texts:
To clarify the question - when I mention God here I am referring to God the Father and by free will, the best non-contradictory definition according to the Bible I have heard is "the ability to act apart from one's nature".

When I first came across this question it sounds almost absurd. Of course God has free will, He willed us into being. But maybe willing something and free will are two different things.  And maybe we have a hard time thinking about this because we personify God to have human traits and the ability to act apart from our nature is a human only trait.


texts: Explain the last sentence in Matthew 6:34

texts:
Matthew 6:25-34 gives Christ's admonition not to "give thought for your life" what to eat, drink or wear.  He says to trust God to take care of us, as He does the birds and flowers.  Verse 34 says,

  Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.  Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

I don't quite understand this last sentence.  Does it mean that every day on earth contains some evil, in the world at large, if not in one's own behavior?  Is the evil a result of the morrow taking thought for itself?  Or is the evil produced in the taking thought for the morrow?  If so, how is that sufficient unto the day? I admit I haven't checked out any Bible commentaries, so I'll try that as well.


texts: What does Lutheranism teaches in regard the eastern orthodox doctrine of theosis?

texts:
In the Eastern Orthodox church, there is this doctrine and practice of one's divination, of "becoming more and more like God".

This practice/doctrine seem to come from the so called 'desert fathers' and/or 'cappadocian fathers'.
How is such doctrine viewed in Lutheranism? Or did Luther ever wrote anything in regards to this?


texts: Does Catholicism allow the possibility of new books being added to the Bible?

texts:
The Catholic Church recognizes 73 books in the Bible (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament). Does the Church allow the possibility of new books being added to the Bible, perhaps in a "Newer Testament", thus giving them equal weight to other scriptures? By "new books", I mean books that were written after the writings of the currently recognized books of the Bible.

To give a concrete example, let's say that St. Joe Schmoe wrote a short book in 1900. Would it be possible for the Catholic Church to decide that the book of Joe was divinely inspired, like the currently recognized Bible books, and should be added to future copies of the Bible, thus allowing it to also be read during mass and such? I realize such an event is unlikely, but I'm wondering if it is theoretically possible to do it.


texts: Do any Theistic Evolutionists deny the possibility of (intelligent) life on other planets for Biblical reasons?

texts:
I recall reading a book by Hugh Ross many years ago, in which he claimed that life, or at least intelligent life, on other planets was a Biblical impossibility. I believe the argument hinged on the Biblical claim that Humanity is the "crown of God's creation."

Ross is an Old Earth Creationist; that is, he believes in an old earth (billions of years), but that humanity was a "special creation", not evolved from lower life forms.

Theistic Evolutionists tend not to depend on a "special" intervention, which, at least on the surface, seems that it would lend itself to the possibility of life, possibly including intelligent life, having evolved in various places throughout the Universe.

My question is:

Do any Theistic Evolutionists hold the view that life on Earth (or at least intelligent life on Earth) is unique in the universe, for Biblical reasons? And if so, what is their Biblical basis?

I stress for Biblical reasons, because I'm not interested in the types of arguments that might be made based on the Fermi paradox, or other views that are equally valid among non-theists. Naturally, Biblical reasons are bound to coincide with naturalistic and/or philosophical reasons, and that's fine. I'm not looking for the absence of naturalistic/philosophical reasons; I'm looking for the existence of a Biblical basis.

And to scope the question away from "My uncle is a TE, and believes this", please focus on Theistic Evolutionists which have published their views in a book, magazine, or journal (peer review not required; self-published blogs and the like discouraged).


texts: According to the Catholic Church, who taught Moses the Law?

texts:
Who taught Moses the Law? (Meaning the Law given to him on Sinai, that he would teach to all of Israel.)

Judaism says it was angels. What does the Catholic Church say?


texts: Is God still in the process of creation?

texts:
In view of John 5:17;

Joh_5:17  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

And the fact that Hubble shows us that new stars, etc. are forming in the Cosmos, it would appear that Creation is an ongoing process.

How does this compare with;

Gen 2:2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


texts: Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important in Eastern Orthodoxy?

texts:
I am looking into the Eastern Orthodox church, and was wondering why believing that Mary was a perpetual virgin was an important belief? Now I don't have a real problem if tradition holds that she was a perpetual virgin, and then it makes sense as some sort of historical fact about Mary. But it seems like the belief is more important than just historical fact.  There are many prayers to the Theotokos (Mary) that refer to her as "ever virgin." If church tradition held that Jesus had blue eyes, I would have no reason to doubt it, but I wouldn't insert "oh blue eyed one" into my prayers to Jesus.

If Mary had married Joseph and then had sexual relations within her holy marriage, there is nothing sinful or less worthy about her in my mind. The impression I am getting is that perhaps celibacy is seen as a higher calling than marriage, and I don't think I believe that is true to the Gospel. Being celibate might be a calling for some, like Paul, who needed to be away on travels a lot, and wouldn't be there for a family were he to get married.  But we can be faithful to God in our local communities as well (such as our local priest) and his mission is no less important than the ministry of the celibate man.


texts: In Catholic understanding when there is more than one Pope, who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria?

texts:
I know at various periods of history cardinals were split submitting to multiple competing popes. However as they die, eventually only one Pope is considered the 'real' infallible Pope, and the others labelled as 'anti Popes'.  My question is aside from the view of each Popes view, that the others are not 'real', who finally determines the 'real' one and by what authority?

I mean does a certain group decide? Do you just wait until there is only one Pope and then he determines how to label the other Popes because now only his word stands?

Who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria? Does the moral behavior of the candidates have any relevance in the criteria?


texts: Why is God on Sarah's side when she asked Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael?

texts:
The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,  and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.  But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” (Genesis 21:8-13, NIV)

According to Genesis 21:12 you can see that God is on Sarah's side to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Is it to realize his promises? We all know that God's plan works sometimes strange.
Can somebody maybe elaborate on this please? Because I can't completely understand why God would do something like this.


texts: Do Christians Believe Persecution is a Part of Their Identity?

texts:
Matthew 5:11-12 states that persecution is an expectation of those who follow Christ.

  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
  shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven:
  for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Can persecution identify the true church of Christ?  Or can it only identify a disciple of Christ?  If no one has ever "reviled" you or said "all manner of evil against you" because of the church you belong to, does that mean you're not a good follower of your church or Christ, or that your church is wrong?


texts: What do Seventh Day Adventists believe about baptism?

texts: What are the Adventist's beliefs about the role of the Holy Spirit in baptism?


texts: Is there a difference between prayer and petition?

texts:
Philippians 4:6 uses two words, possibly implying a difference between prayer and petition. Can someone explain what this difference is?

  Philippians 4:6 (NIV)
  6  Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.


texts: Why do Protestants accept the inerrancy of the canon, while rejecting other decisions of the Roman Church?

texts:
Why do Protestants accept the inerrancy of the current canon of scripture but reject many of the other decisions made by the Roman Church at the time the Bible was being canonized?

Take the Council of Laodicea, for example. Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea states the books that are allowed to be read. Revelation was not included at this time, and some books were included then are not included today. Also, the Council of Laodicea stated things like marriages and birthdays are not to be celebrated during lent (canon 52), and Christians should not dance at weddings (canon 53). So it seems like the council's decisions on some things are just simply ignored, while others, especially the canon of Scripture, are readily defended. Why?


texts: Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?

texts:
When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Israel and took Daniel and other Jewish men into his court, he assigned them food and wine from the king's table.

The king appointed for them a daily ration from the king’s choice food and from the wine which he drank, and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king’s personal service.  Daniel 1:5 NASB

However, Daniel seems to believe it would be wrong for him to eat this, but eating vegetables and water is, somehow, alright.

But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself.  Daniel 1:8 NASB
“Please test your servants for ten days, and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink.  Daniel 1:12 NASB

So, what was it about the food and what was it about the wine that made Daniel believe it was inappropriate to eat?


texts: In the Christian Reformed Churches, who evaluates the pastor's theological beliefs?

texts:
Note: This question is admittedly a bit technical, but I hope it serves to clarify differences in polity between two distinct but related Reformed traditions in the US.

In the brand of presbyterianism that I am most familiar with, the PCA, prospective pastors (teaching elders) must affirm the Westminster Standards.  They are expected to express any "exceptions" they may have – that is, if they have views that are at odds with the Standards, they must communicate them.

These exceptions are evaluated by the presbytery before the prospective pastor is ordained, and the presbytery ordains the man only if his exceptions are deemed not to "strike at the vitals" of the system of belief.

Now, I'm wondering if there is a comparable procedure in the "modified presbyterianism" of the Christian Reformed Church in North America.  Of course, one difference would be that the standards being affirmed there would be the Three Forms of Unity.  But perhaps more significant is the body that evaluates candidate's theology – according to Wikipedia, it is the congregation, not a higher court, that ordains:

  ministers are ordained and credentialed by a local congregation, not the regional classis or presbytery. (source)

My questions, then, are:

What is the role of individual congregations of the CRCNA in evaluating a prospective pastor's adherence to the Three Forms of Unity?

Do they lead the effort, work together with/below a higher court, or have no role?

Does any higher court in the denomination have the authority to prevent a candidate from being ordained by a congregation if it deems the candidate's views to be heretical?


texts: What are fellowships, associations, and denominations within the Baptist denomination?

texts:
This is something I read from hrc

Although ABCUSA shares many traditions, beliefs and values with other Baptists, ABCUSA is a distinct entity from its relatives, the American Baptist Association (ABA), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the Alliance of Baptists, and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

(this is why I assume these groups are even comparable)
So we have

ABCUSA, a " mainline Baptist Christian denomination"
ABA, "an association of Baptist churches"
SBC, "a Christian denomination based in the United States"
AoB, "a fellowship of Baptist churches and individuals"
CBF, "a Christian fellowship of Baptist churches"

Notably, only the last two are considered "fellowships" while the first 3 are either denominations or associations, which becomes even more confusing when you consider that they are all under the Baptist denomination, which is a subsect of Protestantism.
Obviously these are groups of churches that associate with each other, but what makes each group an association, denomination, or fellowship? Is there even a meaningful difference? Are some of these interchangeable?


texts: What are the "correct" steps for a layman to be a Christian?

texts:
Assume that I am a layman without knowledge other than science-related ones. How should I do to be a Christian in a correct way?

In more strict words, what are the "correct" steps or algorithm to be a Christian? In more honest words, is assuming God(s) exist(s) the first step? You can also think of how do you persuade me to fear God, etc, etc.

I hope this question will be reopen to let others help me go to the heaven!


texts: Who are "we" in the pre-mortal life according to the LDS?

texts:
From this link

In our premortal life, we were taught lessons that prepared us to
assist Heavenly Father in bringing about the salvation of His children
(see D&C 138:56).

For a non Christian like me, especially English is not my mother language, it's difficult to understand a sentence which came from a Christian world.
That's why to me the word "we" in the quote is ambiguous since it can be:
A. We = the elects
B. We = all humankind
Hence the question.


texts: What is the case for interpreting the Genesis creation account literally?

texts:
I think we can all agree that the entire Bible is not meant to be taken literally.  Consider the Song of Solomon (what would his lover look like if we take it literally?) or the book of Revelation.

So I would like to understand the case for believing the Genesis creation account, among all Biblical texts, is one that is intended to be interpreted literally. I'm not interested in scientific evidence for a young-earth in these answers. I'm interested in Biblical or historical reasons why this text, as a whole (as opposed to individual words), should be considered literal.

I would also discourage answers that address specific words in the Genesis account (such as the Hebrew 'yom'), but if that is the strongest evidence you have, then I won't consider it an invalid answer.


texts: What is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints view of historical-critical methods? The method calls for understanding the world behind the ancient text, accepting that the text has human origins, but still contains divine inspiration. However, with regards to the controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon concerning historical inconsistencies, and the fact that the no one except Joseph Smith, the presumed translator of the golden plates, has access to the original language of the text (Reformed Egyptian), how can the historical-critical method be applied to this book in the same way it is applied to the Bible or the Quran? More so, how is it possible to defend the faith when the culture or world behind the text is a mystery or unknown?


texts: Have Catholic views on Grace and Justification changed?

texts:
At the council of Trent, the Catholic Church made several statements which seemingly reject the idea of Sola Gratia - Salvation by Grace alone. Examples include

  If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not
  increased before God through good works, but that those works are
  merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the
  cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

And

  If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and
  justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and
  justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes
  himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and
  justification are effected; let him be anathema

More recently however, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity released the "Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification" which seems to reverse this by saying that Lutherans and Catholics share "a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ."

Does this represent an official doctrinal position by the Catholic Church and does it represent a change in Doctrine?


texts: Why did this Early Version of the Watchtower Magazine include Crosses, and what do these other Symbols on the Magazine Represent?

texts:
The following is "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, October 1, 1907."

I was under the impression that symbols (especially crosses) were not allowed in the church. "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was crucified on a stake, and that they reject the cross as a pagan symbol. No crosses are to be displayed in the worship hall, on a person, or in Jehovah's Witnesses' houses" (page 535 of AMG's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Cults, and the Occult).
Question: What do the symbols in the top corners represent, and how are these symbols associated with Watchtower?


texts: What are the differences between God and mankind?

texts:
A lot has been said about man being made in God's image. However, when I once explained this to a Hindu lady, she said "God in man's image or man in God's image, it's all the same", implying that she thought the God of the Bible was just man's projection.

However, I think it would be useful to have some explanation of the "otherness" of God as seen in the Bible. I think that most non-Christians are unaware that the Bible has a particular view of God, that is different from their own. It would be nice to have some discussion on the question of the otherness of God.


texts: What is the earliest historical testimony of the celebration of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ?

texts: What is the earliest historical testimony (e.g., in writing) of the celebration (i.e., a feast) of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether it be on the equivalent of December 25, January 6, or some other date of the Roman calendar?


texts: Is the commandment to multiply, and replenish the earth in effect today?

texts:
Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 1:28-30
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

The same commandment was also given later to Noah and his sons.

Genesis 9:1-3
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

In both cases the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is followed by a commandment to have dominion over the earth (perhaps the two are related, but that's for another discussion). I point that out because surely the commandment to have dominion over the earth is still applicable to us. Does that mean the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is still applicable? Its pretty significant if having a family is a commandment as opposed to being a suggestion or just optional.


texts: Does the name  "Egeliah" found on ancient ostracon which translates to "bull calf of Yah" suggest that the Golden calves of Aaron and Jeroboam are actually symbols of Yahweh rather than deified animals? I have always thought that the Israelites worshiped the Golden Calf alone and that it was not an affiliated object to Yahweh. Lastly why is God portrayed as a bull in Numbers 24:8? Thanks.


texts: Who do Catholics say the Mary in Matthew 27:56 is?

texts:
Roman Catholics believe that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin for her whole life. Mary the mother of Jesus is sometimes seen in the gospels with men referred to as Jesus' brothers, with names including James and Joseph. Then there's this verse:

Matthew 27:56 (NIV):

  Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and
  Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Who does the Roman Catholic Church say this Mary (mother of James and Joseph) was? Were James and Joseph step-children (and therefore Jesus' step-brothers) or perhaps this is a different Mary altogether?


texts:
Is this verse saying that spiritual people are above the judgment of those who are not spiritual?

  Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. (1 Corinthians 2:15, NLT)


texts: In what ways did early Jansenists believe that their doctrine of salvation differed from that of Calvinism?

texts:
The soteriology of Jansenism appears to bear some resemblance to that of Calvinism, as both emphasize doctrines like original sin, predestination, and irresistible grace.  The two movements also share a common influence in Augustine, who was often quoted by their members.

Another similarity is that both groups were ultimately regarded as heretical by Catholicism – the pope condemned Jansenism in 1653, despite claims by Jansenists that their views were not the same as those of Calvinists.

Therein lies my question: In the years leading up to their condemnation, how did Jansenists argue that their views on soteriology, particularly original sin, predestination, and irresistible grace, were different from those of Calvinists?


texts: Is the Eastern Orthodox opposition to the Immaculate Conception an innovation?

texts:
This question of mine springs from reading this article (Orthodoxy and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) referenced in this answer to this Christianity SE question: What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?

Basically it contests the modern assertion of Orthodox teachers that the Eastern Orthodox church has always opposed the idea of the immaculate conception and instead taught that Mary became pure while raised in the temple as articulated in this podcast: Perfection Possible.

I have a suspicion that the article imposes Western Catholic meanings on the writings of the Eastern fathers/teachers that they cite. I could not look up the references on the internet (for free anyways). Can anyone provide support for or argument against this article while actually citing texts from Eastern Orthodox teachers that I can read or at least providing quotes. Any citation from an EO teacher before the 15th century would be fitting, as the article maintains that it wasn't until this time that the Orthodox began to react against the immaculate conception.

The one source I looked up this morning was from St. Gregory Palamas: Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple. Where he seems to teach something in complete agreement with the contemporary Orthodox view. Specifically, that the Virgin Mary was made pure not simply by election of God, but that her own will and ascetical efforts were involved as well. The corollary being that original sin doesn't need to be miraculously removed by the pre-election of God, but that our ancestral sin is removed by a participatory process.


texts: Does the Bible say anything about our human relations being kept after death?

texts:
Does death separate us from the people we love forever? Do we keep our human relations or do we start over?

I'm looking for any scripture passages that backup this claim or the contrary.


texts: What is the significance of the Julian calendar for the Orthodox church?

texts: Why do many Orthodox churches continue to use the Julian calendar?


texts: Imposition of Ashes - where in Catholicism is it commonly practiced?

texts:
Since I learned of this practice, I thought that placing ashes on Ash Wednesday is practiced worldwide, at least within the Roman Catholic Church. But now I have been to a Mass (on the first Lent Sunday, when ashes may be placed for those who didn't receive this sacramental on Ash Wednesday) attended by some Portuguese people. They seemed puzzled when they saw the priest placing ashes on other worshipers - they apparently didn't know the practice.

I checked the Czech (I'm Czech) and English Wikipedias, and they both highlight the practice of placing ashes. I don't speak Portuguese, but Portuguese Wikipedia has no ashes-themed picture and from the little I understand, it seems that this practice is not even mentioned there. Anyway, Portugal is unlikely to be the only country not observing imposition of ashes. English Wikipedia gives a list of churches observing Ash Wednesday, but not one of countries where the practice of placing ashes is (or is not) observed in the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any such list?


texts: Are Convent Schools only for orphan children?

texts: I just want to know whether Convent Schools are only for orphan children? Or can Christian children who have not lost their parents also attend such a school? Can non-Christian children attend a convent school?


texts: Do any young earth creationists believe that a change to the earth's axis tilt was God's way of shortening human lifespans?

texts:
Scripture tells us in Genesis 6:3 that God saw fit to shorten the lifespan of mankind. He did something that dramatically reduced humans years from close to a thousand years (Methusala) to 100 or less. Some speculate that the flood opened the earth's atmosphere up to greater UV light and changed atmospheric pressure and those things changed the environment thus shortening human lifespans.

Recently I had a interesting dialogue with a Christian who had been taught that the Creator accomplished the goal of shortening lifespan by tilting the earth from original setting to a more extreme setting that changed "normal" to a new "Normal," which caused the dramatic climate changes and led to a much different  habitat for humanity and shortened the life expectancy. This was partially supported by scientists quoted here who theorize that the orbit and tilt of the earth causes emergence and extinction of mammals in 2.5 million year cycles.

I know the YEC Christians have much to say about the meanings of Genesis history. Have any YECs ever written about the effect of the earth's tilt on the way lifespan or other environmental decline occurred?


texts:
The LDS church teaches Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. What is the LDS perspective on the following piece of scripture?

  9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
  - John 14:9-10


texts: What do Catholics mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

texts: The Catholic Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Catholic understanding?


texts: What connection does the Jesus movement and the pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any?

texts:
What connection does the Jesus movement and the Pentecostal/charismatic movement have, if any?

What I mean is: have people in the Jesus movement influenced the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in any way, like joining some Pentecostal/charismatic church after the Jesus movement ended?


texts: What is the waving cloth in the Creed and what does it mean?

texts:
I was recently at an Eastern Orthodox celebration of the Divine Liturgy. During the recitation of the Creed, there was a coloured cloth (I think the veil that had covered the chalice) which was waved up and down over the elements by the priests.

What is this called? What does it represent?


texts: Can Catholics choose to be baptized by immersion?

texts:
I understand that the most prominent manner in which Catholics are baptized is by pouring.  However, I saw somewhere that baptism by immersion is not considered wrong by the Catholic Church.  (If this is incorrect, please let me know.)

So, my question is whether or not a person today can elect to be baptized by immersion.  Obviously, this would not work well for an infant.  So, does this happen?  Has anyone seen this?  How often does it occur or does it occur in certain countries or orders?


texts: Is it appropriate to capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus Christ?

texts:
Somewhere along the line I picked up the habit of capitalizing He, His, Him, etc. when they are referring to Jesus Christ as a form of respect. Likewise I always capitalize Christ, which is the title of Jesus of Nazareth. My question is if this is an appropriate or common practice among Christians?

Conclusion:

It appears this isn't a formal requirement, but I am not the only one to do it. I intend to continue to do so for now.


texts: What is the name of this painting of Mary and the infant Jesus?

texts: Since there exists no "Arts" site on Stack Exchange, I was inclined to come here to ask about this Christian work of art.


texts: According to Catholicism, is it a sin to participate in gambling such as State Lottery?

texts:
Here I would like to ask the Catholic viewpoint on gambling.

For example, let's say if I were a Catholic single-parent mother of meager means who hoped to win in a lottery. Would participating in State Lottery amount to sinning?

I realize that there may not be any official sources that discuss this particular scenario, so to put it in another way, is gambling always a sin according to Catholicism?

The second question is, would gambling doom the individual to an eternity in hell?


texts: In what situations does the Bible say it's acceptable, perhaps, to do an action you might consider sinful?

texts:
Generally speaking, the bible is very clear that:

Authority is set up by God.
If this authority, eg, a the governing heirachy, is in conflict with God (as was the case in the book of Daniel), then it is to God that we must submit to, not to man.

However, I seem to remember one place where a man's actions, which would have been sinful if he had any choice in the matter, were regarded as acceptable behaviour because he performed them without free will in obedience to his king.

Sadly I can't remember if this was something as trivial as being cup bearer, where one consumes potentially poisoned drinks at risk of great personal harm, or if there was a more significant event.

Could someone tell me of any such situations?  This is relevant today if, eg, in the army you are commanded to kill someone, and for some reason you believe that, in that particular case, it might be murder.  Where does the bible stand on such grey situations?

(Note:  I am not talking about clear situations - some readers here will adopt a hardline answer, to the point where a solder should not kill anyone in the course of battle. That is fine, those readers have a clear answer.  I am asking about what to do when the situation is NOT clear, perhaps due to insufficient information, insufficient knowledge, or simple lack of free will).


texts: Do Catholics believe that Mary is above all other humans in holiness?

texts: Does her being born as she was (i.e. immaculately conceived), and being the Mother of the Savior (Mother of God) make her higher than everyone else? Or is she considered not necessarily holier than any other human being? Is there a standard Catholic teaching on this question?


texts: Why are wives considered the "weaker partner"? (1 Peter 3:7)

texts:
In 1 Peter, we read:

  1 Peter 3:7 (NIV)
  Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

What exactly does "the weaker partner" mean?  Does the Bible state what ways are they weaker?  How do Protestants interpret this verse?

Also, does this still hold true today?


texts:
Exodus 12:37-38 says that the Israelites numbered about 600,000 men besides women and children (plus non-Israelites and livestock). Numbers 1 gives a similar total. This means there would have been around 3.5 million people. There is little to no archaeological nor practical support for this claim.

What explanations are given for the apparent exaggeration of the number of Israelites in the Exodus account? I'm not looking for any particular stance, pro or con. I will gladly entertain convincing arguments demonstrating this as scriptural error or showing a reasonable explanation for it (or whatever other options exist).


texts:
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
  God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
  fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Exodus 20:5, NIV)

If there is only one God, who is God jealous of?

Note:
Please see this question on Biblical Hermeneutics about the translation or definition of this passage.


texts: Why is the Bible subject to a high level of interpretation?

texts:
I realise there's always a level of interpretation neccesary when reading anything, but the level of interpretation needed to understand the Bible is very high when compared to everyday reading - some people spend their entire lives trying to understand what it means.
Example
If a friend says to me:

I'm going to the shop, I will be back before 1PM.

I don't have a reason to interpret this statement as meaning 1PM tomorrow, or 1PM next week.
We could compare this to Luke 21:32:

Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all things take place

This to me means that all the prophecies described in the bible would happen while the generation that Jesus spoke to was still alive.
However it's often interpreted to mean something entirely different. Here is one Christian interpretation:

(This refers) to a future generation that sees the events He spoke of
prophetically.

Note: I'm not asking specifically about this interpretation it's just an example - I'm asking in general why it is subject to a high level of interpretation.

Is it because the Bible was written in another language, and we can't
assume it has been translated properly?
Is it because the Bible states
that it's not always to be taken literally?
Something else?


texts: When was infant baptism rejected in the development of Pentecostalism?

texts:
Pentecostalism arose out of the Holiness movement, a movement which itself arose out of Wesleyanism/Methodism. But while Wesleyans and Methodists are generally infant baptists, most Pentecostals are credobaptist (believer's baptism). This isn't really too surprising given Pentecostalism's strong focus on being baptised by the Holy Spirit, but it is still an interesting historical development.

At what stage in the development of Pentecostalism was infant baptism rejected? Where there any times of significant disagreement over this amongst Pentecostals?


texts: How does Christianity deal with biblical criticism related to the Old Testament?

texts:
As an orthodox Jew I have seen quite a stir lately regarding the topic of biblical criticism, specifically towards the Old Testament (Torah).

I have perused several questions in this stack which seem to address this topic in general, and learned a lot about apologetics, but I have not seen answers that address some of the major claims of biblical criticism, especially as it pertains to the Old Testament.

For example:

The story of Noah and the flood seems to be contradicted by archaeological evidence as well as having been 'borrowed' from earlier flood narratives such as the Gilgamesh story
Many of the portions of the Old Testament seem to be borrowed from earlier near eastern texts such as the Hammurabi code
The notion that there are multiple authors (documentary hypothesis) of the Old Testament.

In short, how does Christianity deal with some of the major contentions of biblical criticism towards the Old Testament?

I apologize if any parts of my question offend any sensibilities to which I am unaware.


texts:
I've repeatedly seen it asserted that Chiliasm was condemned as a heresy in the fourth century by the Church when it included the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end" in the Nicene Creed. However, I have seen much more scholarly sources that assert it was never officially condemned as a heresy.

Other than just restating Luke 1:33, what is the context and meaning of the phrase "whose Kingdom shall have no end" in the Nicene Creed? Does it condemn Chiliasm?


texts: What are the main tenets and/or beliefs of the 'Emergent' Church?

texts:
'Emergent' is a word I see gets thrown around a lot. Is there any definition to what is and what isn't emergent?

Is it a catch-all for certain points of view?
Are there people out there that actively identify themselves as 'Emergent'?
What are, or what is considered to be the main tenets and/or beliefs of the Emergent Church?


texts: What is the use of faith if God doesn't need/require anything from humans to save them?

texts:
According to soteriologies (e.g. Calvinism) that believe God makes the choice to save people without expecting any decision from them first, what is the role of faith? If the decision making process is not mans' in the first place, why is it that God says people will only be saved by faith? What does their faith accomplish?

Put another way, why does he require obedience if there is no choice in the matter anyway?


texts: Was Apollos ever baptized in the name of Jesus?

texts:
Regarding Apollos, the Bible states:

Acts 18:25 (ESV Strong's) 25 He had been instructed in the way of the
Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the
things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and
Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

However immediately after this episode we read of another set of believers only familiar with John's baptism who were then baptized in the name of Jesus:

Acts 19:3 (ESV Strong's) 3 And he said, “Into what then were you
baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John
baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe
in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Should we see these two episodes as complimentary and understand that Apollos was similarly baptized in the name of Jesus? Or should we instead see these as contrasts, and understand that Apollo was not again baptized?


texts: Can I project more than 500 verses of Scripture over the course of a year? Or, an entire book of the Bible?

texts:
In this question What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain? we established that most modern translations allow for fair use of a certain amount of Scripture - meaning that specifically you are allowed to reprint their translation without specific copyright provision.

To wit, using the NIV and the United States as an example:

  The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio),

says that this would include projecting the words on the overhead screen.  No question there.

Question 1. Length:

According to this:

  up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher,

it says 500 verses.  Obviously, it is unlikely that any one sermon is going to need more than 500 verses.  But, does each sermon reset the counter?  In other words, over the course of a year, it would be likely that I would project more than 500 verses.  Where do I know that the counter resets?

Question 2. An entire "book"

It also says:

  providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible

So, what if I'm preaching on 3 John?  Or Jude?  In those cases, it would seem very likely to just do the whole "book."  Are we breaking the law there?  And if so, how do I rectify the situation?


texts: Is dressing oneself in formal attire on Sundays (Sunday hat and dress) solely an American Christian custom?

texts: Before I start, I realize that this question is related to another question. However, this question is more concerned about the custom of wearing one's "Sunday best", which usually means a nicely brimmed Sunday hat and modest-looking dress. This has been portrayed in literature and in movies. Example: Chicken Sunday, written by Patricia Polacco, and Bridge to Terabithia (2007 movie). Is this solely an American Christian custom? Are there examples in other Christian cultures? How did this custom come about, and how did it evolve over time?


texts: Is there a name for someone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior, yet follows no sect?

texts: Do not know if I worded that right.  But was wondering what you call someone who does not believe in organized religion at all.  They may go to church but never as a member or follower of any particular group.


texts: Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic?

texts:
Like most of the planet, I've been taking in gobs of information about Covid-19 and vaccinations. The latest news I read was that even the horribly abortion tainted Johnson and Johnson vaccine is permissible to take as long as there are no alternatives and that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are somehow examples of the means justifying the ends because of their remoteness.
So that first paragraph notwithstanding (I mean completely discounting abortion from this answer which has short circuited what I think is a more important and more imperative thing for the average Catholic to deal with), do we as Catholics need to "Trust Dr. Fauci"?  Like the President implores us to?  Or should we trust our consciences.
Our parish priest said that if we choose to not get the vaccine we should protect society in other ways, but can that mean telling our neighbors to chill out, take off their masks and stop worrying so much about Covid-19; trusting God, if not the odds over the science? Or does it mean that we still need to believe everything else that the authorities tell us about Covid-19 and more-or-less become hermits just so we can avoid taking a vaccine?


texts: Gender Segregation in Small Groups and Prayer

texts:
TL;DR

  What Biblical justification is there for gender segregation in prayer/small groups? and has there been any study on the affect which this segregation has on the people involved?

In various churches, I often come across gender segregation in one form or another. This is even in fairly progressive churches, eg ones in university areas with large student populations. (I'm talking about the UK here. I know that progressive needs to be taken differently depending on the location. In particular, there is a significant difference between UK and US approaches to church-life.)

Perhaps the most common one of these, and the one I would like to address in this question, is to do with small groups and prayer. At one local church (the largest in the town, which is really a "university-town"), all the student small groups are completely gender segregated.
In another, the small groups are mixed gender, but at the end they separate off, male and female praying separately.

I have heard the argument that "sometimes women want to speak about certain things only with another woman". I am not a woman (in any sense), so I cannot speak personally about this. However, it seems unreasonable to make that argument regarding praying in a group of up to 10 people, many of whom you may not know well. Asking to pray individually with a (fellow) woman is a completely different matter.

So my question boils down to the following.

  What Biblical justification is there for such gender segregation?

Gender segregation gets a bad rap outside of churches for well-documented reasons. Further, there has been significant studies on the effects that it has on people.
Searching, I was unable to find material specific to the situation I describe -- understandably; it's fairly niche.


texts: What's the point of the Day of Judgement?

texts: What's the point of the Day of Judgement if when you die you already get decided if you're going to heaven or hell? What's the point of judgement day if you're already judged?


texts:
Are there any biblical accounts of a women performing a miracle from God?

A miracle from God through a woman.

Scriptural references please.


texts: Where could I find a song about Maria: "En las manos de Maria"?

texts:
Does someone know where could I find this song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubm44HC23no, in a different version, about Maria? I don't know how to say which music style version was, it definitely didn't have this "sparks sound" it was  more like a sad or nostalgic background sound.
I used to heard the song like 10 years ago.
This is the lyrics, in spanish,

CANTO: EN LAS MANOS DE MARÍA

En las manos de María,
te ofrecemos Padre bueno
lo mejor de nuestra vida
para construir tu reino.

Padre hoy te damos gracias,
por María nuestra madre
porque tu bondad nos mira
en sus ojos maternales.

Tú nos diste a tu Hijo,
en las manos de María
en sus manos te ofrecemos
lo mejor de nuestra vida.

In my search I've found only this YouTube song which it's somehow close, other than this, I've found none. I've also found this google book https://books.google.com.mx/books/about/Cantoral_Liturgico.html?id=1HfPanrHoicC&redir_esc=y page 58, where it's the lyrics and the author, I think.
Thanks in advance for your help


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that people must have children?

texts:
What is the biblical basis for the belief that people, generally speaking, must have children? I'm not referring to prohibitions on artificial birth control, but rather the idea that married people should attempt to have children.

I have heard many people say this, but I don't know what Bible passages they use to defend the idea that everyone should have children.


texts: 1 John Chapter 1 & 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction?

texts:
I have often wondered why the author of 1 John, in the beginning of his letter, seems to claim that even though people have accepted Christ they will continue to sin, but two chapters later he seems to be making the opposite claim? I've never found an adequate explanation to this. Why is this?

1 John 1:8, 10: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

1 John 3:9: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."


texts: How has the ontological argument been used to explain the Trinity?

texts:
The basis of an ontological argument is the existence of an idea of a great God, of whom none greater can be imagined.

However, we've heard many times that the human mind cannot comprehend the Trinity.

Have any trinitarian theologians expanded the ontological argument for God's existence to argue for God's existence as a Trinity?


texts: According to the Gospel of John, on which day of the week was Jesus crucified?

texts:
John 19:14-16:

  "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the
  sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” So they
  cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate *said
  to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We
  have no king but Caesar.”

  So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified."

Which day of the week was the 'day of preparation for the Passover'?

A good answer will give a day of the week, or explain why it is not possible to give one.


texts: Do JWs have vestments, clothing, or "sacred" or symbolic objects that are used for any particular occasion or position?

texts:
Different denominations have different sacred items and garbs available for priests, bishops, and the like.

For example, this Wikipedia article on vestments mentions that such liturgical garments are used by "Eastern Orthodox, Catholics (Latin Church and others), Anglicans, and Lutherans". And this article shows some other garments worn by clergy in some denominations.

And then Mormons have the temple garments (a form of underwear) discussed in this article.

This other question led me to check the YouTube videos of Jehovah's Witnesses meetings but I did not see any specific clothing or other items present in those.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any specific garments (e.g. underwear) or sacred/symbolic objects used for any particular occasion or church position?


texts: What happened to Jesus' physical body after his death and resurrection?

texts:
As the title asks, what do modern Christian religions believe happened to Jesus' physical body after the resurrection?

From John 20:11 - 14:

  Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to
  look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus'
  body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

  They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"

  "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don’t know where they
  have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing
  there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

As far as I know, there is no further scriptural evidence or discussion concerning this.


texts:
According to Catholicism, can an imprimatur be revoked?

If so under what conditions are necessary to merit such a decision, if any.


texts: Which denomination agrees with our beliefs?

texts: My husband and I are looking for a church.  We believe that ordaining women is a way of accepting that God may call any gender to spiritually lead a congregation.  We also believe that practicing homosexuals are engaged in sin.  We don't believe that this sin is any different or worse than the sins we commit.  The difference is that we attempt to repent and no longer commit sin, whereas, one who is living in a homosexual relationship is living as though that behavior is acceptable to God.  We believe that they are His beloved children, just like we are, but that they should not spiritually lead a congregation.  What denominations agree with us?


texts: What is the earliest clear and unambiguous post-NT affirmation of the Holy Spirit's personhood in Christianity?

texts:
I have two very related questions:

What is the earliest recorded post-NT instance of a clear and unambiguous affirmation that the Holy Spirit is a Person, distinct from the Father and the Son, in the history of Christianity?

When did this belief reach widespread acceptance among Christians for the first time?


texts: Why is the Latin New Testament authoritative for the Catholic Church rather than the original Greek?

texts: Just wondering why they chose Latin instead of Greek to be the source of truth of the texts, and instead added this abstraction layer when they were so close to the Greek culture at the time?


texts: Have LDS missionaries stopped preaching door-to-door?

texts:
Some time ago I read an article such as this one (dated June 25th, 2013), that says that:

  Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Sunday that missionaries won’t be going door-to-door to evangelize and will instead use the Internet to probe potential new members.

However I recently watched an episode of "Inside Man" (the documentary series) where Morgan Spurlock joined two Mormon missionaries on door-to-door activity. According to this article and information here at IMDb, the particular episode originally aired in May 2014.

Understandably even though the episode aired in May 2014, it was probably taped months earlier. So perhaps the June 2013 decision had not yet been fully implemented.

Or maybe the decision to stop going door-to-door was intended to affect a particular group of missionaries(?)

Anyway so the question I wanted to ask is:
Are Mormon's really planning to discontinue all door-to-door preaching work, or have they perhaps already done so?


texts: Why are many Protestant Churches not practicing Confession?

texts:
Recently, I come to know that Lutheran Church practice Confession, though there is some difference in theology on it compared to the Roman Catholic Church.

As a man brought up in a place where Evangelicals, Presbyterians and Pentecostals are majority, I am very much surprised to know that Confession is still practiced in Lutheran church. I would never do this and I find this type of practice very awkward. I always thought that confession is practiced only by Catholics and Orthodox.

Is the practice of Confession strange(bizarre) to other Protestants?
If Lutheran is one of the first (or the first, I'm not sure) Protestant church, then why are other Protestant churches not practicing Confession?


texts: What doctrinal changes did the Westminster Confession bring to the Church of Scotland?

texts:
After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession.

I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?


texts: What is the earliest mention of the Three Pillars of Catholicism?

texts:
I was fascinated to read in Peter Turner's answer to the question Why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture? the following claim:

Catholics have always held there to be three pillars, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. These three in concert comprise the deposit of Faith.

What is the earliest record that we have of the pillars being referred to together in this way?
edit: let me clear, I'm not hung up on the specific word "pillars", but that the deposit of Faith is clearly defined as consisting of the three aforementioned elements.


texts: Did the 1983 Code of Canon Law change the law on celebrating/receiving the Eucharist in a state of serious sin?

texts:
Canon 916 is the current canon governing each individual's obligation not to celebrate or seek to receive the Eucharist in a state of (unconfessed) serious sin:

916. Qui conscius est peccati gravis, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam ne celebret neve Corpori Domini communicet, nisi adsit gravis ratio et deficiat opportunitas confitendi; quo in casu meminerit se obligatione teneri ad eliciendum actum perfectae contritionis, qui includit propositum quam primum confitendi. [vatican.va]
916. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. [vatican.va]

It is clearly a unification of two canons from the 1917 Code, canon 807 concerning the celebration of the Eucharist and canon 856 concerning its reception:

807.  Sacerdos sibi conscius peccati mortalis, quantumvis se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam celebrare ne audeat; quod si, defciente copia confessarii et urgente necessitate, elicito tamen perfectae contritionis actu, celebraverit, quamprimum confiteatur. [via IntraText.com]
856. Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis gravat, quantumcunque etiam se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione ad sacram communionem accedat; quod si urgeat necessitas ac copia confessarii illi desit, actum perfectae contritionis prius eliciat. [via IntraText.com]

Both 1917 canons speak of consciousness of mortal sin (Sacerdos sibi conscius peccati mortalis...; Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis...). By contrast, the 1983 canon speaks of consciousness of grave sin (Qui conscius est peccati gravis...).
Does the change in terminology, from "mortal sin" (peccati mortalis) in the 1917 Code to "grave sin" (peccati gravis) in the 1983 Code change the meaning of the canons in any way?


texts: How did Thomas More manage to save his family?

texts:
I watched A Man for All Seasons a few years ago and I know that somehow St. Thomas More found a loophole that his family could remain Catholic and Faithful and in England while he had had no choice but to be beheaded to remain faithful.

What was the precise argument that he used to justify his departure from this life while his family still lived in hopes that they could remain landed and Catholic?


texts: Which 20th-century Orthodox Christians said that the crusades were more oppressive than the Marxist anti-religious campaigns?

texts:
Everett Ferguson, in Church History, I, 23.I.D, discusses the brutality of the crusades in the early 13th century, when Constantinople was sacked.  One point I found particularly interesting was a comparison between the persecution then and the harsh anti-religious campaigns of the early 20th century in the USSR:

  Memories are long in the East, and Orthodox Christians in the twentieth century affirmed that they had more religious liberty under the Marxists than they did under the crusaders.

Wikipedia's article on the persecution in the Soviet Union indicates that that was no walk in the park either – tens of thousands of clergy were murdered and many members were sent to labor camps, transforming an openly Christian nation into one with no public expressions of religion.

Yet some Eastern Orthodox Christians apparently judged that persecution as preferable to that of the crusades.  I'd love to understand why, but to do so I need to know who Ferguson is referring to – which Orthodox Christians positively compared Marxist persecutions to the crusades?  Was this a statement by an Orthodox church, or a group of clergy, or just a few individuals speaking for themselves?


texts: According to LDS teaching, was Adam the first man created in all the worlds or just this one?

texts:
In Moses 1:34, we read the following:

  And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.  (Moses 1:34)

According to LDS teaching, God made many worlds through His Son Jesus.  We are informed here that God called the first man by the name of Adam.

Was this the first man created on all the worlds created by God or just the first man on this particular world?

Was Adam the first son of God in the pre-mortal life as well?  If so, did this distinction carry through to the honor of being the first man in this world or could this have been for another reason?  If not, was there another distinction in the pre-mortal life that resulted in him being selected to be the first man on this world?


texts: Did Jesus really had to be God for the atonement of sin to work?

texts:
Since only Jesus's nature died in our place (and not his divine nature) as said by some theologians , then how can we be saved by the death of a human, how can the blood of an ordinary human save us?
Or...Did Jesus's divine nature had something to do with our atomnent?

P.S. I am a Christian. I believe in the Trinity. I am just confused on this topic. Please answer with respect. :)


texts: What does St. Thomas Aquinas mean by 'alteration' of heavenly bodies in Summa Theologiae?

texts:
In Summa Theologiae, when talking about "The quality of the world after judgement", in the 4th article the reply to objection 4 states:

  "Reply to Objection 4. This brightness will be in these bodies even as it is in the heavenly bodies, in which it causes no heat, because these bodies will then be unalterable, as the heavenly bodies are now."

Here, what does St. Thomas Aquinas mean by alteration?

In the reply to objection 4, he says these bodies will be unalterble. From these bodies I understand that he means things on earth, ie; bodies other than heavenly bodies. If things on earth become unalterable after the judgement, how can redeemed man make use of them as St.Thomas Aquinas states in reply to objection 5 of the 3rd article, in the same link I provided above, that:

  "...thus man will make use of other creatures..."

I think reading the full 4th article in "The quality of the world after judgement" will help a lot in answering the question.
I hope my question is understandable:)


texts:
John Piper provides a list of traits that he respects about fundamentalists, yet he does not consider himself one.

In the context of Christianity (of course), what is a fundamentalist?  And especially, how do they differ from mainstream evangelicals such as John Piper?


texts: What is the consequence of being baptized twice, according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that once a person is baptized, they cannot (or must not) be baptized again.  I'm asking this question in that context, looking for a Catholic answer.
What is the consequence or effect of being baptized a second time?
Generally, if there is any concern that a person may have been baptized before, a conditional baptism may be used, in essence saying "This is a baptism only if you haven't been baptized before."  I'm not asking about a conditional baptism.  I'm asking about one proper baptism, followed by another proper baptism.
Here's an example of how this situation could come up:

Susie is raised in an atheist family.  As an adult, she becomes a Christian and goes to her local priest to be baptized.  He asks if she was ever baptized before, and she says she never was, believing this to be true.  The priest baptizes her.
Later, Susie discovers that her parents weren't always the strict atheists they are today, and that when she was an infant, they had her baptized (in a way the Catholic church would consider valid).

What would the priest tell Susie when she asks about the consequences or effects of her second baptism?


texts:
Please keep in mind
Matthew 5:39 NIV

  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on
  the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I was searching for something to write a blog post about, when I stumbled upon this site which mentioned things I found offensive

From this site

  You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
  exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
  all rival sects denominations [sic] - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of
  Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and
  "loving."

However, thinking of an answer to this, I found myself stuck.  What are the characteristics of Christianity that make it tolerant?  Which denomination has a history of showing toleration or is toleration not a Christian attribute?  To be clear, I am looking for documented cases in the bible which fit a historical example.

I define tolerant as, "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."  However, should there be another definition that fits the Christian use of the word "tolerant" please define.

Here's an example of how Christians are expected to practice tolerance


texts: How did Reformed Theologians view works-based "Heavenly Rewards"?

texts:
I am currently reading Erwin Lutzer's "Your Eternal Reward". I also watched MacArthus's "Eternal Rewards and Motivation". Now, I know that Reformed theologians believe:

salvation by grace, not works
salvation by predestination

My question is NOT about salvation. My question is about heavenly rewards. How did  Reformed theologians view heavenly rewards?


texts:
I have started reading the Bible and I have found that in Genesis 2.19 the first man is already called Adam without any previous reference to this name.

But when it comes to Eve there is a clear explanation of her name in Genesis 3.20.

So my question is, how was Adam's name chosen? Was it chosen by himself or given to him by God? And why?

In case different traditions have different answer to this question I would prefer the Roman Catholic one.


texts: What is the Catholic position on Exodus 20:4?

texts:
This weekend my son and I participated in our Scouting council's annual Ten Commandments hike in which we walked to 10 different churches and heard a short talk on each of the 10 commandments from Exodus 20. The lone Catholic church on our route (churches were largely represented based on proximity, not theology) was assigned the following passage:

  You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth.—Exodus 20:4 (NJB)

(My very first problem in researching this question is that, while this was labeled the second commandment by the organizer of the hike, it's the second half of the first according to Catholic tradition.)

It seems we had some bad luck since the priest who was representing the Catholic position did not do a very good job of explaining idolatry to us. He mostly explained that the stained-glass windows (which were not unusual in the other churches we visited) and the statues (which were absolutely unique to that church) were not worshiped. Rather they were to be a reminder of the great saints of the past, their deeds, and that we could ask them to pray for us as we might ask a friend.

The particular difficulty I'd like to resolve in my own mind is why Catholic churches use statues, which are carved, rather than flat images. The Orthodox church specifically uses icons in order to avoid idolatry. Stained glass, for better or worse, has become a nearly universally accepted church decoration. To me, either of these art forms go a long way to helping remind us (and especially visual learners) the deeds of the saints without risking they will be worshiped. So what is the Catholic reasoning for including carved statues in places of worship?

Update: It occurs to me that if I'd asked the question a month or so ago, I would have been confronted with the statues many Protestants do set up in our churches: the Nativity scene.  My parent's church, where I was baptized, even includes a little ritual of having a child bring new figures to be added to the scene over the weeks of Advent.  In my rush to judgement, I didn't stop to think if I had a plank in my own eye.  Talk about hypocrisy!  So, I really am not trying to "score points" on my Catholic brothers and sisters or further the cause of the Reformation. I want to understand.


texts: What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father?

texts:
What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father Josef or another man and that divin conception was only a metaphor?

Allegedly there was an ancient prophecy that the future king of Israel should be from the king David's lineage, so as I heard, there were some ancient Christian authors who claimed that Jesus descended from king David and even brought the genealogy.

I wonder what is the position of the Church and various Christian groups to those Jesus genealogies which trace Jesus' earthy ancestry towards king David?


texts:
Why was Nathaniel under the fig tree?
John 1:47-48 KJV

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Do any Christian authors or writers give a possible explication as to what Nathaniel was doing under the fig tree?


texts: How non-trinitarians explain Jacob wrestled with God

texts:
I want to know how different churches that does not believe in Jesus diety or pre-existence the verses from the OT:

  Genesis 32:24-30
  Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

  24 Jacob was left alone, and a man came and wrestled with him. The man fought with him until the sun came up. 25 When the man saw that he could not defeat Jacob, he touched Jacob’s leg and put it out of joint.

  26 Then the man said to Jacob, “Let me go. The sun is coming up.”

  But Jacob said, “I will not let you go. You must bless me.”

  27 And the man said to him, “What is your name?”

  And Jacob said, “My name is Jacob.”

  28 Then the man said, “Your name will not be Jacob. Your name will now be Israel.[a] I give you this name because you have fought with God and with men, and you have won.”

  29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.”

  But the man said, “Why do you ask my name?” Then the man blessed Jacob at that place.

  30 So Jacob named that place Peniel.[b] He said, “At this place, I saw God face to face, but my life was spared.”

And specifically how do they explain Jacob asking for the blessing from the man (verse 26), and the man blessing Jacob (verse 29)


texts: The first conception or the first coitus?

texts:
Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she
  conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a
  manchild with the help of the Lord."

Why do some theologians (Aquinas for example, quoting Augustine in Summa Theologica 1, Q98, article 2) take this to mean sexual relations for the first time when it is equally plausible for it to refer to:

the first sexual relations that resulted in conception, or
the first sexual relations that resulted in conception and birth of
a male child


texts: Does God have the capacity to sin? Can God sin?

texts:
To clarify,

this question is not asking for a "justification" of those times, described in the Bible, when God struck someone dead. Life is His to take.
the question is also not asking strictly whether Jesus had the capacity to sin. The answer should not hinge on whether Jesus was God (He was, assume this), or whether Jesus was one or two persons (He was one divine Person, assume this).

The question is asking if God can sin, with attention to, for example, how that might be reconciled with his omnipotence and benevolence. I expect that there are some theological constructs already in place to deal with this question or others like it. If there is some well-established theological difference between "can sin" and "has the power to sin" or "has the capacity to sin", then this should be clarified.

Can God (three Persons, one Being) sin?


texts: How are patriotic songs used in US churches?

texts: A comical blog mentioned “patriotic worship”. It is also hinted at in this article and in this article where it is made clear that patriotic songs such as the ones listed here are sung and they are considered suitable for worship by some groups. It is apparent that within the USA patriotism and Christianity are sometimes conflated. As you can imagine, it is quite difficult to search for information regarding worship and patriotism, especially in connection with the United States. I would like to know how prevalent the singing of patriotic songs is, which denominations are the most likely to use them and does their use peak around patriotic festivals such as Independence Day and Memorial Day?


texts: Why did Jesus use a Greek proverb when He spoke Aramaic to Saul in Acts 26:14?

texts:
Saul spoke Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin (there are many references). Jesus spoke Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew (again there are many references). In Acts 26:14, Paul (who at this time was using his second name Paul, being a Roman, rather than his first name Saul), testified to Agrippa, possibly in Greek, that when Jesus confronted him on the road to Damascus, Jesus spoke to him in Aramaic and said, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (KJV), or "it is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (in other versions), which is a Greek proverb.

Is there any significance or relevance here of Jesus speaking in Aramaic and using a Greek proverb to Saul (who became Paul later on), who spoke four languages?


texts:
So I just asked the question why Pentecost is called Pentecost before Pentecost in the Eastern Church. And it got me thinking, what are alternative names for Eastertide?

I am aware of Eastertide, Easter Time and Season, Paschaltide, Paschal Time and Season


texts: Old Testament Evidence of the Hypostatic Union

texts: There are people who don't believe that God can become a man, as we Christians say He did as Jesus. Is there any evidence that God is able to put on flesh in the Old Testament? What logical arguments for the possibility can we offer?


texts: Does the 'Sons of Jacob' refer to only Jews, or also Christians and Muslims?

texts:
There is a song by Damian Marley that refers to "The sleeping sons of Jacob". I looked up 'Sons of Jacob' on Wikipedia and now understand them to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, but I have only heard "sleeping" sons of Jacob in the Damian Marley song.

I am curious to know what the significance of "Sleeping" may be, if anything. Is this a reference to some religious concept?


texts: What are the Roman Catholic pilgrimages in Northern America?

texts:
In France there are several "formal" and organised catholic pilgrimage each year to Lourdes, Chartres, Vezelay for boy-scouts and other shrines that occures a few times, sometimes even once a year and are an occasion of gathering around faith. What are, if they exist, the organised pilgrimages equivalent in America? Is there a database of them?

I googled a bit and only found the Marian Days for the Vietnamese American Roman Catholics.

By catholic I mean the branch of the Christian Church that accepts the Pope as its leader and is based in the Vatican in Rome.


texts: If Jesus ascended to heaven as Michael the angel why is he still called a man?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature Michael the archangel. If this is so, why do they still call him a man?

1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version):

  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


texts: Before Solomon was born, who was to become king? David has other sons so if Solomon had not been born, who would have been the heir? Would it be one of the sons who were killed?


texts: How is ignoring clear Biblical instructions in Leviticus justified?

texts:
Leviticus 11:7-8

  And the pig, though it has a split hood completely divided, does not
  chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or
  touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

  Leviticus 11:11-12

  And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat ad you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you.

  Leviticus 11:19

  Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

I haven't come across many Christians that campaign against the eating of bacon, the eating of lobsters/squid or that refuse to wear clothes made of mixtures of cotton and wool.

If a believer doesn't follow every instruction, how do they decide which to follow?
Note: I must credit the excellent book "The Philosophy Gym" by Stephen Law, from which these examples are taken


texts: Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?

texts:
Neither version of the Nicene Creed (325 or 381) contains the word "person," in the singular or in the plural.

Are there any extant writings that came out of, or are closely associated with, either the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD or the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD that explicitly state that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "persons," or that each of them individually is a "person"?

Later theologians view the Nicene Creed as affirming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons of God. However, the creed itself does not actually state that they are persons.

Is there any documentary evidence from the time that the creed was formulated in 325 AD, or from the time that it was revised in 381 AD, that the writers of the creed meant it to be read as saying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each individually persons of God?

I am especially looking for explicit language to that effect rather than language that could merely be interpreted to mean that their intent was to affirm that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "persons."

As a contrast and an example of what I am looking for, the Athanasian Creed explicitly identifies Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as persons of God:

  And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. (italics added)

The origin and authorship of the Athanasian Creed are disputed, but it was almost certainly composed centuries after the Nicene Creed.


texts: Catholic orders controlling diocesan territory

texts:
Under Imperial Spain, several Mexican apostolic colleges staffed missions in the Californias. This remote part of the diocese of Sonora was best accessed by sea, and the empire paid travel expenses for missionaries. Most prominent was the Franciscan College of San Fernando, which sent 127 friars to Upper California over half a century. In addition to their ministries, the fathers managed the temporalities of the mission agricultural complexes. Their position was quite different from that of a secular diocesan priest.

What part of Roman canon law allows part of a diocese to be entirely delegated to an apostolic order? Would a bishop want to consent not to send any diocesan priests to the territory? Is this arrangement still possible, and if not, when and where was it last used?


texts:
1 Timothy 6:16 speaks of Jesus and is in King James Version translated as:

  Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can
  approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour
  and power everlasting. Amen.

However rather than the expression "Who only hath immortality", the original Greek text refers to Jesus being the only one having immortality.

Here is the text from the interlinear bible at BibleHub:

And here is how it is scripture4all interlinear:

Here's the passage from verse 13 to verse 16, for context. This is according to KJV (from here).

  13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a
  good confession; 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot,
  unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15
  Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only
  Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath
  immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
  whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power
  everlasting. Amen.

If everyone has an immortal soul then certainly when Paul wrote this there would have been other persons (either among those who had died, or those who were alive at the time) who also had immortality.

What is the Mormon perspective on how Jesus is here the only one having immortality if everyone has an immortal soul?


texts: Why did the Western and Eastern churches react to their respective states so differently?

texts:
In Church History in Plain Language, Bruce Shelley points out a key distinction between Western and Eastern Christianity: how each has related to the State through history.

  Ambrose had hit upon the weapon—the threat of excommunication—which the Western church would soon use again and again to humble princes.  But at the center of the Christian empire, in Constantinople, no bishop ever stepped so far out of line. (104)

Specific examples will hopefully make the distinction clear. First, in the East, when the emperor Leo III forbade the veneration of icons, the Patriarch of Constantinople resigned:

  Leo secured the retirement of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the consecration of a new one who favored his own views. (157)

But in the West, the bishops fought back.  Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius I over a massacre he ordered, while Pope Innocent III was especially prolific in applying excommunication and the interdict (prohibition of rites throughout a geographic area):

  The pope's first weapon in bringing peasants and princes to their knees was the threat of excommunication. [...] Pope Innocent III successfully applied or threatened the interdict eighty-five times against uncooperative princes. (194)

This is surely a huge topic, so let me specify:

What is an overview of the theological differences that led to distinct approaches to unwanted State innovation and overreach in the West and East?

That is:

I'm specifically interested in the use, threats to use, and lack of use of excommunication, the interdict, and similar methods of ecclesiastical discipline, against heads of state and/or their territories.
I'm not interested in historical reasons for the difference.  If historical reasons fully explain it (which I highly doubt), then an expansion on "there were no theological differences" would be a good answer.
I'm basically talking about the Middle Ages here: from Ambrose to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.  Earlier writers probably had an influence, so discussion of them is fine, but I'm not interested in following this into the Modern era.
I'm speculating that Eastern Christians reacted in writing to the excommunications performed by Ambrose and Innocent (and others), while Western Christians reacted in writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople's resignation.  If so, their criticisms might shed light on the subject.
I'm interested in an overview: a few key points, with a few (sourced) sentences each, would be sufficiently lengthy.


texts: Is there any theological tradition holding that soon after being born, baby Jesus was full of wisdom because this baby is God?

texts:
Is there a doctrine that teaches that the baby Jesus was full of wisdom—realizing that he can do anything and doesn't need anything because he knows he is God?  If so, what theological traditions hold this doctrine?

I encountered this on a forum where some members say that this baby, soon after being born, realizes that he is God.  This human baby realizes that he knows everything (infinite knowledge), that he can do anything (infinite ability and power), that he is wise (infinite wisdom), and that he is infinitely great.


texts: What is chronologically the last mention of redemption in the Bible?


texts: What is the origin of 'omnipotence' as an attribute of God in the ecumenical councils and other Christian authorities?

texts: It is customary in Christian theological discourse and affiliated philosophy of religion literature to affirm that God is omnipotent. Often this attribute is joined to omniscience and moral perfection so as to form part of a triadic set of divine properties. What is the origin, if any, of the attribution of omnipotence to God in the ecumenical councils or other authorities binding for Christian churches?


texts: Where can one buy a new physical copy of a full (OT & NT) Protestant RSV where its NT is of '71?

texts:
And are they even being printed nowadays? I have looked around and mostly found Catholic editions and some others, but not a Protestant '71 version.

Is there even one available with cross references?


texts: Paul's analysis of Abraham's "offspring(s)" in Galatians 3

texts:
In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he talks about (among other things) how God's promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 3:16 reads (in the NRSV; other translations may say "seed", "progeny", "descendants", etc.):

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings", as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring", that is, to one person, who is Christ.

Elsewhere he says that "those who believe are the descendants of Abraham" (3:7) and "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise" (3:29).
In Genesis, there are several promises (or repetitions of a promise) made to Abraham, including:

Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." (12:7)
On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land" (15:18)
"I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God." God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations." (17:7-9)
"I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore." (22:17)

It seems that in Genesis, the promises are actually speaking about many descendants and not just one person, regardless of the grammatical detail. Certainly the appearances in chapters 17 and 22 are talking about many people in many generations.
So isn't Paul just making a totally unsupported argument? And why does he make it at all, given that a few verses before and after, he is happy to consider plural offspring (all believers)?


texts: The celebrant’s position and proximity to the participants

texts:
We know that the apostles were present in a face to face relation to Jesus at the Lord's Supper.
When did the celebrants of the later Eucharist turn their backs on the participants, and why? Also when were the elements removed from proximity with the liturgy (or mass) participants, into the separate or remote altar or sanctum, that we observe in the Orthodox and Traditional Latin Rite churches of today?


texts: How is Jesus God's final word? (Catholic Perspective)

texts:
The Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church says plainly (emphasis added):

  In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. He is God's last Word.

Indeed, Hebrews 1:1-2 says,

  God, having spoken earlier at many times and in many ways through the Prophets, spoke to us in these last days by the Son, who he established heir over all things and through whom he made the ages.

From a Catholic perspective, what does it mean that Jesus is God's last word? Has God spoken to man in the time since Jesus' teaching? If so, by what method has he done so? If Jesus is God's last word why is that so? For what reason Jesus is God's last word and not eq. Muhammad?


texts: How do Catholics answer the question of idol worship within the faith?

texts:
I'm in no way trying to be disrespectful or anything like that and please do not take it as such.

I would like to know how Catholics reconcile the fact that the Bible states:

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is
in the water under the earth.
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord
thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
 -- Exodus 20:4-5

If you walk into any Catholic Church, one sees not only statues of Christ, but also of Mary and several saints. Catholics then go up to these statues, kneel, and start praying. They also carry around necklaces with these saints and put up shrines to these saints in their homes.

How is this not in direct violation with the commandments?

In similar post on this form, the person answering that question said that these things are not idols, but instead are sacramental, but to me, it still looks likes idol worship under a different name.


texts: Why not the Orthodox beliefs instead of splitting away?

texts: Why not the Orthodox beliefs instead of the Protestant Reformation? What prompted the Reformers to "rewrite" everything?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  How was documented dialog observed?

I have to say, my memory is not very good, but it is not too bad. (God helps me :) ). But I have a few questions concerning how the Bible authors were recalling that what has happened ,

1) How did Moses know the dialog between Abraham and God? Did Abraham write a biography, and how could Moses remember the conversation so clearly?

2) More stunningly, if go and read Gospel of John, he remembers the LONG conversations, that is very very long, super well. For me I could hardly remember very clearly what happens last week, not to say ACCURATELY recite all a person said last week.

So is it correct by saying, even though a book of the Bible is affected by the character of its author, the writing style of its author, but basically the Bible is written down as an absolutely miracle?


texts: What percentage of US Christians are Dispensationalists?

texts:
What percentage of US Christians are dispensationalists?  I think it has a serious impact on American policy in the Middle East.

  Dispensationalism is a religious interpretive system and metanarrative
  for the Bible. It considers Biblical history as divided by God into
  dispensations, defined periods or ages to which God has allotted
  distinctive administrative principles. Source


texts: How long, and in what cases did Catholics participate in the Black Fast?

texts:
I ran across the term "Black Fast" and looked it up.  The articles I'm finding indicate that it's extreme, and give some information about the types of foods allowed during it, but I keep expecting to find information on when it was performed and why.  In my experience, in Catholic tradition, there is a detailed reason and circumstance for just about everything, and I'm just not finding it.

Also, based on the restrictions, this looks to be something that is intended to be something done for an extended period of time, not just a few days...

  The details of the fast, as they were prior to the tenth century, are
  as follows:

  No more than one meal per day was permitted
  Flesh meat, eggs, butter, cheese and milk were forbidden
  The meal was not allowed until after sunset
  Alcohol was forbidden
  During Holy Week, the meal consisted exclusively of bread, salt, herbs, and water

No more than one meal per day would be hard for a few days, but doable, so I have to assume that this fast is meant for extended periods.

The closest I could come to a "how long" answer was a blurb in Wikipedia, but it it about how the Eastern Orthodox Church practices it today.

  The Black Fast is still observed by the Eastern Orthodox on Wednesdays
  and Fridays and during the 40 days of Lent and three other fasting
  periods of the year.

So, if anyone can fill in the blanks, and explain when it is done, why it is done, and for how long it is done, I'd greatly appreciate it.


texts: What does Psalm 37:29 mean when it said "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” Does this mean an earthly paradise that God has promised to    restore?


texts: With the priesthood of all believers do we need priest or pastor as church leaders?

texts:
The Old Testament talks about Levites as priest and the New Testament talks of priesthood of all believers. But then there is the gift to some as pastors, teachers and evangelists (Eph 4:11) in the New Testament. If all are priest, one can not be singled out and called a priest. Are the church leaders to be called pastors instead? But the pastor is meant to be a shepherd, who leads, guides, protect, and feeds. If so then the name pastor fits them better.
However some congregations consider them as elders or presbyters with the responsibility as teacher. By this is the gift of pastor and the teacher the same for them to be teachers? What then is the suitable name for them to bring their biblical role out clearly?


texts: The Pope is resigning. How does a living pope confer his authority?

texts: I read that Pope Benedict XVI is resigning. I don't know much about Catholic/papal authority as it relates to leading the Church, but as far as I can remember, a pope dies before another one takes the reigns. Apparently, this has happened before, but how does the living pope confer that authority to a successor, since he's still alive? Since he resigned, is his authority to lead the Catholic church removed from him, or how does that work?


texts: In Matthew 23:35, who was “Zacharias son of Barachias”?

texts:
In Matt. 23:35, it is written,

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. KJV, 1769
ΛΕʹ ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου TR, 1550

Who was Zacharias son of Barachias?
Is this event mentioned in the Bible or in any secular history?


texts: Did any of the Church Fathers think the current-day Gospels were not inspired?

texts:
I heard that some of the Church Fathers referred to the Gospels using terminology which indicates maybe they didn't think they were "inspired".

Is there any statement by one of them that indicates that they thought of the Gospels as just writings that were not inspired?


texts: What is Roman Catholic Church's official view on the nature of Christ?

texts: One question that has haunted the Catholic Church from the very beginning is about the way divine and human are related in the person of Jesus Christ. The differences in doctrines have lead to the creation of Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox Church. The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 has accepted Dyophysitism as the accepted Catholic doctrine. But is this the final stand made by the Catholic Church? Or did any post Chalcedonian councils further clarified this matter? This being such a sensitive topic could any one please explain the official Catholic position on the nature of Christ?


texts: Do reformed theologians call "God the Father" Jehovah?

texts:
"God the Son" is generally agreed to be Jesus.

Do reformed theologians agree that "God the Father" is Jehovah, or is this only something claimed by the denomination calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses?


texts: Do Catholics reject the sola of the Reformation

texts:
The Reformation brought five solas that gives bonderies on how the Protestant view the biblical teaching. Here is the five solas:

1. Sola Gratia            (By grace alone)
2. Soli Deo Gloria        (To God alone be the glory)
3. Sola Fide              (By faith alone)
4. Sola Scriptura         (The scripture as only basis)
5. Solus Christus         (By Christ alone)

Does Catholic teachings reject or approved them? How?


texts: Are brief blasphemous deliberate thoughts a mortal sin according to Catholicism?


texts: How is the matter of why the Son of God needed to be sacrificed explained in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
Why did God the Father need to sacrifice His own Son for the sake of granting salvation to the fallen humanity? Couldn't He just forgive humans without making any sacrifice? Why is it so that "without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrew 9:22, KJV)?

How is this matter officially explained in the Roman Catholic Church?

I just need an answer in a way of a general overview, not a "full-description" answer.


texts: If we are the bride, who are the invited?

texts:
Assuming that the Bride in the book of Revelation is talking about the church, then who are the invited in this verse?

  Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

(Revelation 19:9)

If we are the Bride, I imagine we can't be the invited. If we are the invited, then we can't be the bride. Or do I misunderstand the language?