just get on with our own lives; or we disobey his instructions for living in his world; or we shake our puny fists in his face and tell him to get lost.
How ever we do it, we are all rebels, because we don’t live God’s way. We prefer to follow our own desires, and to run things our own way, without God. This rebellious, self-sufficient attitude is what the Bible calls ‘sin’.

Knowing God Personally:

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his own stubborn self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was broken. This self-will, characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference, is an evidence of what the Bible calls sin.

Christianity Explored:

But many people rejected Jesus. They thought they’d be happier making their own rules and living outside his kingdom. This rejection of the King is something we all do. Jesus called it sin.

But the Hebrew and Greek words for sin have the senses of failure, error, and evil.
What basis is there for defining sin as "rebellion"?

Is there any lexical support for such a definition (either through a sub-sense of those words, or through other words)?
Are there any passages which define or equate sin and rebellion?


texts: Do the people God sends to challenge His people (for His Glory) have salvation?

texts:
Romans 9:17

  17 In the Scriptures God says to Pharaoh: “I made you king so that you
  could do this for me. I wanted to show my power through you. I wanted
  my name to be announced throughout the world.” [d]

God purposefully created the Pharaoh, the Canaanites, and every other enemy in real life at that time — to challenge His people to show His Glory.

Are his creations who are made enemies, have His salvation and blessings or are they cursed?

Does this have anything to do with why we are commanded to love our enemies?


texts: According to Catholicism, it it possible for Satan and/or his satellites to roam the earth, while still being in hell?

texts:
According to Catholicism can Satan and his satellites, roam the earth for the destruction of souls, while still being in hell?

Do demons on earth  take their own form of hell with them or does God give them leave from hell to torment and persecute souls before they die?


texts: In which other churches do Roman Catholics recognize apostolic succession?

texts: The Roman Catholic Church derives much of its claim to legitimacy from the teaching of "apostolic succession". Other churches also believe that their priests derive their authority in an unbroken chain of succession. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges this of some other churches, accepting that the Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops have apostolic succession. Is this true? And which other churches would have their claims to apostolic succession recognized by the Roman Catholic Church?


texts: What is the "New Theological Movement" within the Catholic Church?

texts:
I've only seen 4 links so far to posts from  http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com on this site, but all it appears to be is a blog by a priest with a very staunch detractor who comes up with explanations to things that otherwise aren't answered explicitly in the Catechism like does Jesus know what God knows.

So, is the priest who blogs there (Fr. Ryan Erlenbush) a priest in good standing in his diocese and does he have any credentials as a Theologigian.

Like Chesterton, I am rather of an older fashion and usually skeptical of anything that has the words "new" and "theology" that close together. So, if someone could shed some light on this "movement", it would be much appreciated.


texts: When and why did the modern literal 6-Day creation theory become popular?

texts:
Historically, Creationists tended to fall into two broad categories, those who subscribe to the Day-Age theory (the idea that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages of indeterminate length, not 24 hour periods) or the Gap theory (the idea that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 was an indeterminate gap, but the days were 24-hour periods).

At least up until WWII, these were the predominant Creationists views, with the idea of a young earth being vehemently attacked even by some Fundamentalists and Creationists.

  Advocates of [creation science] read the first chapters of Genesis in a way that allows for no life on earth before Eden and no death before the fall.
  Until the last few decades most creationists would have regarded such notions as unnecessarily extreme. By the late nineteenth century even the most conservative Christian apologists readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life. With few exceptions, they accommodated the findings of historical geology either by interpreting the days of Genesis 1 to represent vast ages in the history of the earth or by separating a creation "in the beginning" from a much later Edenic creation in six literal days.
  -- Introduction to The Creationists, 2nd Edition, 2006, by Ronald L Numbers, p.7

Jump to 2016, and the theory of a literal 6-day creation has become very popular, and is certainly the most talked-about of the creationist theories. In comparison, the Gap and Day-Age theories get much less attention, even being considered heresy (or nearly so) by some literal 6-Day creationists.

What accounts for this change in attitude, and when did it occur?


texts:
In the 2 Cor 12:7-10 we read about Paul thorn:

  And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations,
  a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me,
  to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord
  about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is
  sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will
  all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ
  may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with
  weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when
  I am weak, then I am strong.

Angelic Doctor commenting on mentioned paragraph says (emphasis added):

  In regard to the first it should be noted that very often a wise
  physician procures and permits a lesser disease to come over a person
  in order to cure or avoid a greater one. Thus, to cure a spasm he
  procures a fever. This the Apostle shows was done to him by the
  physician of souls, our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ, as the supreme
  physician of souls, in order to cure greater sins, permits them to
  fall into lesser, and even mortal sins.

I am having difficulty in understanding how is it prudent to permit someone to fall into mortal sin to save him from the sin of pride and how is it possible that thorn (that was given to Paul) could be a mortal sin?

Let me present my argument why it seems that the thorn that was given to Paul could not be mortal sin or more generally why it could not be held that God allows some to fall into mortal sin so to save them from the sin of pride:

A mortal sin involves putting some created thing as the final end of one's life.
That means that the human engaged in mortal sin distorts the order of himself in relation to God (ie. the human engaged in mortal sin does not put him in a proper position with respect of God).
Every disorder of one ordered in respect to God involves the sin of pride.
Therefore allowing one to commit mortal sin does not dimmish pride but rather increase it.

Also, it seems unfitting that God allows something so ugly as a mortal sin to prevent one from being prideful.

Question: Could the thorn that was given to Paul be a mortal sin?


texts: Why does Mark 15:34 say "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"?

texts: In all Christian Bibles the translators wrote this verse in the same language and translated it, (maybe it's Hebrew which I don't know) but why only Mark 15:34 in the whole, is it because when Jesus was crying He cried in another language?


texts: According to Trinitarianism, is Jesus God Almighty?

texts:
First of all I want a Trinitarian answer.

Is it proper to say that Jesus is God Almighty? The Scriptures are very clear but they (and the church fathers) are very clear that the Father is God Almighty and they never call Jesus "Almighty". I struggle to understand the doctrine of the Trinity...I know that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and they are distinct persons, but I struggle to understand how they can be "one being".

I see that the scriptures teach an economic trinity, that the Son comes from the Father, eternally being born of the Father and he shares his substance of being God. But the Son is not as Almighty as the Father since his will is fully dependent on the will of the Father, and his existence comes from the Father eternally. And the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son eternally.
Is this an orthodox understanding of the trinity? And yet the problem is...how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be one God since they all come from the Almighty God, the Father?

Please don't call me a heretic...I am just trying to understand the truth. If someone can prove any other way of understanding the Trinity, in harmony with the Scriptures, I am open to change my understanding.
God bless!

EDIT : Tertullian :

  We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth, believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation [economy], as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were  made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her – being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel.”

From this I understand that the Father is the One True God (THE BEING of God) and he shares the same being to the Son and the Holy Spirit


texts: Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis? Stated another way: Is there room for understanding God and/or His will that does not come from the Bible? Perhaps through revelations from God Himself, or secondary sources (Angels, Saints, etc). I would wager the answer to this question depends on the denomination being discussed. But, for example, do the words of the Pope always hold true in Catholicism even if there is no strict biblical basis for them?


texts: How does the Catholic Church interpret "you are gods" in John 10:34?

texts:
Jesus was blamed by the Jews because he made Himself God. So Jesus defended Himself by saying that is written in Ps 82 that 'you are gods'.

John 10:34 DRB  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Psalms 82:6 DRB  I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High.

It is interpreted that to whom Gods word is said may be called God. But how can you make clear that we are not God while God is speaking to us in Jesus?


texts: What about the story of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" indicates whether it is a parable or not?

texts: To extend this previous question, what about the text of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an "actual" account?


texts: Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher?

texts: Are there any current Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God?  I am looking for specific examples of denominations that state this viewpoint (or some variation) as part of their creed.


texts: How does the LDS church back up the statement "I'm stronger than Satan"?

texts:
I have heard that I'm stronger than Satan for a few reasons.

Because I have a body and he doesn't.
Because he only has as much power over me as I give him.
Because I am never beyond the influence of the Savior and his Atonement. There's always some heavenly power aiding me.

I'm especially looking for scriptures to back up the first reason. Maybe there aren't any. I can sort of see the story of Moses fighting Satan in Moses 1:9–22 as a scripture that backs up the 1st reason, but it fits better with the 3rd reason.

So ideally, I'm hoping to get a scripture that has specific mention of how having a body gives us an advantage over Satan. But I will probably have to settle for another answer, because a scripture like that probably doesn't exist.


texts: According to Catholic law and rules, is postponing of the Rite of Acceptance OK?

texts:
This is a follow-up question for Are those instructed before baptism considered catechumens before entering the catechumenate formally?

In Czech Republic the pre-baptismal formation is often called "preparation for baptism" or something like this, but not "catechumenate" - the Rite of Acceptance or the start of catechumenate start near the end of this period, even as late as the first sunday of Lent, when the Rite of Election should take place. In the light of Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, this practice seems to be a misunderstanding of how the Christian initiation should be performed.

While this practice may be fine for those hesitating, why should those desiring to be baptised wait months or even years until they will be allowed to express this desire publicly? Why do they have to be called "inquirers" and denied of catechumens' rights, while they are effectively catechumens except for that they are not recognized as such? I understand there are some practical reasons for this, but I feel some important aspect of Christian intiation is missing in those "preparation for baptism" groups.

My question is: is there any canon law/ liturgical rule saying that postponing the Rite of Acceptance when the inquirer is determined they want to be baptised is OK/ forbidded/ tolerated, but discouraged? And why?


texts: How can Saint Thomas Christians who are Catholic have confidence that St. Thomas sailed to Muziris?

texts: This question is addressed to Saint Thomas Christians that are Catholic. Since the Catholic church rejects the authenticity of both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas, how can anyone in the Catholic segment of that faith say with confidence that Thomas sailed from the Red Sea to the port city of Muziris in 52 AD?


texts: Did Rahab sin by hiding the Hebrew spies and lying to the leaders of Jericho? (Catholic/Protestant overview)

texts:
In Joshua 2 we have a classic case of civil disobedience:

  3 Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.” 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. And she said, “True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 And when the gate was about to be closed at dark, the men went out. I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” 6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hid them with the stalks of flax that she had laid in order on the roof. (ESV)

What is an overview of how Catholics and Protestants (including Church fathers), have judged Rahab's actions?  Did she sin by hiding the spies?  Did she sin by lying?

Related: Did the midwives in Exodus 1 sin by disobeying and lying to Pharaoh? (Catholic/Protestant overview)


texts: What does it mean to be "weak in faith"?

texts:
There have been some questions and answers which discuss the strength of one's faith such as Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

There is also a question which asks What is "faith?" and another which asks How do I get more faith?

How do you measure faith, and how can you identify when someone is "weaker" in it?


texts: Are there any verses in the bible where Jesus is quoted teaching or supporting the trinity?


texts: I've read that 19th Century and early 20th Century Mormon Utah was very feminist for its time. What evidence supports or contradicts this?

texts:
I've read this claim on a reddit post1 that 19th century Mormon Utah is usually understood as barbaric and very sexist towards women, especially due to polygamy. However the poster argues that 19th century Mormonism was actually very feminist for its time.

My question is, was 19th Century and early 20th Century Utah as feminist as this post claims? What other evidence is there to support the claim? What evidence is there that doesn't support it?

I posted and formatted the arguments from the reddit post below.

  Utah lead the nation on women's sufferage

  In 1870 Utah was the second state or territory to grant women the
  right to vote.

  Even though it was anti-polygamy groups that started the movement,
  leaders of the Church, including Brigham Young, actually encouraged
  it.

  The federal government thought Polygamy was barbaric, so they passed
  Edmunds-Tucker antipolygamy act in 1887 to outlaw it. Apparently the
  government also viewed women's right to vote as barbaric, so Edmunds
  Tucker Act also ended women's suffrage in Utah as well as outlawing
  Polygamy.

  That right to vote wasn't won back until 1895, and again, a majority
  of church leaders, both make and female, supported it.

  http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.html

  Utah had the most liberal divorce laws, basically granting a divorce
  any women who wanted one, very different from rest of the US.

  In the majority of the United States, women were almost seen as slaves
  to their husbands, and because of that, it was very difficult for
  women to obtain a divorce, even sometimes under circumstances of
  abuse. However, according to Wikipedia "Late-19th-century Utah also
  had the most liberal divorce laws in the United States at the time.
  The laws were advantageous to women: any woman who insisted on a
  divorce got one."

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women#Women.27s_Suffrage

  In fact, One of Brigham Young’s clerks explained: “As a rule, the
  Prest. [Brigham Young] never refuses a bill [of divorcement] on the
  application of a wife, and NEVER when she INSISTS on it.”

  https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&_r=1&old=true#19

  Utah was the first state to elect a women as a state senator.

  In 1912 Utah was the first state to elect a women as state senator.
  They elected Martha Hughes Cannon (interesting enough, she even was
  running against her husband when she won).

  Martha Cannon is a very interesting person. She was the fourth of six
  wives in a polygamous marriage. Yet she attended the University of
  Deseret, now called the University of Utah, receiving a Bachelors in
  Chemistry. From there she attended the University of Michigan and
  received her MD. She was a feminist and a very influencias womens
  rights pusher in Utah. That's only a small portion of her life. And
  the more I've researched, the more I've found that women in Utah were
  more independent and had more rights than the rest of the United
  States at that same time, even those involved in Polygamy.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Hughes_Cannon

  I've found that 19th century Utah was a very feminist state compared
  to the rest of the United States.

1 https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6nvxj8/mormonisms_effect_on_womens_rights_in_utah/


texts:
In 2 Maccabees 5:5, Jason attacks Jerusalem. Why does he do this? There is a false rumor that Antiochus has died, but Antiochus was attacking Egypt.

In 2 Maccabees 4, it says he becomes high priest and then loses it, but he does nothing. Is that the reason he attacks Jerusalem?


texts: What view of eschatology did the early church believe?

texts:
I have recently been studying eschatology and have been looking at the main views of eschatology.

So far, I have found four (I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented your view.  I would appreciate any corrections, but that is beyond the scope of this question.):

Amillenialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age/Millennial Kingdom"; this age will be one of peace but will eventually turn into a period of tribulation against the Christians.  Armageddon, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the White Throne will end this age and usher in eternity.
Post-Millennialism: The period between Jesus' Ascension and the Destruction of Jerusalem will be the Tribulation.  The "Church Age" began in A.D. 70; at some point, the earth will develop a "Christian" culture ushering in a spiritual millennium of peace.  The Great Rebellion, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the White Throne Pit will end the millennium and begin eternity.
Historic Pre-Millennialism:  Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age"; this age will be one of peace but will eventually turn into a period of tribulation against the Christians.  Armageddon, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the Bottomless Pit will end this age and will begin Jesus' physical reign on earth of exactly 1000 years.  The reign will end with the Great Rebellion and the White Throne to usher in eternity.
Dispensational Pre-Millennialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age"; this age will end unexpectedly with the Rapture.  A literal tribulation of 7 years will begin on earth.  Armageddon, Jesus' Return, and the Bottomless Pit will end the tribulation, and Jesus will begin his physical reign on earth of exactly 1000 years.  The reign will end with the Great Rebellion and the White Throne to usher in eternity.

What view did the early church have?  Did they hold on to one of these views or did they hold on to a view that I have not listed?

I appreciate the help.


texts: Is there a biblical basis for God calling one to place one's career above their other duties?

texts:
I've tried to phrase this question several ways now, and none of them are really to my liking. I will just ask it clumsily and provide more details as they are asked of me.

Does God ever call people to lives devoted to their careers?

For example, suppose someone says to himself "God has called me to forego starting a family in favor of devoting my life to being the best dog groomer I can be." I choose a particularly strange career on purpose. The work of a doctor and the work of a dog groomer is equally meaningless if it is not blessed by God. I suppose my question, therefore, is whether there is precedent that God asks for and accepts such a life, or whether this hypothetical dog groomer is deluding himself.


texts: What should I expect at a Roman Catholic funeral?

texts:
A funeral notice announces a "mass of Christian burial" (at a Roman Catholic church in the US) followed by a burial followed by a luncheon.  As an outsider I have a few questions about what to expect:

Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass with extra stuff added, or is it different?  What content is unique to a funeral mass?
What happens at the burial beyond putting the casket in the ground?  (In movies you always see what looks like another religious service there, but I don't know if that's accurate.)  If there is a service of some sort, how does it differ from the mass?
Where is the eulogy given (or does that vary)?  Will visitors be asked to say something about the deceased at one of these services?
Is it practical to skip the mass1 and go to the rest, or would that be "weird"?  If it's practical, approximately how long after the announced start time for the mass should one show up to proceed to the cemetery?
What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners?  Are there specific things you should (or shouldn't) say or do, beyond what common sense suggests?  For example, in Judaism we have a specific phrase of comfort that we say; is there anything like that?
Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon?

1 Because participating in, or appearing to participate in, another religion's service can be problematic.


texts: What role does The Word have in The Trinity?

texts: So in John 1, it says that the Word was God, and I am curious as to whether the Word of God is considered part of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? Or is it distinct, and if so, why is it not included in part of the Trinity?


texts:
This question is pretty much a spinoff of What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex? because its current answer depends on the assumption that premarital sex is πορνεία (commonly translated "fornication"). Not all agree, so I think this assumption is better explicitly questioned.

I've heard some liberal Christians dispute the definition of the Greek word πορνεία (porneia), claiming it doesn't mean premarital sex at all. (An example of such an argument)

What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?

One of the major difficulties here is that just a dictionary definition doesn't cut it, because it's difficult to really know what the Greek word really meant 2000 years ago. The answer probably needs to either be a broad look at the Bible passages using the word, or an academic study on the word's meaning.

Additional information 2011-09-21: The following articles seem interesting, but I can't access the fulltexts. It seems from the publicly-available bits that Dr. Malina might actually have been the first to dispute the meaning of porneia.

Malina, B. Does porneia mean fornication? Novum Testamentum, 1972.
Jensen, J. Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina. Novum Testamentum, 1978.


texts: Why is the Gospel of John said to present Jesus distinctively as "the Son of God"?

texts:
A common assertion is that the Gospel of John uniquely presents Jesus as "the Son of God", while Matthew presents Him as "the King of the Jews", Mark as the "Servant", and Luke as "the Son of Man".

What is peculiar in the Gospel of John that gives rise to this particular distinction?


texts: Do Mormons respect the EU "Data Protection Directive" of right of access to personal data?

texts:
For some background: the EU "Data Protection Directive" is a European Union directive which regulates the processing of personal data within the European Union, as explained in this Wikipedia article. Among these regulations is the rule that individuals have right for a copy of the data that has been collected about them.

About this the document A European Perspective on Data Protection and Access Rights says (on. p. 6):

  Hence, although with a veiled expression, Art. 12 entitles the data
  subject to exercise the following four rights:

  the right to confirmation as to whether or not data relating to the data subject are being processed by a particular controller and, if
  so, to obtain details of the processing (Art. 12 (a), first indent);
  the right of access to one’s data, including the right to have a copy of the data in question with any available information as to
  their source (Art. 12 (a), second indent);
  the right to have the data rectified, erased or blocked if they do not conform to the Directive, in particular if they are incomplete or
  inaccurate (Art. 12 (b));
  the right to be informed about the logic used in case of automated decisions (Art. 12 (a), third indent).

Similar sentiments have been expressed in other documents, such as the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union", p.10:

So on this note, I was browsing Wikileaks earlier today and noticed an image listed on a page titled "LDS Church exclusion of members access to their own records 2008" (This page is under the Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

The image, shown below, shows a screen shot of a dialog from software application. The text on the dialog starts with "Members may not have copies of their membership records. Under no circumstances may membership records be given to anyone other than the bishop or a clerk."

The question I wanted to ask is, how does the LDS church handle requests for copies of personal data that come from EU?


texts: How do Trinitarians interpret Jesus's statement that "I live because of the Father"?

texts:
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
the one who feeds on me will live because of me (John 6:57)

This statement by Jesus seems to insinuate that Jesus derives his life from the Father. How is this interpreted in the context of the Trinity that Jesus is co-equal with the Father?


texts: According to Charismatic Christians, do those who never hear the gospel of Christ go to hell?

texts: I'd like an overview of what Charismatic Christians believe regarding the unreached. Are people who have never heard the gospel of Christ going to hell? For example: infants, fetuses, mentally disabled persons or third-world inhabitants who've passed.


texts: How are Regeneration, Faith, and Union with Christ ordered in Reformed Theology?

texts:
In the Reformed Ordo Salutis, or order of salvation, how are Regeneration, Faith, and Union with Christ ordered? (Note that the order of salvation is a logical order, not temporal, and the believer will experience several stages concurrently.)

Because of Total Depravity, the doctrine that we are spiritually dead in our sin, I think Regeneration is usually said to precede Faith, because we need to be brought back to spiritual life in order to have faith.

Faith is said to precede Union with Christ because it is through Faith that the Holy Spirit unites us the Christ.

But isn't it Union with Christ that gives us new life in Christ? Does Union with Christ therefore precede Regeneration? Or is the new life of Regeneration somehow different from the new life we receive through being united to Christ? How is this chicken-and-egg cycle resolved in Reformed Theology?


texts: What is the right word, Jesus assumed a human soul or have a created rational soul?

texts:
Jesus has two nature fully God and fully man. We know  that man is compose of body & soul. Its very hard to grasp the nature of Jesus human soul.

Is Jesus human soul created or assumed?


texts: Old Portrayal of St Michael the Archangel

texts:
I am searching for a painting of the Archangel Michael, but with the old portrayal.
In every painting I have found he is depicted with a sword, literally fighting the bad and everything dark. As far as I know there is at least one painting where he doesn't have a sword to fight the other side, but he reaches literally into the dark. In this portrait he does this to give everything dark a chance, he isn't denying the path to the light for everything bad.

I already found the below painting, but it doesn't exactly depict what I am thinking about.


texts: What was the light of the first day of creation?

texts:
In the Genesis account, the sun and stars are created on the fourth day:

Gen 1:14  And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15  and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.]
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18  to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

However, light is created on the first day:

Gen 1:3  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

So, from the perspective of a literal reading of this account, how is this reconciled?  Is light created twice?  How could there be light without the sun and stars?


texts: How novel is John Paul II's theology of the family as "ecclesia domestica"?

texts:
The Second Vatican Council wrote in Lumen gentium 11 (English, Latin):

The family is, so to speak, the domestic church. In it parents should, by their word and example, be the first preachers of the faith to their children; they should encourage them in the vocation which is proper to each of them, fostering with special care vocation to a sacred state.
In hac velut Ecclesia domestica parentes verbo et exemplo sint pro filiis suis primi fidei praecones, et vocationem unicuique propriam, sacram vero peculiari cura, foveant oportet.

In The Splendor of Faith: The Theological Vision of Pope John Paul II (Crossroad, 1999; 2nd ed. 2003), Cardinal Avery Dulles writes (p146 of the 2003 edition, which I have read only on Google snippet view):

John Paul II has frequently repeated the term ecclesia domestica without adding the qualifier veluti ("as it were") used by the council.

Dulles' cited examples are Catechesi tradendae 68 (1979), Familiaris consortio 49-52 (1981), and Evangelium vitae 92 (1995). John Paul II's homily Expedit ut laborem (26 Sept 1980) also speaks of the family's place as "ecclesiola" seu ecclesia domestica; and his statement in Familiaris consortio 21 that

The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason too it can and should be called "the domestic Church."

can now be found in the Catechism (s. 2204). A footnote in FC refers to Lumen gentium and to Paul VI's Apostolicam actuositatem 11 (1965) - which says that the family fulfils its mission "if it appears as the domestic sanctuary of the Church" (my emphasis; the Latin is tamquam domesticum sanctuarium Ecclesiae se exhibeat).
It's not hard to find bundles of sources for the family being a good thing, and support for its special role in education. But it seems, especially in FC, that John Paul II gives the family a theologically elevated position, as an explicit Church-in-miniature, and that this is a novel development - whereas previous authorities used the phrase more cautiously. Is this actually novel? I would be interested in finding earlier (pre-Council) sources for this theology, or alternatively an explanation of how it differs from prior explanations of the ecclesial role of the family.
(I should say that I don't have a problem with novelty, so this isn't intended to be a criticism! I'm just interested in the history of the idea.)


texts: At what point would a sin become mortal if you learned about it through self-study?

texts:
Let's say John was baptized as a Catholic as a baby but did not go to Catholic school or receive any religious education at all and his parents did not take him to mass.

As an adult John begins to go to mass by himself.
He begins to read some Catholic books and learned that gossip is a mortal sin. He did not know this up until reading it. Does that mean all his past gossips are considered to be venial sins? If he gossips after reading the material is it then a mortal sin? Or would it only be mortal after a priest has educated him as to why it's a sin?


texts: What is the difference between the Trinitarian concept of God and the Mormon concept of God?

texts: Just curious. Hope I can get helpful feed back.


texts: According to Calvinism, is God always loving?

texts: It is well known that "God is Love" but, is there ever a time, according to 5 point Calvinists, in the bible when God is not loving? If so, according to 5 point Calvinists, what causes God to act as such?


texts: When were the doctrine and covenants published and distributed to members of the LDS church?

texts:
I know that the doctrines and covenants to the LDS church are scriptures that came by revelation.

In what date range was that book of scripture written?

At what date was that book of scripture published and distributed to the majority of the church?


texts:
I saw a witch a while back being mistreated, which deeply troubled me. I am strong proponent for Luke 6:31.

I am familiar with Exodus 22:18 which usually translates to something like: Do not allow a sorceress/witch to live.

This brings to mind one main question:

Is there anything in the Bible suggesting a better way to interpret this? Are Christians expected to commit murder? I understand innumerable witches have been murdered over the millennia but this is just not acceptable to me. The society I live in deems this illegal as well.

Then I have two sub-questions:

Is there a biblical difference between witches and sorceresses? I know there are witches out there but I have not met a sorceress.
In the Bible is the word sorceress truly gender specific? e.g. male sorcerers are exempted from this?

I am trying to reconcile this with other portions of the Bible that denounce the mistreatment of others.

Answers that cite more clear and easily understandable Bible passages will get preferential treatment for approval. The sub-questions are optional but will count towards approval should all other elements of the answer be deemed equal.


texts: Does the Catholic Church allow Catholic weddings (i.e. weddings canonically recognized by the Catholic Church) to take place outdoors, even if one of the couple is not Catholic? If so, is there any specific permission that must be granted to ensure the wedding is recognized, and must this permission be granted by Church officials where the couple lives, or where the wedding will take place?


texts: According to Catholics, what is the law placed within the Israelite in the New Covenant?

texts:
In Jer. 31:31-34, it is written,

  31 “Behold, the days are coming,” said Yahveh, “that I shall cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them,” said Yahveh. 33 “But this shall be the covenant that I shall cut with the house of Israel. After those days,” said Yahveh, “I shall put My Law within them, and I shall write it upon their hearts, and I shall be their god, and they shall be My people. 34 And a man shall no longer teach his neighbor, and a man his brother, saying, “Know Yahveh!” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them even unto the greatest of them, for I shall forgive their iniquity, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

In the New Covenant, the prophet Jeremiah states that Yahveh shall put His Law within the Israelites and write it upon their hearts.

According to Catholics, what is this Law that Yahveh puts within the Israelites?


texts: Who disciplines who within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

texts:
Restricting as much as is possible to the Pope, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, who disciplines who within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

Does that change whether it is in the Western Church or the Eastern [particular] Churches?

Is it dependent on the type of discipline?

The answer will include examples such laicization of clerics and excommunication, and others for necessary illustration and clarity.

Related: How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy?


texts: Does the priest have the power to forgive sins?

texts:
John 20:22-23 (KJV)
  22  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
  23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I know that the sacrament of confession of the Catholic Church is based on this verse. Do we have any other verses similar to this?

In Catholic teaching, does the priest have the power to remit sins? If not, what do they believe is happening during confession? If so, is this verse the sole basis of the teaching or is there a larger Biblical corpus that they cite for this?


texts: How do decentralized churches/denominations practically deal with "brothers" from another denomination in light of Matthew 18:17

texts:
"If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he
  listens to you, you have won your brother.

  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses.

  But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the
  testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established.

  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they
  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan
  or a tax collector."

It must be noted that the word Church is used in the singular form - not a church, and not one of the churches.

In light of this verse, what happens in a situation where there are two "brothers" from two different denominations, (baptist, presbyterian, pentacostal, etc.) and one of the brothers commits a very scandalous, heinous sin against the other.

Who's church would the sinful brother be taken to?

Either church would have no jurisdictional rights over the other.

As a Catholic I know that there is a canonical process for one to follow...but the RCC is the most centralized religious body in the world.

Have any Protestant pastors here ever had to deal with a situation like this?


texts: Why did God hide away the fact that He had the Son in the Old Testament times?

texts: Paul speaks about the fullness of times (I think, in Romans), upon the arrival of which the grace was manifested in the Son of God, but I wonder why was it needed for the Father to conceal the fact that He had the Son? I mean, the fact that God would've saved humanity through the sacrifice of His own Son might've really needed to be concealed for people to realize through their own history that they were simply not able to match the standards of righteousness needed for eternal life, but why was it needed to hide away from humans the fact the God had the Son?


texts:
Matthew 5:14-16
14 “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

What does Jesus mean by light? Talents? Spiritual gifts? God showing through us? Something else?
Update: I have now also asked this at Biblical Hermeneutics, as mentioned in comments below.


texts: Did the early Church fathers see a distinction between Matthias' and Paul's apostleship appointment, considering Paul's peculiar verbiage choice?

texts:
When reading the appointment of Matthias, you come across very specific actions and precise language. Consider, of course:

Acts 1:21-26 ESV

  21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Here we see the apostles themselves (namely Peter) create a criteria for the position of apostle, narrow down candidates, then cast lots in order to decide upon the right suitor.

Now let us consider a succession of texts from Paul, who uses his own peculiarly specific word choice:

Romans 1 ESV

  1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart
  for the gospel of God, 2which he promised beforehand through his
  prophets in the holy Scriptures,

Nothing too extraordinary there other than Paul saying he was called to be an apostle. Called by whom? It isn't quite clear here yet, but let's read on, shall we?

1 Corinthians 1 ESV

  1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ
  Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes,

Here, I think, we can begin to see Paul making a statement about his election / calling to be an apostle, by God Himself, rather than by men as Matthias was chosen.

2 Corinthians 1 ESV

  1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our
  brother,

Once again, Paul makes mention of "the will of God."

Galatians 1 ESV

  1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus
  Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all
  the brothers who are with me,

This is where I see Paul drawing the biggest distinction in the appointments of Matthias and of himself. He outright states, "no man chose me, I was chosen by God Himself."

So my question simply follows on the natural reading of the texts: Did the early church fathers see the appointment of Matthias, perhaps, to be hasty and contrary to God's will, especially when considered in the light of Saul's election, conversion, and choice of words? Do we have any thoughts from the fathers regarding the election of these two apostles?

Of course, as an aside, we also have the Lord's words recorded in Acts 9:15

  15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument
  to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people
  of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”


texts: Have different Popes ever contradicted each other?

texts: I understand that Roman Catholics do not think that everything the Pope says or does is infallible. However, has a sitting Pope ever revoked or contradicted an infallible statement made by a previous Pope?


texts: Scriptural/theological reasoning for renaming: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

texts:
I understand the significance of God's renaming.  But I wonder if anyone has done any research as to why the writers of scripture (and consequently, Jews and Christians today) refer to AbraHAM (changed name), Isaac (never offered a new name) and then JACOB (the name BEFORE God changed it to Israel)?  You never hear "Abram, Isaac, and Jacob" and you rarely hear "Abraham, Isaac, and Israel." (Though there are a few instances as pointed out below.)  Why is Jacob not granted his new name when his covenant participation is referenced?  Even in Genesis, once Abram is renamed Abraham in Gen 17:5, he is never again referred to as Abram, but "Jacob" and "Israel" continue to be used almost interchangeably throughout the Genesis narrative.

Not simply looking for opinions, but rather if someone has had insight (possibly building upon the insight of others) that can shed light on this.  The theory has been posed that it could be as simple as avoiding confusion between Israel the nation and Israel the person - which is verifiable because it can be assumed that "Israel" was a people group even if Moses wrote the pentateuch with his own hand.

If no significant research has been done on this topic, I may endeavor to spend a few weeks/months on answering my own question because I do believe it is valid and I do believe it is appropriately a matter of scholarly research.


texts: If the dinosaurs and man co existed, why did the dinosaurs perish?

texts: According to the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, the dinosaurs and man co existed. In this viewpoint, how did the dinosaurs perish? What caused them to be eliminated?


texts:
Mitred women in the Catholic Church?
Historically, we know that there were women in the Early Church, who were non-ordained deaconesses.
I know that male deacons and even kings have been given the privilege of wearing a mitre. But is there any historical evidence of women wearing the mitre within the Catholic Church?

A Catholic mitre from the 19th century, displayed in the Museo dell'Opera del Duomo in Pisa, Italy

The mitre is a type of headgear now known as the traditional, ceremonial headdress of bishops and certain abbots in traditional Christianity. Mitres are worn in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, as well as in the Anglican Communion, some Lutheran churches, and also by bishops and certain other clergy in the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Metropolitan of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church also wears a mitre during important ceremonies such as the Episcopal Consecration.


texts:
The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was conceived full of sanctifying grace and free of any stain of original sin. In Catholicism, this is called the Immaculate Conception. She was conceived in this way through the merits of Jesus Christ: by His sacrifice, she was preserved from original sin.

Furthermore, and strictly owing to a special privilege from God, she lived a life entirely free from sin, and it seems that she could not have done so otherwise:

  If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins, even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God, let him be anathema."

First, a minor clarification. By "special privilege", does that quotation mean the very fact that Mary was born without original sin, or is it a separate gift?

I have heard of (or can imagine) some explanations for why Mary merited the reception of her graces, such as:

because of her perfect devotion to the Lord, or because of a natural disposition to be perfectly devoted to the Lord.
because she was chosen by God, and that is merit enough.
because she was Mother of God, and no other woman could have been chosen in her place, since no other woman was Mary.
we do not know, because this was never revealed.

But without the backing of what may be a fair bit of research, all of these options are idle speculation. According to the Catholic Church, why did God choose Mary, from all eternity, to be the Blessed Mother of His Son?


texts: How do Protestants justify the baptism of infants?

texts:
As far as I can determine, this subject has only been covered in respect of discipleship and in respect of the justification of adult baptism. It may be dealt with elsewhere and I may have, inadvertently, duplicated.

My natural father was a Church of Scotland minister, my grandfather, great grandfather and brother also. I left the C of S at the age of fifteen and was baptised as an adult at sixteen. But I still remember being 'christened' at the age of five, delayed for reasons that escape me.

Fifty years later, after leaving the C of S (and the prospect of lifelong employment within it) I still cannot understand how a Protestant can justify paedobaptism.

Paedobaptism does not 'replace' circumcision. They are totally different things and Paul expressly states in Galatians that it is confusion to attempt to continue circumcision into the New Testament. In fact, he warns against it, Galatians 5:3.
There is no single example, anywhere in scripture, of an infant being 'christened' or baptised. Not a single one.
In every case, repentance - at least - precedes baptism (by John). 'Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance' he requires of would-be baptisees, Matthew 3:8.
After John, both repentance and faith precede baptism, Acts 8:37. I am aware that some dispute the validity of that text but it is beyond credulity to think that the eunuch's question 'What doth hinder ... ?' would remain unanswered as both he and Philip went down into the water.
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is recorded as proscribing that the apostles should (first) teach the nations. After being taught, they (who receive the teaching) are to be baptised. This cannot include unintelligent babies.
It is evident that the principle 'Protestant' baptiser of infants (I would say the C of E) has remained as close as possible to Roman Catholicism, the term 'Anglo-Catholic' being virtually synonymous with 'Roman Catholic' insofar as the rest of Protestantism is concerned.
There is also the question of what exactly is the benefit (to itself or to others) of 'baptising' an unknowing infant which cannot take any part, until adulthood, in the very activities which characterise the church.

So my question, if it is indeed not a duplicate of another, is - what is the justification, from a Protestant perspective ?


texts: How do Christians in support of gay marriage interpret anti-gay Bible verses?

texts:
I don't want to spark a debate, but I'm curious how Christians in support of gay marriage interpret seemingly anti-gay Bible verses? See the following:

Leviticus 20:13

  If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

  Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8-10

  Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...


texts: Why is blasphemy against Mary, mother of God, bad?

texts:
Source: Blaspheming Mary no longer crime. (1996). National Catholic Reporter, 33(5), 7.

I searched for "blasphemy" and "Mary" on EbscoHost and found an article from 1996 that stated that the blasphemy of Mary was no longer criminal in Italy. That meant, prior to that time, the blasphemy of Mary was bad and serious.

Why was the blasphemy of Mary and the saints bad? What, for example, was considered blasphemy against Mary, and how might a person prevent it? Were non-Christians excused from blasphemy?


texts: Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners?

texts: The Bible says our righteousness is a filthy rag(works) it also says we are the righteous of God in Christ Jesus. As a Catholic at a state of grace is it right to still call myself a sinner when I have been justified by grace taking upon me Jesus Christ righteous?


texts: Did Judas play an important role for God’s salvation?

texts: In reading the bible, we see Judas as the great enemy who betrayed our Lord Jesus. But looking in a different perspective, was his role gave benefit for the fulfilment of death and crucifixion of the Saviour Christ. Without Judas, would there still be a death and crucifixion?


texts:
The book of Proverbs, and several other places in the Bible, mention the "fear of the Lord".

  Proverbs 9:10 (ESV)
  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

In other contexts, such as when God spoke to Abraham, he said "fear not".

  Genesis 15:1 (ESV)
  After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”

In yet other contexts, the "fear of the Lord" is praised as a great thing.

  Isaiah 33:6 (ESV)
  and he will be the stability of your times,
  abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge;
  the fear of the Lord is Zion's treasure.

What is the difference in these context and in what sense are Christians supposed to "fear" the Lord?


texts:
This is NOT this question

I've been reading a lot about Arianism and this is an interesting point that they have:

  Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right
  and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have
  come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was
  not, and hence He was a finite being,"[37] and was under God the
  Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John
  14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15:
  "Firstborn of all creation."

So then, before being on the cross, did Jesus (being 100% man) have free will to make mistakes?


texts: Is there any tradition with regards to Zechariah's prayer in Luke?

texts:
Luke 1:5-13 (NIV)

  5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.
  8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.
  11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.

What was Zechariah's prayer? One easy guess would be that he was praying for a son, but verse 7 states that his wife was barren and that both were very old, so by this point, why would Zechariah still be hoping or praying for a son? His prayer could also have been something else and God just chose to give him a son as something like a bonus, or a reward, or a gift. At a shallow reading, there don't really seem to be any clues as to what Zechariah's prayer was.

Hence, I'm asking: is there any tradition or exegesis from any branch of Christianity that states what Zechariah's prayer was? If there is a small number of different traditions, please list them together in one answer. If there are somehow a large number of different traditions, please say so and give the most widespread/mainstream ones. I expect that there'll be at least a Catholic tradition and/or an Orthodox tradition.


texts: What does it mean to magnify or glorify the Lord?

texts:
'Magnify' can mean to make something look bigger than it is, but this is not possible to do with God.  Certainly God can't obtain more glory than the infinite worth he had from all eternity. So if we can't make God seem bigger or more glorious than he already is, what does it mean for God to be magnified or glorified?

Note: I am not asking 'what' magnifies or glorifies the Lord, but what does it mean in our understanding of God that he is 'magnified'?


texts: We can't say for sure when angels were created, but can we even say if angels were created at all?

texts: So over the summer I was on a mission trip and was thinking of angels protecting us while we were in some sketch situations, then later I began to ask myself where in the Bible does it say angels were created? The only evidence I have found is in Colossians 1:16&17..but then in John 1:3 it says "all things were made by him, and without him there was nothing made that was made". The end of the verse seems to imply that there are things that were not made. Am I misinterpreting that?


texts: Was the Second Council of Quierzy (853) controlled by Hincmar against the Augustinians?

texts:
In a lecture, Reformed theologian and church historian Douglas Kelly says:

  Hincmar controlled a council – it was not a really representative council. He stacked it. […] The semi-Augustinian, proto-Arminian folk at Quiercy under Hincmar declared against the sovereign grace people.1

He's referring here to the Second Council of Quierzy, which produced statements not in alignment with Reformed soteriology.  Thus as a Reformed theologian he sides with the Augustinian Gottschalk of Orbais against Hincmar and this council.

I'd like to know what the basis is for this claim – did Hincmar take steps to exclude from this council those who disagreed with his views on election and predestination?  If so, how did Hincmar do this?

Assuming such steps were taken, presumably Hincmar (and those who agree with him) will conclude that these actions were justified, just as Hincmar's opponents (then and now) will argue that they weren't.  So I'm trying to understand what Hincmar actually did, not if he was right to do it.

Medieval Theology, lecture 11, "The Carolingian Renaissance: Sovereign Grace and Predestination," minute 27.


texts: What does "Christ was born across the sea" mean in Julia Ward Howe's The Battle Hymn of the Republic?

texts:
The fifth verse of Julia Ward Howe's The Battle Hymn of the Republic, as published in 1862, goes like this:

  In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
  With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
  As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
  While God is marching on. (source)

What does the phrase "Christ was born across the sea" mean? Another question provides a tremendous explanation of the first part, regarding the lilies, so I'm hoping you can help me with the last part of this line.


texts: From a "traditional", Trinitarian perspective, what is the effect of the doctrine of sin in the doctrine of creation?

texts:
Really, I am looking for an answer from a "Trinitarian" perspective, but specifically whoever that Joy Ann McDougall is citing.

Source: McDougall, Joy Ann. "A Trinitarian Grammar Of Sin." Modern Theology 27.1 (2011): 55-71. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.

Cited Source: David Kelsey, “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?” Theology Today Vol. 50 (July 1993), pp. 169–178.

  Having lost its traditional moorings in the doctrine of creation, the
  doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some
  suspected.

I have checked Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

According to the OED, it means a place where a boat is moored or anchored, or it may refer to the things that moor the boat in place.

According to the MWD, it (especially when used in the plural) means an established practice or stabilizing influence.

So, the sentence could have been read as "Having lost its traditional established practice or stabilizing influence in the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected," or "Having lost its traditional anchorage in the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected." I noticed that anchorage might be the right metaphor, because the author McDougall seems to be using it metaphorically to refer to sin having an anchor in creation later in the text. I am still unsure what that metaphor is supposed to be, or what the "traditional" interpretations of sin and creation and their relationship are.


texts: Will the Earth last forever? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
In Ecclesiastes 1:4, it is mentioned that the Earth will remain forever:

  A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains
  forever.

But in 2 Peter 3:10, it is mentioned that the Earth will be burned up:

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which
  the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will
  melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it
  will be burned up.

According to the Catholic Church, will the earth remain or will it be burned up?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the claim that Jesus took on the sins of mankind?

texts:
It's been said that there is no biblical basis for the assumption that Jesus ever took on the sins of mankind, before, during or after his death. What is the biblical proof that Jesus did take on the sins of mankind?
There's been some really great answers here but I'm looking for some more firsthand proof, such as Matthew 5:17–18

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Here Matthew quotes Jesus. Jesus fulfills the mosaic laws which also includes the sacrificial laws. The one perfect sacrifice that would forgive the sins of mankind past, present and future.


texts: Does the Church of England regard itself as responsible for the behaviour of the general populace?

texts:
Today, the Church of England has released an apology for a statement they made.

In response to people now entering into civil partnerships, rather than traditional marriage, the C of E made a statement suggesting such partnerships should be 'abstinent friendships' or, in other words, platonic relationships. They are now 'back-tracking' on that previous statement.

My question is not about that issue, itself.

My question is about whether the Church of England regards itself as a regulatory authority over the entire populace.

Or are its directions only made to persons within the Body of Christ, that is to say, those who show repentance and faith and who are followers of Jesus Christ in doctrine and in conduct ?


texts: Did Job hold the priesthood according to LDS teaching?

texts:
According to LDS teaching, did Job have the priesthood?

It would make sense for Job to be a high priest, since his life pointed towards Christ (which is a main duty of high priests), but I could find any sources talking about Job's priesthood.


texts: Did Jesus transform into spirit form after Resurrection

texts:
In the 40 days after the Resurrection and before his Ascension, Jesus appears and disappears to people, including his disciples.

He also is not recognizable by some of his followers including Mary Magdalene at certain occasions until he identifies himself.

Is there any evidence or reason given on how Jesus' human form has now been enhanced with spirit-like powers?

Also - is there any information on whether Jesus stayed with his disciples or his mother during these 40 days, I saw this question, but I think there isn't any such information?


texts: Does intercession of the saints presuppose that saints are omniscient?

texts: If we ask a saint to intercede for us, are we not presupposing that the saint is omniscient enough to read our thoughts and to hear our prayers? Doesn't the act of prayer to a saint then contain an implicit confession that the saint is omniscient?


texts: According to Reformed theology, why does God tell people to repent if they don't have the choice to do so, as in Exodus 10:3?

texts:
This question is addressed to those who believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity.

In Exodus 10:3 God asks the Pharaoh for how long will he remain proud. Why does God ask such a question if the Pharaoh can't repent?

And why does God tell all people to repent/or to not sin if they don't have the choice to do so? It's like telling a blind person to see.

  "So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, "This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me." (Exodus 10:3 (NIV))


texts: According to Catholicism, why are some demons more difficult to cast out than others?

texts:
In the gospels we often read about Jesus casting out demons. But there is one episode, where the disciples were unable to cast out a demon (Mark 9: 27-28).

27 And when he was come into the house, his disciples secretly asked him: Why could not we cast him out?
28 And he said to them: This kind can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Some time ago, I was reading an article stating that Pope John Paul II was unable to liberate an Italian teenager from a demon during an exorcism!
My question is this: according to Catholic teaching, why are some demons harder to cast out than others?


texts: Can a Catholic marriage be annulled because one doesn't believe to Sacred Trinity anymore?

texts:
The Roman Rota is the highest appellate tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, with respect to both Latin-rite members and the eastern-rite members and is, with respect to judicial trials conducted in the Catholic Church, the highest ecclesiastical court constituted by the Holy See.

The Roman Rota is also the international marriage tribunal for the Catholic Church.

A mere generation ago few American Catholics could identify another Catholic whose marriage had been annulled, but nowadays that is pretty common, and it is even more common in Europe.

I don't want to know whether there is an abuse by Catholic Church in reference to the high frequency with which marriages are annulled nowadays, only I would ask whether a marriage can be annulled because one, the wife or the husband, doesn't believe to Sacred Trinity anymore. Can it be?