texts: The task of interpreting the Word of God - The Pope

texts:
CCC Article 2, 100 (Page 35):
"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
What exactly does this mean?  What does interpreting the Word of God imply?


texts: According to evangelicals, who are the Great Multitude at Rev 7:9, who come out of the great tribulation (on earth) where they are given life?

texts:
Revelation 7:4-8 describes the 144,000.    Then another group is mentioned that is the subject for this question.

According to evangelicals, who  are the Great Multitude at Re 7:9,

  Rev 7:9 After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands (ASV)

who come out of the great tribulation (on earth)

  7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

where they are given life?   Don't evangelicals teach that all saved  Christians get eternal life when they go to heaven?

  7:17 for the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.

This question is not about the differences between pre, post tribulation rapture or a-mils.  Focus on the identity of the Great Multitude and whether any evangelical group teaches, as per these verses,  that this group is not in heaven when they get life, after the 144000 are already in heaven.


texts: Can you explain the conflict between 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Isaiah 43:25?

texts:
2 Corinthians 5:10(KJV)

  10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Isaiah 43:25(KJV)

  25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

These scriptures appear to contradict each other. Can you explain, please?


texts: Does the Bible indicate when the Ark of the Covenant officially disappeared?

texts:
As the title asks, does the Bible indicate when, where, or how the ark of the covenant finally disappeared?

If not, do we have any likely clues?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments?

Romans 12:1 says "There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus" and 2 Cor 5 :17 says we are new creations and the old has passed away. I take it that this means our past life is cleaned out and we start afresh. So on the judgement day Christians will not be judged as the slate is new, right? How does this reconcile with Heb 9:27 which says ".. just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" . This Hebrews verse seems to say there is going to be judgment  no matter what. Please shed some light.


texts: What is the Amish view on the use of social media?

texts: Not even sure if they would classify themselves as Christians, but what is their view on social media?


texts: How do young earth creationists explain the evidence for ice ages?

texts:
I am interested to know how those with a "Young Earth" viewpoint (i.e., the earth is approximately 6,000 years old) see the apparent evidence of the ice ages, i.e. that ice sheets formed and eroded the landscapes we see today. Unlike evolution, there is visible evidence of this, and the mountains eroded already contain fossils, i.e., the process could not have taken place before the creation of life.

I have considerable sympathy for an anti-evolution stance, but have not yet found a solution to this one.


texts: The Names of the Individual Sundays of Lent

texts:
I'm not an expert, I read the rules of the community but please go easy on me if I got this wrong.

I've been reading etymologies for a few years now and I have a question about the Sundays in lent. In an archaic dictionary I found this:

  PASE-DAY. Easter-day. The following pro verbial lines refer to the Sundays in Lent : Tid, mid, misera, Carl, Paum, good Pose-day.

But if I'm correct we can look at it like:
1st Sunday, Tid; 2nd Sunday, mid; 3rd Sunday, misera; 4th Sunday (Laetare), Carl; 5th Sunday, Paum (Palm); 6th Sunday, good Pose-day (Easter?)

I think there's a Sunday missing.

And this question is wide open to different names of the same dates. I'm just using the Archaic etymology to develop an understanding of their meanings. So names outside of Archaic are encouraged


texts: Blaspheme one part of the Trinity but not the whole?

texts:
Luke 12:10 NIV

  And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be
  forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it
  will not be forgiven

How is it possible to blaspheme the Son of Man but not the Holy Spirit since the trinity is one?


texts: How does John Polkinghorne define the soul?

texts:
The Reverend Doctor John Polkinghorne, Anglican priest, theoretical physicist, and knight of the British Empire, seems to have interesting ideas about what the soul is. From Wikipedia:

  He regards the mind, soul and body as different aspects of the same underlying reality—"dual aspect monism"—writing that "there is only one stuff in the world (not two—the material and the mental) but it can occur in two contrasting states (material and mental phases, a physicist might say) which explain our perception of the difference between mind and matter."

What is his definition of the soul?


texts: Can Hebrews Chapter 4 use of "Today" Be Used to Refute mistranslation of Luke 23:43 in the New World Translation of the Bible?

texts:
See the "today" doctrine presented in Hebrews:

Hebrews 4:

  6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who
  formerly received the good news failed to enter because of
  disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying
  through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

  “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

  8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of
  another day later on.

...

  11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by
  the same sort of disobedience.

And notice Jesus' response to the repentant man dying beside him:

Luke 23:43

  And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in
  Paradise.”

The paradise, of course, being "the rest" and today being the "today" of the discussion in Hebrews.

Notice the placement of the comma which causes an entire doctrinal omission:

  New World Translation: Truly I tell you today, [notice comma placement] You will be
  with me in Paradise.

My question is this:

Can the passage of Hebrews regarding the hope of "today" be linked with Jesus' assurance to the repentant man dying beside him that he would be in paradise "today"?

If we can indeed connect these two thoughts as proof of "today", is this sufficient proof to explain the  New World Translation misrepresentation of the Luke 23:43?

If Jehovah's Witness doctrine has been engineered to evade even this point, what further investigation needs to be done to fully refute the comma-caused doctrinal omission  regarding "Today"?


texts: Who was Mark's (or John Mark's) father in the Gospel and what was his name.  His mother’s name was Mary. Where can I find the name of Mark’s father mentioned in the bible, if at all?


texts: Can Catholics attend the secular wedding of two people baptized as Catholics?

texts:
I was born and raised Catholic, but became Wiccan a few years ago.  My fiance is Catholic, but neither of us wants a Catholic wedding.  We've decided on a secular ceremony, neither Christian nor pagan.

Most of the people in my mom's family are Catholic extremists.  They claim that because my fiance and I are both baptized, if we don't have a Catholic wedding then by Church doctrine they're not allowed to attend.  (As you can imagine, this is creating a lot of heartache.)  Is there any truth to this?  If not, is there any evidence I can show them that might convince them otherwise?


texts: How does a Catholic church support itself without Tithe?

texts:
Usually, in Protestant churches, the church's income is mostly from tithes and then offerings, and secondarily from any outside sponsors the church may have. I am less informed how the Catholic church raises their funds.

I learned from this post that Catholics don't tithe. As a protestant, I wonder how Catholic churches support themselves.

How does a Catholic church support itself without the money from Tithe?

How generous are Catholics in giving offerings to the church?


texts:
"And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, also how he had executed all the prophets with the sword. Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, “So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I do not make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.” And when he saw that, he arose and ran for his life, and went to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there."-1 Kings 19:1-3

It's understandable how Jezebel got furious after realising that Elijah killed all her best prophets but if she was supposedly so angry about it, why did she decide to curse herself? Why not be explicit and tell Elijah that he should be killed without all of the fancy language? She certainly didn't put on this act when she decided to coldly organise Naboth's execution. Quite counterproductive for an ambitious queen hellbent on vengeance and bloodshed.

Was Jezebel trying to get into Elijah's mind, trying to disturbingly suggest that maybe her god(s) truly existed? Or was it just simply her trying to sound self-righteously pious or conversely, being extremely nihilistic? Imagine the immense foolery Elijah had to put up with.


texts:
Is Satan capable of love?
It does not matter what name we give to the leader of the fallen angels: Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. What I desire to know is if the leader of the fallen angels, commonly known as Satan is genuinely capable of love?
For this question, I desire an overview of what various Christian denominations teach (defined or undefined, official or unofficial) on this subject matter, such as Catholicism, Orthodox, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.


texts: Why do Popes have seven candlesticks on the altar at Mass?

texts:
Why is it that Popes have seven candlesticks on the altar when they pontificate a Solemn Mass? This is something that I have noticed at several Papal Masses. Sometimes the candlestick is set next to the altar, but not always. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have also followed this tradition.

As an example, one may see the seventh candle in this video of Pope Francis' Chrism Mass (2015). The seventh candle is clearly seen at 1:56:24 minutes in and is clearly on the altar, on the left side of Pope Francis.

Does the seventh candle have a traditional symbolism or meaning?


texts:
Per the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, it seems that God was once a man.

Following this out just one step further leads me to the idea that it may be possible for other men to be come a god.

What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?  (Or is my initial understanding wrong?)


texts: Do people have the ability to truly love God, without God guiding them into loving him?

texts:
From this answer:

  Secondly, men do not hate God because of the world he created, they hate God because he is good and they are not. However consciously or unconsciously, they hate him because he is altogether different than they are. They do not understand him and if they did they would not like what they found. The Bible teaches that men love darkness because their deeds are dark and that God is light. (John 3:16-20) Men will naturally hate that which brings judgement to their deeds.

So people are created sinners and they naturally hate God, right? They could try to love God under the influence of teaching but it's just forced change of their nature through mind (so to speak) and when they experience lots of suffering, it is going to break them at some point and they will realize that they don't really feel the love. Unless of course God has blessed them to love him, in which case they will feel the unconditional love for God. But they have no influence here.

  Those who (through God's intervention in giving them a new heart) chose to hate sin and love God on earth ...

So ultimately only a divine intervention can make a person love God?


texts: What would happen if the Pope were to abuse his power?

texts:
I find it difficult to fathom the amount of power the Pope can potentially wield. According to book 2, part 2, section 1, chapter 1, article 1 of the Code of Canon Law the Pope basically has ultimate, irrefutable, supreme power for life. Nothing and no one can remove him from office except for himself if he were to decide to resign.

  "The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.." (canon 331, Code of Canon Law).

  "If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."
  (canon 332 §2).

You obviously don't make it to the position of Pope without being a good guy, but I think any rational individual would agree that there are still serious risks attached to electing one man into a position of supreme power for life. Literally, he can say or do anything without recourse.

  "No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (canon 333 §3).

It doesn't even matter what state of health the Pope is in, and I assume that also means state of mental health, the Pope maintains supreme power.

  "When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be
  altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws
  issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed." (canon 335)

There is no way to remove him from office, or question anything he does, no impeachment process, no appeals, no nothing. If the Pope speaks ex cathedrâ, then it's written in stone.

There have been occasions where a Pope has spoken heresy (see Papal Infallibility and teaching heresy?). The church later repudiated the heretical positions under the claim that they were not spoken ex cathedra. This repudiation would have happened after the death of the Pope.

It seems to be commonly agreed that the Pope would never lead the Church astray, and I don't want a series of answers that go into detail about how unlikely it would be for a wayward Pope to abuse his power. From a secular perspective, the potential exists for one man to take advantage of the amount of power that is given to the Pope.

Here is my question:

If the Pope were to start declaring things ex cathedrâ like, the creeds were null and void, and that all Catholics were required to wear a colander on their heads at all times and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what would happen? Would every Catholic be required to comply? Would it be binding and  irreformable teaching forever? Could the next Pope undo his decree ex cathedrâ? Or could something be done to remove that Pope from power besides pressuring him into resigning?

Other than relying on God or the Spirit to prevent the Pope from abusing his power, what can be done to prevent the Pope from exercising unrighteous dominion?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity

I've heard of the Trinity multiple times and under the basis of it.

He is one God, but with three personalities. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But nowhere do I ever see the word Trinity mentioned in the Bible. If I'm going to believe in a God, wouldn't his name or "nickname" at least be listed once (If that makes any sense)? God has many names listed throughout the Bible, but never is Trinity listed. If the Trinity is the basis of who my God and what he is, wouldn't that term of that basis be defined? It's not like the Bible doesn't describe Him. God is omnipotent, all-powerful, etc. God has been given many names and titles, and has been defined and described of who and what he is, but I've never seen the Trinity defined.

I also never even see anyone get baptized in the names of the father, son, and holy spirit. Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was never "corrected" by God.

Doing a little Google search, I see that the Trinity was introduced years ago by the Roman Catholic church to settle a dispute between the Christians and paganists (sp?). (Long story short).

I would have added more tags, but wasn't allowed to add new tags.


texts: Unitatis Redintegratio: Analogy to describe those in "partial" or "imperfect" communion?

texts:
In the Vatican II decree Unitatis Redintegratio, or "the Decree of Ecunemism," we see the phrase "imperfect" (non perfecta) used to describe "communion" (communio), as well as the typical phrase, "full communion" (communio plena) and "perfect communion" (communio perfecta). Imperfect communion would thus be equivalent to non-full or partial communion (communio non plena).
For example, in Unitatis Redintegratio, §3, it is written,

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.
In hac una et unica Dei Ecclesia iam a primordiis scissurae quaedam exortae sunt,[15] quas ut damnandas graviter vituperat Apostolus;[16] posterioribus vero saeculis ampliores natae sunt dissensiones, et Communitates haud exiguae a plena communione Ecclesiae catholicae seiunctae sunt, quandoque non sine hominum utriusque partis culpa. Qui autem nunc in talibus Communitatibus nascuntur et fide Christi imbuuntur, de separationis peccato argui nequeunt, eosque fraterna reverentia et dilectione amplectitur Ecclesia catholica. Hi enim qui in Christum credunt et baptismum rite receperunt, in quadam cum Ecclesia catholica communione, etsi non perfecta, constituuntur.

Therefore, "full communion" (communio plena) is used to describe the state of those who are in the Catholic Church, that is, in the body of Christ. They are incorporated; they are "in Christ"; they are members of his body. But, I simply do not understand how one can be in "partial" (non plena) or "imperfect" (non perfecta) communion with the body of Christ. It seems to me that you are either in Christ's body (full communion, or simply, in communion), or you are not. That is, there's no middle ground.
The Bible says that we Christians are "members of his body" (1 Cor. 12:27), and his "body" is the Church (Col. 1:18).
Question: Using the analogy of a human body to signify the body of Christ, and understanding that Christians are members (body parts) of that body (hands, legs, arms, eyes, etc.), how does one represent (by analogy) those who are in "imperfect" or "partial" communion with the Church, the body of Christ?


texts:
What is the earliest generally accepted date for the sacerdotal hierarchy of the Christian Church?  My own best guess is that it cannot be much later than the destruction of the Temple, though I realize that there are questions concerning the usage of certain terms such as "presbyter" which concern the threefold hierarchy of deacon, priest, and bishop.  However, bishops are mentioned in the "Didache" as well as by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The question concerns Protestant contentions that the sacerdotal hierarchy is a later Catholic/Orthodox distortion of the New Testament community.  This seems simply historically untenable to me since, if evidence of the hierarchy exists from the first century, a principle of historical continuity can be invoked to bring the institution quite near the earliest community, antedating the possible dates of composition of certain New Testament documents.


texts: Is the validity of the ransom contingent on Jesus being God?

texts:
In discussing the trinity, I've often heard people say that "only God could perform the ransom" or that "only the creator of life could defeat death." What is the basis for these claims?

To give some context, non-trinitarians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that Jesus was a perfect man in the same manner as Adam, but Adam was not God, therefore the ransom doesn't necessarily need to be by God, but it does need to be by a corresponding perfect man. (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6)

What is the basis (Biblical or otherwise) for believing that Jesus must also be God in order for his ransom to be valid, especially within the framework of the Recapitulation theory of atonement?


texts: Is every Doctor of the Church a Saint? What are the requirements to be made a Doctor of the Church?

texts:
This is a question directed at Roman Catholics, or anyone familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic church.

Every Doctor of the Church is a saint.  I was curious if this is perhaps a requirement to be recognized as a Doctor, or if it is merely a "coincidence" (i.e. unintentional by the church) that all Doctors also happen be saints?

I've also noticed that some Doctors of the Church are also Early Church Fathers.  The opposite is not true though - not all Fathers of the church are necessarily Doctors (see Origen, for example).

What exactly are the requirements to be appointed a Doctor of the Church?


texts: According to Catholic doctrine, is every woman that has an abortion automatically going to hell?

texts:
This is something I've just heard but never verified. Does the Catholic church teach that every woman who has an abortion automatically earns hell no matter what?

If so, then why? And how are other murderers in the bible granted eternal life--like David and Paul?


texts: Was the Book of the Law (Torah) ever kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

texts:
Deuteronomy 31:24-26 (NIV) After Moses finished writing in a book the
  words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the
  Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: “Take this
  Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the
  Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.

This verse indicates that the Torah was placed beside the Ark of the Covenant and stood there as a  witness.  But this Wikipedia mentions the Torah as once kept inside the Ark.

Was there any chance ever that the Torah was kept inside the Ark? Is there any verse supporting it? (If the information in Wikipedia is not credible, someone must update it)

Note: Readers should not be confused between Torah (book) and the stone tablets (10 Commandments). The question here is about the Book, not the tablets.


texts: In Christ's time, who possessed the written word?

texts:
2000 years ago, written works were extremely valuable. It's not like every Jewish family had their own "family scroll" that they read to their children every night. It's doubtful even that every Rabbi had their own scroll.

Before the printing press, it's known that Christian Monks would spend countless hours copying the pages of the bible by hand, and that those Bibles were often chained to a table in a church and locked shut when not being read.

How were scrolls reproduced? Who kept them? And how did a common person obtain access to them in Christ's time? One final question: Did Christ own a physical copy of the scriptures?


texts: Did Martin Luther and Zwingli not consider each other brothers in Christ?

texts: Did Martin Luther and Zwingli not consider each other brothers in Christ and members of the Body of Christ? Did they ever state that in a written form?


texts: How do we know to refer to the Holy Spirit as He?

texts: Another question really got me to thinking about the Holy Spirit.  I thought it better to  open a new question rather to divert the focus of that thread.  So growing up, I also thought of the 1st Person of the Trinity as Father and the 2nd Person of the Trinity as Son but never really came away with the overwhelming feeling of Holy Spirit as He.  "It" would certainly be quite wrong, after all the Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Trinity.  What support is there for referring to the Holy Spirit as He?


texts: What were the Laodicean church members supposed to do?

texts:
In light of this exhortation, neglecting not the gathering together to meet and assemble

“not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Hebrews 10:25

What was a Laodicean church member who attended supposed to do in a church that perceived itself as fine but was said to be lacking

“For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.”
Revelation 3:17

If the church was judged collectively, what was the individual to do if the rest (majority) of the church refused to be zealous and repent?
Was he to remain a member there and suffer the fate of that church/city? Lacking spiritual growth and godliness?
What would be the expectation from Jesus for the individual who did repent and was zealous, despite the rest of the church being in disobedience?

Should they continue to attend that church
Are they expected to move to another city
Something else


texts: In Mormonism, do persons ordained as Teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood have actual teaching duties?

texts:
In the LDS faith, the offices of the Aaronic Priesthood are Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. Current practice in the LDS church is to ordain most teenage boys in the church to the first three offices as they progress through their teenage years.

Do LDS Aaronic Priesthood Teachers have actual teaching duties in a practical sense in the 21st century, or are they teachers in an abstract or theoretical sense (e.g. if all priesthood holders except for 15 year old Billy were killed or incapacitated, he would be allowed to take over classrooms, but until then, he is expected to be quiet and let the adult professionals do the actual teaching)? Do they design curricula, lecture, hold office hours, grade papers, administer exams, evaluate students, or otherwise engage in practices associated with professional educators nowadays? Do Aaronic Teachers  have divine authority to teach a wide variety of courses, content, or curricula but in practice don't because there are usually more qualified, professional teachers available at whatever level is being discussed (e.g. college, high school, etc.), or are their actual teaching competencies sharply limited in both theory and practice (e.g. they are authorized only to teach Sunday School, and that only for Grade 5 and below, anything else requires a further ordination, and/or a non-priesthood teaching certification).


texts: What does "the Lord opened her heart" (Acts 16:14) mean, according to Calvinists?

texts:
Acts 16:13 (NIV)
  On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.

I conclude the situation is something like this:
Just before the writer sit down, there are already some women there. This situation I name it, time-frame-1. Time-frame-2 is after the apostles sat down then begin speaking to the women.

  Acts 16:14a (NIV)
  One of those listening was a woman from the city of
  Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper
  of God.

Next, I assume what the writer means (inspired by the Holy Spirit) in the bolded sentence is that Lydia already as a believer in the sight of God at time-frame-1 before time-frame-2.

  Acts 16:14b (NIV)
  The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

The event "The Lord opened her heart" is either while Paul is talking (time-frame-2) or after Paul finished his talking. So, this event not happened at time-frame-1.

My question :
What does "The Lord opened her heart" mean according to Calvinists?


texts: What is the name of a film about three brothers saying the Jesus prayer?

texts: I recently learned about a short film featuring three brothers who live on an island. They are (Russian?) Orthodox Christians and practice the Jesus prayer. Eventually, word of their holiness spreads and they are visited by some clergy. Does anyone know the name of this short film?


texts: Christ 'made' sin - the Reformed, Protestant view?

texts:
Following on from both of the two recent questions regarding the inheritance or transmission of 'original' or 'inbred' sin, from generation to generation, I am interested in the Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed view of how this sin is dealt with in the righteousness of God, in Christ.

For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. [2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV (italics removed)]

I am aware that, on what, for the moment, I may call 'the fringes' of Reformed Protestantism (this is anecdotal, I cannot link) there is a view that this was a 'creative act of God'. They say he 'created' sin within Christ during crucifixion when Jesus offered himself as the Sin-bearer.
This has significant implications, not the least of which is the fact that such a 'creative act' seems not to actually involve the sin of the world since it is the 'creation' of 'new' sin.

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [John 1:29, KJV]

The verb used in the original is ποιέω (poieo) Strong 4160 which has a very broad spectrum of concept covering both of our English words 'make' and 'do'. It can be viewed, in its entire spectrum of meaning and usage, as 'effect' or 'effectively cause'.
Thus God 'effected' sin in Christ at Golgotha. My understanding of this is that he, as God Almighty, saw it to be so. He viewed the sin of the world as being within the Christ. Thus, in the view of the Judge of all the world, it was contained : contained within Christ's humanity as he suffered.
Thus when Jesus Christ died, sin was removed within himself, within his own humanity.
Effectively, sin was destroyed in him, when he died, and was righteously removed  from the world, as to the liability of its having been introduced.

... our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed [Romans 6:6, KJV]

Is this (the effective causing of sin) the understanding of the generality of the Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed view?
Or is what I have experienced, on the 'fringes' (the 'creation' of sin), the general view?
Or is there another, generally held view altogether (among Trinitarian, Reformed, Protestantism) which I have not, here, covered?

EDIT NOTE : I have deliberately removed the italics from the KJV quote of 2 Corinthians 5:21 - 'to be' [sic] as they are not in the Greek text and they change the meaning. 'Made' sin and 'made' to be sin are two different things conceptually. There is no copular verb in the text in that place, in the TR.


texts: What is the difference in original sin and our nature to sin from a Reformed or Calvinist view?

texts:
There is another question like this on the CSE but seems to be answered with the Catholic view in mind.  As a Calvinist, I have become quite confused or I am just not properly understanding the difference in my studies.  In other words I have been unable to grasp or get the whole concept of the differences of original sin and my sin nature.

My problem doesn't lie with original sin but how and when my sin nature fits.  It would seem that if I am a sinner at conception and I am bent towards sin or totally depraved from the beginning what is my sin nature?  Is there a difference?

I would like a reformed/Calvinist answers in simple terms that may give me a basic understanding.

I appreciate your time and consideration


texts:
Can an individual live according to Christian morals taught by Jesus, but not live according to the "greatest command" (to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.")?

In other words, is it possible to not love God, not follow God, and not believe in Jesus but still keep all the other commands?

Specifically, I'm thinking of commands like "honor one another more highly than yourself", love those who hate you, do not conform to the pattern of this world, do not take revenge, etc.

Is it possible to keep these types of high moral commands and maintain a separation from God?

Furthermore, what distinctions could be made between someone ignorant of the Bible and someone who has outright rejected God's Word?


texts: What did Mary and Joseph do with the gold, frankincense, and myrrh?

texts:
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child
  with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they
  had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and
  frankincense, and myrrh. (Matt 2:11)

I feel that it is pretty safe to assume that they at least used some of the gold to travel to Egypt, and perhaps even lived off of it while they were there. But I don't suppose any Josephologists or Mariologists have made any discoveries that perhaps give us some clues as to what exactly Joseph and Mary may have done with the gifts from the Wise men?


texts: What does Bible say about possibility of seeing/hearing people on Earth from heaven?

texts:
I mean, for example, could my dead grandmother see me from heaven?

This was bothering me as a Christian and I was frustrated not to find the answer, because this is important to me personally. For example, when I travel the first thing I ask is if the hotel where I'm staying has an internet connection so that I can communicate with my wife and daughter when I am away.


texts: Is there any equivalent of the Shivoham experience in Christianity?

texts:
A seeker's question to followers of Christianity:

In all the religions that originated from India, there is a concept of oneness with God.

My question is: What is the equivalent of this in other religions, like Christianity?

Explanation:

(1) There is but one God ==> Monotheism

(2) There is but one, God ==> Advaitic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc.)

Please understand the difference in the two.
The first (1) statement, is more like a moral science lesson, which says there is one God, God is one. There should not be a fight between my God and your God, because God is one. There is no your God and my God ... etc.

The second statement means,
There is only God in the universe and we are all part of Him. Oneness with God. It also implies, the entire universe is not separate from God. The entire universe is filled with divine consciousness. We all are one with each other, and one with God. There is no individual identity - what we call EGO. Advaitic philosophy says, that EGO is a illusion, because there is no individual separate existence. It is like God is a big ocean (param aatma / super consciousness), we are drops(aatma/consciousness) in that ocean. And Upanishads go even further to tell us, even if you take out that drop(aatma) from the ocean(param-aatma), even then that drop(aatma) is not separate from the ocean(param-aatma).

In short, we are one with God. This is celebrated as
Shivoham => I am Shiva / God (one with God & universe)
Soham => I am that (whomever you believe as God )
etc.

What is the equivalent OR alternative of this in Christianity?


texts: How do Christians incorporate present moment everyday faith in light of God's multi-generational nature?

texts:
From reading the Bible, I have always had questions about how God works slowly over many generations of people and more specifically about those who live in what I call "God's Silent Periods".

For example: The Bible contains many instances where it states to the effect; "..and becuase of this, the Jew's were enslaved in Egypt for 500 years" and then moves on to the next Bible worthy important event - as if 500 years is nothing!

Perhaps to God 500 years is a blink of an eye, as He is the same in the past, present and future - but to these generations who lived during the 500 years (just imagine if you and your generations lived during that period) that is  many life times of a specific experience of who God is. It appears it is God's will that some will live and experience their lives in such periods (perhaps us), to forward his will - on His time line.

For example, during the slave generations, even if one individual had enormous faith in God, it could not change their life predestined in slavery. On the flip side, for the generation of Jews that lived when Moses came, their tested faith now had a new power - the power to directly free them from slavery.

(Please note this is just one example of this what appears to be cyclic nature of God.)

The question is: How do Christians incorporate and harmonize their personal present moment everyday faith, in light of God's nature as explained above from the Bible?


texts:
I would like to assume some points before asking the main questions.

God did not have a beginning.
God created everything. Not just tangible things but even dreams and imaginations.
There is evil and there is good.
Evil is not a neutral/default state.

So my question is. Did God create evil?
There are some who say that evil is the absence of good.
Then it will mean that evil=neutral. Which means if you are doing nothing(absence of good) therefore you are doing evil things?

The fact that evil still exist comes down to couple possible conclusions.

God created evil.
God is unable to remove evil from the universe(which is unlikely because he can do anything he wants).

So how do the scriptures explain these?


texts: What is the basis for Lombard's view that the basis of justification for OT men was different than for OT women?

texts:
While reading J. V. Fesko's The Theology of the Westminster Standards, I found an interesting tidbit in the context of his discussion of justification in Reformed theology:

  Medieval theologians such as Lombard argued that Old Testament men were justified through circumcision and women were justified by their faith and good works.

Reformed theology, of course, rejects this idea, holding that justification is by faith alone (not circumcision nor good works).  But the idea that men were justified on a different basis than women is still intriguing, so I'd like to better understand the view.

What is the basis for arguing that men and women in the OT were justified through different means?  More specifically, here are a few aspects of the question:

What is the biblical and logical basis for such a view?
Why would there be two means of justification, one for men and one for women?
Why would men not also be justified on the basis of "faith and good works"?
Would faith thus not be required for men to be justified?

I'd like to restrict the question to the views of Lombard and other scholastics – here I'm not looking for post-Reformation versions of this view.


texts: Is the Israel of the NT the modern country?

texts:
The Israel talked about throughout the Old Testament is fairly clearly a specific people group and later a country. The New Testament also makes references to Israel. Are these references comparable? Are they still talking about the Jewish people group and modern nation of Israel?

Is there any reason to believe that the NT mentions of Israel are to be understood differently?

As an example, consider this verse fragment:

  Romans 11:26a (ESV)
  And in this way all Israel will be saved...

Should this verse be understood to mean that all the citizens of the modern country of Israel will be saved or is the sense different? If different, where does this difference start and how is one to know when a reference to 'Israel' carries which meaning?


texts: Is God cruel if he allows Satan to hurt us?

texts: I'm struggling with my faith.  We have had multiple hits that have me wondering why a loving God would allow this to happen?  I'm hear over and over that it's the devil doing it or it is God doing it for a specific reason.  How can a loving God be part of it? It would seem to me that by allowing something to happen it's just as bad as doing it.  For example, a child is drowning.  I may not be legally obligated but I would be morally.  With all these trials, I feel God is cruel.  I know he isn't but I say that with confliction because his actions seem to show otherwise.


texts: What indication is there that the famous census under Quirinius is the first-ever done in the region?

texts:
Besides Luke's Gospel (which is grammatical difficult and may not mean "first" chronologically, but rather "most prominent/important"), is there any evidence that the famous census conducted by Quirinius in c. 6 AD was the first census taken in Judea under Roman rule?  Do any extant documents from antiquity state this or is the conclusion drawn largely from Luke and an argument from silence.  (Certainly there are known Roman registrations that could have extended into Judea (and don't necessarily relate to taxes), but we don't have a document that says they did.)

The reason I ask is that people sometimes emphatically state that the 6 AD census was the first and thus Luke must be wrong to tie it to Jesus' birth.  (Whereas grammatically it is possible that Luke is saying "the census before that one".) I am just wondering if there is any hard data behind this statement, or if it as exactly as it appears - an overstatement of the confidence with which we know this "fact".


texts:
Does the holiness of a person grow over time?
If not, does the acts of charity/love of a person made in their youth matter if they lose their faith later in life?
The only way to get to heaven is based on how much of a supernatural love we have in us.

(CCC2000) Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and
supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to
live with God, to act by his love.

Does this love fluctuate when we gain or lose it? Or is it chronological in the sense that there is always some element of it in us when we gain it?
I'd like to know the catholic view.


texts: Do any Christian denominations believe in a "duality" rather than a trinity?

texts: I have heard that some non-trinitarian Christians reject the concept of the trinity and say that there is only one indivisible divinity. Are there any Christian denominations that believe in a "duality", i.e. that there are exactly two persons in the god-head?


texts: Are Christians monotheists and what is the nature of Jesus? (i.e. Give me the basics of Christianity please)

texts:
I am not familiar with Christianity so I have some questions.

1- Is Jesus one and only god? I have read some other questions and answers and I have found that there is a real God and Jesus is his son and Jesus is also a god. Isn't it illogical I mean there are 2 god and they have infinite power.

2- Is there any other god except two of them?

3- If Jesus is a God then how people killed him? Why he let people to kill?

4- How jesus was born? Is real god create him? If answer is yes can he create more gods?

These are my questions for now. Sorry for my english.


texts: How do traditional Christians defend the teaching that Paul is an authentic apostle?

texts:
I want to preface this by saying I don't believe Paul was a false Apostle.  I must either view his Apostleship as authentic, or throw away everything I believe.  Removing Paul's writings and influence from the New Testament would change the message completely.

The reason I ask is that every so often, I have doubts about whether Paul was authentic, or an insidious infiltrator.

When I have these doubts, they arise from several points.

Saul (his name before his conversion for those few that don't know) hated Christianity.  He had been doing his best (or worst) to eliminate it.  He wasn't having much success with direct opposition.  Maybe he thought that if he got to be an insider with influence, he could corrupt the teachings from the inside?  (He wouldn't be the first or the last.)
Next, nobody witnessed his conversion.  He was on the road alone, and we have only his word for it.  Nobody can verify his claims.
Third, his teachings on salvation apart from works seems to contradict other clear teachings.

James 1:22-25
John 15:10
James 2:24
Matthew 5:19

Before posting this question, I did a quick Google search, and I did run across some who hold this position and make arguments for it.  Here's one.  The arguments are, at the very least, well-reasoned.

Again, I don't hold the position that he is a false Apostle, but if he is, then it has serious implications for my own beliefs, and for the validity of mainstream Christianity.  I understand just how "heretical" and "blasphemous" it must seem to even ask such a question, and just how deep the implications of what I'm asking go.  I'm hoping to find answers from others who have studied this out, or who have at least heard the arguments for and against such a view.


texts: Why did Jesus groan and use spit while healing the deaf man? (Mark 7)

texts:
In today's reading Mark 7 says,

  He took him off by himself away from the crowd.  He put his finger
  into the man's ears and, spitting, touched his tongue; then he looked
  up to heaven and groaned, and said to him, "Ephphatha!" (that is, "Be
  opened!")

What's the significance of all this? In particular, if for God all things are equally easy, why the groan?


texts:
How is sinning judged after accepting Christ?

Are there classifications?

Are we clear of every sin?

What about repetitive sin of the same type?

(All assumed after accepting Christ.)


texts: Did it reflect poorly on St. Francis De Sales that he offered a bribe to convert Beza?

texts: St. Francis De Sales offered a 4,000 dollar pension to Theodore Beza. Source. It is very difficult to see this as anything other than "Oh boy, none of my arguments are working. Here! I'll make one last-ditch effort by appealing to greed!" Isn't this kind of embarrassing for Catholics that they canonized a man who thought that you could buy someone to conversion?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity?

texts:
In related form to a previous question on the basis for the Trinity, what is the Biblical basis for disbelief of the doctrine?

Not all Christians (and perhaps not all branches of Christendom) hold to a Trinitarian view - how are those views justified from the Bible?

Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?

note - I am a very committed Trinitarian, personally; this question should not be a platform to rail against non-Trinitarian beliefs


texts:
Assuming that Protestant Christians believe that some outcomes and events in life are not necessarily God's will (correct me if this is an invalid assumption), what are some alternate explanations for an outcome if not God's will? Does the scripture give us instructions on how to determine (after the fact) if a particular outcome was God's will or not?

For example, in the discussion on this site regarding global warming, someone suggests that either God's will is that global warming should happen and therefore it must, or it is God's will that it must not happen, and therefore it won't - in either case, it is God's will and thus unavoidable regardless of what we do.

The above example seems to be a false dichotomy - what are the other alternatives that a Protestant Christian would allow in this situation?


texts:
My coworker asked "Why is Good Friday called good?" when I mentioned that we have Good Friday off, and I unfortunately don't know the answer to the question.

Is there a very obvious way to explain to someone why Good Friday is so good when it would seem as though it should be called "very bad horrible no good awful Friday"?


texts:
From 1 Maccabees 13:25–30:

Simon sent and recovered the bones of his brother Jonathan, and
buried him in Modein, the town of his ancestors.
All Israel kept solemn mourning for him and long bewailed him.
Over the tomb of his father and brothers, Simon raised a monument high
enough to catch the eye, using dressed stone back and front.
He erected seven pyramids facing each other, for his father and mother and his four brothers, surrounding them with a structure consisting of tall columns surmounted by trophies of arms to their everlasting memory and, beside
the trophies of arms, ships sculpted on a scale to be seen by all who
sail the sea.
Such was the monument he constructed at Modein, and it is still there
today.

Wikipedia provides an image of Tomb of Mattathias:

But, it doesn't say anything about the authenticity of the tomb or seven pyramids.

Are these seven pyramids still there?
Are there any studies conducted regarding this?


texts: Which denominations teach that Christ received the Holy Spirit at His Baptism by John?

texts:
A Christian from an unspecified confession made the statement to me recently that "The holy spirit was fully given to Christ at his baptism in order to give it to others through his resurrection".

This is not the teaching of my particular faith (Orthodox Christianity) nor was it, I think, a belief in the early Church.  John Chrysostom writes, for example, "He came to Jordan not for the forgiveness of sins and not for receiving the gifts of the Spirit" (Discourse On the Day of the Baptism of Christ).

I am curious which denominations hold that Christ did, in fact, receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism, and would like links, if available, to doctrinal statements to the like.  I think it would be best if you answer the question only if you personally belong to the specific denomination and are not surmising the beliefs of others.  Thank you!


texts: Is a claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate?

texts: In the book The Trail of Blood by James M Carroll, the author makes the claim that 50,000,000 early Baptists were martyred under persecution by the Catholic Church.  The author makes the claim multiple times without any sourcing for that number.  My question is essentially two parts.  Is the claim of 50,000,000 Baptist martyrs accurate, and if so, can someone point me to a source that validates the claim?


texts: The Biblical God and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

texts:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument comprises of the following three premises:

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we assume this argument is valid, all it proves is that the Universe had a supernatural first cause.

With that in mind, can the omnipresence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and the divine being of God be proved using the cosmological argument?


texts: What is the role of Mohammed in the Bible?

texts:
John 14:16 and 14:26, which refer to a Paraclete ("comforter"), have been read by Muslims as a prediction that Muhammad will succeed Jesus.

  "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." (John 14:16)

  "But the Comforter (Paraclete) whom the Father will send in my name, he shall speak to you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

What does Christianity say about the role of Mohammed in the Bible?  What is relationship between Christianity and Islam?


texts: What will happen to the Trinity when the Bride of Christ is revealed?

texts:
Are there any Christian teaching that address What will happen to the Trinity when the “Bride of Christ” is established, will it then be a Quadrinity?

Revelation 21:9 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

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


texts: Have any 20th/21st century Ecclesiologists developed a framework/models for describing/categorising the functions of the visible church?

texts:
I'm a researcher for an Anglican charity, and I'm conducting a literature review. I'd like to develop a coding frame that's able to adequately describe felt changes to the different facets of church life experienced by attenders in the Church of England in the present day.
To that end, I'm trying to find a robust (enough) framework of 'what the Church does', as opposed to 'what the church is'; I've found Dulles' Models of Church helpful for getting my head around the former, but I'm struggling to find any similar literature describing the latter.
Dulles describes what the church is:

The church is a herald
The church is a community of disciples
The church is a mystical communion

But has anyone developed a similar frame for describing what the church does? For instance:

The church administers the sacraments
The church serves the poor
The church proclaims the gospel

Etcetera.
Please note that I'm not asking for an exhaustive list of 'things the church does' from users of this stack. Rather, I am asking if any literature exists that has attempted to produce a framework that describes the church's functions within the past 100 years.
I'm most interested in models/frameworks that are readily applicable to a Western, Anglican, post-Enlightenment context, but broadly interested in anything that exists.


texts:
My husband is a disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness and he has filed for a divorce.

What is the Jehovah's Witness belief about divorce and the responsibility of the husband to a non JW wife?


texts: Why did the Catholic Church rule out meat?

texts: I read that back in the early days of the Catholic Church that they were heavily invested in the "fishing market." With the popularity of beef on the rise and the loss of revenue to the Catholic Church, they demanded that meat be given up for specific holidays thus increasing the consumption of fish which brought back their revenue stream. Any truth to this?


texts: Where did the idea of being "called to preach" come from?

texts:
The church loves to use the idiom called to preach. It's the idea that (for the purposes of this question) God calls some people to preach or pastor and He doesn't call others. A person might say "...I felt God's call to preach"

I'm not talking about the general call to salvation or that God gives certain gifts to some and not others, but about the specific colloquialism of "...called from God to be/not be a pastor."

Where did this idea come from? 1 Timothy labels it a desire, not a calling.

  1 Timothy 3:1 KJV This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Most every other translation says aspire, not calling. Are these thing synonymous? When did it start being referred to as a calling and not a desire?

Why I ask: A "calling" from God is a highly debated thing, whereas a "desire" is something everyone knows the definition of. Some young believers may be becoming dissuaded from their desire to lead in their local church because they've been incorrectly convinced that they need some fantastical "clouds-parting-in-the-sky" experience from God.


texts: What, specifically, did Esau lose when he lost the birthright, and what did Jacob gain? What did the birthright represent, and why was it so highly prized by Jacob?


texts: Were birthdays celebrated by believers anywhere in Holy Scriptures?

texts: Is there any mention of a birthday celebration among Old Testament Israelites or New Testament Christians in the Holy Scriptures?


texts: What contemporary criticism was given to Belloc's claim that the Protestant Reformation was the work of a few oligarchs?

texts:
I've just returned from the 33rd Conference of the American Chesterton Society with exciting news,  apparently Protestantism is a sham inflicted upon us by the corporate elite!

Hehehe, well who knows... But I've been on this site as long as anyone and I found it very surprising to hear Hilare Belloc's thesis on the over-arching cause of the reformation.  I knew from reading the Servile State that after the Reformation it was apparent that the lords looted the monasteries.

  "What! this large national movement to be
  interpreted as the work of such minorities? A few thousand squires and
  merchants backing a few more thousand enthusiasts, changed utterly the mass
  of England?" Yes; to interpret it otherwise is to read history backwards.
  It is to think that England then was what England later became. There
  is no more fatal fault in the reading of history, nor any illusion to
  which the human mind is more prone. To read the remote past in the light
  of the recent past; to think the process of the one towards the other
  "inevitable;" to regard the whole matter as a slow inexorable process,
  independent of the human will, still suits the materialist pantheism of our
  time. There is an inherent tendency in all men to this fallacy of reading
  themselves into the past, and of thinking their own mood a consummation
  at once excellent and necessary: and most men who write of these things
  imagine a vaguely Protestant Tudor England growing consciously Protestant
  in the England of the Stuarts.

  Hilaire Belloc - Europe and the Faith

But, does anyone have any evidence against the notion that it was what would become the aristocracy who started the reformation in Britain?  Did people take Belloc seriously.  I've read recently that he's been found correct time and time again, but always seen as a heavy handed Catholic reactionary in his day (which makes him quite a hero to me) who no one took seriously because he wrote in a vulgar manner and not only for scholars.


texts: What do Southen Baptists believe about Jesus' dual nature?

texts: It's Catholic Dogma that Jesus was one man with two natures.  I was reading an answer to a question on this site where a brother in Christ of the Southern Baptist persuasion was talking about "the man Jesus". Is this just a figure of speech or does it hearken back to the days of Arius when it was fashionable to talk about Jesus being sometimes God?


texts: An explanation from Calvinist about why Cain's offering is not accepted by God?

texts:
This question is following the question before, where Calvin said :

  We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does
  not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to
  God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he
  signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the
  doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him

The bold sentence from Calvin's quotation above, lead to a conclusion that :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event.
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering.
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering.

So, "God begins with the person of the offerer" as in this case is number 1 and number 2.

The logical conclusion about Cain is :
Because God did not elect Cain and God did not regenerate Cain in time and give Cain faith then Cain offering is not accepted by God. He had no regard for Cain and his offering as mentioned in Gen 4:5.

My question : (according to the Calvinist)
1. What is the cause of Cain's offering is not accepted by God ?
2. Has God regenerated Cain and gave him faith by the time God speak to Cain as read in verse 6 and 7 ?


texts: What was the difference between Jerusalem's honorary primacy and the primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch?

texts:
In Church History in Plain Language, 144, Bruce Shelley writes about the "primacy" that certain bishops enjoyed in the early church:

  The Council of Nicaea recognized the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome as preeminent in their own areas.  Jerusalem was granted an honorary primacy.

It seems that Jerusalem's "primacy" was somehow different from that of the other three cities mentioned here.  I'd like to know, practically speaking, what was different.  Was Jerusalem's bishop "preeminent in [his] own area" in a way similar to the others?  Or was it a "primacy in name only," which for practical purposes meant that he was expected to submit to the bishops in nearby Alexandria or Antioch?

An answer that complements its analysis with an example or two of how these bishops and churches interacted in the fourth and fifth centuries would be especially interesting.


texts: Where is the story that James (the 'brother') shared one-half of his inheritance with Jesus?

texts: The story is, I believe, apocryphal; but the "brothers of Jesus, sons of Joseph" rejected sharing their inheritance with Jesus and James, a follower of Jesus and leader of the early church (per Acts), stated that he (James) would share one-half of his inheritance with Jesus.


texts: Can I pray for the past to change certain aspects of life? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
I'd like to know if according to the Catholic teaching I can pray for the past events that didn't happen?

For example:

If a woman miscarried a child which means the child wasn't baptized and at that moment woman didn't know it was necessary for the child to be baptized in order to get in heaven. And now after some time she gained the knowledge and ask the angel in a prayer go back in time and perform the prayer of baptism over the baby.

Or when some relative dies and after 5 years I gain the knowledge that the person might be in purgatory and maybe I should pray for the person. Can I offer all of my prayers I've done since and pointed them to the moment when the relative died? Will that be added to that soul to the moment of her death or only to the current moment?

Is this something we can do according to the catholic theology? Or we can only pray for the present situations and is everything bound to the present moment only? I know this can be difficult to research but maybe someone can find something within the tradition.


texts: Is "There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws." a quote from the Holy Bible?

texts:
I just saw an episode of The Simpson's on television (S28E22 - Dogtown), in which during a courtroom scene, the judge turns to the jury and says:

  Now, I have a brief instruction for the jury:

  "There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws."

Then raises the court's Holy Bible and motions to it, as if quoting scripture.

Quite a profound and eloquent statement, but not one I've ever seen/heard in relation to any spiritual or religious texts. A cursory online search yields no results. Can anybody confirm or deny? Thanks.


texts: "Ask and you shall recieve" Can we ask for anything?

texts:
I bet I've got it wrong but does "ask and thou shalt recieve" mean we can ask for anything and recieve anything? In which case, could I have a 'wish-list' of things I want glorified in heaven?

Like I said, I just KNOW I'm missing the point here. Having said which, surely it doesn't mean ask but make sure it's for something within this selection, otherwise why make the point at all? Being it was said by Jesus I'm guessing there was, not only a point, but a rather important one!!!


texts: What purpose do steeples serve? Are they put high up on church buildings as some sort of marketing tool so it can be seen from far away or is there some other reason(s)?


texts: Purgatory was one of the doctrines the Reformers reacted most strongly against, though many Reformers claimed Augustine of Hippo as being in agreement with their theology. Did Augustine teach a doctrine of purgatory?


texts:
This is related to this question.

I found this verses from Qur'an.

Surah 19:1-7

  Kaf- Ha-Ya-'Ain-Sad.
  (This is) a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His slave Zakariya (Zachariah).
  When he called out his Lord (Allah) a call in secret,
  Saying: "My Lord! Indeed my bones have grown feeble, and grey hair has spread on my head, And I have never been unblest in my invocation
  to You, O my Lord!
  "And Verily! I fear my relatives after me, since my wife is barren. So give me from Yourself an heir,
  "Who shall inherit me, and inherit (also) the posterity of Ya'qub (Jacob) (inheritance of the religious knowledge and Prophethood, not
  the wealth, etc.). And make him, my Lord, one with whom You are
  Well-pleased!".
  (Allah said) "O Zakariya (Zachariah)! Verily, We give you the glad tidings of a son, His name will be Yahya (John). We have given that
  name to none before (him)."

Assuming God (Jehovah) never revealed these things to Muhammad (no offence to Muslims), how did Muhammad know about Zachariah's prayer? Did he compose it? We know very well that there are many twisted stories of the Bible and Torah in Qur'an. I assume that Muhammad overheard these stories from the Jews and Christians around him and recited these stories whichever parts he remembered, which leads to incomplete story or sometimes even twisted.

If Muhammad did not compose this, there must be some traditional stories or some unauthentic books on this account.


texts:
I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins?
I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with?
So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.


texts: Has a parable originally used by Jesus been left out of Luke 14?

texts:
(Luke 14:7-11, RSVCE)
  Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he marked how they chose the places of honor, saying to them,  “When you are invited by any one to a marriage feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest a more eminent man than you be invited by him;  and he who invited you both will come, and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place.  But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you.  For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

One finds here no parable or  story illustrating the importance of humility , but rather plain teaching.  In common parlance, a parable is a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson, or a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like. That puts one in doubt as to whether a parable which Jesus in deed used, has somehow been taken away from Luke 14.
My question is: have there any official studies, say, from the side of Catholic Church, undertaken to establish the possibility of such an omission ?


texts: Are there official guidelines for mortifying the flesh in the various Christian denominations? I'm interested primarily in the modern and historical practice exercised in Catholicism.


texts: What issues do Catholics representing God in fiction historically face?

texts:
I'm currently running a Role-playing game which is nearing its fourth year of play and  is coming to a close.  The end of the campaign will involve the passing away of this world and the prophesied metaphysical unification of the new earth with aspects of the old heaven, which will then also have passed away.  After a short period of campaign resolution, the game will end, so I don't need to be able to do this for very long, but I will almost certainly have to run direct dialouge with God or, at a minimum, deal with eschatological logistics.  I want to do this is a respectful and sacred way, and I am worried about being up to the task.

What issues have been brought up by other Roman Catholics in the past as integral to the act of representing God and/or the end times in a fictional work?


texts: Acts 8:35-36 and Baptism being Part of the Gospel

texts:
Acts 8:34-36 (DRB) And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?

Imagine the scene: some bigwig (v. 27) sitting calmly reading Isaiah in the cool of the day (v. 28), has Jesus preached to him (v. 35), and almost jumps out of his chariot at the first sign of water. This sounds like someone who believes that "baptism saves you," (1 Peter 3:21) not someone who believes baptism is a nice ceremony to have once you 'have been saved' (in the presence of family or friends, not alone with a stranger, for example).

Question: According to Protestants, why did the eunuch think his baptism was an urgent matter, after having the gospel preached to him, if baptism is not how one appropriates for himself ("puts on", Galatians 3:26-27) the Christ preached—not an intrinsic part of the gospel?

Cf. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:37-38; 8:12; 10:48; 22:16.

Thanks in advance.


texts: What is the difference between the Ebionites and Nazarenes?

texts: The Ebionites and Nazarenes were Jewish–Christian sects during the Second Temple era. We know that the Ebionites believed Yeshu was born of a natural generation between Joseph and Mary; while some Nazarenes believed in a virgin birth. How were the two different from orthodox (Pharisee) Judaism? For example, did both sects pray "Our Father" in Aramaic or in Hebrew?


texts: Interpreting Acts 2:38 together with John 1:12

texts:
Acts 2:38, "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
John 1:12, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name . . .."

How do we interpret Acts 2:38 which seems to require baptism for forgiveness of sin, compared with John 1:12 which simply requires belief in Christ?


texts: What is the biblical basis for specifically associating armageddon with fire from heaven?

texts:
Imagine a bunch of people running from a city scared, the ground is cracking beneath their feet and fire is coming down from heaven. I'm sure you've seen the picture(s).

Traditionally we think "Armageddon!" with imagery such as this. Yet the only reference to Armageddon I'm aware of involves armies meeting together at the place called "Har-Magedon" to duke it out in one final war, which doesn't seem the same as "fire from heaven." Interestingly, within a paragraph of the Har-Magedon we see not fire coming from heaven, but ice!

On the other hand, Revelation mentions false prophets calling down fire from heaven! And false prophets are known to proclaim messages in our day regarding fire from heaven! Jesus of course condemned his disciples for even having the idea of calling down fire from heaven on a city. (Luke 9:54, 55)

So the question is: What is the biblical basis to say Armageddon has anything to do with fire from heaven?


texts: What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians?

texts: From what I've heard, The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only representative authority of God on Earth. Does it indeed claim that, and if so what does it say happens to members of non-Catholic churches when they die?


texts: Jews are persecuted and harassed for rejecting their king, yet, Jesus was never anointed by a prophet and set up as a king, and slipped through the crowds not allowing the Jews to make him their king when they wanted to. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the Jews rejected their king?


texts: What denominations of Christianity forbid meat from strangled animals?

texts:
In Acts 15, at the end of the Apostolic Council the Church sends the following letter to Gentile Christians:

  The apostles and elders, your brothers,
  To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
  Greetings.
  We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
  Farewell.

I'm interested in the part in bold.  Judaism is known for having tons of dietary restrictions, whereas Christianity isn't.  But my question is, what denominations of Christianity prohibit eating meat from strangled animals?

I think Jehovah's Witnesses is one.  Are there any others?


texts: I know that through faith alone I am saved.  But is repentance a requirement for that salvation as a part of my faith?  Is repentance a single act, or should it be continuous?


texts: Why is Christianity considered a monotheistic religion?

texts:
One of the commandments states "place no other gods before me". Does this mean God is implying the existence of other gods, or why is this explicitly stated?

The Biblical universe also includes a varied cast of supernatural characters like Lucifer, Metatron, Archangels, Demons, Seraphim, etc. Some of these manifest with power in the world and represent the roles of messengers, warriors, healers, advisers, protectors, troublemakers, and so on.

Why are these not acknowledged as "gods" or "lesser gods" like in the pantheons of other religions: how is the nature of their existence different?

On what basis is Christianity classified as monotheistic given the existence of other powerful beings in the Bible?


texts: What is the source of the count of 40000 denominations, and how are they classified?

texts:
It is often said that there are up to 40 thousand Christian denominations.

What is the original source of this claim, and how are the denominations classified?


texts: Are there any commentaries from Trinitarians that explain why the Holy Spirit doesn't have a throne/receive worship in Revelation?

texts:
For being a co-equal member of the Godhead, it would appear that the Holy Spirit is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the major points, events, and these visions held in Revelation.

For example, let's look at Revelation 5

  5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

  6 Then I saw a Lamb who appeared to have been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.

  8 When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp, and they held the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9And they sang a new song:

  “Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals,
  because You were slain,
  and by Your blood You purchased for God
  those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

  10 You have made them into a kingdom,
  priests to serve our God,
  and they will reign on the earth.”

The Lamb Exalted

  11 Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels and living creatures and elders encircling the throne, and their number was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands. 12 In a loud voice they said:

  “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain,
  to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength
  and honor and glory and blessing!”

  13 And I heard every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying:

  “To Him who sits on the throne,
  and to the Lamb,
  be praise and honor and glory and power
  forever and ever.”

  14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Also see Revelation 7:9-12

  After this I looked and saw a multitude too large to count, from every nation and tribe and people and tongue, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:

  “Salvation to our God,
  who sits on the throne,
  and to the Lamb!”

  11 And all the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. And they fell facedown before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength to our God forever and ever! Amen.”

Among others, those passages show the exaltation, worship, praise, honor, etc. all given to God and the Lamb. Not one mention of the Spirit having a throne, receiving dominion, etc. How can this be reconciled? Are there any Trinitarian commentaries available that seek to explain or offer up some sort of logical resolution as to why the Spirit, being co-equal and co-eternal, doesn't seem to be receiving the same reverence?


texts: What sort of Christians are proponents of just war?

texts: Which sects of Christianity are support the idea of "Just War"? What are the arguments that they give that support this view? How do they see their views on this issue being related to the Bible?


texts: Why does the Episcopal Church take votes on moral questions?

texts:
I read in the news today that the Episcopal Church is going to vote on same-sex 'marriage'.  As a Catholic who looks to the Pope to issue statements on matters of faith and morals, and trusts the Holy Spirit to guide him,  what sort of weight do Episcopalians and Anglicans put on votes on matters of faith and morals; do they believe the vote is guided by the Holy Spirit? (or is this not even considered a matter of faith and morals any more, just "equality"?)  The same thing I believe happened in the early 20th century with the Lambeth conference concerning birth control and happened recently with allowing women to hold higher positions in the church (although that might have been more of an equal rights sort of deal, I'd see it as a matter of faith)

Please don't discuss current events, unless very applicable.  And, if it offends you, please excuse the quotes around the word 'marriage'. Because of my deeply held convictions, I will never be able to in good conscience call it marriage.


texts: What is the significance of Luke 22:44 where Christ's sweat was as great drops of blood in the garden of Gethsemane while he prayed?

texts:
Luke 22:44 talks about Jesus Christ's experience while he was in the Garden of Gethsemane. During a time when an angel visits him to strengthen him he begins to sweat blood.  I would like to understand better the significance of this verse:

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly:
   and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse?
What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father?
What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane?
Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling?


texts: What is the most authentic Reformed 'ordo salutis'?

texts:
This question follows on from a comment made in the previous closed question.
The Wikipedia article on the subject of ordo salutis quotes  and lists the following, in the following order, as 'Calvinistic' :

Predestination
Election
Calling
Regeneration
Faith
Repentance
Justification
Adoption
Sanctification
Perseverance
Glorification

This list is attributed by Wikipedia to   :

"The 'Order of Salvation'" In Feinberg, John S. (ed.). The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton: Good News Publishers. pp. 36–44. ISBN 978-1-58134-812-5.

Would Reformed Calvinistic Baptists consider this to be the correct and definitive ordo salutis or is there another, or others, considered more authentic ?


texts: If Jesus was Sinless and had Free Will, how is the rest of creation not a mistake?

texts:
If it is possible to create beings like Jesus - or to recreate humans as sinless versions of themselves - Was all of creation a mistake?

A mistake that all of History in the Bible attempts to correct? From the initial mistake of not giving Adam and Eve the knowledge to prevent their own mistakes. Through to Jesus coming to correct the initial mistake, only to be the subject of further mistakes. Through to the ultimate correction of the mistake. The destruction of the world.

Doesn't this imply that we are God's mistake?

To be clear, I'm looking for a scripture-based explanation for how the universe was/wasn't a mistake. And by extension if the first, how that can be reconciled with a perfect God.

The wonderful answer to this question by @Richard inspired this question.


texts: Did St. Thomas the apostle come to India? Most of the Indian people believe that he came to south India, and spread the good news even before the Roman Catholic Church is formed. However, the church doesn't accept this teaching. What is the truth?


texts:
I'm surprised this question hasn't been asked already.

  Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)
  2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

  9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

This star is usually called the Star of Bethlehem, and there are many different theories as to what it was, including a supernova, a planet (such as Venus), or a comet. (An actual star is not among the options because stars don't move and then stop moving.) So, which one was it?


texts: Where do the writings of John place chronologically according to preterists?

texts: Under the preterist view that all of John’s writings we're completed prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, where would they be placed chronologically in the New Testament canon?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Christians being instructed to tithe (10%) of their income to the modern day 'church'?

texts:
I understand the commandment (principle & purpose) of tithing to the Levitical priesthood as defined in OT passages such as Leviticus 27, Numbers 18, etc.

But, my question is now (present day), when there is no temple or clear lineage of the sons of Aaron, what biblical proof texts do Christian (mostly Gentile) pastors use to claim that modern-day believers are commanded to tithe to them (namely, their non-profit organization) as obedience to God?


texts:
I'd heard of green martyrdom a few times on the radio, but never gave it much thought

Three kinds of martyrdom that are counted as a cross to man, i.e. white martyrdom, green martyrdom, and red martyrdom.—The Cambray Homily (Thesaurus Palæohibernicus, II., p. 246).

Green martyrdom somewhat anachronistically seems to have been defined as having something to do with dollar bills being of a greenish hue.  I don't think that would be the case in the Ireland when the Cambray Homily was transcribed.
So why green?  Red and White I understand, but green usually has a different significance than dying.


texts: Why did people stop worshipping God after experiencing the flood?

texts: I have just started reading Genesis and have a question about Noah's family. If Noah and his family were the only people left on earth after the flood, why did most of the world forget God and worship other gods, like in Asia and Africa? After being blessed and allowed to live by God, I would think that Noah's family would make sure God's story was passed down through all generations (and parts of the world).


texts: Is Jesus seen as both the Passover Lamb and Goat(s) of the Atonement in any Protestant Theology?

texts:
It is often said that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish spring feasts when he first came and the expectation is that he will fulfill the fall feasts when we returns.

Also, that Jesus died at the time of Passover reinforces that he was at least understood as the perfect Passover Lamb.
See: How does the Passover foreshadow the coming of Jesus as the Messiah?

However, it seems to me Jesus also fulfilled at least part of the Day of Atonement (in the Fall season) where one goat dies and the other receives the sins of all the people(Is. 53:6) and then it is led out of the city, away from the people, removing their sins far away.

Many people will often compare Christ to this scapegoat but I have yet to find any fuller treatment of how Yom Kippur was fulfilled in Christ's first earthly ministry rather than his second coming.

Are there any Protestant/Reformed, or older, writings that deal with Jesus fulfilling the prophetic nature of Passover and Yom Kippur?
Either affirming or denying, but specifically speaking to the concept of "fulfillment" of the two feasts in Jesus' first coming.

This may include catholic works, particularly from the early church, prior to the Reformation as well.


texts: How did the Brownists/Calvinists justify capital punishment for witches?

texts:
My ancestors were Brownist pilgrims, leading up to the Salem witch trials, my Great-great-great-something-aunt was hung for having a lack of the fear of God in her. The people at the time were no doubt very superstitious, attributing misfortunes like infant death and crop failure to devils and the supernatural, and if someone was accused of being possessed by the devil, they were often arrested, or worse...

The Mosaic law stated:

  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)

But Paul taught in Romans 7 that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ.

  "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we
  were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the
  oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:5;)

Christ told his diciples to cast out devils:

  "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:
  freely ye have received, freely give." (Matt 10:8;)

If the law was fulfilled and the new command was to cast out devils, then why was there a series of executions instead of exorcisms?

In Salem Village, as in the colony at large, life was governed by the precepts of the Church, which was Calvinist. By what law did they justify capital punishment? Did the Calvinists hold to the old law even though it was fulfilled? Or did they have some other justification for executing people?


texts: Do you have any knowledge on a Catholic Internal Forum on Marriage?

texts:
The information given to us from the Priest, is that this Ceremony would allow us, with the Grace of God to live together as a married couple, without any fornication sin involved. This was done to avoid going back and forth to confession for living together, without having true intentions of not having sexual relation again and again.
The relation now has some issues, that may cause walking away from the marriage. Promises of stopping drinking and smoking, has turned into still excessive use. We are both 76 years old and lost our spouses several years ago, She has the drinking and smoking problem. I have been bi-polar for over 65 years and go into deep depression off and on. She was aware of this, but the Priest was not aware of the bi-polar. Where when I brought this situation up, he made the comment that if he knew that I was bi-polar, that he would not of married us.
The  question is that if she doesn't quit the smoking and drinking, (plus forgot to mention), that she puts down the Catholic religion off and on.
Help me. The Priest who did the ceremony, says that if I leave her or she leaves me, "I am going to be stuck, in a bad way".


texts: Every instance in the Bible where a spirit, (including for the most part God) speaks to a physical person, or moves a physical someone it is done in a body or through another person that possesses a physical body. Is it necessary for a spirit to have a body to manifest?


texts: According to Catholicism, how many times did Jesus "rise again"?

texts:
According to Catholicism, God went to "Purgatory" after his death on the cross. As the Apostles Creed says:

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead/hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

Catholic.com says:

It is no wonder, then, that those who deny the existence of purgatory tend to touch upon only briefly the history of the belief. They prefer to claim that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong. It speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.
Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.
Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, "The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

The article says the idea of Purgatory is based on 1 Peter 3:19:

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the
flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons,
eight in all, were saved through water.  (1 Peter 3:18-20 NASB translation)

Does this mean God eternally existed as a spirit, then God became a man for a few years, then God "rose again" as a spirit for a few days when he descended to Purgatory, then God "rose again" to eternally be a man?


texts: Does anyone know the name of the pharaoh that Joseph brought his family to meet?

texts:
Jacob and his house of 70
Jacob in Egypt, Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia, Jacob brought 70 people to an Egyptian pharaoh.

Israel and his entire house of 70, gathered up with all their livestock and began their journey to Egypt.

The time had come for Joseph's family to personally meet the Pharaoh of Egypt. - Userkaf Userkaf, Wikipedia

Now, based upon this little information regards to the 70 people, I made some efforts myself to find out who this pharaoh might be, and I came across a pharaoh named Userkaf who it is claimed had a chieftain lead 70 women to him, most likely from Canaan.

Userkaf, trade & military activities, Wikipedia
South of Egypt, Userkaf launched a military expedition into Nubia, while the Old Kingdom annals record that he received tribute from a region that is either the Eastern Desert or Canaan in the form of a workforce of one chieftain and 70 foreigners (likely women), as well as 303 "pacified rebels" destined to work on Userkaf's pyramid.

So based upon this, is the reason I am asking. If the pharaoh was not Userkaf, Does anyone know which Egyptian pharaoh it was, or would have been?


texts: What prompted the change in Christian attitude towards usury?

texts:
Lending with interest between Jews is a sin in the Old Testament, which should have gone away for non-Jewish Christians

According to Wikipedia, it was only proscribed by Christianity later; at first only applying to priests.

  The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in
  usury[13] (canon 17). At the time, usury was interest of any kind, and
  the canon forbade the clergy to lend money at interest rates even as
  low as 1 percent per year. Later ecumenical councils applied this
  regulation to the laity.[13][14]

Later on, usury became even more emphatically proscribed.

  Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could
  receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[15] Pope Clement
  V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and
  abolished all secular legislation which allowed it.[16] Pope Sixtus V
  condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and
  man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian
  charity."[16]

  Theological historian John Noonan argues that "the doctrine [of usury]
  was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils,
  proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians."[14]

At what point did the official Catholic position on moneylending change and why? If the change happened after the Reformation, did Protestants have a separate reason?


texts: What are the predominant Christian views on whether Jesus had to specifically die by crucifixion? Could he have chosen another kind of death?

texts:
As I understand it, Jesus was sentenced to die "under Pontius Pilate" and was crucified as punishment.  It seems to me that Jesus had no choice but to be crucified.  After all, if a criminal is  sentenced to death by the State today, they are forced to die and don't have a choice.  However, I believe Christianity teaches that Jesus chose to die for our sins.  So, I am trying to understand:

What are the current, predominant Christian views regarding whether Jesus had to die under Pontius Pilate specifically?

I'm specifically interested in what the beliefs are with regard to his having to die in this particular way, by the hands of the government of Roman Empire. How could he, as man, avoided the death once the sentence was handed down? Couldn't he have chosen to die another, less painful way, to "die for our sins?"


texts:
We read at Mark 15:27

"And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left.""

One wishes to know as to whether it had been pre-determined by the authority say, Pilate, that Jesus be crucified in between two thieves, or was it by sheer chance that the soldiers gave him the middle slot. Does the Catholic Church elaborate on the position of the Cross of Jesus at Calvary, in order to attribute the fulfillment of prophesies ?


texts: To the Calvinist, is Romans 9:21 potter story based on Jeremiah 18:4?

texts:
My Calvinist friend gave me Romans 9:21 and Jeremiah 18:4 to support his view that each individual since was born already either the object of His wrath or the object of His mercy.

After I read Jeremiah 18:4, to me it seems Jeremiah is talking about nation, not individual. And also to me, the analogy in Jeremiah can not lead me to conclude that the potter deliberately make an ugly vessel because the potter has the intention to throw it into the garbage. Also in Jeremiah that in the future passing time (when the ugly and beautiful vessel already exist) an event of repeating process to both kind is possible.

I propose my imagination about Jeremiah potter story to my friend. But my friend explanation, to me is not clear. That's why I ask here, because I found a difference between Jeremiah and Romans about the potter.

Jeremiah talk about a nation - Romans talk about an individual
Jeremiah potter doesn't deliberately make an ugly vessel - Romans
potter deliberately make an ugly vessel.
Jeremiah 18:7-8 show a possibility that something change to the ugly
vessel in the future - Romans show the ugly vessel is fixed from the
start until the end.

So the first thing I need to know is whether Romans potter story is based on Jeremiah potter story or not in the point of view Calvinist. If not, then I don't need to propose my imagination of Jeremiah potter story. If yes, how do I correct my imagination of Jeremiah potter story in order to "agree" with Romans potter story ?

Thank you.