texts: Is disembodied heaven better or worse than embodied heaven, according to Catholicism?

texts:
According to Catholicism, immediately after death someone either 'goes' to heaven (or purgatory) or hell. This is the first, or 'particular' judgment.
Then, at some unknown point in time, there will be a 'final' judgment, where people will be reunited with their (glorified) bodies.
Does the Catholic Church hold that the embodied state after the final judgment is better than heaven before being embodied, or from an individual perspective is there really no difference qualitatively in the two states?


texts: Are there any other early non-canonical nativity accounts besides the Gospel of James?

texts:
In the spirit of the season, I wanted to peruse some nativity accounts in ante-Nicene or near-post-Nicene literature.  I've read the Gospel of James of course, but I don't really know of any other non-canonical nativity accounts.
This would include non-canonical Gospels or Acts, or accounts given in passing in the works of the ante-Nicene fathers, e.g. Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, and so forth.  Or even something from the fourth century like Augustine would be interesting.
Any suggestions?
Thank you!


texts: Who are the members of the International Theological Commission for the 2019-2024 Quinquennium?

texts:
About the International Theological Commission:

The International Theological Commission (ITC) of the Catholic Church advises the Magisterium of the Church, particularly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), a dicastery of the Roman Curia.[1][2] Its memberships consists of no more than 30 Catholic theologians[1] appointed by the pope at the suggestion of the Prefect of the CDF[3] for renewable five year terms. They tend to meet annually for a week in Rome, where the Commission is based.[4]
The Prefect of the CDF is ex officio the president of the ITC.

This Vatican.va page lists the last members of the 2014-2019 (9th) Quinquennium (appointed July 2014) as well as the past members of the 8th to 1st Quinquennium (appointed May 1969).
The last appointment (July 2014) was reported by the Catholic News Agency on Sep 24, 2014.
On 29 November 2019, Pope Francis had an audience with the members of the 9th Quinquennium ITC celebrating 50 years of ITC work with the following quote, indicating that a new Quinquennium would be appointed soon:

I am pleased to meet you and I thank your president, Cardinal Ladaria, for the words he addressed to me on your behalf. You have reached the end of your ninth five-year period of work, but above all to an important anniversary, the fiftieth anniversary of the Commission: fifty years of service to the Church. I congratulate you on this Jubilee, which allows you to make grateful memory of your history.

In the preliminary note of the ITC document The Reciprocity between Faith and Sacraments in the Sacramental Economy produced by the 9th Quinquennium and released in December 2019, there was an indication that the term has been extended by 1 year.
My Question: Who are the current members of the International Theological Commission for the next Quinquennium (2019-2024) that Pope Francis should have appointed in 2019 / 2020?


texts: Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?

texts:
Do we have a good idea as to which Pharaoh(s) were around during the time of Moses' life? What internal and external evidence exists to back up those claims? Do any Christian traditions attach any significance to correlating the events of Moses' life to the reign of a specific Pharaoh?

The movie The Prince of Egypt mentions Ramses as the name of Moses' adoptive mother's son (and the future Pharaoh, both when Moses kills the Egyptian at 40 and when he returns to Egypt when he is 80), but I don't know what the basis is for this claim.


texts: According to the Catholic Church is it sinful to address someone who is transgender by the gender they identify as?

texts: Is it a sin against charity to confirm a transsexual lifestyle by using pronouns (such as she to address a transwoman) that the church says is an offense against the Natural Law?


texts: What is the relationship between international branches of the LDS Church?

texts:
According to this story on NPR, Mitt Romney's campaign and his anti-Russian remarks have apparently been the impetus for Putin's "Young Guard" to dog Mormon churches in Russia, accusing them of being "a totalitarian cult" and that the LDS church in Russia is a CIA front organization.

Obviously, I'm rather skeptical of the CIA front claim. I've worked intelligence long enough to be proud when someone accuses the CIA of being able to run anything.  Still, the claim is sufficiently reminiscent of the old claims that Catholics were supposedly beholden to the Pope in political affairs - enough to kill Alf Landon's chances, and sufficient to make JFK's election very, very tight.

The lie to the "Catholics are just political tools of the Pope" line, is of course, that there is an American Conference of Bishops that, while it reports to, is distinct from the Vatican.  Additionally, the American Catholic Church has very public disagreements with the Vatican on several issues.

My question is what analougues exist to the Russian (or any other countries') Mormon churches.  Politically, is there a national alignment of non-US Mormon churches, and what is their relationship to Salt Lake City?  Additionally, are there any large issues of disagreement that are more pronounced in countries outside of the US that distinguish it from the American leadership?

In other words, how do non-US Mormon churches relate to the US, generally?


texts: What do Catholics believe about Yom kippur and judgment?

texts:
Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement,
The Lords feast as Leviticus says. In Judaism, this is the day where God or Hashem will judge the future, what will happen the next year is decided on Yom Kippur. After a week of Thesuva(repenting) from the Feast of Trumpets /Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur.Yom Kippur, a day of fasting as the Scripture says.

What is the Catholic doctrine or understanding on Yom Kippur?

Is it anything like or related to the Jewish understanding that the events taking place in the world for the year to come are sealed on Yom Kippur every year? Who will live or who will die, who will get sick and who will become rich and so on. (As Judaism says)?

ref: Lev 16

(The question has nothing to do with eternal salvation!)


texts: How does the Catholic Church reconcile Jn 16:7 with Jn 20:22?

texts:
We read at Jn 16:7 (NRSVCE)

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.""

But we also see at Jn 20:22:

"When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

One wonders whether by `going away'Jesus meant his Death or Ascension.  Though the Church relates Pentecost to the receipt of Holy Spirit by the Apostles and Mary , Jn 20:22 indicates that the Apostles had already been in receipt of Holy Spirit even prior to the Ascension of Jesus. My question therefore is: Who does the Catholic Church reconcile Jn 16:7  with Jn 20:22 in relation to the time of receipt of Holy Spirit by the Apostles ?


texts: Where does the Old Testament mention "the devil"?

texts:
Yesterday, New York Magazine published an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in which is he quoted as saying that he believes "the Devil" has given up taking possession of humans to make them sin, in favor of causing them to be atheists.  His reasoning is as follows:

  I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

So, to him, I guess, the fact that we don't see demonic possession on a regular basis, yet people are sinning and not believing, proves that The Devil is changing tactics - because in what Christians call the New Testament he is a regular feature.  But, as far as I know, there isn't much of an occurrence of "the Devil" in TaNa"Ch, or what Christians refer to as the "Old Testament".

I know what the standard Jewish approach is regarding "the Devil" (short version: he doesn't get a mention, and we don't believe in such a being - at least not in the way commonly talked about by Christian preachers). But according to the Christian view (across most denominations, as far as I can tell), there is some being called "The Devil" who possesses people and causes them to sin, etc. Where is he in what you call the Old Testament, and why would he just suddenly appear later?


texts: Why is hell for a literal eternity if it does not have literal flames and worms?

texts: According to those that believe hell will be "eternal conscious torment" or "eternal separation", if the flames and worms are not literal, then why is it necessary that the word "eternal" be a literal duration? In other words, why must "eternal" be a quantity rather than a quality?


texts: Why did God create a new covenant?  It seems as if he had a covenant set in place in the Old Testament and provided a means for Israel to follow the covenant and offer sacrifices to atone for their sins.  Why did he create a new covenant in the New Testament which is the basis of Christianity?  Did mankind or God change in a way that a new covenant needed to be set up?


texts: How does Christianity respond to scientific theory that Man originated through evolution?

texts:
Science claims that men originated through evolution. Christianity claims that men originated from Adam and Eves.

How Christianity respond the claims of modern science?


texts: Was there a different method of counting of age at the time of events of Old Testament? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Genesis 5:6-32(RSVCE) gives an account of the generations of Adam. Prima facie,  eldest sons were born to  the forefathers when some of them had  completed or were about to complete a hundred years of age! For instance, Genesis  says:  When Seth had lived a hundred and five years, he became the father of Enosh.
 When Enosh had lived ninety years, he became the father of Kenan.
 When Lamech had lived a hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son,  and called his name Noah. After Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

All that puts one is serious doubt whether there was a different method of counting of age, during the ancient times. My question is: has the Catholic Church made any studies into the system of counting of age that was prevalent at the time of events of the OT?


texts: Could Jesus’ appearing before Pilate, Herod, and scourging happen in 3 hours?

texts:
The time line is answered as seen in this answered question:

Can John's Passion chronology be reconciled with that of the Synoptics?

It seems most reasonable to me. Yet I am still left with the question how could Jesus appear before Pilate twice and also Herod and also be scourged and also carry His cross between 6 am   and 9 am?


texts: What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures?

texts:
The Catholic church teaches that only the Church (Magisterium) has the right to interpret Scriptures whereas Protestant churches typically believe that anyone has that right.

What is the argument that supports the idea that anyone can and should interpret Scripture for himself or herself?


texts: What are the Church Laws governing ingredients and shapes of altar bread in the Catholic Church?

texts: There appears to be perfect uniformity in the texture and make of the Sacramental Bread in Catholic churches all across the world. I wish to know if there are any laws governing the ingredients and method of preparation of the Sacramental Bread in the Roman Catholic Church? I also wish to know why the Holy Host administered to the faithful is perfectly round in shape whereas it could have been given the shape of `having been broken', say square, in order to avoid waste while it is  being cut from a larger bread.


texts: When did lay people first get a vote in the general conferences of the United Methodist Church?

texts:
In the news reports swirling around the 2019 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, something struck me as odd – there were "lay delegates" among the 800 delegates able to vote on the future direction of the denomination.  For example, NPR reported:

  Also speaking against the plan was Nancy Denardo, a lay delegate of western Pennsylvania (source)

Methodism was born out of the Church of England, which has an "episcopal" system of government – churches are led by priests and overseen by bishops.  It's a more hierarchical structure than Presbyterianism, for example, where churches are led by a group of elders and each church is overseen by all the elders in a particular region.

But at least in my Presbyterian denomination, there is no concept of "lay delegates" at the general assembly – the only people who can vote are those who have been ordained as an elder/pastor.  Thus it seems odd to me that the Methodists – more hierarchical than Presbyterians – would allow the laity to vote in their general assemblies.

From my cursory research on Wikipedia, it sounds like the system today is not the way it was from the beginning – apparently the laity were denied voting rights at the 1792 General Conference, and a faction split from the church when laity were not given voting powers in the 1820s (source).

Thus my question is – when did the UMC, or its predecessor denominations, first allow laity to vote in its general conferences?

By predecessor denominations, I mean the Methodist Church (1939–1968), the Methodist Episcopal Church (1784–1939), and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (1844–1939).


texts: Is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father? It's a pretty simple question, so I don't really know if there is much I can add to the body.


texts: How is offering X Hail Marys not considered vain repetition?

texts:
So if the Hail Mary is a prayer and saying the prayer multiple times is encouraged in Catholicism, what established reason does the Catholic church give to justify it not being a vain repetition.

  Matthew 6:7 KJV But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I'm looking for an official Catholic response to this accusation. I'm sure they've said something about it.


texts: When did the one-way monologue sermon first become a normal feature of church assemblies?

texts:
Of course Jesus preached a lot of monologue sermons, but I have noticed that Jesus did not usually preach sermons like nearly every church does today. He never seems to have, or at least rarely preached a sermon, or even a mini sermon, or parable without opportunity for discussion and questions afterwards.  Possibly the ‘sermon on the mount’ is an exception as it is almost the length of a short sermon by todays standards without anyone else responding.

Today most protestant churches have a one-way sermon where one person preaches a sermon then after the sermon the Lord's Supper, worship, announcements or some other activity follows without ever opening the floor for questions or limited challenges or discussion by the hearers. This simply can't be found in the gospels or in Acts.

It. seems clear to me that a more interactive method of preaching was adopted by Jesus which might be more similar to what we would today call teaching, interactive lecturing or a dialogue sermon.

I have read in the past that the synagogue at the time of Christ had a time of interactive discussion after a speaker finished. In the New Testament we find arguably a provision made for 'non clergy' members to take turns in standing up and speaking (1 Cor 14:29).  Furthermore as early churches were house churches I can't imagine any speaker could then imagine that they could get away with an impersonal oratory followed by absolutely no discussion, debate or questions afterward.  In Acts the gospel went out with much interaction. I also heard that martin Luther was famous for very gently and generously answering any question after a sermon.

So when did the monologue sermon become the norm?

Cultural differences seem to have a part in the answer. Street preaching was not abhorred by anyone back then and disciple teacher relationships were also more popular.  Even when Jesus visited the temple as a child an they marveled at his wisdom indicates a provision in the strictest of ceremonies for accessible human interaction that seems less possible in our current culture. My question actually calls for serious historical and objective analysis.


texts: What is the Catholic teaching on oral sex and impotence?

texts: According to the Catholic Church, are a married couple permitted to engage in oral sex when sexual problems such as impotence make vaginal sex impossible?


texts: Why do we use the name "Jesus" if the apostles did not use it?

texts:
The gospel says that God has given us one
name under heaven by which we a saved.
It appears throughout scripture that God
puts great importance upon names in both
old and new testament. The bible says
there is no other name by which we should
be saved, so if the apostles did not
attribute that to the name "Jesus" why
should we?

I understand that some say it does not
matter whether or not we say the right name
because God sees our intent but is that
just our own reasoning justifying our own
error?

The apostles spoke Hebrew, Greek and
Aramaic, they therefore either called him
Yeshua, Iesus or Yehoshua haMoshiach.

If the apostles did not caste out demons or
perform miracles in the name "Jesus" or
even use the name, why should we
continue to use it?


texts: What does "authentic magisterium" entail in Lumen Gentium?

texts:
Lumen Gentium 25 states in part:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (religioso animi obsequio). This religious submission of mind and will (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff

What is the scope of the authentic magisterium of the Pope? How does this differ from the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church? Can the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff conflict with the general Magisterium (what has been taught previously)? Is the Roman Pontiff the specific current holder or the general office?


texts:
Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.

According to ethical egoism, I should only do what benefits me. That doesn't mean I must be the only benefactor. Ethical egoism does allow for others also benefiting from my actions, only so long as the act also serves my long-term interests.

The Bible could be seen as advocating a similar view. I must have faith because without it I can't be saved, and being saved is in my long-term interest.

Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism?


texts: How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man across the chasm of hell in Jesus' story in Luke 16?

texts:
How is Abraham able to speak to the rich man in hell if there is a chasm between them? And Abraham is speaking with Lazarus who is in hell?  How is this possible since we have a great chasm between us?  Does God give efficacious grace for us to speak to people in hell?  I don't think so because than we'd be sad?  So why does Abraham speak to someone in hell?

  So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
  Then he cried and said,'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'
  But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'
  Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'
  Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'
  And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
  But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' (Luke 16:22-31, NKJV)


texts: When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?

texts: At what date (and/or event) was the Old Testament canon currently recognized by most Protestants finalized? What is the earliest occurrence we have of it being referenced in it's current form and who (or what event) announced it as finalized?


texts: How should a Christian object to those who say Paradise may be a little boring?

texts:
From time to time while reading fiction or poetry or whatever I stumble on a certain kind of, so to say, 'satire' of the Paradise the main point of which is that the everlasting live would be meaningless and boring.
For example

a) we would pursue the same pleasures again and again and this would lead to a comic effect. (see Julian Barnes 'The History of the World in 9 1/2 Chapters')

b) other people in Paradise may tend to alienate a certain person, as well, as angels may tend to look down upon ordinary people and thus suffering would not end. (See Tiger Lillies  'Heaven to Hell' song from 'Brothel to the Cemetary' album)

c) We can be separated with our closest relatives as they can be sent to Hell instead (see Mark Twain 'Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven')

How do I object?


texts: On what basis do Popes choose their papal name?

texts: Apologies if there is not a good answer to this but I was wondering how papal names are chosen. Is there a specific tendency for taking a papal name that is associated with a tradition or strain of thought? For instance does the name Benedict imply that you are from a particular subset of orders, does Pius imply that you have a particularly high Christology? Or are the names essentially down to the Pope in question's relatively arbitrary choice? This question could I suppose be reframed as do Papal names carry any particular connotations?


texts: Does Eastern Orthodoxy approve the use of contraception?

texts:
This subject is clear when it comes to Catholicism who explicitly forbids contraception and encourage natural family planning.
Then most protestants do not forbid the use of contraception.
However when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems that there is a smoke in the air, and nobody has a clear position. Orthodox Christians don't have a central catechism like the Catholic Church does, so that only further complicates things.
Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a position at all when it comes to contraception?
(My guess would highly be that they forbid it.)


texts: What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity?

texts:
I'm interested in people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church."

I understand the sentiment - it really fits in well with the "spiritual, but not religious" Zeitgeist, and it seems to often coincide with a dislike of "hypocrites in the church." Jesus clearly inveighed vehemently against the Pharisees and all who would put on a show, but I'm trying to figure out what Jesus or any of the Biblical writers would have thought of the person who doesn't show up at all.

In making the case against a non-churched Christianity, I would point to:

"Wherever two or more are gathered in my name"
The fact that the vast majority of the NT is addressed to churches and not inviduals
The fact that the OT seems to also simply assume corporate worship.

I could keep going on, but I'm interested in understanding the opposite view.  What scriptural or traditional evidence could one muster to make the case for an idiosyncratic Christianity?  (Etymologically, the word "idiot" actually comes from "one who refuses to join the greater body") In other words, how would the idiosyncratic believer claim he's a Christian?


texts: Is a "skeptical viewpoint" more objective than "Christian viewpoint" in matters of theology?

texts:
Based on a recent discussion, the assertion was made that a skeptical viewpoint allows one to be more objective, even in matters of theology. Is this demonstrably true?

When evaluating Christian claims, one must use a certain epistemological framework.  The question is, does a presumption of belief in the Scripture somehow negate one's ability to be "objective" and "dispassionate" about the claims it makes? In other words, does the presumption of truth so fatally bias the questioner as to make philosophical reasoning invalid.


texts:
How does the Orthodox Church view the Roman Catholic Church?

Specifically

Does she consider RCC herectical? In what matters?
Does she consider RCC priesthood and sacraments as valid?
Does she allow her children to to attend RCC Mass and receive the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Penance?


texts: What is the Biblical definition of what makes one a Christian?

texts: Many religious leaders/organizations place the "cult" label on groups of people or churches who interpret the Bible differently than them. If we claim the Bible as our only authoritative source for our doctrinal foundation. What does it actually say on the matter?


texts: If Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, why did He go to Syria?

texts:
Matthew 4:25 (HCSB) says,

  Then the news about Him spread throughout Syria. So they brought to
  Him all those who were afflicted, those suffering from various
  diseases and intense pains, the demon-possessed, the epileptics, and
  the paralytics. And He healed them.

But in Matthew 15:24 Jesus said,

  “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
  Israel.”

If Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, why would he go into a Gentile nation? I am assuming that he actually entered Syria, because His fame spread throughout Syria – I could be wrong. Yet to enter Syria, he would need to go through Lebanon as well, taking him far afield. How do any Protestant Bible scholars explain the mention of Syria in this verse? Perhaps Jesus knew some Jews were there?


texts: What did Jesus mean by saying "the works of God might be displayed" in the man born blind?

texts:
John 9:1–3
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples
asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was
born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or
his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him."

The line

It was not that this man sinned, or his parents

corrects the incorrect premise of Jesus' disciples, but what is meant by

the works of God might be displayed in him?

Is it that since he's blind, people ought to be sympathetic and such sympathy is the work of God?


texts:
Jesus said to Peter that his feet must be washed to "have part with Jesus" (John 13:9). Jesus also commanded all disciples to wash each other's feet (John 13:14).

Our church practices foot washing as a sacrament (must do to be saved).

I know that we are probably the only church that treats foot washing this seriously.

How do other churches approach the subject of foot washing and is it taken as seriously as our church?


texts: What is the basis for the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?

texts:
In mid-Acts dispensationalism (a form of hyperdispensationalism), it is taught that only Paul's writings (from Romans to Philemon) are applicable to the church today and that the other parts of the Bible are informational only.

What, specifically, is the logical basis for this position?


texts: How does Christianity explain the health benefits of sexual intercourse

texts:
I have a lot of friends (both Christians and non-Christians) that are currently taking human sexuality courses in school. These friends will come to me and tell me about the health benefits of sexual intercourse. I've done some research myself on the topic and I find many physical health benefits of the human body having regular orgasms. These scientific studies claim that even masturbation causes the body to experience these health benefits. These benefits include things like stress relief, strengthened immune system, lower blood pressure and heart attack risk, brain stimulation, and the list goes on.

As a new Christian, this is all very confusing information to me. I suppose my question comes down to: *Why would God create us to physically benefit from sexual immorality and masturbation if these things are evil/immoral?
*


texts:
In James 1:13 it says:

  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

But in Genesis 22:1 it is written:

  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

So did God actually tempt Abraham or not?


texts: What does the Catholic church say about its own presence or absence when the tribulation starts?

texts: Simply the question: What, if anything, does the Catholic Church teach about its existence at the time of the tribulation?


texts: Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to win atheists for Christ who are very strong in philosophy, logic and skepticism?

texts:
This is intended to be a question of general applicability, but in all honesty, I'm asking inspired by concrete YouTube channels that promote atheism, most notably, CosmicSkeptic and RationalityRules. These are examples of a special category of atheists that stand out for their remarkable understanding of philosophy, logical thinking, and skepticism, as well as their outstanding debating skills, even against renowned Christian apologists. Just to give you an idea, Alex O'Connor, the founder of CosmicSkeptic, has debated William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Jonathan McLatchie, and several other defenders of the faith.
When it comes to atheists of this caliber, I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means. Not even the best apologists have managed to do so. If I were asked my honest opinion, I would say that the only thing that can turn them around would be a supernatural, "road to Damascus" kind of experience. I see no other way.
But leaving my personal opinions aside, I would like to know if there are any denominations that provide official advice on how to evangelize highly intellectual and well-spoken atheists and skeptics. What recommendations do they give to win strong atheists for Christ? Or is this category of atheists simply a lost cause and the only thing that we can do is to throw up our hands, leave them alone and hope for the best?


texts: What criteria are used to denote one commentary as "better" than another? What are the hallmarks of a good commentary?

texts:
I was watching "Crossing the Threshold" with Fr. Mitch Pacwa last night and he was saying that when starting a bible study it is good for each member of the bible study to get their own commentaries.  He mentioned a good one being St. John Chrystostom. But I've never seen a whole lot in the book store coming from other Catholic sources.

This however, isn't a Catholic question specifically (although pointing me in the right direction is an instant +1). The main point is, what to look for in a bible commentary, especially when the New American Bible's footnotes just aren't quite cutting the mustard (not that they were intended to).


texts: To which Saints may a Catholic pray, and when can this begin?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches, as I understand it, that a person may pray to a Saint, and this Saint will then intercede along with that person to God concerning the request (or something like that).  It appears that Mary may be the saint to whom people pray the most.

My question concerns which saints are qualified to receive prayers.  Is it restricted to only those who are designated as Saints by the Catholic Church?  Does that start only after the Saint is designated as such?  What is people prayed to John Paul II or Mother Theresa today, but they receive the designation of Saints at a later time?  Is it the designation of sainthood by the current Pope on earth that allows someone in heaven to begin hearing prayers?

What prevents any Christian from hearing the prayers of people on earth?  Would it have something to do with the time when they get out of Purgatory?

I understand there are several questions there, but they all surround the issue of praying to the Saints.


texts: In Catholicism, does the efficacy of the sacrament depend on the intention of the priest?

texts:
In an essay by Gordon Clark, no friend of Roman Catholicism, I was surprised to read his contention that in Catholicism, the efficacy of the sacrament depends on the intention of the priest.  As part of his criticism he describes an apparently historical episode illustrating the problem:

  In Romanism the proper administration of a sacrament, and therefore its efficacy, depends on the intention of the priest. Unless the priest has the secret intention of doing what the Church intends in the definition of the sacrament, the thing does not work. Now, there was a priest who came to rebel against the whole system of his church. He came to have a hatred of religion. While in this state of mind, according to his later confession, he baptized many infants with the intention, not of doing what the Church defined, but of sending them to hell. Of course the priest is hardly to be commended for such evil intentions, as he himself later came to see; but consider the position of the Roman church which deprived these infants of regeneration by making a valid baptism to depend on the priest. (source)

While I have a morbid curiosity about who this priest was and when he did this terrible thing, here I'm more interested in discovering if Catholicism actually teaches something similar to what Clark is claiming.  If a priest intends to send babies to hell while he is baptizing them, are those infants deprived of regeneration, according to Catholicism?  Does valid administration of a sacrament depend on the priest's intentions?

Note that, while related, this isn't necessarily the same thing as Donatism, which Catholicism rejects.  In the Donatist controversy, as I understand it, the main issue was the efficacy of the sacrament if the priest was a heretic or had committed a mortal sin – not whether his intentions were correct.  Thus, if Clark is wrong, I expect answers to contain more than a mere reference to Donatism; I want to see how the Church has dealt with intentions, not just the moral status of the priest.


texts: What's the biblical basis for non-believer's ability to do good?

texts:
This is a bit of a theoretical question, but what is the biblical basis for the belief that non-believers can do good (doing good meaning performing a good deed from a good intent)?
On the contrary, scripture seems to show that humanity is incapable of doing anything good:

Genesis 6:5 ESV, Matthew 23:37 ESV The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ... For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Romans 3:11-12 ESV None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.
Isaiah 64:6 ESV We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

This seems to go against common sense as we all know non-believers that do lots of good.
I'm not questioning whether or not non-believers do good deeds. I'm wondering, given God's frequent intent through scripture to show how fallen we all are without Christ, where scripture states that non-believers still have the capacity to do good without Christ.


texts: Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church call the 49 days following Easter, Pentecost, and the Western Church does not?

texts:
Just from Wikipedia I have found that the 49 days before Pentecost are called "Pentecost" (there's even "Mid-Pentecost" which is the midpoint from Easter to Pentecost) but in the Western Church I can't seem to find if there is even a name for this time frame. I have found some looser comments that "the 49 days before Pentecost can also be called Pentecost" but I don't know if it's just so loose that they're mixing Western and Eastern.

Is there a name for this time frame in the Western Church? And is there a circumstance where the Western Church refers to this time as Pentecost?


texts:
I've always heard, over in over, in Church and elsewhere that Jesus's ministry on Earth was only three years. However, it doesn't seem that there is much supporting Biblical evidence for this, or at least direct evidence. Nowhere does it say an exact period of time the events in the gospel where taking place over.

Is there evidence in the New Testament that we can reconstruct how long Jesus ministered for? If not then where does the three year figure come from?


texts: Do any traditions hold that the Jews will return to Israel prior to Christ's Second Coming?

texts:
I have heard that the Second Coming of Jesus must be preceded by Jews returning to their homeland of Israel.

Does such a view exist?
Is it a generally shared Christian belief, or is it specific to
certain Christian ideologies?


texts:
I recently saw a billboard proclaiming "After you die, you will meet God"

What is the biblical basis for this?

My first thought, was that according to my understanding of Christianity, those headed down would never meet God

My Second thought was, I thought was Saint Peter's job, to meet the heaven bound at the gates.

What is the biblical basis for all people meeting God when they die?


texts:
"Infallibility" is a loaded word and very likely has different connotations in different denominations.  In its most basic form, it suggests that there is a path (revelatory or not) between God and man that can be absolutely trusted.

Despite the benefits of an infallible path of communication between God and man, the LDS Church believes no one but Jesus Christ has been or will be infallible.  Indeed, the Church teaches that the various editions of the Bible are not infallible (Article of Faith #8).

Question: What does the LDS Church teach about infallibility?

I am seeking a canonical answer.


texts: What is the Current Official View of the Catholic Church on the Redemptive Work of Christ?

texts:
This question is not about whether Catholics think salvation is a process or a one time thing, it is more nuanced than that.

I am looking for precise theological interpretations of Christ's redemptive work but not so much its relation to us if that makes sense. For example the dominant view in Protestantism is Penal Substitionary Atonement which teaches for instance that the Father poured his wrath on the Son. I am looking for the official view of the Catholic Church and it would be well appreciated if the answer includes elements like whether or not thi view has always been the official one and if it is elevated to the level of dogma rather than merely an encouraged interpretation of dogma.

A brief explanation of the characteristics of the view is also necessary to have one's answer validated.


texts: How do different denominations defend their interpretations of Daniel 2's prophecy?

texts:
The second chapter of the book of Daniel talks about Nebuchadnezzar II's dream of a statue made of several metals and its prophetic significance for the future. I've heard people claim that this is a prophecy that accurately predicts a sequence of civilizations and empires over history that came after Babylonia - which if true would be fascinating - but I'm not sure if all denominations agree on the exact interpretation, and I've never read an overview on this topic.
Did Daniel 2 accurately predict a sequence of empires after Babylonia in accordance with secular history, and if so, which empires? What is the evidence that justifies this interpretation? Can we confidently rule out postdiction?
What is an overview of how Christian denominations answer these questions?


texts: According to Catholicism, is it wrong to joke about holy things?

texts:
Is it okay to joke around about Jesus, Holy Scriptures, and other holy things? Is it okay to perform plays where Jesus is portrayed in funny ways in order to get others interested in the Catholic Faith?

My opinion is that it is obviously something bad, but I am interested in the explanation of why it is wrong? Also, it seems to me that to prove such conduct is bad, it will be necessary to use the definition of what a joke is, and show that when some holy thing is involved in it, that such a moral action is bad. Also, I am interested in examples of saints that denounce such action.

I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.


texts: According to Catholicism, did Jesus really use wine at the Last Supper?

texts:
We see a part of the institution Holy Eucharist at Mtt 26: 27-28 (NRSVCE):

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus goes on to say  at Mt 26: 29:

I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Remember that Jesus was celebrating the  the Passover which was the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Now, we see Yahweh ,  while preparing Israel for the first Passover,giving stern instructions on the use of leaven at Ex 12:14-15:

This day shall be a day of remembrance for you. You shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as a perpetual ordinance.   Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day shall be cut off from Israel

Connecting the two, one wonders whether Jesus really used wine in the Last Supper, which was a commemoration of Passover. In fact, wine which is the product of fermentation does not go hand-in-hand  with the unleavened bread ,and Jesus would be the last the break the instructions at Exodus!
But then, if Jesus did not drink wine, what did he drink ? Simple: fresh grape juice. We see at Song of Solomon  8:12 that drinking of fresh juice had been  prevalent since ancient times:

I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the juice of my pomegranates.

Now, the Catholic Church all across the world has traditionally been using bread  and wine to commemorate the Last Supper . Of course, wine has much higher  shelf-life than has fresh grape juice , and it may be impossible for the sacristan to prepare fresh grape juice day after day for the Eucharist especially during the lean season of grapes. But,  one really wonders if what Jesus drank at the Last Supper was wine or  fresh grape juice .
My question therefore is: Did Jesus really use wine at the Last Supper? Has the Catholic Church made any research into the prospects of Jesus having used fresh grape juice?


texts:
At John 19:5 we see:

  So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

Elsewhere, we see Jesus referring to himself as Son of Man on numerous occasions.

My question is: Was Pontius Pilate a secret beneficiary of the teachings of Jesus so that he was able to quote the very words of Jesus in his pronouncement during the latter's trial? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about such a prospect?


texts: How do non-sacramental denominations identify and ordain pastors and other leaders?

texts:
I'm aware that not all Christian denominations call the leaders/pastors of local congregations "priests" (as Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans, and apparently some Lutherans do, perhaps among others); but it seems that most of them, at least, have some sort of person (called a minister, elder, pastor, or other similar term) to shepherd local congregations.

For those that do, but that do not have a specific sacrament of ordination/holy orders, is there some other ecclesiastic procedure that marks out a person as having that stature within the denomination - perhaps an "ordination" but not a sacrament in the Catholic sense?

If this is scoped too broadly, let me apply it specifically to those denominations in the Reformed tradition.


texts: What rationale do KJV-1611-Only give for not recognizing the apocryphal books of that version?

texts: For the first 274 years of the KJV (including most notably the 1611 version) the KJV included the apocryphal books. So if the 1611 version is inspired why don't the Protestant KJV-1611-Only crowd consider them canonical?


texts: What does the Bible say about how we should pray?

texts:
Context

In Matthew 6:7-15, we see Jesus

telling his disciples to not use vain repetitions as the heathens do
giving a specific example of how to pray

It's furthermore noted that prayer is a rather powerful technique given:

Jesus prayed right before his death Luke 22:39-46
some demons can only be removed via prayer Mark 9:29

I get the impression that prayer is something that:

was very important to Christ and his disciples
unfortunately, for some reason, not explained explicitly in the Bible (i.e. no 8-step prayer program)

There are other Biblical truths that are "hidden" -- like Trinity / TULIP -- they're in the Bible, but often times hard to see unless someone shows it to you. Prayer seems to be along these lines.

Question

Who were the most influential Church fathers on how we should pray? And what did they say about it? [Please cite resources.]


texts: Why is there a need for a perfect sacrifice? Why does Jesus have to be perfect?

texts: Theologically, why was it necessary that Jesus be perfect? Couldn’t there be another ordinary human who said “I will be the sacrifice and take on all the sins of the world past, present, and future and suffer and die as a substitutionary atonement for all of mankind”? Why did it have to be Jesus and why did it have to be a perfect Jesus?


texts:
This article "Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?" | gotquestions.org says:

  Many Christians use the cliché “Love the sinner; hate the sin.”

This C.SE question Is “hate the sin, love the sinner” a Christian idea? tackled, to my understanding, whether the phrase is biblical and tagged love, sin and hate.

Hence my question:

Did this phrase "love the sinner but hate the sin" in this form originate in Christianity and who is credited to have first used it?


texts: My understanding of biblical theology is that it is a theological understanding that is presented by a book of the Bible. Does it automatically become systematic theology when you pull from another book of the Bible if that other book is written by the same author?


texts: What are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?

texts:
Catholics believe that the bread and wine in the communion change into the body and blood (and divinity) of the Lord Jesus Christ. They taught that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine despite of the fact that it appears bread and wine. Rather, both are now 100% body and blood (and the divinity) of Jesus Christ himself. This change is specifically defined by Catholicism as a change of substance ( i.e. "Transubstantiation").

So, what are the Biblical arguments against Transubstantiation?


texts: Should a Bible believing Christian be pleased at the death of Osama bin Laden?

texts:
I'm looking for a Biblical response to this question. And it's not specific to bin Laden but I'm just using him as an example.

I know Jesus said love your enemies. And Paul even showed how this can be a form of revenge.

But I can't help but wonder if a Christian could at least be relieved that the bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world were killed.


texts: Does Satan still masquerade as a angel of light among Christians?

texts:
I was reading in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15,

  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as
  apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as
  an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants
  masquerades as servants of righteousness

Could these scriptures apply to the Church of today?


texts: Why do some churches eat leavened bread and wine for the Lord's Supper?

texts: Why is it that many denominations partake of leavened bread and wine during the Lord's Supper when the bread and wine of the original Supper was unleavened? The Passover coincides with the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.


texts: Is there any theological basis for the eating of lamb at Easter?

texts:
I'm almost certain that the answer is no and that lamb is eaten mostly because it's available and tasty. However my attempts to Google this have met with limited success. I have found suggestions that the practice originated with the popes towards the end of the first millennium AD, and of course lots of articles suggesting a connection with Passover and with the lamb of God. However I have been unable to find any definitive statements from a reliable source.

I would be interested to if there is any religious significance to the eating of lamb, or whether it's one of those traditions that owe more to pragmatism than theology.

A footnote

Lee asks me to clarify my question. Suppose I was asking why Jews eat lamb at Passover, then the answer would be that it's mandated in the Torah. This would be a nice clear answer that is easily independently checked.

I want to know why Christians eat lamb at Easter, but I am fairly sure there is nothing in the Bible instructing them to do so. So I am anticipating that the answer might be along the lines of:

Because Pope Whoever adopted the practice in 962 and it has been a tradition ever since

or possibly:

There is no clear reason - it has just become popular due to the association of the Lamb of God with Jesus

Lesley mentions it became a tradition in the ninth century, but the linked article is very vague about who adopted the tradition and exactly when. If a more precise origin for the tradition can be identified I would be very interested to know it.

So when I ask about a theological basis I mean was there some occasion when Christians were instructed to eat lamb or when they were encouraged to eat lamb by an example set by some Christian authority? Or has the practice simply emerged without any clear origin?


texts: What exactly was the earliest start time of a Catholic mass before 1957? - What means aurora?

texts:
Before the Motu Propio "Sacram Communionem. On Laws of Fasting and the Evening Mass" of Pope Pius XII in 1957, the rule of c. 821 § 1 CIC/1917 applied in the Catholic Church as a ruling on the times for celebrating mass. The codex is from 1917, but I suspect the rule is older (maybe Council of Trent?).

  c. 821 § 1 CIC/1917: Missae celebrandae initium ne fiat citius quam una hora ante auroram vel serius quam una hora post meridiem.

  The beginning of the celebrated mass shall not be before one hour before aurora and later than one hour after midday. [my translation]

What does aurora means in this context? Is it sunrise, the beginning of the red sky at morning or something else? Was there a definition or practical formula in the canonical literature? As this question was practically relevant for every priest there should be at least some rule of thumb.

This question is different from Can Mass be celebrated at any hour of the day?. The scope of that question is broader and in Geremia's Answer the word aurora is just translated with sunrise without explanation. I want the details here.


texts: Has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to the accusations of the Reformers?

texts:
I just started reading Luther's Tabletalk, and the preface, written by Dr. John Aurifaber in 1569, roundly condemns the Roman Catholic Church, presenting an analogy which compares Christians' "servitude" under the ecclesiastical and political authority imposed by the Church of Rome prior to the 16th century with the Israelites' captivity in ancient Egypt. Over the course of several pages, Aurifaber uses striking language to enumerate the specific flaws that many Reformers claimed were evident in the Papal system, and he echoes Luther's oft-heard refrain which equated the Pope with the antichrist described in the First Epistle of the Apostle John, and the "man of lawlessness" described in Paul's prophesies in Second Thessalonians.

We have heard these condemnations of, and accusations against the Church of Rome repeated by countless Protestant leaders and teachers in every intervening century.

Excepting things like Luther's Papal Bull and the Diet of Worms, which were intended to accomplish other ends, has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to / defense against the accusations of the Reformers, such as those recounted by Dr. Aurifaber in his preface to Luther's Tabletalk?


texts:
Gideon was faithful enough among all the Israelites, to find grace in God's eyes. Presumably, he thought that God had forsaken them so he had to test the Lord's angel to be sure he was sent from Him.

  "And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then
  shew me a sign that thou talkest with me." (Judges 6:17).

Becoming certain of the angel's mission should have been enough to have complete faith and trust in God, availing himself for whatever purpose God had for him. As if he was satisfied,

  "And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon
  said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD
  face to face." (Judges 6:22).

The Lord then begins to talk with him directly after the angel had gone.
But then, he tests the Lord again.

  "And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as
  thou hast said, Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and
  if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth
  beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as
  thou hast said." (Judges 6:36-37).

God responds to him proving that He will act upon His word. Gideon goes on further again asking for another sign.

  "And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and
  I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once
  with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all
  the ground let there be dew. And God did so that night: for it was dry
  upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground." (Judges
  6:39-40).

In fact, from the last verse I notice that Gideon knew he wasn't supposed to test God. He knew that according to law,

  "Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah."
  Deuteronomy 6:16

Why would God allow Himself to go through series of tests? Was the 2nd and 3rd tests necessary?


texts: Does the Bible say anything about chimeras or explains their purpose?

texts:
Firstly, I'm sorry if it's not the right place to ask this kind of question. I didn't know where else I could ask about it.
I'm interested in Simon de Myle's painting of the ark. In the middle of the painting, on the right, one may see a chimera/dragon devouring a man.
I was wondering whether the Bible says anything about chimeras. And if so, how the one of de Myle's painting can be explained. Why a dragon and why devouring a man?
Was it only an artistic vision?


texts: What does title of "Bishop" mean in some African-American churches?

texts:
I'm familiar with what "bishop" typically means in mainline,  churches. It specifically points to an overseer of several other pastors and/or their congregations.

Some African-American Christian religious figures, or leaders of "historically black churches", use the title "Bishop", but in my estimation, they may be leaders of a congregation, but not overseers of other congregations.

Q: What does the term mean in these contexts, and how is the term derived?


texts: How does King James-only-ism apply to other languages?

texts:
How does King-James-only-ism apply to other languages?

As far as I know, the King-James is an English specific bible, and the King-James-Only standard is an English specific subject, which if I am not mistaken might even make a claim of divine inspiration on behalf of the translators.

Clarification

In the comments it was suggested I clarify the question:

The King James version is an English Translation. King James proponents elevate the KJV over all other translations, saying it was given by God at that time, and often it is asserted (and this typifies the KJO movement) that to date there is no other bible translation that is of the same validity as the KJV.

I've made a sincere assessment of the King James Only view, and a very important question manifests (the question of this post) how does this view apply to other languages?

Obviously God has not called only English speaking people. Not all languages are equal, or have the same capacity or way of expression. Hence, one would think that a convert would have to learn English (older English, in this case) to properly understand the bible. But there is the rare case of those who need no other translations, those being able to read the original languages - one might think they too should read the KJV, by the modern standard of KJO.

On a related note, modern translations (Such as my NET) exist not merely for reasons of "profit" but range of use, besides the necessity to update the language for the benefit of the user. Some KJO proponents assert that all other translations are from the devil, obscuring doctrine - but considering that languages (or language variants) cannot be sharply classified, a translation that exists for a language or language variant is asserted,by default, to be "from the devil" by some KJO proponents.

The entire issue, really, reduces to this simple question: How does KJO apply to other languages? Even an evolved language (such as our English) can be to some extent called "another language".


texts: How does one discern between thoughts inspired by the Holy Spirit and those produced from themselves

texts:
This question has been nagging at me for a while, how can one tell the difference between honest-to-God inspiration from the Holy Spirit and thoughts that are induced by themselves out of the needs or fears of the person.  The Spirit is described as a 'still small voice' which can be strikingly similar to the things you tell yourself if you want to convince yourself of something.

Example: I have this friend who went on about three dates with a guy before he proposed to her claiming he had prayed to God and received revelation from the Spirit that they were meant to be together. She of course didn't buy into it and rejected him flat out, because he had convinced himself of revelation that was simply untrue, no matter much he wanted it to be.

How can we prevent ourselves from making similar mistakes?


texts:
In Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, relics are typically objects that were either parts of the bodies of saints (e.g. fragments of bone) or are associated with their lives (e.g. clothing). Many miracles have been reported in association with these relics, such as people touching them and being cured of terminal diseases.

What is the biblical basis for these relics and the miracles associated with them?


texts: How would different Protestant denominations reconcile Matthew 5:19 with the notion of being saved by grace?

texts:
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -- Matthew 5:19 (KJV)

My understanding as a nondenominational protestant is that we are saved by receiving God's grace through faith in Jesus (Galatians 3:10-11, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.). However, Matthew 5:19 makes things a little bit hairy in that it seems to be saying that we still ought to follow the Law despite the fact that we can't be saved by following the law.

What is an overview of how different Protestant denominations would reconcile these passages?


texts: Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?

texts:
Or, the better question is: did the earth really stop rotating?

  Joshua 10:12-14

  New International Version (NIV)

  12: On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

  “Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
      and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

  13: So the sun stood still,
      and the moon stopped,
      till the nation avenged itself on[a] its enemies,
  as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

  The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

  14: There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

Obviously, if the earth really did stop spinning for extended period of time, it would have severe implications.

For one, rotation velocity is 1,674.4 km/h at the equator. This means that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning everything would be launched in a ballistic trajectory sideways. All of the masses would be scoured clean of anything. This means rocks, trees, buildings, warriors fighting right then and there, and etc, would be swept away into the atmosphere.

And/or, Earth would be torn apart by the gigantic deceleration forces. Seismic waves will flow through the earth causing massive earthquakes. The atmosphere would possibly boil over. Also lets not forget the 2.58x10^29 Joules of rotational energy. all that energy has to go somewhere.

Why do I feel like I am writing xkcd what-if article? Anyway...

Unless by some miracle God was able to stop the Earth from spinning without the consequences, this act would be impossible.

So did he really stop the Earth from spinning? Or was it only an illusion?


texts: What's the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song?

texts:
Is the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song/song from the Spirit defined anywhere in scripture or church tradition?

Paul said this to the Ephesians:

  Ephesians 5:18-20 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV)


texts: What is the Christian symbol of the unicorn, and what does it suggest?  I have seen it in the seals of certain churches.


texts: How did Brigham Young become the most well-known Mormon leader (after Joseph Smith left the scene)?

texts:
Recently, I had the chance to visit the birthplace of Mormonism (Hill Cumorah / Palmayra, NY), and learn the origin of the LDS Scriptures.  In particular, I became quite interested in the Three Witnesses - Harris, Whitemer, and Cowdery. From the stories I read, these three seem instrumental in the translation / dictation of the original vision, and even in the early formation of the church in April, 1830.

And yet, none of them ever seems to have been prominent in the church since then.  I understand that all three left the church (though two returned), and so I can understand why they never became President - but there seems to be a gap in the record for me as to where Brigham Young came from.

When did he enter the Mormon story?  Why was he sufficiently credible to be able to lead the bulk of the church to Utah? What specifically was the "torch-passing" if you will that led Brigham Young to be considered Smith's successor?


texts:
Jesus tells us in John 12:24 that

  unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.

Today the process of germination is explained in a different way and certainly seeds do not have to 'die'.

Does Jesus use the word die in a different context?


texts: Who were the main Protestant precursors?

texts:
While Martin Luther is the origin of a particular protestant-reformist movement named Lutheran and of its derivative churches, it's unclear to me whether he should be considered responsible to the entire protestant reformation.

Considering Luther's venomous antiseminitism, it is further unclear to me because many so called Protestant movements are Judaism oriented ranging from the Seventh Day Adventists, to the Messianic Jews, to some Black Hebrew Israelites.

Were there precursor movements to Martin Luther which generally shared concepts of the Lutheran movement, but which remained independent from it to modern times?


texts: How real is Matthew 4:1-2 in terms of physical realities?

texts:
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights after which he was very hungry, and the tempter came to Him (Matt. 4:1-2).

The forty days and forty nights of fasting how exhaustive and physically weak would a man can endure. The way I understand it, we can live with no food for three days but definitely we must have water to sustain our physical energy. But for Jesus to be still standing for forty days and had the strength to face Satan, is truly an amazing narrative if taken into reality.

Is this passages a metaphor of forty days or strictly speaking this is forty calendar days in our time?


texts: What's the Greek manuscripts of John with the oldest discovery date?

texts:
I'm trying to figure out what are the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospel of John in Greek.

New Testament (Wikipedia)

For example, papyrus 66

  They say 66 is the oldest and nearly complete; but the trouble is I don't want anything that was DISCOVERED in 1952… even though it was dated as the earliest, I want there to be a historical record of the manuscripts existence since ancient times.

And I'm not researching any other books of the bible, I'm just concerned with finding an old source for the gospel of John.  Thanks

Codex Bezae

  The manuscript is believed to have been repaired at Lyon in the ninth century, as revealed by a distinctive ink used for supplementary pages. It was closely guarded for many centuries in the monastic library of St Irenaeus at Lyon.

I found Codex Bezae: there are records that people were familiar with it around the 10th century; and scientific dating places its creation in the year 400.

Vaticanus was created in 300, but discovered in 1516. this isn't old enough for me

Sinaiticus was created in 330, but discovered in 1844... definitely not old enough.

Textus Receptus was critical collation created in 1516 by Erasmus. That's great but I'm interested in seeing his raw sources; not his expert opinion on the best combination of sources.

Any others? I like to get the two oldest and compare them.


texts:
Will the people, who end up in heaven, gain additional glory for each soul that profits from their writings?
For example, St. Augustine wrote many good books. Now he is in heaven. To this very day, people read his books and have spiritual benefits. Does St. Augustine receive additional beatitude in heaven for each soul that profits from his books? I want a Catholic answer.


texts: Messianic Jews are Jews that believe Jesus is their Messiah. Do they in general consider the Talmud to be authoritative and something they must adhere to?


texts: Is there any protestant method how to deal spiritual dryness?

texts:
In Catholic tradition, there are books on spiritual dryness (Dark Night of the Soul by st. John of the Cross is the most famous) and it is mentioned in Catechism of Catholic Church too. Eastern tradition has other books on this topic. But I wonder whether Protestants have anything more sophisticated than "Just hold on!" or "Read the book of Job, it's written for someone like you!" (or, in a worse case: "If you don't feel God, you must have sinned!").

Is there any Protestant doctrine on this topic? Is it accepted by most denomination, or only by a fraction?

EDIT to clarify what I mean with "spiritual dryness": I understand it as usually long-term (lasting for months, years or even decades) spiritual crisis, when a person doesn't feel "presence of God" or "God's grace" and it is hard to sustain faith. On the other hand, people experiencing this might be very good Christians bearing lots of fruits of Holy spirit. Mother Teresa's case is an extreme example, but many Christians experience some milder form of it and this experience often can't be attributed to a sin or a mental illness.

I never experienced real spiritual dryness (I'm too young in Christ for this, people rarely experience dryness just three years after conversion), but knowing people who experience it, reading books on it and being advised to prepare that it will probably come some day helps me a lot in my spiritual life - to realize that God's grace might become invisible one day is a good reason not to be proud of all that religious enthusiasm and nice feelings and to carefully try to build my faith on more solid ground than this enthusiasm is.

My protestant friends don't understand this; that's why I wonder whether concept of "dark night of soul" is unreflected and more or less unknown in whole or most of Protestantism, or just in some part of its Pentecostal branch.


texts: Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament?

texts:
Do Messianic Jews accept the entire New Testament as a base of their belief?
What is the position of Messianic Judaism (if there is a common position) on passages in the Gospel of John and the letters of Paul that can be understood as that Jesus was a form of God?

Addition, as asked to say more about what are the passages that can be understood as that Jesus was a form of God.
John 1:1

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

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth;
we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Stating «the Word was God» and «the Word became flesh» he sets the base for the thought that God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are the same, which is not the Jewish (and Muslim) concept of God.
Numbers 23:19

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should
repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will
he not fulfil it?

Hosea 11:9

I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy E'phraim;
for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not
come to destroy.


texts:
The question is simple but I really need an answer...
If Jesus died for our sins then the question would be how could God die?
If God didn't die and it's only the human flesh then God didn't really die for our sins it's just his human form.
I'm Muslim but I've been searching for the truth for a really long time.
If it's Islam I'm willing to stay there.
If it's Christianity I'm really willing to convert.
If it's Judaism I'm willing to convert.


texts: Why were none of the Apostolic fathers' writings included in the last canon accepted in the Ecumenical Councils?

texts:
Why is it so that none of the Apostolic fathers' writings was included in the last canon accepted during the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

By the "last canon" I mean the one that we have until today.

From the wikipedia article on the Development of the New Testament Canon I learned that Irenaeus of Lyons considered the letter to the Corinthians, known now as 1st Clement, and the Polycarp's Epistle to be of great worth.

Clement of Alexandria had a similar attitude to the 1st Clement.

And in the book "The Apostolic Constitutions", in the chapter named "The Canons of the Apostles", both of Clement's epistles are listed among the "sacred books of the New Testament" as it says there, and the list of books is attributed to the Twelve Apostles themselves:

  Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of
  the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of
  Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of
  Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the
  Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of
  Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty
  psalms; three books of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of
  Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young
  persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. But our sacred
  books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels
  of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two
  Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two
  Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the
  bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish
  before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts
  of us the Apostles


texts: Is there any significance to the aside in Luke 23:12, regarding Pilate and Herod?

texts:
In Luke 23, Jesus is taken to Pilate and Herod to be tried for his supposed crimes against Rome and the Jews. In verse 12, there's an interesting aside:

  ¶ And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves. (Luke 23:12, KJV)

Why did Luke include this seemingly random statement in his narrative of Jesus' final hours? Do we know anything about the relationship between Pilate and Herod before Jesus' trial, and why did it change with the trial of Jesus?


texts: Are the Old Testament prohibitions on incest applicable to Christians?

texts: The Old Testament forbids incest. Does this aspect of the Mosaic law apply to Christians?


texts: Why does Isaiah not mention himself after chapter 39?

texts: Why is it that after the 39th chapter of Isaiah that there is no more third person. In addition, if Isaiah composed this book why is it in third person to begin with? Are there three authors to Isaiah? Two of them coming in after the 39th chapter.


texts: Why Don't Christians Accept the Oral Torah?

texts:
Why do Christians accept the Jewish belief that the Hebrew Bible is the Word of God,
but not accept the Oral Torah which the Jewish people believe also represents the Word of God?

  "According to traditional Judaism, the Oral Law must have been disseminated at the same time as the Written Torah because certain Torah commandments contained in the Pentateuch would be indecipherable without a separate explanatory codex and, presumably, God would not demand adherence to commandments that could not be understood." - Excerpt from the Wikipedia page


texts: How did Moses write the events which happened ~2000 years before him?

texts:
Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions.

Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such.

How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?


texts: When did tradition become first used as Tradition?

texts:
When did the idea that tradition (pious, informed, well-meaning) is actually Tradition (divine, sacred, God-breathed) first become used and defined in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions?

To be clear, I'm not asking when any particular tradition became a Tradition, but rather when was the idea promulgated that a tradition apart from Scripture could be Tradition as equivalent to Scripture?  What Pope or Patriarch of other influential writer defined that something, like pious tradition, apart from God-breathed, divine, sacred Scripture is a Tradition, the equivalent of God-breathed, divine, sacred Scripture?

When did Tradition become equal to Scripture to some denominations?

Please don't answer with "just so" comments.  Assertions that Tradition is always from God don't answer the question.  For example, we know that RC and EO have different Traditions, yet believe their Traditions are divine, but since their Traditions contradict each other, there was obviously a time when Traditions were only traditions.  When did this attitude change?  Please provide details and examples from your church history that shows when the idea of Tradition apart from Scripture became equivalent to Scripture.


texts: How do Eastern Christians explain Jesus "sending" the Holy Spirit in John 15:26?

texts:
One of the issues behind the schism between East and West was the doctrine of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: does he proceed from the Father, or from the Father and Son?  There doesn't seem to be much biblical data to support either position, so it's rather sad to me that this disagreement ended up being a test of orthodoxy in the first place.  That said, John 15:26 is widely seen to support the Western position:

  "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."

I'm sure I don't understand all the arguments, but the "sending" that Jesus does seem to indicate that the Spirit proceeds from Jesus as well as from the Father.

What is an overview of Eastern counterarguments to the idea that this verse teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son?  I'm fine with arguments both ancient and modern, but I'd like evidence that they were made by well-known theologians of the Eastern Church.  Quotations from the actual works of the Eastern theologians in question would be ideal.


texts: Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ no longer has a body that possesses flesh?

texts:
Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ's incorruptible body no longer has flesh?

I was translating a work of John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν. In this work, John is quoting (actually, he seems to be paraphrasing) a statement made by Gregory Nazianzen in his work entitled in English, "The Oration on Holy Baptism."

Here is John's quotation in Greek.

  Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.

What Gregory Nazianzen writes is translated in English as (sec. 45),

  Believe [that for us sinners He was led to death; was crucified and buried, so far as to taste of death; and that He rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, that He might take you with Him who were lying low; and that] He will come again with His glorious Presence to judge the quick and the dead; no longer flesh, nor yet without a body, according to the laws which He alone knows of a more godlike body, that He may be seen by those who pierced Him, and on the other hand may remain as God without carnality.

Gregory clearly states that Christ does not possess flesh. The Greek is οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, "no longer flesh."

This is the basis for my question.


texts: Is it hypocritical to be a Christian and also be against welfare?

texts:
Recently someone informed me that it was hypocritical to call myself Christian, and to be against many progressive/liberal policies (the specific argument was about US-run welfare)

So my question: is it hypocritical to call myself a Christian and not support welfare programs?


texts:
In the Gospel of Luke chapter 13, we hear of an episode that is not recounted in any of the other Gospels. It says eighteen men died because Siloam's tower fell on them.

  Luke 13:1-5

  New International Version (NIV)

  13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus
  answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than
  all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you,
  no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those
  eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think
  they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I
  tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
  ’”

Who were those men? Who wants to build that tower? Is there some historical information about this episode?


texts: If a Catholic converts to some Protestant religion is he excommunicated or given any official rebuke by the Church?

texts:
Contemplating the question do Catholics recognize Protestants as Christian here:Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

I am not sure what an official church policy is since the answers that say yes are ambiguous in the details and the no answer has generated great dispute in chat and comments,
Therefore I thought asking a related question from the opposite perspective may gather more enlightenment.

Does the Catholic Church punish a Catholic who converts to any religion claiming to also be Christian?


texts: I've read a little bit about "dominion theology", and don't feel I understand it. What distinguishes this movement from mainstream modern Christianity?


texts: How is the divinity of Jesus defended in light of Philippians 2:9 ("God exalted him") and Matthew 28:18?

texts:
Philippians 2:9
  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name

  Matthew 28:18
  Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

In the first of the verses mentioned above, Scripture talks about God exalted Jesus, and the second verse talks about Jesus gaining all authority on heaven and on Earth. If Jesus is God, why would he need to be exalted and given authority, especially considering that exaltation and authority are qualities already possessed by God?


texts: James 5:14-17 discusses healing through the anointing of oil. Surely these days we have plenty of different types of oils but what oil was used at the time of this scripture being written?


texts:
What Would Jesus Do? The question is a popular meme, and I guess you could call it a youth movement what with all the bracelets and such.

What is the theological background of the WWJD movement? Which doctrines are used to argue that WWJD? is an important question to ask oneself?


texts: What is the "fideism" rejected by the Catholic Church?

texts:
In philosophy, fideism seems to be used as a label to refer to epistemological approaches that tend to prioritize faith over reason.  And this makes sense; after all, "fideism" is just Latin for "faith-ism."

In the context of Catholic theology, fideism is a bad thing.  John Paul II warned against "a resurgence of fideism" (Fides et ratio) and Pius X links it to modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

But it turns out that "fideism" is actually a very vague term, particularly so because it is frequently used pejoratively by opponents of certain belief systems.  One person might be accused of fideism for believing that reason alone cannot demonstrate God's existence, while another might be accused of it for believing that reason alone cannot change a sinner's heart.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gets to the heart of it:

  Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith. [source, emphasis added]

Using this language, my question is: What are the "truths of a certain kind" found in the fideism rejected by the Catholic Church?

Put another way: According to Catholicism, in what matters is it legitimate to prioritize faith over reason?  For example, consider doctrines like:

the nature of the Trinity
The immaculate conception of Mary
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
The descent of Jesus into Hades after his crucifixion
The real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

Are these doctrines thought to be discernible exclusively or primarily through reason?  Or do they find their primary support in one's faith in the Scriptures and Tradition?

How does the Catholic Church define the fideism that it rejects?

I am particularly interested in direct quotes from papal encyclicals and official documents of the Vatican, particularly post-Vatican II.


texts:
I'm currently doing some research for a Church project and next week we are covering creation. While looking at creation, I came across an interesting tidbit that I've never actually thought about before, and was wondering if someone could answer a question or two.

Here is the link to the particular passage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24&version=NIV

So, with that being read, first I'd like to know: were Adam and Eve mortal by creation? This text seems to say that man would become immortal by eating from the tree of life. Does that mean God created us in such a way that we were, by design, meant to die?

More importantly, how does this work alongside Romans 5:12?

Thanks for all answers :)


texts: How does Jesus' death and resurrection save humanity?

texts:
Time and again we hear that Christ died for our sins, or that Christ died so that we could be saved. But I've never understood how exactly the two are connected? In what way does the death of Christ benefit us, or lead to our salvation?

Update

This may be asking too much, but what I'm really looking for is the rationalization (essentially, God's reasoning) behind it. @Mawia and @Malachi have both offered very good and very thorough answers, but neither really addresses what I'm really looking for (most likely because I haven't explained that well enough).

The answers have provided great references to scripture to show that sinless blood is consistently required to atone for sins, and that man is in a perpetual state of sin, therefore atonement is required. But I get stuck on the first part: why does someone without sin need to be punished in order to atone for another person's sins? I understand Christ sacrificed Himself, He chose to pay for our sins, and that's important because it shows His love for all of us. But it doesn't explain why sacrificing something that is sinless is even acceptable, let alone a suitable payment for sins.

Just to answer @PeterTurner's point: I'm open to any answer from a learned Christian perspective: the important thing to me is that it explains some reasoning behind it, even if that reasoning is not universal among Christians.


texts: The Savior having been born of a Virgin as prophesied, what if any, according to Roman Catholicism, are the salvific benefits of the continued or perpetual virginity of Mary?


texts: What evidence is there that the Jews thought leprosy was due to sin?

texts:
Some Jews seemed to think that lepersy was a punishment for sin,
  rather than a sin itself.

This is most probably going to sound like a stupid question either because there is a specific verse or because there really seems to be no other explanation, but where in the Bible is such indicated? That is what my teachers and priests have told me, but I can't seem to find it in the Bible.

I found this webpage, but it gives me only one verse which doesn't really answer my question:

  Incurable by man, many believed God inflicted the curse of leprosy
  upon people for the sins they committed. In fact, those with leprosy
  were so despised and loathed that they were not allowed to live in any
  community with their own people (Numbers 5:2). Among the sixty-one
  defilements of ancient Jewish laws, leprosy was second only to a dead
  body in seriousness. A leper wasn’t allowed to come within six feet of
  any other human, including his own family. The disease was considered
  so revolting that the leper wasn’t permitted to come within 150 feet
  of anyone when the wind was blowing. Lepers lived in a community with
  other lepers until they either got better or died. This was the only
  way the people knew to contain the spread of the contagious forms of
  leprosy.

Num 5:2 says

  Command the people of Israel that they put out of the camp everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead.

There's a comment in the question that points out 2 Ki 15:5 and another verse Num 12:10 (whose relevance I don't understand).

Num 12:9-11 (NASB):

  9 So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed. 10 But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous. 11 Then Aaron said to Moses, "Oh, my lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned.

2 Ki 15:4-6 (NASB):

  4 Only the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. 5 The LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper to the day of his death. And he lived in a separate house, while Jotham the king's son was over the household, judging the people of the land. 6 Now the rest of the acts of Azariah and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?

Some context:

I am trying to clarify the claim I make in this Cognitive Sciences stackexchange question about mental illness:

  In ancient times (or Jesus's time), uninformed people believed people
  who had leprosy had leprosy because they committed a grave sin or sins


texts: What, if any, are some first-millenium mentions of prohibitions or approval of interracial or international marriages?

texts:
While in the last few centuries there have been particularly American Christians arguing against interracial/intercultural/international marriage (I believe the term is "kinism"), I do not know of this being a historical position of anyone in the church. But I may be ignorant of a long-standing doctrine in some group or from some person who holds to a similar idea.

Are there any doctrinal positions on interracial marriage in, say, the first 1000-1500 years of New Testament church history?


texts: When was the first African American ordained in a US Presbyterian denomination?

texts:
In Presbyterianism, a distinction is typically made between preachers who are "licensed" and those who are "ordained."  One who is licensed has permission to preach regularly in a particular geographic area, but is not considered an officer of the church.  One who is ordained has greater privileges, such as full membership, including voting rights, in a presbytery.

In the antebellum South, Presbyterians licensed several African American preachers, like John Chavis.  He preached in a variety of congregations, but, apparently due to his race, was never ordained.

Today, of course, there are many ordained Black pastors in the various American Presbyterian denominations.  So my question is, when was the first African American ordained by one of them?

I'm especially interested to know if the first such ordination took place prior to or during the war, perhaps by the anti-slavery New School Presbyterians in the North.


texts: Can one take up the cross of someone who is suffering from illnesses and carry them like Simon of Cyrene and pray that to God?

texts:
If family members are sick and one wants to pray for their recovery and carry their crosses can they pray to God to bestow their suffering on him or her?

Is that a valid prayer?

Can one take up their crosses instead like Simon of Cyrene?


texts:
So, Christmas is, of course, on December 25th* .  Technically, Advent precedes Christmas, and Epiphany follows it.  But, in several traditions, Christmas is the set of Sundays following Christmas, regardless of what Macy's wants to tell you.

Are there any church calendars that include Advent as Christmas, or is Christmas always supposed to follow December 25th?
Historically, did the church celebrate Christmas before or after December 25th?
Why has the emphasis on Christmas switched to Advent (the time of preparation)?
Why is it 8 weeks long?

*(on the new Gregorian Calendar.  for the Orthodox, still on the Julian Calendar, this is 12 days later. For their purposes, it is still December 25th, its just that December 25th on the Julian Calendar corresponds to January 6 or 7 on the Gregorian one.  Please assume I am using the relevant calendar for the relevant tradition.  Mostly, I'm concerned about the order of the seasons.)


texts: LDS belief in pre-existence of the human person vs. human physical deformities

texts:
This other question discusses the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence prior to conception.

The highest rated answer quotes from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism that says, on the page "Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence)" that (emphasis added):

  It is Latter-day Saint doctrine that living things existed as
  individual spirit beings and possessed varying degrees of intelligence
  in an active, conscious spirit state before mortal birth and that the
  spirit continues to live and function in the mortal body. The
  revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies have general
  resemblance to their physical counterparts.

I wanted to ask some questions about the part that the "premortal spirit bodies have general resemblance to their physical counterparts" (to get an understanding of the reasoning behind this):

When it comes to people born with physical deformities (weirdly
shaped limbs, missing body parts, both male and female genitalia,
etc.), are these deformities then also present on that persons
spirit body?
If they are present in their spirit body, why would that be the
case? (i.e. shouldn't the spirit body be created perfect or is there
some reason why it would not be?)
If they are not present on the spirit body, why would they be on the
physical body if there is an expectation of general resemblance
between these two?


texts: Is the title of Jesus "Son of God" synonymous with "Messiah"?

texts: How did the New Testament writers view Jesus' title of "Son of God"? What did the early church believes about what it means?


texts: Why did the Council of Laodicea condemn "Judaizing" Sabbath rest?

texts:
The Council of Laodicea states in canon 29:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

Anathema, being basically excommunication, is a serious thing. Why did the members of this council consider Saturday worship a sin and even worthy of such punishment? Why were Saturday worshipers on the same level as heretics and enemies of the church?
Also, why would the church state something that is in direct contrast with the ten commandments? Calling the Sabbath rest Judaizing is one thing, but then it says to do it on Sunday.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:8-11

I would prefer answers from theologians and church leaders of this time. What did they say about it?

The complete canons can be read here.


texts: Are spiritual pleasures > carnal pleasures, according to Catholicism?

texts: Does Catholicism consider spiritual pleasures greater than carnal/sexual/bodily pleasures?


texts: Is this a Calvinistic or Arminian statement of faith?

texts: We believe in the Holy Trinity consisting of God the Father, Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe this triune God to be perfect in every way and worthy of our complete devotion and worship. We believe that all mankind is born into sin, separated from God and destined to an eternal destiny apart from God. We believe that God, in his infinite love, has provided a way for us to attain relationship with Him, by sending His son to be born as a man, to suffer, and to die in our place. We believe that on the third day after His death, Jesus Christ was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, interceding for us. We believe that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and that faith will be manifested thru obedience to Christ. We believe the bible to be the infallible Word of God and the final authority on all matters. We believe that God has called us to live holy lives, as He did, and desires us to honor Him by caring for the poor and needy and by setting free those who are held captive by the devil. We believe that when life on earth is over, those who have repented of their sins, accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and have strived to walk as He did, will be united with Him forever in heaven.


texts: What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?

texts:
Related:

  What are the differences between the different millenialisms?
  What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?

Dispensational Premillennialism is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a tribulation, then the millennium. (something like that. Disp. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above related question)

What is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages?

If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.