texts: Are names of godparents written on Baptism Certificate?

texts: My friend agreed to be a godfather for my baby. But he cannot be present at ceremony for some visa/travel reasons. Will his name get written on the Baptism Certificate? I want to present/show him some memorial evidence that he is a godparent once we meet.


texts:
Some Christian traditions use the term "apostolic authority". What is meant by this phrase? Does it have more than one meaning depending on which doctrinal tradition it is coming from? Are there any traditions that don't hold it has a meaning at all?

Do groups that hold such a view think that some things can only be carried out by apostles with specifically granted authority?


texts: Where in the Catholic Church is red wine used for mass?

texts: In any Catholic Mass I attended (in Germany) white wine was used for the holy Eucharist. There are some plausible practical reasons for that. Are there regions of the world where mostly red wine is used?


texts: How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view the Church Fathers' definition of the word "catholic?"

texts:
While perusing the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) website I came across this question.

I fully understand what the word catholic by itself means.  Orthodox Christians (like many liturgical Protestant denominations) recite the Creed with the understanding that the phrase "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" emphasizes the word catholic with a general meaning, whereas the Catholic Church obviously implies that the word Catholic is more specific.

From the website:

  Orthodox Christians understand the word “catholic” word to mean
  “whole, complete, lacking in nothing.” Hence, when we say “one, holy,
  catholic, and apostolic Church,” we mean that the one, holy, and
  apostolic Church is “whole, complete, and lacking in nothing.” The
  word “catholic” with a small “c” has nothing whatsoever to do with
  Roman “Catholic” with a capital “C”.

This explanation makes sense to me in all aspects except one - the writings of the early Church Fathers.

See CATHOLIC

There are many early writings, both East and West, that are very clear and direct about the Catholic Church being named the Catholic Church with a capital "C."

For example:

  "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the
  Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also
  reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office]
  the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the
  Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
  which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has
  entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the
  multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he
  has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the
  multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is,
  there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the
  Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view these specific and direct Patristic quotes in light of the Orthodox definition of the word "catholic?"


texts: How can God be Sovereign (in the Reformed sense) if a man can ignore His call to repentance?

texts:
The Scriptures tell us:

  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. – Acts 17:30–31 ESV (emphasis mine)

And yet:

  ...the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. – Matthew 7:14 ESV

The unavoidable conclusion is that most people that hear the call to repentance, either ignore, resist or reject it (this sadly, also accords with our experience).

A common Reformed argument* (e.g.) against the doctrine of General Atonement, is that a non-efficacious (in terms of its intended scope) Atonement is not consistent with the Sovereignty of God – on the surface, a reasonable argument, particularly from a Reformed perspective of the Sovereignty of God that rests on Unconditional Election and Irresistable Grace. From a Reformed perspective, how is a non-efficacious (again, in terms of its intended scope) call to repentance any different in this respect? Why isn't that equally inconsistent with the Sovereignty of God?

If a King bids a man to come, and the man comes not, is this not an affront to the King's sovereignty?

*Edit: Ok, so maybe it's not as common as I thought, and possibly not strictly logical, but here is some evidence that it is advanced by people who should be able to articulate a consistent position:

"Unlimited atonement is inconsistent with the sovereignty of God." - Rev. Steven Houck, Immanuel Protestant Reformed Church Lacombe, Alberta.  source
"Proponents of limited atonement often make a fifth argument, which is that unlimited atonement cannot be reconciled with God's sovereignty." - p200 Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach By Kenneth Keathley. source


texts: Which verse mentions "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."?

texts:
It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'

Which verse mentions this?


texts:
Are there any trinitarian Christian denominations that believe one should only pray to the Father, not to Jesus?

If so, what are they and what is there scriptural basis for believing so?


texts: Where does the LDS section heading for 1 Corinthians 7 come from?

texts:
In the chapter heading to 1 Corinthians 7 in the official LDS scriptures, it states:

  Paul answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions—Paul praises self-discipline.

Where does this come from?  How did the author(s) know that Paul was speaking about those called on missions?  Do they claim revelation as the source, research, or is it just opinion?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for sharing the cup at communion?

texts: In our church everyone usually drinks out of the same cup at communion. Is there a scriptural reason for this?


texts: If Eve was made by Yahweh to be a partner for Adam, are we able to then accurately know that there really is someone out there 'made for you'? And if so, does this partnership (even if not called a 'marriage') continue in Heaven? And could this person actually be someone you never get to meet during your time in this life (or someone other than the person you marry while here), perhaps because of the consequences/effects of original sin from the start?


texts: How do those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine harmonize the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew?

texts:
I have a question concerning those who support the perpetual virginity doctrine. The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest source used to demonstrate how Joseph had children from a previous marriage. How would one go about using this document when it contains conflicting information with the Gospel of Matthew?

1) Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).

2) Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3).

3) Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31).

4) Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2).

5) Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2).


texts: Did Origen support the idealist view of Christian eschatology?

texts:
I've seen it suggested that Origen was in line with the idealist understanding of Christian eschatology. Is anyone able to clarify this? What is the evidence that Origen was in support of the Idealist position?

(For example, this answer to a related but different question also uses Origen in support of a subset of the typical idealist position, without substantiating it.)

For those not familiar with Christian eschatological categories, usually in reference to how Revelation is interpreted, the general categories are Idealist, Futurist, Preterist, and Historical


texts: What original text is the King James Version (KJV) translation of the Old Testament based on?

texts: The wording of the KJV Old Testament seems to follow (in general) that of the Tanakh, so can I conclude that it is specifically a translation of the Hebrew texts rather than a translation of the Greek (LXX)?


texts: How does the Catholic Church explain the differences in the verses of Lk 4:18 vis-a-vis Isiah 61:1

texts:
We read at Lk 4:16-18 (NRSVCE):
"When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,

and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,

Isiah  61:1 (NRSVCE), the scriptural text  read out by Jesus goes like this:

"The spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed,
to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and release to the prisoners  "

Now, one notices  certain differences between the text of Isiah we now have, and the one which was read out by Jesus at the Synagogue, specifically towards the end. It could be that the Evangelist wrote down the event from memory, not referring to the authentic text of Isiah. My question therefore is: how does the Catholic Church explain the differences  in the verses of Lk 4:18 vis-a-vis Isiah 61:1, the former having been  recorded as verbatim reproduction of the latter?


texts: What exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?

texts:
Possible ways to understand "virginity" :

Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever.
Some may define as not having intercourse with a male.
Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male.
Some may define it as an intact hymen.

I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities.

I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity.

So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?


texts: What does Lewis mean by the things that stifle bitter resentment in elders in A Grief Observed

texts:
In A Grief Observed on page 7 Lewis writes:

  Our elders submitted and said, 'Thy will be done.' How often had bitter resentment been stifled through sheer terror and an act of love — yes, in every sense, an act — put on to hide the operation?

What is Lewis getting at here? What does he mean by, "stifled through sheer terror," "an act of love," "hide the operation?" Any insights would be appreciated.


texts: How would Catholics respond to the theory that Mary was a surrogate mother that had no DNA in common with Jesus?

texts:
Did the life transferred to Mary's womb contain unique DNA?
Did that remain the case through out the pregnancy?
Science tells us that a surrogate host mother of an implanted fertilized egg will have no DNA in common with the child.

Some have claimed that Jesus could not be perfect if he was a blood relative to Mary who was a descendant of Adam.
Can Catholics reconcile this claim by using the surrogate mother defense? That is to say Jesus had totally unique DNA and was not a result of a fertilized egg from Mary's ovaries?


texts: According to Catholicism, did St. Paul believe that end of the world was imminent?

texts:
We read at 1 Cor 7: 29-31 (NRSVCE) :

I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions,   and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.

The said words of St. Paul apparently point to his view that the end of the world was imminent. My question is : According to Catholic Church, did St. Paul believe that the end of the world was imminent?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, why is God called “Father” (and not, say, “Mother”)?

texts:
Throughout the Bible, Jesus specifically refers to God as Father, and us as his sons.

Why is it significant that God is a Father? Why did God choose the image of “Father,” as opposed to other relationships that God created, such as that of Mother, to describe Himself?

How is this viewed in the Catholic Church?


texts: In one of the passages in the bible, Satan is referred to Beelzebub which means "lord of flies." But why flies? Why is this name so significant?


texts:
I have seen his name appear in

"Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." (Colossians 4:14).

What more do we know about the author of the book of Luke? Where did he come from? Was he a doctor?


texts: What is the significance of position of fingers in Jesus' hand as shown in his images?

texts: In most of the visual images of Jesus – both in picture and sculpture forms – fingers of His right hand, raised in blessing, follow a particular arrangement. Is there any significance to that arrangement? Have different Churches including the Catholic Church given official recognition to its  interpretation?


texts: Explore and Understand on Other Religions

texts:
I am kind of new here. Can Christianity allows to study other religions provided not worship any other God and Obey God's command. I understand multi religions questions seem disallow here but do let know how to edit the question cause i need some helps here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science --> Buddhism seems related to science and it's interested subject. Can i just pick up the subject relevant to Buddhism-Science only for knowledge purposes?
Buddhism has no God existence yet worship to Buddha statue is not appropriate by the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYlQ0UZ1C2I&t=87s
I try to understand other culture, avoid discrimination and learn to have mutual respect. I believe misinterpret of Word of Gospel or lack of understanding of other religions could be quite an issue.
Kindly provide some general guide what is can and what is cannot example on the matters. I am living in multi culture environment so many of culture is relevant to other religions.


texts: What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels?

texts: An associate wrote an open letter (email) of condolence to a friend who'd lost a child. The letter stated that that deceased was now an angel in heaven with wings.  What is the ultimate source of this belief?


texts: Creation order of events: Was there unanimous consent among the Church Fathers?

texts:
Is there unanimous consent (as described here and here) among the Fathers of the Church who wrote on the interpretation of Genesis that the order of events of  creation actually occurred in the order Genesis describes them?

I know yom (Hebrew word for "day") used in Genesis must refer to a duration of time, be it 24 hours or some other duration (cf. the 1909 PBC decisions), but there is not unanimous consent among the Fathers on whether all the days are (or are not) one day.

For example, St. Augustine, as St. Thomas says, "differs from other expositors" and thinks that "all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect." Augustine's view is not clear to me. Does he say the 6 days' events were all in one instant or just in one day? The former view seems to deny the 1909 PBC's statement that yom must be a duration of time (instants aren't durations). For example, I can say my awaking in the morning today and my going to sleep tonight are simultaneous events because they occur in the same day, but they are not instantaneous; thus, they are ordered chronologically.


texts: Are there other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the articles present in the Apostles' Creed between them?

texts:
In the section Origin of the creed in the article Apostles' Creed | New Advent, it states that throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles.

The articles then names three sources:

1) This legend dates back to the sixth century (see Pseudo-Augustine in Migne, P.L., XXXIX, 2189, and Pirminius, ibid., LXXXIX, 1034).

2) To a sermon attributed to St. Ambrose (Migne, P.L., XVII, 671; Kattenbusch, I, 81), which takes notice that the Creed was "pieced together by twelve separate workmen".

(Church teaching also references St. Ambrose Cf. CCC 194 The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is "the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith". [St. Ambrose, Expl. symb. 7: PL 17,1196.])

And

3) To Rufinus (Migne, P.L., XXI, 337) c. 400,

The article then goes on to show why it regards the circumstantial narrative of Rufinus as unhistorical.

That leaves sources 1) and 2) and I started to wonder whether there were other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the articles present in the Apostles' Creed between them, with each of the Apostles contributing one of the articles.

Are there other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the present articles in the Apostles' Creed between them, with each of the Apostles contributing an article?

Related questions:

Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?
When did “he descended into hell” become part of the Apostles' Creed?


texts: What is the official status of the person of Philomena who at one time was liturgically canonized by Pope Gregory XVI?

texts:
What is the official status of the person of Philomena who at one time was “liturgically canonized” by Pope Gregory XVI and not officially canonized?

What are the physical, archeological and scientific historical supports that the Vatican used to suppress her status as a saint in 1961?

She was never officially canonized by the Church.

  Ex his festis "devotionis" sequentia e calendariis expungantur, quare ut plurimum in aliis festis aut anni temporibus iam recoluntur, vel cum aliquo tantum loco particulari relationem habent, scilicet :

    In translatione almae domus B. Mariae V. (10 decembris) ;
    In exspectatione partus B. Mariae V. (18 decembris) ;
    In desponsatione B. Mariae V. cum S. Ioseph (23 ianuarii) ;
    Fugae D. N. I. C. in Aegyptum (17 februarii) ;
    Orationis D. N. I. C. (fer. III post dom. Septuagesimae) ;
    In Commemoratione Passionis D. N. I. C. (fer. III post dom. Sexagesimae) ;
    S. Spineae Coronae D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post cineres) ;
    Ss. Lanceae et Clavorum D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. I Quadragesimae) ;
    S. Sindonis D. N. I. C. (fer VI post dom. II Quadragesimae) ;
    Ss. Quinque Vulnerum D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. III Quadragesimae) ;
    Pretiosissimi Sanguinis D. N. I. C. (fer. VI post dom. IV Quadragesimae) ;
    Eucharistici Cordis Iesu (fer. V post octavam Corporis Christi) ;
    Humilitatis B. Mariae V. (17 iulii) ;
    Puritatis B. Mariae V. (16 octobris).

  Festum autem S. Philumenae V. et M. (11 augusti) e quolibet calendario expungatur. -
  Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Page 174)

This subject may be the cause of some strong opinions one way or other as the following questions shows:

Can Patron Saints be “dethroned”?
Who is the oldest Blessed?

In order to limit this question to a more historical nature, I prefer that personal opinions be limited to the interpretation of historical data. I also do not desire to have what any visionaries or Catholic mystics have said about the life of [St.] Philomena. Visions are not considered historical proofs.

This is exactly how Rome approached the investigation into the beatification of Blessed Catherine Emmerich.

  At the time of the Emmerich's beatification in 2004, the Vatican position on the authenticity of the Brentano books was elucidated by priest Peter Gumpel, who was involved in the study of the issues for the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints: "It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this. There is a serious problem of authenticity". According to Gumpel, the writings attributed to Emmerich were "absolutely discarded" by the Vatican as part of her beatification process.

Thus my question could be phrased as such: What are the historical reasons that lead up to the Vatican’s decision to suppress the cult of [St.] Philomena and is her cult still permitted in our days?


texts: What is the difference between 'Hell', 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna'?

texts:
In Western imagination, Hell is a place of everlasting torment and suffering for the wicked. Brunlesschi's painting in Florence's Duomo illustrates it well:

The word 'Hell' itself, however, doesn't appear much in the Bible, and where it does, there are seeming differences from this popular narrative.  The terms that are used: 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna' may differ from this notion.

Specifically, in what ways do each of these terms commonly translated as Hell differ from what the 'average person' in modern day America thinks of Hell?  Biblically, what are the differences amongst these terms? How is each term for a 'hell' used, and how do they differ from each other?


texts: In heaven, will we have desires (Catholic)?

texts:
St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote that in heaven, our desires will be completely at rest. This sounds to me that we will not have any desire in heaven, as there is nothing to desire for. But at the same time he also said that we will continue to seek God in heaven, which seems to imply that we will "desire" God in heaven (also there could be many other things in heaven that will make us to have "desire").

Will we have desires in heaven (please answer according to Catholic understanding)


texts: Does Christianity recommend learning other languages or dealing with non-christians?

texts:
In Islamic quran, we Muslims are asked to know people from other nations and following other religions, we are recommended to learn their languages.
Allah said: "O Mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes that you may know one another."
Is there any verses in the bible that tells the same? especially for laguages learning?


texts: Were those who perished in the flood of Noah eternally damned?

texts:
The following passages from Genesis led me to think that all who perished at the time of Noah were cast into Sheol to await the great white throne judgment.
Gen 6:5-7,17 KJV

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved  him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all
flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the
earth shall die.

What do theologians say about it?


texts: How to harmonize teachings of Jesus and Paul about work?

texts:
Jesus: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear ... Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6, Do Not Worry)

Paul: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat." (Thessalonians 3)


texts: When did the practice of bringing non-believers to church originate?

texts:
A practice used for Church growth is bringing non-believer friends to church so that they'll like what they see and join the church.

Now, the questions are:

Did this ever happen in the New Testament?
If not, when did this practice start?

When I look at NT, I get the impression that:

The church is a gathering of believers
Believers are asked to go OUT into the world to preach


texts:
In the first chapter of Galatians, paul said,

  17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

After he his encounter, he should have gone to Rome or Jerusalem but he went to Arabia. Does mount Sinai has any importance since law was given on it so may be he went there?


texts: Is Acts 15:20 a summary of Leviticus 17 & 18?

texts:
Acts 15:19-20 read (KJV):

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to
God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from
fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

One commentary I have (in the Neue evangelistiche Übersetzung, which is in German, so I won't quote it directly) says these are the four requirements for gentiles living among the Israelites, and this is found in the law in Leviticus 17 and 18. And indeed, that portion surely does correspond (with a lot more detail):

burnt offerings and sacrifices only to be made at the sanctuary/tabernacle (otherwise it was done to the "devils")
blood not to be eaten, slaughtered animals to be bled out properly (because blood has a special significance in the atonement of sin)
meat from animals that died of themselves, or were torn, is not to be eaten
all manner of sexual relations that are forbidden, including but not limited to incest and bestiality

I have always wondered why these four requirements exactly were used by the apostles (and why not also for instance theft or murder), and this explanation pointing back to the basis in Mosaic law seems to make sense. But:

Is Leviticus 17 & 18 the only portion of Mosaic law pertaining particularly to gentiles sojourning with Israel? (I do recall some conditional requirements, e.g. if a gentile would have wished to participate in the passover; conditional because it was not required of him to participate.)
Are there other passages that could be taken as a basis for these four requirements?
Is the above commentary on the right track in claiming the relationship between these two passages?


texts:
In Genesis 3:22 through 24  KJV man is ejected from the Garden of Eden and Cherubims are stationed on the East side of the garden to prevent man going back and eating from the tree of life.

22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

From the fact that the Cherubims were stationed on the East side it would necessarily portend that the rest of the World would be to the West otherwise they would have been stationed all around assuming that entry could be gained through other than the eastern gate.
My question then is assuming that the Garden of Eden was a physical place why isn't it known of today, and if it is not a physical place then there are whole new batch of questions in my mind.


texts: What is the basis for the belief that Eve was created on the sixth day, like Adam?

texts:
I have always thought that Eve was created on the sixth day, a bit later in the day than Adam.  However, I recently discovered that some believe Eve was created on a later day.

What, then, is the basis for the believe that Eve was, in fact, created on the sixth day, a bit later in the day than Adam?


texts: What's the time limit for a Council's sessions to reconvene after a suspension?

texts: If a Council's sessions are suspended, such as was done at the Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX, due to the Roman heat, but the sessions could not be reconvened due to the attack on Rome and the Vatican in 1870, is there a time limit for the Council to be reconvened?  Pius XII was planning to reopen the Council and had preparations made for new sessions, but he was unable to follow through due to lack of cooperation (according to some sources).


texts: Why do people call Mary Magdalene the "Black Madonna"?

texts:
Today I heard something most peculiar, and was wondering if there is a Biblical basis and/or if there were other denominations that teach this.

An older gentleman whom I know very well, and almost think of as a father, during a discussion about Mary Magdalene said (verbatim):

  Oh, well you see - some call her the "Black Madonna." (Because we had talked about theories as to whether her and Jesus could have been married - though this is irrelevant to the question at hand)

This is a most perplexing "revelation" to me, knowing that Biblically we know that Mary was saved from a life of sin to serve Jesus Christ.

I've looked all over the internet, and the most I can find about anything "Black Madonna" related is depictions of Mary, Mother of Jesus as a black woman.

What is the basis for this teaching? Is there any Biblical basis it? What groups teach it today?


texts: What is the non-abstract definition of love according to the Bible?

texts:
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)

   4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

This is one of the main verses Christians refer to when talking about love. I think this verse is helpful in showing the practical forms love takes but does not define what love is. Now I know that the English word for love is not as descriptive as the Greek are but those definitions deal with how we love (agape - unconditional) or who we love (filio - brotherly love). I want a non-abstract definition of what love is, not how, who, or why, according to the Bible. I imagine that it should take a look at many verses since I don't know of just one that lays it out, but I would be glad to be shown wrong.


texts: Did any of the Apostolic Fathers know Paul?

texts: Is there any extra-biblical written evidence that any of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e., the early Christian theologians of the 1st and 2nd centuries) knew the Apostle Paul? If so, what is the written evidence that they were taught by Paul or even heard him preach? Are any of them mentioned in the Bible?


texts: Does "Where ever there is more than one of you gathered in My name" apply to the Internet?

texts:
I mean I'd like to think so...and people communicate on this site about Christianity, but I was wondering if a virtual gathering counted as well.

The verse I'm referring to is Matthew 18:20:

  20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”


texts: How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the unique wording of Colossians 1:15-17 in the NWT?

texts:
Compare the wording of the NWT and the NKJV at Colossians 1:15-17

NKJV says

  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [a]principalities or [b]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

NWT says

  15  He is the image of the invisible God,the firstborn of all creation;16  because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17  Also, he is before all other things,and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the usage of the word “other” in these verses? And what support for bringing this word into the text is there among Greek language aficionados?


texts: What is the purpose and basis for the special garments issued to temple-going Mormons?

texts:
I understand that there are certain garments which temple-going Mormons are obliged to wear after going through their initial Temple Ceremony.  My question is regarding the basis for this.  When did it originate?  Was it a new revelation from God?  Is it recorded in any LDS Scriptures or the Doctrines & Covenants?  Does it have any relation to the priestly garments worn by Levites in the Old Testament?

I also understand that there are various symbols on them.  What are the specific purposes of those?

I do not wish to be irreverent here.  That would not be constructive, so please observe the same tone in any answers.


texts: Do Catholics have an "Apocrypha" or just a "Bible"?

texts:
Pardon my ignorance here, but I am just wondering if the Apocrypha is labeled as such by Catholics?

To clarify, a Protestant would refer to the 66 books of Protestant Scripture as "the Bible", and to the "extra" books in the Catholic Bible as "the Apocrypha". What I am wondering is whether:

A) Catholics have a "Bible" which includes "the Apocrypha" as well as 66 other books, or

B) Catholics just have a "Bible" and reject the label "Apocrypha"

If the answer is A, do the "66 other books" have a label as well?


texts:
I am looking for Pre-Vatican II sources of guidelines (norms) for vestment making, including their traditional guidelines for lining colors for the priestly vestments that priests wear at the altar, as well as what color of orphreys* are permitted on the vestments, etc.

For example, I believe that it was tradition that sliver was the only color that was allowed to adorn black vestments prior to Vatican II?

Any sources would be greatly appreciated.

*The OED defines "orphrey" as "2. Christian Church. A usually richly embroidered ornamental border, band, or panel on a liturgical vestment, altar frontal, etc."


texts: What is Augustine's original of Tolstoy's "Three Hermits" story?

texts:
Leo Tolstoy's charming short story Three Hermits (Три старца) of 1886
has frequently been cited in academic and popular works about prayer.
I don't want to spoil the ending - the (short!) text can be readily found
online in English
and Russian.
There's even a film dramatization in Притчи 2 (2011)
(19m25 video). Tolstoy, a collector of folk tales, apparently
did not originate this story, but adapted or expanded it from one
he had heard.

In the 1961 translation by Gleb Struve
(Russian Tales, Bantam Books, 1961) he remarks:

  At the core of the legend lies a well-known subject, a variant of which can
  be found in St. Augustine. St. Augustine's version of the legend became known
  in Russia in the sixteenth century. It is unlikely, however, that Tolstoy used
  as his source any of the bookish versions; the legend probably
  came to him in an oral retelling. p165

Similarly, Donald Barthelme's
short story At the Tolstoy Museum (New Yorker, 24 May 1969, p32ff),
later collected in City Life (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970),
includes the lines:

  [Three Hermits] is written in a very simple style. It is said to originate in a folktale.
    There is a version of it in St. Augustine.

It is not hard to find other people mentioning an Augustinian connection, but I haven't found anything more specific.
"In St. Augustine" is not a very helpful citation, given the
size of his corpus.

Does anyone know where Augustine's version of the story can be found (or indeed any non-Tolstoy version)?
How does Tolstoy's retelling differ from his Russian sources or from Augustine's original,
and do any of those differences relate to Tolstoy's specific Christian beliefs (for example, Christian anarchism and its rejection of church authority)?


texts: How is Lutheran apostolic succession conferred?

texts: I noticed in a comment that Lutherans have apostolic succession I figured this was a purely Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox thing is there a comparable Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Lutheran world?


texts: Has any scholar argued that the Trinity doctrine solves the "best possible world" and "divine freedom to create" objections?

texts:
Quoting the wikipedia article, "The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil." It is well known that this claim can be the subject of serious criticism. One example of that criticism is the last book by philosopher of religion William Rowe, Can God Be Free?, of which I link a review by Professor Timothy O'Connor.

Quoting the possibly minimum summary of Rowe's position from the Amazon page:

  This book focuses on God's freedom and praiseworthiness in relation to
  his perfect goodness. Given his necessary perfections, if there is a
  best world for God to create he would have no choice other than to
  create it. For, as Leibniz tells us, 'to do less good than one could
  is to be lacking in wisdom or in goodness'. But if God could not do
  otherwise than create the best world, he created the world of
  necessity, not freely. And, if that is so, it may be argued that we
  have no reason to be thankful to God for creating us, since, as parts
  of the best possible world, God was simply unable to do anything other
  than create us―-he created us of necessity, not freely. Moreover, we
  are confronted with the difficulty of having to believe that this
  world, with its Holocaust, and innumerable other evils, is the best
  that an infinitely powerful, infinitely good being could do in
  creating a world. Neither of these conclusions, taken by itself, seems
  at all plausible. Yet each conclusion appears to follow from the
  conception of God now dominant in the great religions of the West.

  William Rowe presents a detailed study of this important problem, both
  historically in the writings of Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Clarke,
  Thomas Aquinas, and Jonathan Edwards, and in the contemporary
  philosophical literature devoted to the issue. Rowe argues that this
  problem is more serious than is commonly thought and may require some
  significant revision in contemporary thinking about the nature of God.

Now, it is clear that the issue raised by Rowe is solved fully and simply by Christian trinitarian doctrine, according to which:

A. God the Father indeed produced the best possible world that He could: the infinitely perfect divine "world" ad-intra of the Holy Trinity, though He did it not by creation but by eternal emanation or procession, and

B. God the Father eternally generates the Son and spirates with Him the Holy Spirit by necessity of nature (*), not by a libertarian free decision.

So, God the Father indeed cannot do otherwise than produce the best world, which is the divine "world" ad-intra, and He eternally does it by necessity of nature (*).

(*) as opposed to necessity from want or necessity from external imposition.

Question: Has any scholar already offered this answer to Rowe's issue?

Note that the question is fully objective. I am not asking for opinions on whether the answer is consistent with Christian doctrine or on whether it actually solves the issue raised by Rowe.


texts: When Meister Eckhart deliniates the "ground" and "powers" of the soul, what is he differentiating?

texts:
I'd like to know where to look for scholarly articles that could help elucidate unclear points in ancient writings. For instance, Desert Fathers speak a lot about "heart", "spirit", "mind", "thoughts", etc., and consider all to be different.

Specifically, I fail at mapping those notions to something more understandable in modern terms. Meister Eckhart, in particular, clearly separates "ground" of the soul ("spark", "castle") from "powers" of the soul (higher intellect, will, lower intellect, emotions, etc.). I don't clearly understand the difference.

Moreover, I sometimes fear that the difference cannot be grasped in verbal terms, because analytical thinking might be constricted to "powers" of the soul in Eckhart's terms. That said, any direction in helping to describe these otherwise ineffable concepts would be useful.


texts: Who were the "giants" mentioned in the Bible?

texts:
I've come across several verses in the Bible that speak of "giants". For example:

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

However, I haven't been able to understand who exactly the giants were. Does this just refer to a race of men who were unusually large? Or were they not men but actually a separate species, and if so do we know anything of their origins?


texts: Should a Protestant read the apocryphal books of the Bible?

texts: The Protestant Bible has 66 books. Should we read apocryphal books (e.g. 1&2 Maccabees and Gospel of Thomas)?


texts: Are the Bible and God the same... thing/being?

texts: Or why do people here always ask "What does the Bible say?"... why not ask the proper "What does God say?".


texts: Example for children of common sense in the Bible

texts:
I'm looking for one or more examples, preferably stories, of common sense in the Bible. This is for teaching church children, aged 5-8. Ideally, the story will involve peer pressure, and someone resisting going along with the group.

There are examples of foolishness which I could use, eg:

Aaron and the Golden Calf
Rehoboam's revolt

and numerous others but I'm looking for the opposite, a wise decision. I'm trying to find a situation that children can relate to, so eg Solomon judging between two women wouldn't work. And though I say wise, I'm looking for more like "common sense". That is, sometimes we just need to use the brain God has given us and not wait for Divine Inspiration.

Any stories fit this?


texts: How have mainstream Christian denominations interpreted the Acts command to abstain from blood?

texts:
Acts 15:28  and  29 tells us that basically all of the old law covenant is no longer to be observed except:

Acts 15:28 KJV  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Are we under obligation to avoid any or all of those 4 things today?

Acts 15:29 KJV  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Most religions are in agreement that sexual immorality (fornication)should be avoided.
Of particular interest is what it meant in ancient times to abstain from blood and what it means now in modern times to abstain from blood.
As far as I know only the Jehovahs Witnesses refuse blood transfusing for religious reasons.
I would like an overview of mainstream Christian groups' interpretation of this scripture, in light of the vastly different conditions we have now with most of us never being involved in the slaughter of the animals we consume, in addition to the many medical therapies that involve blood and fractions thereoff.


texts: How does one explain that the Church is the Bride of Christ?

texts:
Allow me to explain my view first:

  Matthew 9:15

  KJV: And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

  NIV: Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Here Jesus says the apostles are the guests.

  Matthew 25:1

  George Howard - Hebrew Gospel of Matthew: Again Jesus said to his disciples: The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins who took their lamps and went forth to meet a bridegroom and a bride.

This verse from the Aramaic scriptures tells us the virgins (we, Christians) will meet both the bridegroom and bride.

  Revelation 21:9-10

  KJV: And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Here the Angel shows John the bride, which turns out to be New Jerusalem. So all this tells me that we are not the bride but New Jerusalem is.

Now, I've heard many protestant Christians call themselves the bride. So my question is, how is this view justified with scripture?


texts: What is the "new doctrine" that Leo Tolstoy mentions in *Anna Karenina*?

texts:
In Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina (1873-1877), there's a point where the author refers to a "new doctrine" that was fashionable among the Russian upper classes. The following extract is from Part 5, Chapter 22 (translated by Nathan Haskell Dole, 1899), in which Anna's husband Alexei is comforted by Lidia Ivanovna.

"How can you be ashamed of what is the highest degree of Christian perfection? He who humbles himself shall be exalted. And you cannot thank me. Thank Him, pray to Him for help. In Him alone we can find peace, consolation, salvation, and love".
She raised her eyes to heaven, and began to pray, as Alexei Aleksandrovitch could see by her silence.
Alexei Aleksandrovitch listened to her, and this phraseology, which before seemed, not unpleasant to him, but extravagant, now seemed natural and soothing. He did not approve of this new ecstatic mysticism. He was a sincere believer, and religion interested him principally in its relation to politics; and the new doctrine which arrogated to itself certain terms, for the very reason that it opened the door to controversy and analysis, had aroused his antipathy from principle.
[...]
But nevertheless, the countess's help was to the highest degree useful to him. Her affection and esteem were a moral support to him, and, as it gave her great consolation to think, she almost succeeded in converting him to "Christianity"; in other words, she changed him from an indifferent and lukewarm believer into a fervent and genuine partizan of that new method of explaining the Christian doctrine which shortly after came into vogue in Petersburg. It was easy for Alexei Aleksandrovitch to put his faith in this exegesis. [...] Thus he saw no impossibility or unlikelihood in death existing for unbelievers and not for him, that because he held a complete and unquestioning faith, judged in his own way, his soul was already free from sin, and that even in this world he might look upon his safety as assured.
It is true, Alexei Aleksandrovitch dimly felt the frivolity, the fallacy, of this presentation of the faith.

Which particular "new doctrine" and movement is Tolstoy referring to? It is described as having a mystic element, evidently with some connection to humility and prayer, and also, for believers alone, the assurance of salvation, with a form of perfectibility or sinlessness.
Tolstoy himself refers to it as frivolous and fallacious, so presumably it diverges from his own religious views; it's also evidently not the mainstream position of the Russian Orthodox Church. Historically speaking, we are in late nineteenth-century Russia, among the upper crust of society, and perhaps in St Petersburg specifically.


texts: How was Pelagianism originally formally defined?

texts: The terms "Pelagianism" and "Semipelagianism" are often used in polemical contexts, but what was specifically anathematized by the church when the Pelagian heresy was originally condemned?


texts: what is the background situation of Paul's vow ? (Acts 18:18)

texts: After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. (Acts 18:18, ESV)


texts: Justification of Offertories according to the Regulative Principle of Worship

texts: I was in a church today that considers itself to hold strictly to the regulative principle of worship (that which is not explicitly commanded for public worship in Scripture is implicitly condemned) and was puzzled that a choir sang an offertory—sang without the congregation during the taking up of the offering. I am wondering, given their position on worship, what the Biblical justification for this practice might be. Is this practice defensible from Scripture, given the regulative principle?


texts: What roles are women allowed to play in LDS Sunday services?

texts: On a Sunday when a Latter-day Saints congregation meets, what roles are women allowed or not allowed to play in the service?


texts: How did Paul know that Satan hindered his movements?

texts:
It took me by surprise that Paul sounds very certain that Satan blocked him from coming back to Thessalonica. How could he know that? And how do we know, from the scriptures, that he is not just passing the blame to Satan?

  But since we were torn away from you, brothers, for a short time, in person not in heart, we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face, because we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us. (1 Thessalonians 2:17-18, ESV)


texts: Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15?

texts:
Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15 ?
I was thinking Moses was talking about Jesus, but Jesus is not considered a prophet is he ?

Deuteronomy 18:14-16 (NIV)
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”


texts: According to proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, why do we still die?

texts:
According to the theory of atonement known as penal substitution, the sin of a person is atoned for by the work of Jesus – he paid the penalty for the sin himself when he died, satisfying the requirement of God's wrath.

However, it appears that people still die. According to proponents of penal substitution, why do we still die if Jesus already died in our place?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for liberation theology?

texts:
Gustavo Gutierrez is the theologian most associated with the concept of Liberation Theology, a theology that is highly popular amongst liberals and South Americans. Some of its main points include:

Jesus' "preference for the poor"
A call to social action
and a bias against all institutions, including the church

I can understand the "preference for the poor" by looking at the overall tone of Luke, but I'm having difficulty understanding the Scriptural basis that the Gospel as primarily a call for social action.  Where does this come from? (again, outside of Luke.  I do get the whole Magnificat thing)

What is the underlying scriptural basis of liberation theology?


texts: Is there an equivalent of analytic meditation in Protestantism?

texts:
Analytic meditation, as defined:

  Our minds are filled with confused thoughts and beliefs; often, even when we recognize logically that our beliefs are wrong, they are so embedded that they are virtually impossible to shed. By employing vigorous analytical methods and reasoning, we can deconstruct these beliefs, actively examining the concepts we cling to and questioning whether they really exist. With practice, logic becomes more sustainable, and understanding gains force, leading to wisdom.

Is there any equivalent of analytic meditation in any Christian tradition/denomination/sect, specifically in Protestant tradition? If yes, what are the supporting scriptures?


texts: How do Biblical Unitarians understand what some theologians refer as the Kenosis in Philippians 2?

texts:
Philippians 2:5-9 describes the attitude of humility, love, and service which Christ Jesus possessed while on earth:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name...

There is much already said about what it means to "be in the form of God" and "equality with God" in the literature of both trinitarians and non-trinitarians.  See here for a start.  This question is not about those particular aspects of what some theologians, in expounding this passage, have termed "the Kenosis".
The question is regarding the notions of "emptying" and "taking the form of".  The passage seems to present that in order for Jesus to be found in the form of a servant he needed to empty himself.  More specifically, it states that he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of a man.
If Jesus did not pre-exist his birth then:

By taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of a man he emptied himself of what, exactly?

How can one empty oneself by birth as a man if one does not pre-exist that birth?


texts: What is meant by hot drinks in section 89 of the doctrine and covenant?

texts:
I know that the LDS are against the taking of any kind of recreational drug including widely legal drugs like tobacco. However, when reading section 89 of the doctrine and covenant there appears to be an explicit ban on "hot drinks". Is this interpreted as referring to tea and coffee or is this a literal ban on warm beverages of all kinds that have no drug properties e.g. peppermint tea or even just hot water?

What is meant by "hot drinks"?


texts: Can a married woman enter heaven if she bears no children?

texts: Is there biblical basis for the idea that if a married woman bears no children she won't go to heaven? Is there a biblical basis against the idea?


texts: Were any Popes critics of the Iberian "Blood purity" doctrines?

texts:
Spain had at one point of its history a significant Jewish population (Sephardi Jews) as well as a large Muslim minority following the conquests of Islamic realms in Iberia. Judaism and Islam were both outlawed in Spain and Portugal, forcing many people to either go into exile or convert to Christianity.
The repression did not end with conversion, as there was considerable legal and social strain directed against people who could not trace a sufficiently Christian ancestry. These people were known as converso or morisco and were subject to many restrictions evolving over the centuries, including for instance bans from military or public offices. Collectively, the system of repression was known as Limpieza de sangre, meaning "purity of blood", and it created a de facto caste system in the Spanish Empire until the system's gradual dismantling in the 19th century.
Doctrines ostracizing converts and especially later progeny of converts seems like it undermines the sacrament of baptism. The Spanish nation is known of its strong bond to the Catholic church, so it would seem natural that a Pope would opine on the issue and have their word taken seriously.
Did any Catholic Pope comment on these "blood purity" doctrines? What was the reception?


texts: The meaning of "The Other" in the writings by pope John Paul II

texts:
In a letter by pope John Paul II I found the following quote where he talks about God as 'the Other'. I know this term is used in phenomenology and by Levinas, Lacan and perhaps others, but I was wondering to which thinker, theologian or area of philosophy or theology he was referring to when he uses 'the Other' instead of God. Does he (or other prominent catholics) use this term in other letters or books?

  We must confess that we all have need of this silence, filled with the presence of him who is adored: in theology, so as to exploit fully its own sapiential and spiritual soul; in prayer, so that we may never forget that seeing God means coming down the mountain with a face so radiant that we are obliged to cover it with a veil (cf. Ex 34:33), and that our gatherings may make room for God's presence and avoid self - celebration; in preaching, so as not to delude ourselves that it is enough to heap word upon word to attract people to the experience of God; in commitment, so that we will refuse to be locked in a struggle without love and forgiveness. This is what man needs today; he is often unable to be silent for fear of meeting himself, of feeling the emptiness that asks itself about meaning; man who deafens himself with noise. All, believers and non - believers alike, need to learn a silence that allows the Other to speak when and how he wishes, and allows us to understand his words.

-- John Paul II, Orientale Lumen 16 (1996)


texts: Is calling the church the "body of Christ" merely a metaphor or is there a deeper significance?

texts:
In numerous places in the New Testament the church is called the "body of Christ." Is this merely a metaphor for the church's role or is it related to the doctrine of the incarnation?

I suspect it is merely a metaphor but, even so, may shed some light on the incarnation, but I don't know how. A little help would be nice.


texts: Did Jerome’s doctrine of Mariology affect his translation?

texts:
In a recent Q&A on Hermeneutics.SE, I made an arguement that carried the implication that Jerome's translation of κεχαριτωμένη ('favored one’)† as gratia plena ('full of grace’)† in Luke 1:28 was misleading, conflated as it is with another phrase that has a different meaning in Greek. It was rightly pointed out that I didn't discuss the reason why Jerome made that decision.  Since I don't see an obvious linguistic explanation,* I wondered if there might be a doctrinal and/or sociological explanation.

In another Q&A on Christianity.SE, Jerome is cited as a key proponent of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm not sure whether that has anything to do with the appellation “full of grace” or not. Other aspects of Mariology seem more relevant.

I'm interested in knowing:

What did Jerome believe about the immaculate conception?
What did he believe about Mary as Mediatrix of graces?
Did he use Luke 1:28 in defense of any Mary-related doctrine?

† Glosses extracted from ESV and Douay Rheims, respectively.

*Particularly with regard to translation decisions, even if I disgree with the choice, I can sometimes see the reasons for a different decision. Here I don’t.


texts: How does spiritual maturity affect our hermeneutic (how we interpret the Bible)?

texts:
The are various Bible passages that compare learning to the phase of infancy to adulthood. I assume children and adults have a similar hermeneutic, in terms of logic, yet they do not see things the same way. I wonder how we can broaden our view of exegesis to account for different stages of spiritual maturity. Are there any common ways of looking at scriptures through the eyes of a child, compared to that of an adult?
Here are some samples:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.(1 Corinthians 13:11)
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? (1 Corinthians 3:2-3)
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God. (Hebrews 5:13)


texts: Was Luke, the author of the Gospel and Acts, a slave?

texts:
"It is possible that Paul’s “relative” Lucius is Luke, the author of
  the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. On his second missionary
  journey, Paul may have gone to Troas (where Luke lived—or at least
  where he joined Paul) because he knew a relative he could stay with
  there (Acts 16:8, 11)." -
  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1995/issue47/4702.html

I know a related question is this: Who was Luke in the Bible? But I find the answer lacking. I recently heard teaching on slavery in the New Testament by Michael Card, and he presented Luke as a slave, and physicians in general as slaves in the time of the New Testament.

  The 'doctors' in ancient Rome were not nearly as highly regarded as
  the doctors in Greece. The profession itself, outside of the legions,
  was considered a low social position, fit for slaves, freedmen and
  non-latin citizens, mainly Greeks. unrv.com

He also taught that slaves in that time were named one of two way, 1) by the master's desired characteristic for the slave (the most common slave name, philokurios - loving of the master, and Philemon - dear one), or 2) by a nickname of the master (i.e. Michael would name his slave Mike).

Paul mentions a relative, Lucius. Lucius would name his slave Luke. As a physician, he would have been given to Paul to care for his ailment, (or thorn?). That would explain why Luke traveled so extensively with Paul.

Michael Card does have a book on both slavery and Luke, and I will be getting to those, but how come I've never heard this before? Is there substantial evidence pointing to a definitive yes or no?


texts: What event does Revelation 17:16, 17 refer to according to Mormons?

texts:
This is a follow-up to my other question about the meaning of the "harlot" and the "scarlet coloured beast" mentioned in Revelation 17:3-5.

In this case I wanted to ask about verses 16 and 17 where the beast attacks the harlot. These verses read as follows in KJV:

  16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
  her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their
  hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto
  the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Presumably the above verses and the context refer to something that was still in the future from John's day because the preceding verses 10-14 say the following about the kings (particularly the parts I marked in bold text) , according to KJV:

  10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. (emphasis added)

According to LDS church, what event are verses 16 and 17 referring to?

Update: I wanted to ask this question because the student manual linked to in the answer to the previous question did not state what event this attack was a reference to. As a side note, since these "10 kings" that destroy the "harlot" also fight against "the Lamb", both events (i.e. the destruction of the harlot and the battle against the Lamb) probably will happen during end-times


texts: When Did Catholics Cease to Fast as the Orthodox Do?

texts:
From what I understand, the Western and Eastern churches fasted identically for a long time: Wednesday and Friday, and the entirety of Lent. Is this untrue?

If not, when and why did the Catholics stop fasting on Wednesday and Friday and throughout Lent as the Orthodox fast?


texts: Are there any denominations that teach their members how to hear God's voice better, as exemplified by the Apostles in Scripture?

texts:
From time to time I have come across people who claim to have heard the voice of God speak to them in various circumstances. To someone who has never experienced this firsthand, this may sound a bit crazy, but the Bible is not without examples where this phenomenon is reported to have happened to the apostles. For example:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (ESV):

7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Acts 10:9-21 (ESV):

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
17 Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate 18 and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. 19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” 21 And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your coming?”

If the apostles experienced this, it is not far-fetched to think that Christians nowadays may also experience this. In light of this realization, I'd like to know (1) if there are any denominations that actually believe in this possibility (that God still speaks to people today), and if so, (2) if there are denominations that provide explicit teaching or training to their members on how to become more sensitive to God's voice to be able to hear Him better on a more consistent basis.


texts: How do the 3 Protestant traditions deal with the two types of sin mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17?

texts:
When reading the letters of John the other day I was struck by 1 John 5:16-17:

¹⁶ If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God[a] will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

To me this is a very straightforward and a plain indicator of the two types of sin distinguished by no lesser authority than the apostle John himself.
The Catholic tradition calls the two types of sin venial (don't lead to death) and mortal (lead to death), with an accompanying detailed teaching on how to distinguish them and how to deal with them.  See this article for a good introductory explanation and see Matt Gutting's answer for other scriptural support.
For preliminary research:

I found a good exposition of Patristic view of venial vs. mortal sin including many citations from St. Augustine, which Protestants hold in high esteem: Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin.  The same article proposes an explanation of why John Calvin broke with the 1,000+ year long tradition.
Please note, that in the Catholic tradition, 1 John 5's "sin that leads to death" (forgivable through the sacrament of penance) is different than "unforgivable sin".  Therefore, I would be very interested in how the reformers (Calvin, Luther, John Wesley) changed the interpretation of the relevant verses.
Based on Lesley's preliminary answer and other answers on this site (such as this) it seems that Protestant traditions either conflates 1 John's "sin leading to death" with Matt 22:31's "unforgivable sin" or avoids the issue altogether.  If so, a good Protestant answer should provide good exegetical grounds for equating "sin that leads to death" with "unforgivable sin", or else the answer should explain what John meant in the letter (like what Catholics do).

My question is: In contrast with the Catholic tradition, how do various Protestant traditions (Reformed, Lutheran, and Methodist) take this distinction and apply it to the life of believers?


texts: What does it mean to be "born of water" in John 3:5?

texts:
John 3:5 (NKJV)

  Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of
  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Does "born of water" means baptism i.e., water being used in that or Jesus mean something else?


texts: Does this passage imply salvation cannot be lost?

texts:
How would this passage be interpreted by someone who believes that salvation can be lost?

John 10:27-30 ESV

  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give
  them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch
  them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater
  than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
  I and the Father are one.”


texts: What is the significance of a double cross?

texts: What is the significance of a cross with two cross-bars to Christians? Does it carry different symbolism than a normal cross?


texts: How does Christianity work with all the biblical covenants?

texts: One major theme of the Bible is the number of covenants between God and humanity. How do Christians manage to work them out? Are the covenants prioritized from highest priority to lowest priority, or are they all of equal weight or importance? For Christians who may hold a dual-covenant theology, how does that work out? Do they really submit themselves to the Torah?


texts:
The following verses about David and Jonathan's relationship have lead some to say their relationship was more than platonic. Is there any reason to think that was the case?

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. (1 Samuel 18:1, NASB)
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:3, ESV)
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. (2 Samuel 1:26, NIV)


texts: If the Holy Trinity is defined as three distinct faces, people or persons of God, does this not directly contradict the first commandment?

texts:
THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS ON MY FACE.

One of the most common explanations I've seen floating around in the Internet is a picture:

It denotes the 'Godhead'. In my understanding, heads, and persons, are distinctly unique because of their face. If this Godhead has 3 distinct faces, does the idea of the trinity not completely contradict the very notion of the first commandment?  The Father IS NOT The Son, The Son IS NOT The Holy Ghost, And the Holy Ghost IS NOT The Father. Each entity here represents a distinct face of God. How does this not explicitly contradict the very first commandment?

Further, the second commandment also states that THOU SHALT NOT CREATE ANY GRAVEN IMAGES IN THE LIKENESS OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS ABOVE or ON THE EARTH BELOW or beneath it.

Taken from https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/idolatry:
Idolatry, [N] [T] [E]
strictly speaking denotes the worship of deity in a visible form...

Do these two items, side by side, not explicitly condemn our notion of trinitarianism AND God-Incarnation? Does this also explain why we cannot find any of our church fathers or primary sources in the first 300 years of our tradition expounding upon this clearly? My wife quoted 2 lines for citing the trinity: baptise in the name of the father ..., and there are 3 that bear witness in heaven. The former doesn't explicitly denote the doctrine to me and the latter was actually thrown out from many versions that are currently being published in the bible as a known fabrication.  I guess the question is, besides Athansian Creed, from where did this idea come from? How can people tamper with the word of God so easily without conscience? This is my first question (or first few questions) here and I'd just like people to be somewhat sensitive to the matter if my knowledge-base just isn't there. I think this is why forums like this exist. Thank you!

PS I think I have considered myself a Unitarian for the greater part of 10 years now but my wife continues to urge me to ask questions so, here I am. She is Protestant.

PSS I've read quite a few answers here so I'd like to exclude anyone from citing Jesus as saying "I am the first and the last, the alpha and the omega" since, by ALL accounts, Jesus did not speak Greek so I don't know why the Bible authors quote him as claiming to be the first and the last character in the Greek Alphabet.


texts: Did John Calvin ever read Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica?

texts:
I've read in a few places online (here, for example), that John Calvin did not have access to Thomas Aquinas's great treatise, Summa Theologica.

This is mind-blowing.  Consider: The last edition of John Calvin's Institutes was published in 1560, four years before his death.  Thomas Aquinas stopped working on Summa Theologica when he died in 1274, almost 300 years prior.  Thomas Aquinas died in Italy, while John Calvin was born in France and died in Switzerland: two countries that share a border with Italy.  How could it take 300 years for a seminal work like this to travel a few hundred miles?

I'm not sure that we can easily attribute this to negligence on the part of Calvin, as he clearly valued interacting with (and often criticizing) his intellectual forebears, as seen in his frequent references to church fathers and the Scholastics (the "schoolmen").

What is the evidence that Calvin read or did not read Summa Theologica? And if he never read it, what prevented him from doing so?


texts: Who is Augustine arguing against in his Confessions, book 12?

texts:
In Augustine's Confessions, book XII, chapters xvi–xvii (23–24), he writes about his disagreements with others over the proper interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis 1. Augustine holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to the out-of-time creation of the spiritual realms and a formless "earth," while his opponents argue that "heaven and earth" refer only to the visible creation.
He quotes their views as follows:

They say: 'Although this may be true, yet Moses did not have these two things in mind when by the revelation of the Spirit he said: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth" (Gen. 1:1).  By the word "heaven" he did not mean the spiritual or intellectual creation which continually looks on God's face, nor by the word "earth" did he intend formless matter.'  What then?  They say: 'What that man had in mind was what we say he meant, and this is what he expressed in those words.' [...]
'By the phrase "heaven and earth"', they say, 'Moses meant to signify in general and concise terms the entire visible world, so that thereafter under the successive days he could arrange one by one each category which it pleased the Holy Spirit to list in this way.  The character of the people addressed was rough and carnal, and so he decided to present to them only the visible works of God.' (XII.xvii)

In the Confessions Augustine often argues against the Manicheans, but that's apparently not the case in this section.  The people in view here "honour your holy scripture written by that holy man Moses and agree with us that we should follow its supreme authority" (XII.xvi), and the Manicheans certainly didn't do that.
Do scholars have any idea who these opponents were?  Do their writings survive?

Quoted text here comes from Henry Chadwick's translation of the Confessions.  Other translations are freely available online, such as on CCEL (XII.xvi and XII.xvii).


texts: Why did people live so long before the Flood?

texts:
In Genesis 5, some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah.

How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?


texts: How did Luther view relics, like the 'preserved head of John the Baptist'?

texts:
According to wiki

Roman Catholic tradition holds that the head on display in San Silvestro in Capite in Rome is that of John the Baptist, discovered for the second time, as also maintained by Pope Benedict XVI in August 2012.

What the Pope said:

The pope also spoke about a fragmented piece of St. John's head that is kept as a relic in the Church of Saint Sylvester in Rome.
“In the Roman Martyrology, reference is made to a second finding of the precious relic, transported, on this occasion, in the church of San Silvestro in Rome. These little historical references help us to understand how how and deeply St. John the Baptist is venerated.”

There is also some similar Islamic tradition about this relic mentioned there.
My question is what did Martin Luther think about the 'preserved head' and other equally impressive holy relics?


texts: Did the LDS ever recognize non-LDS polygamous marriages?

texts:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) at one time performed and recognized polygamous marriages. In 1890, they ceased performing new polygamous marriages but continued to recognize polygamy (existing polygamous relationships were not dissolved, but no new polygamous marriages could be performed by the LDS church).

Did the LDS church ever recognize, or have a procedure for recognizing, polygamous marriages entered into under the rules of another religion? For example, Islam permits a man to have up to four wives. If a polygamous Muslim converted to the LDS faith, was there (or is there) a structure, policy, practice, or principle in place to recognize them immediately as a polygamous Mormon upon conversion, or were polygamous marriages "stripped" from converts in a sense?

Marriages performed outside of the LDS church are recognized by the LDS church as valid (though not eternal), but it is unclear if only monogamous marriages are thus recognized or whether they consider any marriage that is not inherently repugnant to the laws of God to be valid. Islam does recognize non-Muslim polygamy for persons converting to Islam to the extent that the polygamy does not violate the rules of marriage in Islam (in the referenced hadith, a convert to Islam who already had more wives than is allowed in Islam was allowed to choose which wives to keep), so it stands to reason that accommodation of polygamous converts to a faith is a realistic concern.

I will admit that mid-1800's Middle America wasn't exactly swarming with polygamous Muslims or polygamous followers of other faiths, so this was not a day-to-day concern, but still someone must have thought about the theory and what would eventually be done if the sphere of polygamous Mormons were to expand across the world.

If the LDS church had a procedure for adjudicating the validity or acceptability of a polygamous marriage solemnized outside of the LDS faith, that counts as an answer, even if that procedure was never invoked in any actual cases.


texts:
I thought the knowledge of the truth was knowing that we are shaped in iniquity, sinners through and through, and destined to die that way. However, Jesus death which was the sacrifice that paid for our sins, wiped the slate clean, And now we are no longer slaves to sin and the penalty of death. And that sacrifice is eternal, we just have to accept it, And put our faith in him.

  Hebrews 10:26  For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, KJV

So if we willfully sin after being saved will it be covered by Jesus death and resurrection?


texts: Was Bible Revealed to Jesus? (Christian Perspective)

texts:
I am asking this question from a Muslim perspective. We are told that Zubur and Injeel (Old Testament and New Testament) were revealed to Moses and Jesus just like Quran was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH). From what I understand The Bible (and lets talk about new testament only), was not revelation to Jesus but rather a collection of stories and event of Jesus time which were collected later after his death. Most importantly Bible is not a divine book and was NEVER a divine book. There is no such thing as a book revealed to Jesus. Is my understanding correct. If not in what shape or form Bible was revealed to Jesus.

Again my emphasis is, is Bible the book of revelation on Jesus. I know other people wrote it but what is it's connection directly with Jesus.

Wikipedia

  Although many Western scholars[who?] believe that the Injil, in Muslim
  belief, was a scripture authored by Jesus, the author of the Injil was
  (in Muslim belief) ultimately God, in a manner similar to the way the
  Quran was revealed to Muhammad: that God inspired Jesus with the
  verbatim words of the text which were then written by Jesus' hand.[3]
  Muslims believe that Jesus, who had memorized the revelation, then
  taught it to all his disciples (al-Hawāriyūn).

Please clarify the point above. My argument is, there was no such book as Injil or new testament that was revealed to Jesus. Basically this was made up in Islam (probably because of lack of understanding) which Muslim believe to this day that the writer of Bible is God. From muslim perspective, it means only God himself revealed this directly to Jesus.


texts: Is there a biblical basis for Pescetarianism?

texts:
Pescetarianism is the practice of following a diet that includes fish
  or other seafood, but not the flesh of other animals. (Wikipedia)

Any insights would be really helpful, thanks.

To specify, I'm asking from a Methodist point of view.


texts: Do Catholics view other religion as a sin?

texts:
I'm interested to make this question after reading Do Catholics view atheism as a sin?, where the answer is :

  Yes. Catholicism states quite clearly that atheism is a sin.  Disbelieving
  God means that you are rebelling against God's commands and therefore
  sinning.

The bold word is quite difficult for me to understand, because it can raise a question "whose God ?"

In other words, the sentence above is the same meaning with this sentence :

  Disbelieving Jesus means that he/she is rebelling against God's
  command and therefore sinning.

But then again, it raise a question "whose God command ?"

More complicated:

  Disbelieving Jesus means that he/she is rebelling against Jesus'
  command and therefore sinning.

A person (who has a religion) doesn't believe Jesus.
So, do Catholics view other religion as a sin?


texts: Why was it so special that John the baptist was not called Zechariah?

texts:
After reading 2 chronicles 1-8 (many, many names) I was surprised that noone had the same name as their father, or grand father.

I remembered the story of Zechariah not being able to talk until he told the name of his son, John. The people who heard the name were surprised because no one in the family had the name John.

Why was this so surprising, because in the lists of names in the bible, I do not find people having the same name as their father?


texts: When did the idea start that divine revelation is "finished"?

texts:
When did the idea start that divine revelation to the church ceased? Or in other words, the idea that no more scripture is going to be revealed than is already in the Bible (or in tradition passed on from the time of the apostles)?

I would suppose that this has to be after the Bible was compiled, but I can also see it originating before, with it being still unclear what should be canonical scripture.

Can anyone shed light on when and how this idea started and when it became doctrine (I suppose this is before the Reformation, so this would be catholic doctrine I guess). Or did that idea first start with the Reformation?


texts: How do Christians exercise self-control in the abstinence of food during fasting?

texts:
I am aware of the Lord teaching us to pray, detailing how and how not it should be done, but the only thing he said about fasting was

"Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; " (Matthew 6:16-17).

I do not recall where in the bible but I know faithful servants of God like David, Esther, Isaiah, Barnabas and Simeon fasted. We are even admonished to fast for  spiritual strength.

"Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (1 Corinthians 7:5).

How do christians carry out this exercise when food is very important for strength in the physical?

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. " (John 14:15).
How do Christians keep this very commandment?

Please if anyone could help me put this question in a better way to avoid closure, edits are welcomed
[Expecting @RiverC's answer among the responses as he inspired me to reask better.]


texts: How do Jehovahs Witnesses understand Jesus inheritance of Gods name

texts:
Hebrews 1:3-4 reads:

  the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of
  His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had
  provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the
  Majesty on high. So He became as far superior to the angels as the
  name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs.

The last phrase is particularly interesting, it says that the Son (Jesus) inherited a name. Notably this can't simply mean that Jesus was given a name, but that Jesus was given a name that belonged to someone else. This clearly can't be a name of one of the angels - because it specifies that "the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs" - and it makes little sense for it to be a human name.

My understanding is that Jehovah's witnesses consider Jehovah, to be the greatest name, and the name of God. In this context the only explanation I can see for Jesus being a given a name more excellent than that belonging to the angels is that he is given this name the name of God. This makes sense because if he is inheriting it, he also has to be receiving the name that belonged to the one that gave it.

This makes sense of several passages. For example in Phillipians 2:9 it is written:

  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name
  that is above every name,

If from a Jehovah's wittiness perspective, Jehovah is the greatest name, these passages make sense together. Jesus is given the name Jehovah.

Further this explains why the new testament writers put such a significance on the phrase "Jesus is Lord"  (1 Corinthians 12:3; Romans 10:9; Acts 8:16; 19:5 and 1 Cor 6:11) (notably when the bible was translated into greek the divine name, translated by JWs as Jehovah, is rendered kyrios, the word translated as Lord in these passages). When the apostles and bible writers use this phrase they are affirming that this inheritance of the divine name has taken place.

If this isn't the conclusion that JWs reach, how do they understand these passages?

EDIT:
In the early church there was clearly debate about the relationship between the Christ and his Father - clearly within the lifetimes of the apostles some thought that Christ wasn't divine, and people close to the apostles did (Polycarp, Justin the Martyr, and Ignatious). From a JW perspective, why do people think the apostles used this kind of ambiguous language?

Talking about Jesus "inheriting"/being "given" what appears to be the divine name.
Identifying Jesus frequently as kyrios (i.e. the Greek word that YHWH was replaced with when the Septuagint was translated into Greek, commonly translated as Lord in english bibles).

Was it for example, to avoid refuting the early Christians who believed in the divinity of Christ and thus maintain unity in the church?

[the mainstream christian reading of the bible is that YHWH (and its Greek and English circumlocutions kyrios and Lord) is a name/title shared by the Father, Son and Spirit. It's beyond the scope of this question to discuss what this means in the context of Heb 1 but in the is post I am proposing that the most natural reading of the text is that the writer of the book is discussing that sharing via the metaphor of inheritance, much as the author of Philippians discusses that sharing by metaphor of a gift.]


texts: Is a Catholic dogma that Moses (as the Exodus prophet) actually existed?

texts:
"Modern scholars' consensus" is that:

there is no archaeological evidence that the events described in Exodus occurred.
Moses (as described in the Exodus and other books) is a legendary figure, and not a historical one.

However, in the key episode of the Transfiguration, as written in the synoptic gospels, it is recounted that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus, and they were conversing. Similarly, in many verses Jesus refers to Moses, indicating perhaps that he actually existed, as we would not expect Jesus to lie (although the argument could be made that he was talking to the Hebrews in their own terms, i.e. assuming the myth of the Exodus, if it is a myth).

All mentions of Moses in the Catechism seem not to discuss his historicity, treating events as if they happened. There is however the same treatment for Adam, which we know the Catholic Church does not dogmatically claim to be a historical figure. For instance, Adam's entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (with Imprimatur) reads:

  To what extent these chapters should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question, the discussion of which does not come within the scope of the present article.

However, when it comes to Moses, the Encyclopedia states:

  To deny or to doubt the historic personality of Moses, is to undermine and render unintelligible the subsequent history of the Israelites.

This seems to be a more stronger case for historical reality. Thus, the question: does the Catholic Church declares as dogma of faith that Moses actually existed? I see that some christian denominations do not consider Moses to have been physically there in the Transfiguration event (whilst still not necessarily denying his historicity).


texts: According to the Catholic magisterium, are sedevacantists by definition schismatics?

texts:
This is both a terminology question and a Catholic doctrine question regarding the status of sedevacantists, that is, those who reject the current pope as illegitimate.  I found the following Catholic definition of "schism" in Canon §751:

  schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

This seems like it could plausibly applied to sedevacantists by the "official" Catholic Church, but I'm not sure that it actually is.  The penalty for schism is severe – excommunication, per canon §1364 – and I haven't heard of this being applied.

So my question is, according to the post-Vatican II magisterium of the Catholic Church – that is, the official teachings of the pope (Francis, Benedict XVI, etc.) and his bishops – are believers of sedevacantism necessarily in schism with the Church?  If not, why not?  And if only some are in schism, where is the dividing line?

Note that I'm focusing here on the magisterium – not the views of sedevacantists themselves, nor those of theologians who recognize the legitimacy of post-1970 popes.  Here I'm interested in the official teaching of the Catholic Church (as led by Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc.).


texts: Original Sin as described in The Poem of the Man-God

texts:
How do the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the nature of Original Sin conflict with the (alleged) private revelations of Maria Valtorta, as documented in her book The Poem of the Man-God?

My own research is detailed below.  Thus far I am not aware of any teachings of the Church which would conflict with the parts of The Poem of the Man-God relating specifically to Original Sin.

What I am looking for

The ideal answer will contain all of the following elements:

Specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including:

The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal).
How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).

Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop).
Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts.

A clear and detailed analysis of agreements and contradictions between The Poem of the Man-God and the cited Catholic doctrines.

What I am not looking for

Discussion of Maria Valtorta's (alleged) revelations on topics other than Original Sin and the Fall of Man.
Discussion of the validity of Maria Valtorta's (alleged) revelations, either in part or in their entirety.  Christianity.SE is not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith!
Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.

It should be noted that:

The Poem of the Man-God is a controversial topic within the Church, and the alleged apparitions of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary to
Maria Valtorta have not been classified as constat de
supernaturalite -- at least not at present.  As far as I am aware, it has either not received a full and proper evaluation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or else is currently non constat de supernaturalite.
The Poem of the Man-God was placed on the Index Liborum Prohibitorum which -- although abolished on June 14th 1966 by Pope Paul VI -- still "retains its moral force" (i.e. the work may contain moral and/or doctrinal errors, perhaps even serious ones, and Christians should be appropriately cautious regarding its contents).

Note: This question is a follow up to this one.


texts: Why is Good Friday not called Black Friday?

texts: It make more sense to me that Black Friday should be Good Friday`s name,it would indicate the darkness that over took the earth BETTER!


texts: What are Christians trusting God about, when in fallen world circumstance?

texts:
For example, a woman lives in a physically abusive marriage or a teenager lives in an area where a gang determines what they can and can't do. (i.e. - situations that are chronic and very difficult to transcend.)

They go to church and hear they need to trust God.

Should they be trusting that this is what God wants for their life or something else?

How can trusting God in these circumstances be justified?


texts:
I have this sneaking suspicion that the Asia listed in Acts is not the continent of Asia.

Acts 19:9-10 ESV But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 20:16 ESV For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

If that's the case, then what is the Asia of the Bible?