texts: Passage in Bible saying: Every morning I wake up a new person?

texts: There is a passage in the New Testament that says, I paraphrase:  Every morning I wake up a new person. Or: Every morning I am born a new man. I think Apostle Peter or Apostle Paul is speaking it. Can someone help me track the exact quote with textual reference? Thanks.


texts: Prior to Exodus 3:5, was it customary to take off one's shoes on sacred ground?

texts:
In the King James version of the Bible, Exodus 3:5, we read,

  And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy
  feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

We are to understand that this act was a sign of respect for holy ground, but was it already customary to perform this act on holy ground?


texts: Are there any differences between Protestant and Catholic theology concerning the distinction between demonic possession from mental illness?

texts: Is there a difference between Catholic and Protestant Theology in regards to what constitutes Demonic possession as opposed to mental illness?


texts:
I brought up Matthew 13:44 (see below for text) as related to this answer, though it was only tangentially related. I brought up the question Is that not a literal passage? along with the verse, and decided to spin it off into it's own question. Is it? Specifically, the part about selling one's possessions. Are we actually meant to sell all we have to "buy the field containing that treasure" (i.e. do what good we can with it)?

  “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.


texts: When a person speaks in tongues, do they understand what they are saying?

texts:
As a follow-up to my other question: Can people speak in tongues today?, and specifically, this answer:

When a person speaks in tongues (either historically, or today), do they understand what they're saying?

And as a logical extension, I suppose if they do know what they're saying, then asking a person who has (allegedly) spoken in tongues what they said would be a test for the legitimacy of their having spoken in tongues... or no?


texts: Why did Pope Francis raise the minimum age for being granted 'Monsignor' from 35 to 65 years?

texts:
'Monsignor' is used for priests who have received certain specific honorary awards or who hold certain offices.

The grant is subject to the criteria of the Holy See, including a minimum age, which Pope Francis raised from 35 to 65 years.

My question is: Why did Pope Francis raise that minimum age from 35 to 65 years?

Also, did Pope Francis revoke that title to priests who have been granted before that new rule and who are, at that date, less than 65 years old?


texts: Is there any Christian theological model for a non-literal ark?

texts:
The most common debate about Noah's flood is whether the flood was global or local. I want to put this particular debate aside for a moment, and ask a different question:  Did the flood happen at all?

Reading the views of many (often atheists, sometimes local-flood proponents), there seems to be a pretty strong scientific case against a global flood.  However, as I read about this view, I have to wonder: Wouldn't (at least according to the skeptics) a flood of sufficient scope to threaten the existence of any given animal species also suffer from most of the scientific problems associated with a global flood?

And if there were a flood of limited enough scope that some species' existence were not threatened, why not just send Noah and his family across some mountain to escape the local flood?

So this makes me wonder if there is a Christian theological model in which the flood, or at least the ark, is non-literal.

I realize there might me more than one competing model, so I'm just asking for one.  Does such a model exist?  If so, please point me to whomever has proposed it.

I imagine that such a model would include either or both of the following tenets, but please don't limit answers to these if there is some other approach to the theory that I have not considered:

Noah and his family escaped the flood by some means less drastic or miraculous than a boat, and the boat and animal rescue was added by later generations or authors as an embellishment to the story.
Noah and his family never existed, the world was never flooded as God's judgement, and the story is a non-real myth, meant to make a point about something other than history.


texts: Who said something along the lines of us never knowing more than 1% of our sin?

texts:
I have pretty clear memories of John Piper quoting someone else saying that in this life we are never aware of more than 1% of our sin, with the implication being that as we grow in godliness we do see more and more of our sin, but that sin is so deep within us that we never understand the full scope of it.

But despite how clear my memories are, I haven't been able to find any trace of any kind of statement like this, whether by John Piper or anyone else. But I'm sure I didn't make it up myself! Has anyone heard anything like this, specifically with the idea of knowing X% of our sin?


texts: What denominations use the Revised Common Lectionary? And in those denominations, is there typically a copy of the RCL in the pews? Does anyone using it read from other translations or always from the NRSV that is printed in the hard copies?


texts: How is "Free Grace Theology" linked with dispensationalism?

texts: I have a somewhat vague understanding of dispensationalism and Covenant theology, and have until now preferred the latter to the former because it seems simpler and hence more intuitive. I recently came across Free Grace Theology (FGT), which seems very appealing to me and, to my mind, focuses on the Gospel in a sharper way than either Reformed or Arminian theology. However, in watching talks by FGT people, I've noticed that they link FGT to dispensationalism in a very tight way, as if dispensationalism needs to be assumed in order to arrive at the Free Grace position. I would like to understand how and why this is the case, if it is true. Also, is FGT compatible with Covenant Theology?


texts: What things did John the Baptist say that the elders and priests did not believe?

texts:
In Matthew 21:25 we see priests and elders reasoning within themselves:

  The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they
  reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he
  will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

My question here is how did they not believe him? What exactly did they do that showed that they did not believe him? What things exactly (of what John the baptist was saying) did they not believe? Was it something like they had refused to be baptized from John?

(Answers supported by the verses from the Gospel of Matthew are most preferable)


texts: According to Reformed Theology how can God judge us if we are born sinful?

texts:
This question was asked by my Atheist friend who was raised Jewish. His point was basically that if we are all inherently sinners (Rom.3:23) than how can God hold us accountable for something we cannot control? To him it seems like "the cards are stacked against us" and "God cannot be good if he concerns someone to hell for something they can't help"
I was hoping someone here has some good verses from the Bible or quotes from some well respected theologians that might help clarify this because I couldn't think of a good answer for him other that 'God can do whatever He wants because He's God'. I told him I'd research and try to find a good answer for him. Thanks in advance for the help!


texts: Is the Pope allowed to notarize various Vatican documents?

texts:
The pope can do many things and certainly has much moral authority. Hence, it sounds reasonable for the pope to be able to notarize (certify) Vatican documents. Also in history, many notaries were appointed by the pope (according to the German Wikipedia).

However, in a discussion we were not able to find evidence supporting or contradicting the claim that the pope can notarially certify documents.

Even though for most people this question is only of theoretical relevance, we nevertheless had the impression that it is interesting.


texts: Traditionally most Christians hold that the Biblical Canon has been closed because of the end of the Apostolic era. But if the Pope speaks from "Ex Cathedra", isn't that stating his teaching is similar/equal to the Apostolic authority keeping the Canon open?


texts: Is the catechism of the Catholic Church seen as official doctrine for Catholics?

texts: Or is it seen as something that can be challenged or even, in parts, refused?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses explain John 8:58-59 in a way that accords with their doctrine?

texts:
The Jehovah's witness' version of the bible the NWT translates these verses as:

  58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59  So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple. (emphasis added)

KJV,ESV,NIV,NRSV,NASB all translate the bold section in v58 as "I am", (source) which on the surface, seems to be a direct reference to the way God revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush:

  13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”
  14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” - Ex 3:14-15 NIV (emphasis added, cf. v14 in different versions)

As such, it would seem logical for the Jews to want to stone Jesus for (in their eyes) blasphemy.

This Q&A on the biblical hermeneutics site addresses which translation of those particular words is preferable, so I don't wish to re-hash that ground, but to ask, given the sense imparted by the following verse (i.e. that the Jews regarded what Jesus was saying as blasphemous) how can it be logically maintained that Jesus was not referencing the name (or title, or description - that particular distinction should be irrelevant) of God as revealed to Moses at the burning bush and applying it to himself?


texts: What, exactly, happened to the good thief on the cross, and why? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Jesus says to the thief on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). What does this mean? Did the thief go straight to heaven when he died? Did he get to skip purgatory? If so, why? It would seem that he did no or minimal good works, and it's most likely that he wasn't baptised.

Ideas that bubble to mind include perfect contrition, baptism of desire/baptism of blood, and also the idea that God is not bound by his sacraments, so this guy was a special case who received extrasacramental grace direct from Jesus. I'm not sure how to put it all together though.


texts: What is the Dispensational Interpretation of Daniel’s Stone Kingdom?

texts:
I would like to understand the following vision from the viewpoint of the Dispensational system of prophecy.  What is the stone kingdom, and when did it arrive? Does it begin at John the Baptist’s announcement (Matt. 3:1-2) and reach its ultimate expression at Christ’s second coming?  Or, has it been deferred until the Millennial reign?

  “You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of
  exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was
  frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and
  arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its
  feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut
  out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and
  clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze,
  the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and
  became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind
  carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the
  stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the
  whole earth.”

  “This was the dream. Now we will tell the king its interpretation … in
  the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that
  shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another
  people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to
  an end, and it shall stand forever.”  (Daniel 2:31—36, 44)


texts:
Paul refers to a prophecy about Timothy

  1 Tim 1:18-19 ESV Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith.

Which prophecy is he talking about?


texts: In what manner does the Father draw men to Jesus Christ? John 6:44

texts:
This question is for Evangelicals who do not hold a Calvinist view

Jesus Christ states that the Father alone draws men to Himself.

  “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”
  John 6:44

What did Jesus mean by this statement?
How is this statement to be understood in the broader context of
Scripture such that God remains Sovereign, drawing certain men to
Jesus Christ but men still have free will to choose, up until the
point of being drawn by the Father to Jesus Christ or thereafter?
The response should be able to address/explain Acts 13 why the Jews
were not drawn but the Gentiles were and Acts 16 with Lydia who went
from hearing to paying close attention, therefore drawn. Or other NT
examples.

Jesus does add a qualifier

  “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
  John 6:45

How can one hear and learn from the Father if first they have not
been drawn to Jesus Christ yet but clearly still able to hear and
learn from the Father prior to been drawn to believe in Jesus
Christ?
What is the catalyst that allows them to hear and learn that they
might be drawn?


texts: What purpose does the Old Testament have today?

texts:
I've seen different pastors use the Old Testament to fill gaps and sometimes to override information in the New Testament.  However, the New Testament is supposed to be part of the new deal which is to describe the new covenant post-Jesus.

What purpose does the Old Testament have in Christanity today?  Should it still be part of the Bible?


texts: What should one understand from  the NT verse  which  says :... Jesus realised that power had gone out from Him" (Mark 5:30)? Is it a figurative narration ? Or, is it a  casualty of translation ?


texts: LDS viewpoint on decafinated tea and coffee

texts: Does the prohibition of consuming caffeine found in Doctrine and Covenants 89 allow the LDS adherents to drink decaf tea/coffee?


texts: According to Catholicism, is marrying a woman who had children out of wedlock a sin?

texts:
I am assuming here that marrying a divorced woman is a sin, according to the Sermon on the Mount.

If that is the case, what about a woman who had a child but never married?

Is the child’s father still considered the woman’s “master”? I mean, sex was one of the ways of acquiring a wife back in the day. And their flesh was joined together. So let no man separate that?

What is the view of Catholicism on this?


texts: Whence did 'with the Holy Spirit' get added to the prayer "One is Holy, One is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Amen"?

texts:
In Western Christian worship, there is a part where the faithful say "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, (together) with the Holy Spirit, to the glory of God the Father. Amen."

In Eastern Christianity they say "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen."

Since the quote is partly scriptural (Phillipians 2:11), I can see where the Eastern version comes from (though this may not be the rigorous explanation of how it came to be in the Liturgy), but I have not yet been able to track down where/when/how/why the phrase 'with the Holy Spirit' was inserted in the Western rite.

Some thoughts/possibilities:

It was inserted to make the prayer 'more' Trinitarian. (Counterpoint: Why then would the Eastern Orthodox not include it?)
It was inserted as a consequence of the Filioque clause in the Latin creed. I.e. if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, one might want to make mention of that in a sentence extolling Christ. (Counterpoint: Why would the Eastern Orthodox not include it? Well--they reject the filioque clause. In that case, what is the reason for Paul or the early Church Fathers to omit the Holy Ghost in such a sentiment, either in Scripture or in the Liturgy?)

Overall, I must ask: Is the addition of 'with the Holy Spirit' (in the above prayer) primarily of theological or cultural/traditional origin?

A more advanced answer would lay out the history of such an insertion. But I'm also happy with references I can read on my own.

Thank you.


texts: According to Reformed - 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, the words [weak, sick, died] literal or not?

texts:
1 Corinthians 11:29-30

  (29) For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the
  body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God's judgment upon
  yourself.  (30) That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have
  even died.

To me, it seems verse 29 to 30 is causal. And it's very difficult for me to assume that the bold sentence is metaphor. But to assume the bold sentence is literal, raise a question :

Is it really that someone has died killed by God because he/she ate the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ in that time ?
What about in this present time ? Will God kill someone if he/she ate the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ ?

I hope the bold sentence is metaphor, so I don't need to ask the two questions above anymore :). But, if it's metaphor - what does it mean that a few Christians have "died" after they ate the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ ?

Thank you.


texts: What O.T passages do premillenialists believe to be about the Millennial Kingdom?

texts: What passages do premilleialists, that is, those who believe the "1000 year reign of Christ to be a literal event to occur only after the second coming of Christ, find in the Old testament that they believe to be prophesying about the Millennial Kingdom?


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses have a problem with my relationship with one of their members?

texts:
Hi I am new here but there is this question that bothers me. It concerns the marriage between JW and another congregation.  I am currently dating a JW member who is also of that background. Everything is been fine until he comes to say we can't get married because I am not from his church and that the church will disfellowship him and that none of his siblings will attend the wedding if he pushes through.

My question is: do Jehovah's Witnesses see other Christians as unbelievers?

I am a Catholic and he is a Witness; why would I be viewed as an unbeliever?


texts: Do any Christian traditions permit suicide to avoid being dishonored (raped)?

texts: Do any Christian traditions allow suicide for women at the point of being dishonored  (raped) by rampaging armies or thugs during war or persecutions against Christians? This tough subject includes the case of a father and his family who kill themselves to avoid seeing the mother/wife and the daughters/sisters raped and dishonored before their eyes.


texts: What is the justification of disallowing women to become Roman Catholic priests?

texts: We all know Jesus had chosen his apostles who are all men. But is there any passage in the bible that says Women cannot become priests?


texts: What is the logic behind the present arrangement of Seven Sacraments?

texts:
As per Catholic Catechism, the Seven Sacraments are sequenced in the following order :

Baptism, Confirmation , Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony

But, that is not the sequence in which one receives the Sacraments as one grows up. My question is: What is the logic behind the present random arrangement of the Seven Sacraments in Catholic Catechism ?


texts: May Christians read self improvement books?

texts: We know the best Book we have is the Bible, which has everything for life that we need to live a perfect life. I would like to know should we stop with Bible and Books that are based on Bible, or may Christians read non-Bible based books that teach good things such as "The Power of positive thinking" etc. They seems harmless written by well known authors like Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale etc.


texts: A confusion about the fullfilment of the law

texts:
Jesus said in Mat 5:17-18:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
  have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell
  you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
  the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
  until everything is accomplished.

If we stop reading the paragraph at the former bolded sentence, we'll get the impression that the law is eternal (well... until heaven and earth disappear). But if we keep reading until reaching the latter bolded text, we'll get a different understanding: somehow the law will end after "everything is accomplished" (Christ's earthly duties are done?). So it's not eternal, after all.

Isn't this a contradiction? I'm still having a hard time understanding this passage.


texts: How do believers in Jesus' deity explain that Jesus is never claimed to be God/divine in the Old Roman Creed and the Didache?

texts:
In an answer to a previous question of mine, a user argued against the historicity of the belief in the divinity of Jesus in the early stages of Christianity, by pointing out the fact that Jesus is never claimed to be God in two very important early documents that record what early Christians believed at the time, namely, the Old Roman Creed and the Didache. Below an extract from the answer:

[...] Hence, the concepts of pre-existence and the incarnation were unknown to the early Christians.
What is the proof? Where is any mention of the divinity of Christ noticeably absent? Let's read:

The Div. Trinity, p. 150

"… even the Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon … contains no formal profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Atonement."(The Divine Trinity. A Dogmatic Treatise by Pohle, Joseph, Rt. Rev. Msgr., PH.D., D.D., edited by Arthur Preuss, B. Herder Book Co., © 1911.)

Where is any mention of the divinity of Christ noticeably absent? According to Pohle, "the Didache". What is the Didache? According to Pohle, "the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon". Many scholars hold that it was written sometime during the First Century.
Hence, even passages like, "I am My Father are one," (John 10:30) would not have been interpreted at the time as referring to "the Divinity of Jesus Christ".
What is the proof that the concept of preëxistence was also unknown to the early Christians? Where is any mention of the preëxistent Christ noticeably absent? Let's read:

The Philo. of the Ch. Fathers, p. 190

"In contradistinction to these two types of works, in which there is either a specific mention of a preëxistent Christ or an allusion to it, there is the Old Roman or the so-called Apostles’ Creed (ca. 100), which follows the language of Matthew and Luke and makes no mention of the preëxistent Christ."(The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Volume 1: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964.)

Where is any mention of the preëxistent Christ noticeably absent? According to Wolfson, "the Old Roman or the so-called Apostles' Creed". When was this written? According to Wolfson, "ca. 100". This was also around the time when the last of the Apostles passed away.

The same argument is eloquently restated by one of the commenters (emphasis mine):

[...] The Old Roman Creed and Didache are the 2 very early 'dogs that didn't bark'. If people thought Jesus was God, that would be really important and they would say so. Not saying it is tantamount to denying it in those contexts. Same with John 20:31. If John is really intending to claim Jesus is God with Thomas' exclamation, why doesn't he say so in his takeaway summary? You think that would be important! So not saying it is contextual evidence that 20:28 isn't meant to be a claim that Jesus is God. Add in John 17:3 and John 20:17

Question: How do Trinitarians explain that Jesus is never claimed to be God in the Old Roman Creed and the Didache? Is the absence of evidence truly evidence of absence in this case?


texts: Why has a Brazilian church built a replica of Solomon's Temple?

texts:
An Evangelical-Pentecostal church has built a huge replica of Solomon's Temple in Brazil. But why Solomon's Temple? What does it have to do with Jesus Christ and the Christian faith?
It's very odd to me that they are embracing elements that seem more Jewish than Christian like Solomon's Temple, the Ark of the Covenant and a kippah when preaching. But maybe my idea of Christian traditions is too modern. Have these elements ever been part of any Christian faith?

Further information about this replica: It's from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God that operates in more than 100 countries and was even banned from some African countries. The owner is Edir Macedo, that also appears on Forbes's list of billionaires. He spent 300 M on the construction. Here's the story as covered by The New York Times. Here's the inauguration video, where you can also see how they have used the religious elements I've talked about.


texts:
Tomorrow (Saturday) and Sunday, the Mormon church is holding a general conference, which happens twice a year, in place of regular church meetings.

There's some basic stuff on their website about it, but I'd like to know more about what it is, how it started, why it is held, its significance to church members, etc.

For example: It's a general conference -- who exactly is invited: is it for members only, like the temples? Is it a collection of sermons or does the format vary? What is discussed, and are there any notable conferences which have impacted Christianity or the world?

Bonus points for scriptural references or parallels.


texts: According to Evangelicals, will the saved ever experience the magnitude of suffering associated with their sins?

texts:
On another website, one person said this concerning Catholicism and Purgatory,

  My own vision of purgatory, for which I claim no doctrinal validity, has some interesting echoes in the platonic version (which I have never seen till now.) It is that we are shown for the first time the true evil of our sins, and especially the wide ripples of harm our sins caused to others. We thus endure an excruciating revelation of the evil we have perpetrated, and are invited to full repentance, which probably includes going to each person we wronged and obtaining pardon.

Whether that is true or not is not important.

My question to Evangelicals is this:

Will one who is saved, that is, one who has faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ, ever experience the magnitude of suffering associated with the sins he/she committed (especially against others) in this life, as well as know (by being reminded of) all the sins they have ever committed (i.e., the total quantity)?

  In order to know all the sins they have ever committed, imagine a courtroom where a judge is reading a list and judging you guilty of every single sin you have ever committed. Moreover, by experiencing the magnitude of suffering associated with each sin, imagine each time a sin is enumerated by the judge, you experience (feel) the pain, anguish, hurt, and sorrow felt by the person you sinned against, as well as your very own soul (when you have sinned against yourself). Catholics experience this in Purgatory, and their souls must be purified of their sins.

If so, when does this occur and for what purpose?
Or, does God forget them (cp. Jer. 31:34) and the saved never experiences them in judgment?


texts:
During Religious Ed. last night the review book had a question that we didn't see explained in the text (using Faith and Life Series for 7th Grade).

It asked, "what part of scripture was not inspired?"

The kids were like, "um, Judas?" and I thought that was a good answer, but said we do learn a thing or two from him.  The answer key however, said "the literary style" is not inspired.

I did not understand this and couldn't explain it to the kids. I just told them, the fact that some of it is poetry and some of it isn't is not in it self inspired. I can't for the life of me see how this tidbit will help them to understand the Bible or even how thinking that a poem can be inspired in and of itself.

What does it mean that the literary style is not inspired and why is it not inspired?

This is asked from a Catholic perspective, but I think any tradition that doesn't hold that the literary style was in fact inspired (whatever that means) could help me answer this question.


texts: Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?

texts:
My background is mostly in Evangelicalism and premillenialism. I am aware of other "Churches" (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, cults, etc.) and other eschatological frameworks (amillenial, postmillenial, etc.), but I don't know much about them.

Here I am just wondering if a second coming of Christ is one of the points that is agreed upon by all of the major Christian traditions, or if there are specific traditions which do not anticipate His return.

I am only looking for a "yes" or "no" with some evidence from the major relevant traditions.


texts: Does Stained Glass art hold any special meaning for Catholics?

texts: We see beautiful Catholic buildings adorned with multiple works of stained glass art; is this for any particular reason other than the fact that stained glass art looks nice?


texts: Are there any current Protestant denominations which do not believe that Jesus was born divine (i.e. that Jesus was God at birth)?  Even if they consider Christ's spirit as divine, are there any that believe that Christ's spirit united with Jesus at some point after his birth?


texts: 2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - what does this passage mean?

texts:
Peace, grace and blessings everyone!  I’m new to this board. I look forward to everyone's answer.

  For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being
  saved and among those who are perishing;to the one an aroma from death
  to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate
  for these things? 2 Cor. 2:15-16

Now my focus is where it says “to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life”

What I'd like to know and understand is whether the “death unto death” is a statement referring to those who are “perishing” or to those who are being “saved”?

I may be in the minority, but I believe the "death unto death" is referring to those being "saved" and the "life unto life" to those who are perishing.

I say that base these passages:

  Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Psalm
  116:15

  Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the
  earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
  John 12:24

  Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
  Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3

  For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
  his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. Luke 9:24

It seems to me that understanding our union and death in Christ is what brings "death unto death" which is indeed "precious in His sight" because I believe God wants us to understand that it takes a death to bring real life. The more that we know that nature of Adam was crucified and buried, the more we awaken to our union and oneness with God because of Christ For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.(1 Cor 15:22) And so to those who are then "perishing" (no knowledge or intimacy with God) the message of the cross and reconciliation can become "life unto life" once they believe and receive the free gift of salvation.

If we believe that it pleases Him that the aroma of those in Christ who minister the message of love and grace brings"death unto death" to those who are "perishing", then I beleive it contradicts what God says to Ezekiel:

  Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord
  God...Ezk 18:23

Would love to hear what others think.  Thanks!


texts: What does it mean that Christ experience death for me?

texts:
Besides the horror before death. Asking about what happens right after death. And assuming Death is a spiritual living thing.

After reading Hebrews 2, is it saying that, before Christ vs after Christ, there is a difference in what happens right after death? Death no longer takes a hold of you? Like Death is no longer coming to claim the death. Did Christ Jesus saved human kind from this horrific experience?

For example, there is an idea/fact, that after death, there is a light tunnel leading to Christ Jesus, which then leads one to God to be Judged. Thereby not experiencing Death holding-on you.

Hebrews 2:9 NET

  but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little
  while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so
  that by God's grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone


texts: Does the Bible ever describe the Fall in ways different than Genesis 3?

texts:
In his book In the Beginning, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following with regards to the pre-Pauline hymn of Phil 2:5-11:

  We cannot consider this extraordinarily rich and profound text [Phil
  2:5-11] in detail. We want to limit ourselves here to its connection
  with the story of the Fall, even though it seems to have a somewhat
  different version in mind than the one that is related in Genesis 3
  (cf., e.g., Job 15:7-8).

What is the account of the Fall presumed by Phil 2:5-11? And what is the account of the Fall related in Job 15:7-8?

More over, are there other places where the Bible gives an account of original sin (either explicitly or implicitly)? If this question is too involved, I would be satisfied by any book/article recommendations.


texts: What is the evidence that Thomas Aquinas was assassinated?

texts:
Reading the Wikipedia article on Thomas Aquinas, I stumbled on something rather peculiar.  Apparently he fell ill and died at the age of 49 on his way to the Second Council of Lyon, where he had been summoned by the pope to participate in an effort to reunite the Western and Eastern churches.

Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but it seemed fishy to me that a preeminent scholar "just so happened" to die on his way to such an important event.  I was thus pleased to note that the great Dante had similar misgivings: he wrote in the Divine Comedy that:

  Charles came to Italy, and for amends / A victim made of Conradin, and then
  / Thrust Thomas back to heaven, for amends. (Purgatorio, 20.67–69)

"Charles" here is apparently Charles I of Naples.  Wikipedia cites a historian who disputes Dante's speculations, but I'm not giving up so easily.

What is the evidence, if any, that Aquinas was assassinated?


texts: What is the biblical basis for why the sending of the Holy Spirit was necessary?

texts: Why couldn't the disciples begin following the great commission right after Jesus ascended into heaven? Why was the sending of the Holy Spirit necessary?


texts:
I am looking for a particular quotation that I believe comes from the desert fathers.  I searched the Philokalia but didn't find it.  I don't think it was from there anyway, but I looked.

In the story, the father asks a person with no goals to shoot an arrow into the desert.  Since he has no target, it doesn't matter where he shoots.  A person without a goal is like an archer without a target.  Anyone know either where it came from or how I might search for it?


texts: How did Stephen know that Abraham bought a tomb in Shechem?

texts:
My question is somewhat related to the post, Was the cave of Abraham in Shechem or Hebron?

However, in that post, the question revolved around whether the Patriarchs were buried in Hebron or Shechem. I don't want to argue about that point, and my question, although based on the same text, is on a different matter.

In Acts 7:15-16, Stephen claims that Abraham bought a tomb in Shechem where (at least) the Patriarchs are buried. Now, Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32 make it clear that Jacob bought a piece of land in Shechem, where Joseph's remains were buried. However, the Old Testament has no account of Abraham's buying a tomb in Shechem. This leads me to the specific question: Supposing that the passage quoted from the Acts does reflect Stephen's words, where did Stephen get the information that Abraham bought a tomb at Shechem?


texts: Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man?

texts:
In a discussion about the trinity, I was asked about Numbers.  I was completely stumped.

Numbers 23:19

  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he
  should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he
  spoken, and shall he not make it good?

"If Numbers says that God is not a man, how can Jesus be God?"  Is the question I was presented and I had no answer.


texts: What is the basis for arguing that Paul should have been selected as the 12th apostle instead of Matthias?

texts:
Commentators on the story of Acts 1:15–26, where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like:

  Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. (People's New Testament)

There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul was not considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like Acts 2:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:5–9.  But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been.

So, my question.  What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul?

Related: Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul? Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.


texts: What are the theological implications of "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death"?

texts:
Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou
  among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary,
  Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
  Amen.

From a Catholic and/or Anglican perspective, how does this affect death and its related rites?


texts: What was the specific trap being set for Jesus by the Pharisees in John 8?

texts:
In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap".

  2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people
  gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of
  the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They
  made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this
  woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded
  us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this
  question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
  John 8:2-6 (NIV)

What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?


texts: I have a question concerning free agency. Mormons believe that men are free to choose but how is it that there are prophets that can see what will happen? So they know what people will do? Like Jesus knows that Peter will deny him thrice it's like Peter is destined to do it stripping him of free agency.


texts: Who is being referred to in [Numbers 24:9]?

texts:
Some translations say [Israel], while majority of the others say [you].

[New International Version]
Like a lion they crouch and lie down, like a lioness--who dares to rouse them? "May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!"

[New Living Translation]
Like a lion, Israel crouches and lies down; like a lioness, who dares to arouse her? Blessed is everyone who blesses you, O Israel , and cursed is everyone who curses you.”

Other translations
https://biblehub.com/numbers/24-9.htm

A previous verse (24:5) speaks of Jacob in most translations, but atleast two translations omit Jacob,

[New International Version]
"How beautiful are your tents, Jacob , your dwelling places, Israel!

[New Living Translation]
How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob ; how lovely are your homes, O Israel!

[Contemporary English Version] [no Jacob]
"People of Israel, your camp is lovely.

[Good News Translation] [no Jacob]
The tents of Israel are beautiful

Other translations
https://biblehub.com/numbers/24-5.htm

[Genesis 27:29] shows a similar verse to [Numbers 24:9], but the former is of Isaac speaking of Jacob,

[New International Version]
May nations serve you and peoples bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may the sons of your mother bow down to you. May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed ."

Other translations seem identical,
https://biblehub.com/genesis/27-29.htm

Who is being referred to in Numbers 24:9, and what is the reason for the differences (if any)?


texts: Do any Church Fathers comment on the merciful Nature of Stoning (Catholicism)?

texts:
The Mosaic Law's penal system (among others) includes the severe punishment of death by stoning. To be a little gruesome here: it takes a while to be killed in this way, and so there would theoretically be sufficient time (and impetus) for repentance and penitence before God—and consequently the punishment would take care of most or all of the temporal punishment due to the sin committed.

One Scripture especially comes to mind:

  1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (DRB)  It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Question

Do any Church Fathers write along these lines (the merciful/practical, and not merely penal, nature of the death penalty)?


texts: Did Jesus appear post-resurrection to twelve apostles?

texts:
We see at 1 Cor 15:3-5:

  For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,  and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

But, we see Matthias being elected as replacement for Judas Iscariot only after the ascension of Jesus (See Acts 1:9 [Jesus' ascension] & Acts 1:26 [Matthias chosen]).

My question is: whom does Paul refer to as "the twelve" when there were only eleven apostles left in the group before the ascension of the Lord? What is the explanation offered by Catholic Church for the said statement of Paul?


texts: How did C. A. Muses revise Thomson's translation of the Septuagint?

texts: Charles Thomson's translation of the Septuagint was published in 1808, and the revision of C. A. Muses was printed in 1954.  What is an overview of the revisions that Muses made to Thomson's original translation?


texts: How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who consider it a literal, historical event?

texts:
This question is very similar to a question I just asked, but it's not a duplicate (just hear me out). Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) -- the previous question; 2) those who interpret the events as literal, specifically the pericope of the Resurrection of the Holy Ones as cited in Matthew's Passion narrative specifically  -- this question. Of course, the main body of the question will be similar, but I wanted to direct the question towards a different audience and provide a venue for that. There are also a variety of other questions geared for those who interpret it as literal.

The scripture of focus is:

  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
  the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the
  graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
  holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they
  that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those
  things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the
  Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54. KJV)

With phenomenal events such as an earthquake so mighty it opens a number of graves and then the righteous dead arise and interact with the community, one would expect Matthew to explicate these miracles beyond the pithy lines in his text; or, at least, expect the other evangelists to also document these incidences in their narratives. The Markan narrative denotes the temple’s rented veil and the centurion’s response, but does not make any mention of an earthquake or the resurrection of saints. Similarly, Luke and John do not make even the slightest reference to these events.

Additionally, during Peter’s pontifical address during Pentecost, not even a nebulous reference to a powerful earthquake or the resurrection of these saints is conveyed. Pentecost occurred fifty days following Christ’s resurrection and the supposed Holy Ones’ appearance to “many.” Therefore, the omission of these events in Peter’s address, especially to an audience that were likely witnesses to these events, is a curious oversight.

Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about these? Why aren't there other extra-biblical sources for these events? It seems like more than Christ's followers would have witnessed these events.... And it certainly seems like something people would continue to talk about for ages thereafter... Are there other sources that may imply the opening of tombs and rising of the deceased?

Or were only the righteous ones able to "see" these?

Or is it that there weren't that many "righteous" individuals in the scheme of things -- that it was hardly noticed?

Or that the resurrected beings, looked just like everyone else?

Or did the High Priest somehow cover-up this story? (For instance, we read that they tried telling people that Christ's body was stolen).

Or did they just destroy all the records they could get their hands on? (and the general witness to these events were illiterate)?

Or we simply have not unearthed these records yet? After all, an absence of evidence is not evidence for something, right?

Just confused why no one else mentions it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Also, do we have any archaeological records of tombs breaking open?

And does the geological record correspond to an earthquake happening in this region?

***If you are interested as to a non-literal, modern interpretation, please see my other question for the answer provided there.


texts: Why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him?

texts:
Jesus, before He was risen to heaven, left the task of evangelism to his disciples and Christians.  Since men are fallible and are not all-powerful, they are taught to pray and rely on God in their evangelical work.  The question is, since God is all-powerful and omniscient, why can't God persuade all mankind, in their free-will, to believe in him?

According to Romans 1:19-20, God tries to reveal himself to his people.

  What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).

However, God is also a loving God, and by that virtue, God should be trying hard to convince every person to believe in him.  The fact that some people cannot be persuaded seems to signify either that God is not all-powerful, or He does not want to.

(Note: this question assumes this is possible without conflicting with mankind's free-will, as God can assess each individual's knowledge/personality/character and convince them through multiple mediums such as people/nature/experiences).


texts:
Adam and Eve have two sons, Abel and Cain.
Cain slew Abel because of jealousy.
Then Genesis 4, Cain got married, but to whom?
Adam and eve were the first two persons in this world and that makes their sons the third and fourth person.

With whom did Abel and later his younger brother Seth got married.


texts: In Catholic Church History, when, why and by whom did the four living creatures become associated with the four evangelists?

texts:
In the Catholic Church history, when, why, and by whom did the four living creatures become associated with the four evangelists?

And what is the reasoning behind this association:

Matthew = Man
Mark = Lion
Luke = Ox
John = Eagle


texts: How do I clean, iron and fold purificators?

texts: I have taken on Sacristan duties at an Anglican place of worship. What are the best techniques for cleaning, ironing and folding purificators - the clothes used to wipe the chalices/cups when wine is served at Holy Communion/the Lord's Supper/the Mass?


texts: When was the idea of all humans worth equal incorporated into Lutheran Christianity?

texts:
Why am I here

In Swedish Lutheran church today (which I belong to), it seems to be "obvious" that All humans are worth equal. I'm not questioning the statement itself, I am just interested in the origins of it - when did the Church started to state this?

What does the UN say?

The United Nations universal declarations of human rights state:

  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This sounds like "all humans are worth equal" to me.

What does the bible say?

Genesis 1:27

  So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Nahum 1:14

  The Lord has given commandment about you: “No more shall your name be perpetuated; from the house of your gods I will cut off the carved image and the metal image. I will make your grave, for you are vile.”

I haven't been able to find any place in the bible where it says that All humans are worth equal. Being created in the image of God does not automatically lead to All humans being worth equal. The text from Nahum more seems to say the contrary (there are some other texts just like it).

Question

I have heard "All humans are worth equal" being spoken about as a Christian idea. I'm not interested in the origin itself of the concept of all Humans being worth equal, I want to know

When was this idea incorporated into Christianity?


texts: Do young earth creationists believe that God has a body?

texts:
Young earth creationists believe that the bible should be read literally.

Adam and Eve hear God's footstep. That means God must have foot and his foot step emit sound waves. That means God has a body.

Is it what YEC believes too?

The point of the question is, if YEC believes that the creation story is literal, do they also interpret the idea of hearing God's footstep literally too? The latter implies that God has a body, or at least a foot, and the foot is physical enough to emit sound waves when hitting the ground.


texts: What is the framework and concise definition of the New Perspective on Paul?

texts:
Can you list a simple matrix of the old and new views on the Perspective on Paul from the viewpoint of vetted and at least modestly accepted details based on the New Perspective of Paul?

I'm not as interested at this time on the arguments for or against the New Perspective, but simply a list of the main topics (vetted to some extent) of what the new perspectives are and what the old perspective was.

I understand that the Old Perspectives probably have different viewpoints as well, please consider using the basic United States Protestant perspective (probably based on Martin Luther's work) or just leave the "Old Perspective" empty and I'll infer it from my own reading.

Conceptually what are the hinges of the NPP viewpoint on which the interpretation of the writings of Paul swings?

Define the hinges, ignore the position of the door so to speak.


texts:
Can someone explain me these passages about the effect of poison?

Who is immune to poison?
Why do they have this trait?
Why isn't anyone today immune to poison?

Mark 16:17-18

  17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Luke 10:19

  I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

Acts 28:3-6

  3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.” 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. 6 The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.


texts: What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?

texts: Some people use "apostles" and "disciples" interchangeably when talking about the 12 that originally followed Jesus.  Yet, I don't commonly hear the opposite, people using those two words interchangeably when talking about those that follow Jesus after his resurrection and ascension.  When I do hear them interchanged, it doesn't sound correct.  What is the difference between an apostle and disciple?  And does it change from denomination to denomination?


texts:
In Old Testament sacrifice, High Priest said 'It is finished' when he had killed the lamb; to say it is finished lamb had to die and then the sacrifice was finished. But Jesus Christ said it is finished before His death even though death was necessary to complete a sacrifice.

Some say "the sin debt was paid in full" when He said "it is finished" as if death was not necessary or is it that "it is finished" phrase means something else in both covenants?


texts: Help in calculating cousin degree according to Catholic Church

texts:
This post is a follow-up from here.

I have a distant cousin who have a relationship with me as follows: My dad's sister is a first or second cousin with her uncle, though my dad and her uncle are not related. What would be the degree of kindship be between her and myself (please give 2 answers, one for 1st and another for 2nd)? I am a little confused about the chart answer from the above question.


texts: Did Erasmus use Codex Basilensis for his Novum Instrumentum omne?

texts: I am looking for a definitive answer to whether or not Erasmus used Codex Basilensis 'A. N. III. 12 (07 on the list Gregory-Aland) — the four Gospels in Greek in uncial letters; 8th century' in his Novum Instrumentum omne?


texts:
Question:: Should we consider everyone better than ourselves?

It seems that we can, without abusing humility, consider ourselves better than others. And it seems that we can do this in two ways:
1) by comparison of what we have from ourselves and what the other one has of himself,
2) by comparison of what we have from God and what the other has of God.
(But we could not consider what we have from ourselves to be better than what other has from God). This seems to be the teaching of Aquinas:

  I answer that, We may consider two things in man, namely that which is
  God's, and that which is man's. Whatever pertains to defect is man's:
  but whatever pertains to man's welfare and perfection is God's,
  according to the saying of Hosea 13:9, "Destruction is thy own, O
  Israel; thy help is only in Me." Now humility, as stated above
  (Article 1, Reply to Objection 5; Article 2, Reply to Objection 3),
  properly regards the reverence whereby man is subject to God.
  Wherefore every man, in respect of that which is his own, ought to
  subject himself to every neighbor, in respect of that which the latter
  has of God's: but humility does not require a man to subject what he
  has of God's to that which may seem to be God's in another. For those
  who have a share of God's gifts know that they have them, according to
  1 Corinthians 2:12: "That we may know the things that are given us
  from God." Wherefore without prejudice to humility they may set the
  gifts they have received from God above those that others appear to
  have received from Him; thus the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5): "(The
  mystery of Christ) was not known to the sons of men as it is now
  revealed to His holy apostles." On like manner. humility does not
  require a man to subject that which he has of his own to that which
  his neighbor has of man's: otherwise each one would have to esteem
  himself a greater sinner than anyone else: whereas the Apostle says
  without prejudice to humility (Galatians 2:15): "We by nature are
  Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Nevertheless a man may esteem
  his neighbor to have some good which he lacks himself, or himself to
  have some evil which another has not: by reason of which, he may
  subject himself to him with humility.

But on the other hand, it would seem that we can not consider ourselves better than others even if we see another committing a serious sin. We read in the Imitation of Christ (emphasis is mine):

  If you wish to learn and appreciate something worth while, then love
  to be unknown and considered as nothing. Truly to know and despise
  self is the best and most perfect counsel. To think of oneself as
  nothing, and always to think well and highly of others is the best and
  most perfect wisdom. Wherefore, if you see another sin openly or
  commit a serious crime, do not consider yourself better, for you do
  not know how long you can remain in good estate. All men are frail,
  but you must admit that none is more frail than yourself.

Also, I have heard an argument in favor of the opinion that we should not consider ourselves better in any respect, because we never know how the other person would have acted if he received the graces we did

Can all of those arguments be put in harmony?

Of course, I would like an answer from the Catholic viewpoint.


texts: Do the Taylor Brethren use the term 'Trinity' in a specialised way?

texts:
In 1890, the Brethren movement split into two, one section led by F E Raven (the cause of the split) who was then succeeded by James Taylor Senior, who also held at least some of Raven's views.

Raven and Taylor taught that the expression 'son of God' refers only to the One who came in flesh after his incarnation and not before. Thus a number departed at the time and emphasised the 'eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ'.

This issue had affected other movements previously, and J C Philpot, of the Baptist movement, wrote, in 1860, a book titled 'The True, Proper and Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ'.

Today, some appear to be Exclusive Brethren and are headed by an Australian man, (and administered from Australia) calling themselves 'Plymouth Brethren' but their teaching contradicts the Leader of that, original, movement (J N Darby) who is quoted as saying :

  If I hold the Son only as son from incarnation - I lose everything.

Question One :

I am interested to know if those who hold that Jesus Christ is 'son of God only by incarnation' use the term 'The Trinity'.

If they do, it is important to realise that they hold that there are three gods whose relationship (in deity) is unknown and unrevealed, who accepted 'offices' (their word, not mine) which offices are labelled "father", "son" and "holy spirit".

This is not what others believe who also use the term 'The Trinity' which, to them, means eternal relationships which truly reveal Person within Deity and that the names 'Father' 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' are real revelations of Person, not of 'assumed office'.

Question Two :

And if it is the case that the Taylor Brethren refer to 'The Trinity' does this term need to be further qualified for the sake of clarity ?


texts: Motivated by the question What are the theological implications/problems with theistic evolution?, consider that Jasher 4:18 seems to imply that there is something wrong with the mixing of animal species to create "chimeras". The creationists group species into "kinds" but the naturalistic evolutionary view would probably say that the whole thing is a spectrum and that nothing is special about a particular given phenotype other than its current adaptability to the current environment, i.e. everything is just in continuous flux. But if Jasher 4:18 is true, then there is something "divinely special" about certain fixed phenotypes that we see nowadays. The two philosophies are completely in opposition. The technology to create chimeras will surely exist in future. What should a Christian say about chimeras? The view of Jasher 4:18 seems incontrovertible.


texts: Looking for orthodox movies about St. Francis and St. Clare

texts:
There are tons of movies about St. Francis and St. Clare,  is there a complete list of movies that, I don't know, rank by historicity and orthodoxy?   I've seen a few movies about them but can't remember which, I know The Flowers of St. Francis is good, but it's not necessarily based on anything particularly historical.
So, what I'd like to see is a complete list, with a relative rating (maybe on a scale of 1-10) for historicity and orthodoxy.  I'm trying to find some movies for a curriculum I'm putting together for my daughter's homeschool.


texts: Who is God in the Old Testament? (Trinity)

texts:
I had always thought the Entity of the Trinity that appears in the Old Testament was God the Father. However, upon re-reading several passages, I am beginning to think it might be Jesus Christ.
The Referenced Verses, John 6:46 and John 14:6 - Which say 'Not that anyone has seen the father, except he who is from God (Jesus Christ)' and 'Nobody can come to the father except through me(Jesus Christ)' (ESV)
From these Statements from Christ, I am inclined to believe the 'LORD' in the old testament was actually Jesus Christ, and not the Father - as I've always assumed. If Nobody has ever come to the Father, or seen the Father except through Christ - Moses must not have been interacting with the Father, Right?
Please let me know what you think of this. Did the Old Testament ever make specific reference that God was God the Father?
Thank you


texts: What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?

texts:
There seems to be general consensus inside Christianity that in order to be saved, you must have faith, and that this faith has to be in Jesus Christ. Here is one verse sometimes cited for the necessity of having faith:

  Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

There is also another verse that seems to indicate that this faith only comes from hearing specifically about Jesus Christ:

  Romans 10:17 (ESV)
  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Isn't this kind of rough luck on your average illiterate jungle tribe without contact with the outside world? How is it fair of God to offer salvation only to a limited subset of people who happen to have access to this news? Are they to be dammed for something out of their control?


texts: What is the process for starting a new Christian denomination?

texts:
There are thousands of Christian denominations. How did these groups form?

What is the typical process for organizing a denomination?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the centrality of preaching in worship?

texts:
Among many Protestants, preaching is often seen as the most important part of the worship service:

  Proclamation, the preaching of the gospel, should be central to Christian worship. The sermon is the central dynamic in the worship experience. (Annual Preacher's Sourcebook)

Sermons thus are emphasized, but even beyond that, this often influences architecture.  The pastor's pulpit is brought to the center of the church, diminishing the focus on other aspects like the communion table.

What is the biblical basis for understanding preaching to be the most important part of the worship service? Note the word most: of course the proclamation of the gospel is important, but why is it seen to be more important than things like singing, praying, and the Lord's supper?

Question inspired by John Frame's Systematic Theology, chapter 27, p 645ff. and review question 11: Do you believe that preaching is "central" to Christian worship?


texts: What did C. S. Lewis base his idea of sehnsucht/joy on?

texts:
C. S. Lewis' idea of sehnsucht is that we sense that there is some ineffable object to our desires and that this proves that there is something beyond this world and life (for it makes the enjoyment of those goods pale in comparison). He used this idea, in one instance, as proof of God.

What evidence, whether from the Bible or philosophy or his own experience, did he base this idea on?


texts: What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas?

texts:
To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true! It is about understanding the doctrine. Thus this is not a question of opinion.

I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity). According to Wikipedia:

The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.

But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of Modalistic Monarchianism, which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting. So I see how this is not like water.
Quoting https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html:

Other bad analogies
If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.

Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what do we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
EDIT: I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed? I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature".


texts:
Is it possible for a pope name his successor?

There are some that believed that the Prince of the Apostles, St Peter, actually named his successor, but this tradition can in no way be verified. There is also some disagreement that St Linus may not have been his first successor.

  All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

  After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

  We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name. - Pope St. Linus (67-76)

Traditionally there have been three ways the College of Cardinals could elect a new pope: election by acclamation  quasi ex inspiratione, election per compromissum and election of the Roman Pontiff by secret ballot.

In Pope John Paul's Apostolic Constitution UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, He suppressed the first two possible manners of electing a successor and the only way to elect a new pope is by secret ballot.

  Finally, I have deemed it necessary to revise the form of the election itself in the light of the present-day needs of the Church and the usages of modern society. I have thus considered it fitting not to retain election by acclamation  quasi ex inspiratione, judging that it is no longer an apt means of interpreting the thought of an electoral college so great in number and so diverse in origin. It also appeared necessary to eliminate election per compromissum, not only because of the difficulty of the procedure, evident from the unwieldy accumulation of rules issued in the past, but also because by its very nature it tends to lessen the responsibility of the individual electors who, in this case, would not be required to express their choice personally.

  After careful reflection I have therefore decided that the only form by which the electors can manifest their vote in the election of the Roman Pontiff is by secret ballot.

No where is it mentioned that a pope may name his successor personally. Can a pope actually name his successor before he dies?


texts: Which doctrines are based solely on the apocrypha?

texts: What Roman Catholic doctrines are based only in the 7 books canonized by the Roman church, but not accepted by Protestants. (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the additions to Daniel and Esther, etc...)


texts: Since Jesus death paid our sin debt in full, why do Christians still die?

texts:
In Genesis chapter  two God places the burden of death on man's sin(disobedience of God).
Genesis 2:17  KJV

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

When Jesus died on the cross all of our sins were given to him and his death paid the penalty for our transgressions.
Since Jesus suffered death for us why do Christians who have given their sins to Jesus on the cross still die?
1st John 2:2  KJV

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Galatians 1:4  KJV

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Romans chapter 5   KJV

12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)


texts: Which denominations believe that the misfortunes of Jews are a result of "God's curse" for their killing of Jesus?

texts:
In this answer user Mike made the following statement:

  For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in
  the actual destruction of their nation which occurred in 70 A.D. Their
  homeless position on the earth did not end until 1948 making the
  punishment so very great.

This possibly also includes the Holocaust (although not mentioned by name) because it directly resulted from the "homeless" position and happened before 1948.

Thus my question is as follows:

What Christian groups consider the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD, the persecutions of the Jews due to their homeless position until the creation of Israel, discrimination of the Jews in Europe, the pogroms in Imperial Russia, the Holocaust and other misfortunes the Jews suffered from Christians a punishment of God for killing Jesus Christ?


texts: How do Seventh Day Adventists interpret Romans 14:5?

texts:
In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day,
  while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully
  convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable.
  Romans 14:5 NLT

How do Seventh Day Adventists interpret this verse?


texts: Did Joseph Smith “translate the Book of Mormon”?

texts:
In a related thread, the original inquirer asked,

  Why did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, not in use in 1830?

When I see the word “translate,” it means to me that a scribe read a manuscript written in one language (e.g., Greek), and interpreted what he read in a different language (e.g., English).

An example of translation:

For example, the King James Version was produced when an assembly of men translated the Greek Textus Receptus (and a few other foreign language manuscripts of the Bible) into English.

In order for Joseph Smith to have “translated the Book of Mormon,” an English version of the Bible, he would have had to translate from a manuscript written in a foreign language, whether it be the Textus Receptus, the Latin Vulgate, etc.

According to the LDS Church, is the Book of Mormon a translation from a foreign language? If so, what foreign language manuscripts did Joseph Smith use to produce the Book of Mormon? If not, in what manner was the Book of Mormon written?


texts: What are the general categories of benefits of being part of a denomination?

texts: It seems most Protestant churches fall under one of two umbrellas: denominational or independent. What is the general rationale for a Protestant church to be part of a denomination rather than being independent? What general types of benefits are there in not being independent?


texts: What is the basis for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

texts: Referencing one or more passage of scripture, and any seconday external sources, what is the supportable, Biblical basis for the doctrine of the innerrancy of the Bible?


texts: What is the origin for the tradition that Judas Iscariot is the twin brother of St. Thomas the Apostle?

texts:
Judas Iscariot is the twin brother of St. Thomas the Apostle?

I am not saying that St. Thomas the Apostle's is the twin brother of Judas Iscariot. I am simply seeking resource historical information that states this so.

Some years ago, a priest friend of mine stated that there was an obscure legend or tradition that St. Thomas the Apostle, who was called the twin, claimed that his twin brother was no one other than the infamous traitor of Our Lord, Judas Iscariot. My priest friend in no longer amongst us and I have never known him to be wrong on such things. I have not been able to locate a source of any such legend or tradition.

Can anyone locate a possible source of this obscure legend or tradition?


texts: If I 'guess' that there is a God and live accordingly, could I be considered a true believer? Can faith only be revealed? Is believing not a form of guessing?


texts: German Bible translation like NKJV, ESV, NASB.. etc

texts:
I want to buy a German Bible translation but am not sure which one is best. By "best" I mean one that takes the least amount of doctrinal liberties in translation, so no paraphrase versions (eg, "The Message"), no denominational versions (eg, the Catholic "Douay Rheims"), and so on. My preferred English translation is NKJV, but I also own ESV, NIV, and several others. My preferred Spanish translation is the Reina-Valera 1960, if that helps. I know of the following German versions: Schlachter2000, Neue Genfer, Luther 1545, Hoffnung Fuer Alle, Froschauer Bible, Zuercher Bibel, (among a few others) of which I heard the Zurich Bible was the best.

To be clear, I want a translation with no Apocrypha, that is easy to read (eg, NKJV is easy to read, where the KJV is not), and faithful to the original texts (I find that even the ESV makes certain doctrinal translation choices, which kind of bothers me). I don't mind the use of the Textus Receptus as a base text, as long as the translation points out where the TR diverges from the most reliable manuscripts (as most modern translations already do), but please do mention it if this is the case.

I would be extra grateful if you can include a link to buy a (cheap) soft-cover, portable version.


texts: Is Matthew 17:24 a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus?

texts:
Matthew 17:24 says:

  "After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

My professor uses this verse as an example of the "Fiscus Judaicus," which would've been in operation after the Jewish Revolt in 70 C.E. His point is that Matthew erred and accidentally included a function that was present during the time Matthew wrote his gospel (roughly around 70 C.E), but would not have existed during Jesus' day.

So, my question becomes: Has Matthew erred in his writing and included a governmental function that did not exist in Jesus' day?


texts: What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1?

texts: Nadab and Abihu were killed for this "small" thing in God's eyes.  Wow!  I have a hard time understanding this.  Any thoughts?


texts: What is the role of human judgement given God's omnipotence and his plans

texts:
For example, some people view evangelism to be "most effective" using one method, whislt another person might view it as "most effective" to use another method. Ie, our opinions (and hence actions) can bring us closer/further away from God.

Another example would be differing views of the interpretation of the bible. Our opinions can be correct and hence bring us closer to God, or they can be incorrect and take us away from him.

To what extent can we rely on our own human judgement to help build a better relationship with God?


texts: Does Total Consecration to Mary imply a supernatural wisdom?

texts:
Pope St. John Paul II famously promoted Total Consecration including taking "Totus Tuus" as his motto.
Does a practice of Total Consecration, sincerely pursued, entail receiving any special degree of wisdom or safeguards over decisions? E.g. Does Pope St. John Paul II’s total consecration say anything about the quality of the acts of his papacy? Does it say anything about the merit of the soul if later canonized? (i.e. Do they become a "Great Saint"?)


texts: According to the Catholicism, what was the marital status of Gomer, the woman chosen to be Prophet Hosea's wife?

texts:
We read at  Hosea 3: 1-2 ( NRSVCE) of the Lord's direction to him to marry a woman:

The Lord said to me again, “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine.”

But the same verses of  NIV read like this:

The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes. So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley.”

While the NRSVCE depicts Gomer, who would later become Hosea's wife, as a stranger, NIV pictures her as his own former  wife , who had deserted him for another man. Of course, there is a lot of symbolic meaning to the whole incident. My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the difference of marital status in respect of Gomer, the woman whom Prophet Hosea was ordered to marry, as narrated in  different versions of the Old Testament?


texts: How do paedobaptists address the argument that infants are incapable of doing what those of Cornelius' household did?

texts:
Acts 10, the conversion of Cornelius' household, is often used as one of the prooftexts for infant baptism.

However, when reviewing Acts 10:44-46, I have two objections to its use as support for the doctrine:

After receiving the Spirit the gentiles magnified/praised God. Infants can't verbally speak, let alone verbally praise God.
Acts 10:44 implies that those who heard the word could understand it. Infants can't understand the gospel message nor trust Christ as savior.

How do those who use Cornelius' conversion as support for infant baptism respond to these points? I know that other scripture is used to support infant baptism, but this question is specifically about Acts 10.


texts: How does someone accidentally make an oath? Leviticus 5:4

texts:
How does someone accidentally make an oath (an oath that they are "unaware" they had made)? Does it mean basically all careless statements about taking a particular action are in effect an oath?

  ... or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned.

I'm interested primarily in the exegesis—what this passage literally meant—not the modern application. An oath made while drunk is a possible example, but I'm not even sure that fits. If that was the only case, wouldn't it just say "an oath made while drunk"? What other cases might there be?


texts: What were the scriptural arguments used for modern western racism?

texts:
A blight on the modern western church is that the bible has been used by certain people to justify racism--specifically dark-skinned people's inferiority and light-skinned people's superiority. Some unfortunately smart people found passages of scripture to support this viewpoint and created compelling arguments.

What are these arguments for racial superiority and from which scriptures do they come? And I'm not just asking about slavery! For example, how did the American church support ideas like segregation and Caucasian superiority into the '30s and '40s and '50s, long after the days of emancipation?


texts: When are the various assorted labels for Catholics - see body - applied and how are they related?

texts:
This question arises from: For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues? | MonicaCellio, and as a complement to it.

From the Catholic Church's Credo Chart, Catholics believe in the holy catholic Church. However there are  any number of labels being used for various groupings, apparently under the "Catholic" umbrella. In what context are all these labels used, what do they signify, and what is their canonical status according to the RCC? Are some or all of them considered schismatics by the RCC?

It seems after Vatican II, there appeared those who identified themselves as Traditional Catholics ('I am a Trad,' as Hilary Jane Margaret White blogs). Then there are organizations like the SSPX - Society of St. Pius X.
Another Catholic Institution that came into public consciousness with Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code, is Opus Dei, that is described as 'Ultra-Conservative'.
When the Pope was elected, we came to learn that he is a Jesuit.
Then, especially in America, one hears of Conservative and Liberal Catholics. Perhaps mirroring the country's political divide?
Adding to these, a new term has emerged: 'Neo-Catholic'.
Our fellow user AndrewLeach tells us that he is 'a  Roman Catholic in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the UK'.
Finally, in a reply to a comment under an online article, one lady wrote, '[p]lease do not condemn the Orthodox church - an Eastern Rite Catholic lady'.

The question is seeking an answer to who all these Catholics are - and how does the Roman Catholic Church view those who are identified or identify themselves as Traditional, Ultraconservative, Conservative, Liberal, and Neo-Catholic?


texts:
Catholics interpret the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 in light of transubstantiation (= the miracle of bread changing into Jesus' literal flesh and wine changing into Jesus' literal blood performed by a Catholic priest in the person of Jesus Christ.Only the substances changed into Jesus's substance and not the appearances of the bread and wine). (source)

In the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6, Jesus said [in light of Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation]:

John 6:35 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:36 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:40 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:47 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:64 Belief in Jesus = eternal life

John 6:54 [literally] eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus = eternal life

John 6:55 [literally] eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus = eternal life

John 6:59 [literally]eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus = eternal life

Was Jesus teaching about TWO WAYS to have eternal life in the Bread of life Discourse in John chapter 6?

1) Belief in Him

2) Eat his flesh and drink his blood

What is the Catholic interpretation of Soteriology in the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6?


texts:
I recently ran across this comment suggesting that the ESV translation was undertaken because the NRSV was ‘too liberal.’ I’ve often been curious what prompted this split in the KJV-lineage group, and I've heard similar statements from others about doctrinal (or political?) motivations. I’m aware of the Isaiah 7:14 issue,* and I see that the ESV and NRSV diverge frequently in their decisions about gender language. But I’m not familiar with other major discrepancies.

Among those who consider the NRSV ‘too liberal,’ what other decisions or categories of decisions are commonly cited?

*Although that one was actually an RSV decision (reversed in the ESV), not new to the NRSV. I’m also not clear that this should be considered a liberal vs conservative issue, but it’s often cited that way.


texts: Are the Local Churches (associated with Watchman Nee) Calvinist?

texts: Are the Local Churches, based on the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, Calvinist (Reformed Theology)?


texts:
We read in the Gospel of Matthew 19:16-30 the story of the rich young man.

  The Rich and the Kingdom of God

  Just then a man came up to Jesus and
  asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

  “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only
  One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

  “Which ones?” he inquired.

  Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,
  you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your
  father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

  “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

  Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
  and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,
  follow me.”

  When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great
  wealth.

Question: Did the young rich man sin by not following Jesus? If he did, was it mortal or venial sin?


texts: Who if any Evangelicals still believe that Adam was created with "a perfect knowledge of God" and everything else?

texts:
I was just reading a little bit of a book by British academic Jonathan Edwards (note: not the famous one) called "A Preservative Against Socinianism" published in 1698. On page 16 Edwards says something that elicits my question:

  For tho Socinus acknowledges that God at first made man after his own Image: yet he tells us that that Image, as we shewed before, consisted only in the Dominion which God gave him over the whole Creation: and that all other notions of similitude, whereby he may be thought to resemble God, are but Commenta Humana, the inventions of men; not any part of the Revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures. In short, that Adam was born a frail, mortal Creature, having only the bare faculties of understanding and will, but without the accomplishments of either; being neither endued with wisdom nor holiness: a pure rasa Tabula, capable indeed of any impressions, but having no characters either of wisdom or Righteousness, engraven upon his mind, by the finger of God, when he first dropped out of his hands.

He goes on to say in the next paragraph that the orthodox belief is that Adam was created with:

  a perfect knowledge of God, himself, his duty, and all parts of creation: [but] Socinus will tell you that all this is a great mistake.

Was Jonathan Edwards unique in holding this position or was it a common one in his day? Does this particular point of theology have a name? Is this belief still held amongst any Evangelical groups today the same as Edwards did then, or has the general trend in Evangelicalism been in a more Socinian direction on this point?

(By the way, if someone wants to verify the quote, the book is on Google Books. I don't know how to link directly to the page number, so you'll have to scroll down to page 16.)


texts: How do proponents of Sola Scriptura address the ministry of those Apostles who authored no parts of Scripture?

texts:
My purpose is to find a defense of sola scriptura against one part of the argument put forth in this article:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/going-beyond

The author of the article uses as one of his pieces of evidence in his argument against sola scriptura the ministry of those Apostles that never wrote a gospel or letter that made it into the Bible. If they were apostles and had apostolic authority to teach doctrine, what are we to do with doctrines that they taught that were communicated via tradition and never incorporated into the Bible?

Or, concerning John, what about teachings that he considered important that he intended to share verbally and never were written down in any of his letters?

Here is the relevant quote from the article:

  And then there’s that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the
  apostles. If Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura in 1
  Corinthians 4 he would have been in conflict with the practice of the
  rest of the apostles. Most of the apostles never wrote a single line
  of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally.
  Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the
  written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?

  None of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said,
  “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and
  ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3
  John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral
  Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John
  12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior
  to oral Tradition?

My preference is for a Calvinist argument, but any protestant argument will suffice.

Note: In my research, I have found this article helpful, and it touches on these matters, but the argument could be stronger:
https://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/


texts: What have Christians taught during past plagues and pandemics?

texts:
Christians have lived through many major plagues, epidemics, and pandemics over the past two thousand years. Some of the most severe pandemics were the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death, both of which are estimated to have possibly killed up to half of the population of Europe. There were also many smaller localised epidemics of plague, measles, smallpox, and others.

What did Christian pastors and ministers teach during these times, to encourage and reassure their congregations?

This is a special open-ended question that would not normally be allowed here, but during this current pandemic we feel it could be helpful. For more, see this Meta discussion.

Lets please restrict this to past plagues, epidemics, and pandemics. Right now every man and his dog has something to say about COVID-19, and while some of it may pass the test of time and be recognised as inspired Godly wisdom, most won't.


texts: Is John saying that Christ is God and eternal?

texts:
The Book of John says that God is the Word in the beginning.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1, NIV)

How is Jesus Christ the son to the Word?
Jesus, when he was with the Twelve Apostles, told his disciples that no one was going to the Father except through him.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:6-9, NIV)

So, are these verses trying to say that Christ is God and that he has always been since the beginning, so Mary who came later bore Christ who was before?


texts: Do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ returned to Earth in 1914, or has this teaching now been abandoned?

texts:
I would be interested in having some clarification on this topic.
I once had a poster displayed in my house with the text, "The coming of the Lord draws near." James 5:8. Two very sincere and concerned Jehovah Witnesses knocked on my door and explained you can't say that (James 5:8) as it already happened in 1914. I am informed that this is a doctrine that has now been abandoned or revised. I am curious as to which is true?


texts: On the Catholic Perspective on the incarnation of Jesus, according to St.Thomas Aquinas: Two natures, one Person

texts:
To understand St.Thomas theology, we must understand the metaphysics that goes hand in hand with his theology.

For the notion of Person, the previous notion of Suppositum or Hypostasis seems to be central. I'm reading a book on St.Thomas' metaphysics, and it states that the difference between the concept of essence and suppositum was very important in how he was able to 'explain' the Incarnation of Christ, and His dual nature, of man and of God.

How was St.Thomas able to explain the dual nature of Christ?


texts: Does the Catholic canon law say anything about women being priests?

texts: Is there any canon law in the Catholic Church about the role of women in the church and its possibilities to be groomed for Priesthood?


texts:
The following verses clearly credit Jesus Christ with “Creation.” How do Christians view the role of Christ in Creation?

Ephesians 3:9:

  And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

John 1:1-14:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Colossians 1:16:

  For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him