texts: What privileges and powers does the Prophet of the LDS Church have in his office as Seer?

texts: From what I know, the Prophet of the LDS Church holds the position of Seer, as Joseph Smith did.  If this is so, what specific privileges and powers come with that position?  Does this include the ability to translate ancient languages as it did for Joseph Smith?


texts: If the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” how can a Christian fight in a war?

texts:
Exodus holds the 10 commandments.  Specifically, we see:

  Exodus 20:13 (KJV)
  Thou shalt not kill.

Since the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not kill” why do many Christians fight in a war?

Note this question is not aimed at pacifist denominations, but at those who do support war (at least in some situations).


texts: What common apologetic arguments support the view that it is more likely that Jesus was resurrected than his body was stolen?

texts:
I am curious as to why Christians think that the resurrection hypothesis is more plausible and probable than any of the many alternative explanations like the body being stolen.

I look forward to your responses.


texts: May the Pope waive the requirements of Canon Law in the appointment of bishops?

texts:
Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the New York Times reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual.  This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per Canon 1382).
It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found Canon 378, which says that suitable candidates "must":

1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question;
2° be held in good esteem;
3° be at least 35 years old;
4° be a priest ordained for at least five years;
5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law...

On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication.
However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2:

The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See.

My question, then, is – does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?
That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion?  Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2?
I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.


texts: What is the justification for applying God's promises to Israel to modern day Christians?

texts:
One of the favourite verse, used as encouragement, is this from Jeremiah 29:11

  "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to
  prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

The context of the verse was a letter to the exile, specifying the Israelites. What justification is offered for the application of God's promises to Israel to modern day Christians?


texts:
If we take the eruption of Thera... Which I believe would have had a high impact on all the surrounding countries... Has anyone associated this event, even theoretically, to a Biblical event.

Also another event that need to be dealth with is the Bronze age collapse. 1177 BC.

Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed (Princeton University Press, 2014)

Donald B. Redford, The Coming of the Sea Peoples”, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton University Press, 1992), 241-256.

Every one was impacted and I suspect Israel too.
Where do we put this in the Biblical stories ?


texts:
Hebrews 10:5 (ESV) states

  Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
      “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
      but a body have you prepared for me;

This is an apparent reference to Psalm 40:6:

  In sacrifice and offering you have not delighted,
  but you have given me an open ear.

The footnote in my Bible on the Psalm mentions that literally this verse would be "ears you have dug for me".

I can understand an idiomatic translation; digging out ones ears is a Hebrew idiom roughly equivalent to having an "open ear" in English. But moving to "a body have you prepared for me" seems to be far beyond translating an idiom.

I looked at one of these sites that has a whole bunch (17) of translations; all translate that phrase in Hebrews fairly similar (mentioning preparation of a body). In the case of the Psalm, likewise, they all seem to mention something about ears. Whether "you have made me listen" or "you have pierced my ears" or one of the ESV translations I mentioned above.

So most translations seem to point to the translation from Hebrew to Greek is a rather liberal one. Am I understanding this correctly? And if so, how does digging out an ear relate to preparing a body?


texts: Where are the LDS revelations published?

texts:
I understood from a previous question (How does LDS handle doctrine changes?) that in the LDS church changes (including doctrine changes) are based on revelations from the prophets. Those are shared in the churches and eventually at the General Conferences.

For example, as mentioned in one of the answers, in 1978, a revelation came to the President Spencer W. Kimball which removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. This is published as the Official Declaration 2.

However, I can find only two such Official Declarations. I assume there should be other revelations which led to changing some things, including but not limited to doctrine.

Is there a place where one can see the archive of those documents? When they appeared and what they contain?

I expect such a list would be public. If they are not published online, how can one request such an archive and from whom (and eventually pay shipping etc)?

While related to What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture?, this question is more from the organizational point of view (policy changes etc).


texts: How has Roman Catholic Confession changed throughout the centuries?

texts:
Currently, the common practice of confession in the U.S. is...

A person completes an examination of conscious, tells the priest how long it has been since their last confession, then they make their confession, the priest absolves their sins and gives them a penance, usually to say a few Hail Marys or Our Fathers.

In texts written by Catholic Saints, at times they talk about confession.  Specifically St. Therese of Liseaux and St. Gemma both mention their confessor in their autobiographies. Implying that they usually confessed to one specific priest, which is not a practice currently taught in U.S catholic schools. St. Francis de Sales also talks about making a general confession in his Introduction to the Devout Life, which he describes as confessing all of ones sins, from their entire life, to one confessor. Then keeping the same confessor, for subsequent confessions. He also describes a very detailed way of making a confession, including stating motives behind sins etc... A detailed description of his writing on everyday confession can be found in this article: On Confession.

Currently, Catholic Schools do not teach to go to one confessor, in fact they do not even mention the name confessor, they use the word priest.  Also, Catholic Schools do not teach to state ones motives, or to make a general confession, if switching confesors. It seems to me that based on reading Saints texts that Catholic confession has changed somewhat throughout the centuries. If it has not changed then these saints must be describing optional ways of confessing.

My specific question is ...Has confession changed throughout the centuries, specifically since the 16th century, and if so how?


texts: Has Peter Lombard ever been venerated in the Catholic Church?

texts:
Peter Lombard was allegedly one of the most important theologians of the Middle Ages. As Wikipedia states, he was:

Bishop of Paris, and author of Four Books of Sentences, which became the standard textbook of theology, for which he earned the accolade Magister Sententiarum. [...]
From the 1220s until the 16th century, no work of Christian literature, except for the Bible itself, was commented upon more frequently. All the major medieval thinkers, from Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, were influenced by it. Even the young Martin Luther still wrote glosses on the Sentences, and John Calvin quoted from it over 100 times in his Institutes.

Later on the article mention just one doctrines with seem to be relatively controversial, but yet far from being declared heretic. It is know that even St. Augustine wrote things which are not in line with current official teaching or dogmas.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states about him:

On the whole and in spite of his connection with Abelard, he is orthodox; a proposition of his on "Christological nihilism" was condemned by Alexander III; other theses were abandoned in the century that followed; St. Bonaventure mentions eight of them and the University of Paris later added others. But the success of the book was incontestable; down to the sixteenth century it was the textbook in the university courses, upon which each future doctor had to lecture during two years.

Later on, the article states:

[T]he success of Peter Lombard was not immediate. Attacked sometimes during his lifetime, as Maurice of Sully among others relates, after his death he was bitterly inveighed against, especially by Gautier of St. Victor and by Joachim of Flora. This opposition even went so far as to try to get his writings condemned. In 1215 at the Lateran Council these attempts were baffled, and the second canon began a profession of faith in these words: "Credimus cum Petro [Lombardo]".

So he or his writings (except one or two points, it seems) were never really condemned. And yet, he seem to have never got ground for reverence among other great theologians of the Middle Ages. Is this the case? How can we explain this?


texts: Where in the Biblical narrative does God first reveal himself as the only living and true god?

texts:
It seems upon course consideration that God has always taught that he is the only actual God. But upon closer inspection, it appears that God reveals himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "El Shaddai" which is "God Almighty" or "The Almighty God", El being the general word for "a god" in the Canaanite language. He is also referred to as "El Elyon" which is "Most High God" or "Uppermost God."

He says to Moses in Exodus 6:3,

  "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them."

These names from Genesis, as well as much of the dialogue in the narrative that forms a context for them, seem to me to suggest that the patriarchs revered YHWH as the greatest of the gods or the god of gods, but not necessarily the only real God.

Later, the Spirit of Prophecy reveals through Isaiah that YHWH is the only true God.

  Isaiah 43:9-13 (NASB)

  9 All the nations have gathered together
  So that the peoples may be assembled.
  Who among them can declare this
  And proclaim to us the former things?
  Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
  Or let them hear and say, “It is true.”
  10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
  “And My servant whom I have chosen,
  So that you may know and believe Me
  And understand that I am He.
  Before Me there was no God formed,
  And there will be none after Me.
  11 “I, even I, am the Lord,
  And there is no savior besides Me.
  12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
  And there was no strange god among you;
  So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
  “And I am God.
  13 “Even from eternity I am He,
  And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
  I act and who can reverse it?”

  Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

I can't find any references before Isaiah that clearly state that there are no other gods, without qualifiers like "before me" or "like me". Where in the biblical narrative is it first made clear that YHWH is not only the most powerful and greatest God, but he is the One True God, and that all other beings or objects that might be called "gods" are false?


texts: Did Jesus have a physical body before his incarnation?

texts: According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal.  Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine?  If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?


texts: Does the Bible say anything about what demons *are*?

texts:
I've thought all my life that demons (and evil spirits) were fallen angels, but I recently encountered the viewpoint that these demons are actually the souls of men who have already died but wouldn't go to Heaven. Hence, what does the Bible say about this?

Specifically, what biblical references speak to whether or not demons originate as human or as another species?


texts: What is the basis for the position that the woman of Revelation 17 refers to Rome?

texts:
Revelation 17 speaks about a woman, but it seems likely that it is figurative rather than literal.  She is attributed with the name "Babylon the Great".  However, Matthew Henry and other commentators suggest that this is actually referring to Rome rather than Babylon.

What is the reasoning behind considering the woman to represent Rome?


texts: Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis and the Prophecy of the Popes?

texts:
I While reading the Prophecy of the Popes, I noticed that the entry for the 111 Pope in the series reads:  Glory of the olive (Gloria oliviae).

Wikipedia's article on this subject states:

  Proponents of the prophecies generally try to draw a connection between Benedict and the Olivetan order to explain this motto: Benedict's choice of papal name is after Saint Benedict of Nursia, founder of the Benedictine Order, of which the Olivetans are one branch. Other explanations make reference to him as being a pope dedicated to peace and reconciliations of which the olive branch is the symbol.

The olive is considered the symbol of peace.

  The use of a dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace originated with the early Christians, who portrayed the act of baptism accompanied by a dove holding an olive branch in its beak and also used the image on their sepulchres. The dove appears in many funerary inscriptions in the Roman catacombs, sometimes accompanied by the words in pace (Latin for "in peace"). - Peace symbols (Wikipedia)

When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope, he took the papal name of Francis in honor of St Francis of Assisi.

Furthermore St Francis of Assisi is also one of the patron saints of peace.

My question is quite simple:

Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret the papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as being a single reign in order to make both of them fit into St Malachy's Gloria oliviae of his Prophecy of the Popes?

To be crystal clear, Pope Francis holds the keys of St. Peter and not Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

  “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear, the Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said.” - Interview: Archbishop Gänswein on Benedict, The Two Popes, and Prophecy


texts: What is meant by Living God? Why is Lord Jesus the True Living God?

texts: I would like to know what is meant by Living God? Are there non-living Gods also? I don’t think so. I partially understand that Living means who is alive. But I don’t know the true meaning. Someone please clarify if you would know.


texts: How do Anglicans interpret the great crowd (144,000) of Revelation 7?

texts:
What is an overview of the Anglican understandings of who/what are the 144000 of Revelation 7?

  After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. (Revelation 7, NIV)


texts: Is it a blessing to live long on the earth?

texts:
[Ephesians 6:2-3] "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth."

Are we supposed to desire to live long on the earth?  It seems to me that after someone in born again he/she is looking forward to meeting and serving and worshiping our Lord forever.

All these can be done although with difficulties on this earth. I am not saying we should desire to not live and serve our Lord on this earth.

It is also not about us but about Him.
So is God more pleased in giving us more years, maybe because we get the chance to become more pure?


texts:
It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity.
For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus:

John 14:26 (NIV)
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:26 (NIV)
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

Also, it seems that the Father has control over Jesus:

Matthew 26:39 (NIV)
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

My understanding is that the Trinity is three persons in one God.  Therefore, each person in the Trinity is equal to the other two.  Yet, the verses above seem to indicate that there's a hierarchy.

Is there a hierarchy (and my previous understanding flawed) or is there a deeper understanding of what's going on in those verses above?
I'm seeking a Mainstream Protestant exegesis and viewpoint on this issue.


texts: How is Acts 7:48 reconciled with omnipresence doctrines?

texts: Some verses seem to indicate that God is indeed not omnipresent such as Acts 7:48, "The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands". How is this specific verse reconciled with the doctrine that God is omnipresent?


texts:
In Matthew 10.34 Christ says,

  (KJV) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

To me this requires some explanation, even after many years of thought.

In the passage, Jesus says twice he hasn't come to bring peace; yet he is called Prince of Peace. This saying about the sword has never been mentioned in any church I've been to and it seems like Christians forget it, or want to forget it.

From the context, it is evident that he aims to bring division between those who are faithful and those who are not, even within the same family (hence the sword analogy- as though he is cutting between people) - but this doesn't seem to be consistent with the message of love that is preached to Christians and goes against the doctrine of loving your enemies.

What did Christ mean in Matthew 10:34 when he said that he did not bring peace, but a sword?


texts:
I read that there are over 30,000 denominations. At the same time, I have read that this number is a gross exaggeration.

How many Christian denominations are there?


texts:
A lot of Christians seem to think that it's wrong to watch horror movies. Others say that it's just another form of entertainment.

I don't know for sure which position is right.

Though whenever I watch the Exorcist it usually makes me pray for days on end. So for me it's good.

Anyway, what are the common objections against it?


texts: What is an overview of teachings of Messianic Jewish Christians regarding circumcision?

texts:
Statements like the following are common from Messianic Synagogues. This one comes from Beth Messiah in Sarasota, Florida:

  At Beth Messiah, we are Messianic Jews and non-Jews who believe Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) is the Messiah, live a Jewish lifestyle, raise our children to be Jewish, and worship the God of Israel in a Jewish manner.  Messianic Judaism is a movement of people from all walks of life who believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah and the Savior for Israel and the world. Messianic Jews have not stopped being Jewish. On the contrary we have continued to remain strongly Jewish in our identity and lifestyle, and in our belief that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of true Biblical Judaism.

According to the standards of this site these congregations may be considered Christian. In maintaining their Jewish culture and lifestyle, a major historical aspect of which is circumcision, I am curious as to what these congregations teach regarding circumcision, specifically circumcision according to Torah law, in the light of Paul's warning in Galatians 5:1-6:

  It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

I wonder if some of these congregations circumcise their children in Torah observance. What is an overview of their doctrines regarding circumcision?


texts: What's the difference between the Apostle's claims and the claims of others who started religious movements?

texts:
So I recently watched a documentary about a new age movement and felt a bit rattled by what I perceived to be some examples of peoples behaving in a way that undermines the common arguments for trusting the gospel accounts.
The video was about a new age movement called Breatharianism which basically claims that humans don't need to eat food but can instead subsist on the divine energy within them. While the gurus of this movement certainly did benefit financially and otherwise by promulgating their message which they had to have known was a lie, they also seemed to me at certain points to risk their lives for it.  At multiple points, there was evidence that the gurus who claimed to have gone years without eating actually did eat regularly.  So they knew what they were saying was a lie.  Yet, they several times volunteered to undertake tests to prove this thing they knew was a lie.  Even after knowing that some of their followers had died genuinely trying to follow the no eating rule.
For instance, the most prominent woman volunteered to be monitored by 60 minutes to ensure she didn't eat for an entire week.  The experient was ended by 60 minutes and not by her when the doctor who was monitoring her told her she was in imminent danger of dying.  Certainly, it worked out in her favor, she got more publicity for nothing, but it seems as though she was determined to do this thing that she knew very well could have killed her despite the fact she had to know what she believed was a lie.
Lots of people say, it's not plausible that the Apostles knowingly lied about seeing Jesus resurrected because of the persecution and eventual death they suffered because of it.  It doesn't seem rational to die for a lie.  And yet these breatharian people seem to be willing to do so.  So what's the difference here?


texts: Biblical basis for the separation of church and state

texts: I know there are a lot of non-biblical arguments for the separation of church and state. Some Christians also support it on biblical grounds, but I've never looked into the matter myself. Which passages of the Bible support the idea?


texts: Does the parish priest have the authority to forbid communion in the mouth due to COVID pandemic?

texts: Does the parish priest have the authority to forbid communion in the mouth due to COVID pandemic, if he does not have explicit permission from his bishop? Note that I am not saying that the bishop would be against the decision of the parish priest, but just that he had not made any announcement (say for example that it is just probable that the bishop would agree with him).


texts: What Biblical scripture is used to support the concept of waiting for God to give direction?

texts:
I am curious about the core idea of some Christians that they insist on waiting before "doing good".  What does scripture say about waiting for direction from God?

This is not a pro/con list or an attempt to evaluate the validity of the scripture or the concept of waiting for God.  I'd just like help identifying the scripture that supports the concept of waiting to act.


texts: The Resurrection: early Jewish writings on it?

texts: I'm currently studying the Resurrection, which I believe 100%. What ancient Jewish texts close to the first century speak about the Resurrection, or about the empty tomb that Christians claimed Christ rose from the dead from. what does the Talmud say about it?


texts: What is truly meant when it is said that Holy Scripture is 'inerrant' according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
Granted that further research has been made in collecting a greater amount of old manuscripts of Scripture, certain realizations have been made about the bible that we currently use; there are some excerpts and passages that are not in older manuscripts, but rather are later add-ons (the two major examples being Mark 16 and John 5:7-8). The validity of these verses and the reliability of the Gospels is not to be discussed here. What is to be discussed is the Church's statement that the canonized Scripture used today is inerrant. What is truly meant by this word, and how is it reconciled with what scholars have shown us regarding these later additions to original manuscripts? Are there any specific thoughts from Catholic thinkers regarding this matter?

It should also be noted that I make it sound as though there are thousands of such meaningful and stunning additions to Scripture throughout the years, but such could not be further from the truth. The two major examples I listed are among the few meaningful additions that appear to have been intentionally added, but the additions themselves do not in themselves deter any accepted doctrine of the Church.


texts: What did the Trent lack with regard to Immaculate Conception that Ineffabilis Deus did not?

texts:
I've often heard it alleged that 'the Immaculate Conception wasn't a dogma until Pius IX defined it in 1854.' However, I can't reconcile this with what the dogmatic Council of Trent already declared 300 years prior.

Namely,

  If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam [lost original righeousness]  ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own,— is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted ... ... let him be anathema.

  This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews.

  —Council of Trent, Session V, First Decree, On Original Sin.

  ...

  CANON 23 — If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, —except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

  ...

  —Council of Trent, Session VI, On Justification.

Question

If this was already dogma per Trent's decree, why did Pope Pius IX define it with an extra-ordinary definition?


texts: In what order were the 12 Apostles called?

texts:
A few other people and I at my church have decided to do a detailed study on the 12 Apostles. This got me thinking about the order the apostles were called to follow Christ. We know Simon Peter and Andrew were called first, but the rest are harder to discern.

So, in what order were the 12 Apostles called?


texts:
I've previously used the Apostolic Bible for digging deeper into the meanings of passages.  However, I've found that some passages in the Old Testament make no sense compared to the modern translations.

I figured out that the problem was that the Apostolic Bible was using the Septuagint ("LXX") version for the Old Testament.  (The Septuagint, for those who don't know, is an ancient translation from the original Hebrew into Greek.)

Once I realized this, I stopped using the Apostolic Bible out of fear that it would lead me down the wrong path.  Now I'm curious how valid is this fear?

So, the question is:  Can we trust the Septuagint as a valid translation of the original Hebrew?

Alternatively, what can we learn by using the Septuagint compared to going straight to the current Hebrew editions of the Old Testament (such as the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)?


texts: What arguments support an early date for the Didache?

texts:
I've encountered a number of dates proposed for the Didache, ranging from some time in the first century, even before some of the documents found in the NT, to late in the second century.

What arguments or evidence supports a first century date?


texts: Did Jesus die on the cross crucified or was he hung to death from a tree?

texts:
Why do you think that some books in the Bible say that Jesus died at The place of a skull which Is called In the Hebrew Golgotha the sight of the crucifixion.

Matthew 27:33 (KJV)

33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

Mark 15:22  (KJV)

22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

John 19:17   (KJV)

17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Now in these scriptures they tell a different story. They say Jesus was killed from hanging on a tree.

Acts 5:30   (KJV)

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 10:39.   (KJV)

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 13:29.   (KJV)

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

Galatians 3:13.  (KJV)

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

Any thoughts?????


texts: Is  it a monument  of sort, build by the prophet of Jehovah's Witnesses in remembrance of all the Old Testament prophet? I also understand that there are altars in this building in honour of each of the Old Testament Prophets.  I am not sure how far this is true and would like to know from someone, the beliefs that make this building so special.


texts: Is fencing the Lord's Table (in reformed traditions) to include only believers who are members of a church biblical?

texts:
For the last decade or so, I have attended churches that fenced the communion table in a guarded way, opening it only to members of Gospel-believing churches in good standing.  This did not bother me and, in fact, drove me to pursue formal membership at the first church I was a part of that practiced it this way.

Three years ago I married a man who is a believer but finds this sort of fencing to be highly off-putting and offensive, given that it excludes real believers from the sacrament of communion (and thereby the grace it is supposed to convey to believers).  You might think, well then just become members and that problem will be solved!  If only it were that simple.  My husband also does not have as strong of a belief in the importance or necessity of formal church membership.  He is not against it, nor does he think it unreasonable, yet every time he has talked to an elder about church membership and the issue of fencing the table, he walks away utterly discouraged, feeling like the men he speaks to are not truly listening to him or answering his question, just defending a practice as biblical, and causing him to feel as though he is being disobedient by not becoming a member.  (He has a hard time becoming a member if he has trouble reconciling his own beliefs with the greater body.)

The last three reformed churches we regularly attended together fenced the table similarly.  We've visited churches that don't do this, but find we are not as closely aligned theologically with them as we are in the churches that do.  I find myself in the tricky position of wanting to respect my husband's desire to refrain from becoming a member of a church where he cannot seem to have open, honest, helpful discussions about this issue, yet yearning to just oversimplify the issue and view him as being in the wrong and urging him to go through with becoming a member even if he doesn't quite understand everything about the way this church does communion, because I really miss the sense of feeling like I really being to a local body, and it hurts me to not be allowed from sharing in communion Sunday after Sunday.  (It's been about six months at this current church.)

Almost everyone I talk to about this is either unsure (of why this is a thing since it is not explicitly stated this way in scripture: "You must be a formal church member in order to take communion.") yet willing to go along with it since they are already members of the church that practiced this OR very sure that this is not actually biblical and is not currently a formal member of a church.

Would love to hear input if anyone can give me explanations as to what biblical arguments are used to support fencing in this way.  Also, wondering if any reformed Christians out there are willing to say that it is not explicitly biblical, but rather just a good way to do things.  (This sort of acknowledgement would absolutely help my husband to be okay with joining a church as formal members.)


texts: In Catholicism, what are “all things visible & invisible”?

texts:
The Nicene Creed begins with the following:

  I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

What does the phrase "all things visible and invisible" mean exactly? This may seem like a basic question, but I guess I don't know the full list of things that this is saying that God made.


texts: What is the meaning of the parable in Luke 17:7-10?

texts:
In the first verse of Luke 17:5-10, the disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith. Here is the full passage, in the New King James Version (NKJV):

5 And the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."
6 So the Lord said, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you. 7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down to eat'? 8 But will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink'? 9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. 10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'"

The beginning of Jesus' reply in 17:6 seems to be directly connected. But I am having trouble figuring out what 17:7-10 have to do with what was being said. This heavily implies I am not interpreting it correctly, as the Bible tends to make sense in context.
My interpretation of the parable is that God does not owe us anything because of what we do for Him. I just can't figure out what that has to do with the disciple's request for greater faith. There must be some commonly understood explanation for why Jesus used this parable as part of his reply to the disciples' request, but I have been unable to find any easily web-available commentary that addresses the subject.


texts: What arguments do the Church Fathers make for nocturnal emissions not being a sin?

texts:
I've run across claims (although I'm having trouble digging them up again; I might be thinking of the implications in this reddit thread) that Augustine and Cassian were almost the only early Christian writers (before the medieval period, anyway) to deal with the problem of nocturnal emissions, and that both defended the phenomenon as being basically not sinful. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find their exact writings; translations usually seem to leave out Book VI (fornication/impurity/lust) of Cassian's Institutes (and for  that matter, his Conference 22 about Nocturnal Illusions), and shuffling through Augustine's writings on the general topic doesn't seem to turn up anything obvious. Perhaps I'm just looking for the wrong terms or at the wrong writings?

In particular, I'd like to analyze the reasons they gave for considering wet dreams to be non-sinful; did they focus solely on the involuntary aspect, or were there other considerations? Later it seems there was an occasional mention of nocturnal emissions without corresponding lustful dreams (and how this marked spiritual progress); how early was this distinction made?


texts: How old was Moses when his mother returned him to Pharaoh's daughter in Egypt? Please I will like to know more about it. How long was he weaned?


texts: How does Roman Catholicism justify a literal meaning of 'Hoc est meum corpus'?

texts:
The words :-

τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον [Stephanus 1550/Elzevir 1624]
this is my body which is given for you [KJV 1769 Luke 22:19]

and, particularly :

hoc est meum corpus [Vulgate - Jerome 382/Clementine 1592]
this is my body

were spoken as Jesus stood before the disciples, his hands holding out bread to them.

How then, at that instant, could bread have been - literally - his own real body. ?

It was not - literally - true that the bread was 'given' (sacrificially) at that instant of time. It is a figure of speech. It is the way concepts are expressed in language.

And if Jesus requires

this do in remembrance of me [KJV 1769 Luke 22:19]

then it is a memorial of what was about to occur. Not a physical re-enactment. It is the faculty of memory that he wishes to be engaged, not the process of digestion.

How are these particular questions answered by those who suppose a literal meaning to hoc est meum corpus ?


texts: What is an overview of Lutheran faith-alone systematically taught before Martin Luther?

texts:
Are there records of Lutheran doctrine of faith-alone taught by theologians prior to  him whether explicitly?

I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Justification that Luther was influenced by certain theologians in deriving faith-alone doctrine. Who were they, and can you cite such resources with online reference that any theologian taught faith-alone doctrine? Of course, those who believe the Sola-fide of Luther might say that it was taught by apostle Paul, but I am looking for explicit systematic theology like Luther did. I am not looking for only these particular people mentioned here but anyone.

  Whether Victorinus, a neo-Platonist, already defended the doctrine of
  justification by faith alone, is immaterial to our discussion. On the
  other hand, it cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages there were a
  few Catholic theologians among the Nominalists (Occam, Durandus,
  Gabriel Biel), who went so far in exaggerating the value of good works
  in the matter of justification that the efficiency and dignity of
  Divine grace was unduly relegated to the background. Of late, Fathers
  Denifle and Weiss have shown that Martin Luther was acquainted almost
  exclusively with the theology of these Nominalists, which he naturally
  and justly found repugnant, and that the "Summa" of St. Thomas and the
  works of other great theologians were practically unknown to him.


texts: Taking shoes off before closing a deal - is there an history evidence?

texts:
In bible (Ruth 4,7) it's written that before closing a deal, it was used that one of the sides took his shoes off:

  Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.

In Talmud there is a debate on which side took his shoes off. One says it was Boaz (Buyer), and the second opinion says it was the second side (seller).

My question is if we can find some evidence in the history science which can supports one of the opinions?


texts: If God is a Trinity, are Father and Son manifestations of Divinity without being spirits?

texts:
If God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, does this mean that Father and Son are manifestations of Divinity without being spirits, so that only the Holy Spirit is a spirit?

Please answer according to the Catholic Church.


texts: What are the main differences between 7th Day Adventists and Catholic/Protestant churches?


texts: Where are the majority of Roman Catholic converts from today?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church is a massive organization, with members in nearly every country numbering over 1 Billion individuals. With such massive numbers and such extensive influence in the world, it is difficult to guess and estimate where tomorrow's Roman Catholics will come from.

I can think of four distinct possibilities:

Most of today's converts are from the missionary work done in lands that have little Christian influence, such as many parts of Asia, those being mostly Hindu, Islam, and Buddhist.
Most of today's converts are from the missionary work done in lands that have much Christian influence, such as Europe or the Americas, which focus on persons not claiming to already be Christian.
Most of today's converts are from other Christian denominations.
Most of today's "converts" are the newborn children raised in the Faith who do not leave it when they become adults.

So I wonder if there are studies that show the numbers for the Roman Catholic Church. Are there studies that can show me how many people convert, and where they are from, and what they believed/followed previously? I would like to see a breakdown of conversion numbers by continent, or country if possible, and which category they fit into. A superb answer would include numbers for those who leave the Faith.


texts: What are the 19 gifts of the Spirit, as listed by Leslie Flynn?

texts: I recently heard a preacher say there are 19 gifts of the Spirit.  That specific number seems to derive from this book by Leslie Flynn.  Most lists, including even those that reference this book, tend to list 16 gifts (example), but I did find one list with 21 gifts.  I was unable to locate Flynn's list, however.  What are the 19 gifts, as defined by Flynn?


texts: Do these Scripture say that prayer along with fasting is more powerful than either alone?

texts:
I am aware that Jesus placed much emphasis on both prayer and on fasting. And I am not really sure that the following Scriptures call for doing both at the same time, but it can be taken to believe that it is referring to simultaneous prayer and fasting.
All Scriptures are from the King James translation

Matthew 17:21  Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Mark 9:29  And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Would someone more versed in Biblical interpretation give me some guidance.


texts: In Catholic art imagery, how is hell symbolized?

texts:
In Catholic art and imagery how is hell symbolized? If a symbol does exist for it, why was this particular symbol chosen?
In other words, does hell have a symbol?


texts: Does the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) have a policy regarding admitting members who do not accept its doctrines?

texts: According to the PCA's Book of Church Order and any other relevant material, should members wishing to join a Reformed church (PCA) be required to adopt its doctrines or should they be allowed to join if they do not accept the doctrines? On what doctrinal issues would somebody be denied membership, and on which might variance be allowed?


texts: Where and/or when did the tradition that Methuselah died seven days before the Flood (for a period of mourning) originate?

texts:
A few answerers to the question Significance of Methuselah's death year replied with the claim that Methuselah died seven days before the Flood began, thus leaving Noah and his family as the only remaining righteous people on Earth. (Most of these answers are deleted as they weren't sufficiently high-quality.) Furthermore, two of them also said that the 7 days between Methuselah's death and the Flood was for a period of mourning. At least one commenter said that they had heard of this tradition before, but did not know of any support for it, and a request for references did not get a response.

I've never heard of this tradition anywhere else other than these answers. Where and/or when did it originate? Specifically, the tradition that 1) Methuselah died 7 days before the Flood and that 2) the 7 days were for a period of mourning.


texts: What and where are the evidences for the Catholic Church's Apostolic Succession?

texts:
How come there is no evidence issued out by the Vatican that proves their list of Popes that have carried on from Apostle Peter?

I can't find this anywhere and since I can't meet Pope Francis unless I'm Katy Perry or Trump, how would I ever be able to find out about this? I can't really enter the Vatican and ask...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

I can't just trust the Vatican by their 'words'. I don't KNOW if they really did come from the line of Peter or not. I can only go by their word. This is not good enough for me. What if they made these people up? So far we can prove St Linus and St Clement existed since they were mentioned by Apostle Paul in the NT but whether they went onto being Arcbishops; we don't know for sure.

How do we know whether the Catholic church is the successor of Peter or the Orthodox church? Since they both claim they are from the line of Peter...


texts: Is sacred music still sacred if performed by non-believers?

texts:
Whilst listening to Wednesday Morning 3AM and enjoying the Benedictus, I found myself pondering the question of whether or not this could be considered sacred music as neither the performers were Christian nor had the arrangement been made by a Christian.

As an Anglican, I thought it would be interesting to think about my own church's thoughts on the matter. Have any churches in the Anglican Communion made statements on whether music which is sacred (i.e. dedicated to religious purposes) is still considered sacred if performed by non-believers?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, does the spiritual sense of scripture change with the times?

texts:
A friend wrote this to me on Facebook, and had me a bit puzzled how to respond:

A law does not exist in order to be understood historically, but to be concretized in its legal validity by being interpreted. Similarly, the Gospel does not exist in order to be understood as a merely historical document, but to be taken in such a way that it exercises its saving effect. This implies that the text, whether law or Gospel, if it is to be understood properly—i.e., according to the claim it makes—must be understood at every moment, in every concrete situation, in a new and different way. Understanding here is always application.
—Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 307-308.

I don't know much about this particular German philosopher, but I've read enough Chesterton to be skeptical.  It seems to me that he's saying that the saving part, so at least the moral and anagogical (if not the allegorical) senses of scripture are fluid.
Is his theological axiom, which I summarize as:
Things that can be true and good according to an application of the spiritual truths revealed in the Gospel are true and good now, but, given that same application, weren't true or good in a different place or time consistent with Catholic teaching?


texts:
I was preparing a lesson for Sunday school and came across this passage in the teaching material:

  Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

The NIV uses "angels" instead of "sons of God" implying angels were present at the creation of the earth.

So my question is, when were the angels created, exactly?  Was it on day one of the "Creation Week"? ... Was it before the first day of Creation? (How is that possible?) ... Was it "outside of time"?

Please use Scripture to support your answer.  I am also curious whether the passage I quoted relates to the answer (do "sons of God" refer to angels), and if so, how?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Jesus' pre-incarnate existence?

texts: Basically the opposite of this question. What are the most notable biblical passages that believers in the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus resort to to defend their position? How do they usually defend their interpretation of those passages against rebuttals from critics?


texts: What is the means of forgiveness in Purgatory?

texts:
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,
  but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
  either in this age or in the age to come.

  Matthew 12:32 (ESV)

Catholicism teaches that purgatory is "a place where the soul is cleansed of unforgiven venial sin" (source).

Based on the New Testament, forgiveness of sins done by those who are "in Christ" is received through confession and from it, cleansing from all unrighteousness ensues.

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
  and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

  1 John 1:9 (ESV)

If forgiveness on earth is received through confession, then, forgiveness in purgatory is received through what?


texts: What is the New Testament argument against Gnosticism?

texts:
I'm aware that the rise of Gnosticism was after the New Testament was written – but it would seem that a lot of the ideas on which it was built were floating around at the time. (Particularly Greek ideas about the uncleanness of the body contrasted with the purity of the mind/spirit).

Particularly in 1 Cor 15, but also more generally across the NT – how does the Bible rebut the ideas of Gnosticism? (i.e., that Jesus and subsequent resurrection was physical).


texts: How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles (plus Paul) are available today?

texts: How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles, plus Paul, are available today? There's no need to include Mark and Luke as their writings are included in the Bible.


texts: Why were the apostles still going to the temple for prayer and rituals?

texts:
In the book of Acts you read how the Apostles attend the temple, offer rituals, prayers etc.  So it is clear they are still obeying the Law.
How is it that they didn't understand modern day Christianity that the law was abolished and that sacrifices where of no use since Jesus cleared that for them?
Was this not discussed with them by Jesus during his earthly life?
Example:
Acts 21:23-26

23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.
24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Acts 3:1

1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon.


texts: Reference request about St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal?

texts:
I have come across on a couple of websites (one a blog), but never in a book, the following conversation between the Cure d'Ars and one of his penitents:
``Do you remember that you went to a ball on such-and-such occasion?
``Yes, I remember.
``Do you remember that at a certain moment a handsome young man entered the ballroom? He was quite elegant, appeared very upright and danced with several young ladies?
``Yes, I do.
``Do you recall that you had a great desire to dance with him?
``I recall that.
``Do you recollect that you became sad because he didn’t ask you to dance?
``Yes, I do.
``Do you remember that by chance you looked down at his feet and saw a strange blue light coming from them?
``Yes. I remember.
``That young man was none other than the devil who had taken that shape to tempt several of the young women there. He was unable to approach you because you are a Daughter of Mary protected by her, and you were wearing the Miraculous Medal.
I have never come across a legitimate reference for this conversation.
The two sites that I have seen this conversation recounted are:

St. John Baptist Vianney, August 9
St. John Vianney

My Question is: Can anyone who may be familiar with St. John Vianney and the Miraculous Medal provide me with a valid citation for this conversation? The aforementioned sites provide no reference. Thank you.


texts:
I find a lot of church practices wrong and I always feel I have joined the wrong family, and fear my salvation will be affected in the end.
Is it right for selling and buying to go on in or around the church premise during programs?
In Jesus' day he,

  "...found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and
  the changers of money sitting,... he drove them all out of the
  temple... And said unto them...Take these things hence; make not my
  Father’s house an house of merchandise." (John 2:14-16).

It is obvious that what is happening today is just in another form, modernised when journals, bibles, church newspapers etc are always being displayed.
We get guest speakers who set up their books, cds and tapes to be sold after their sermon. I dont want to talk much but please, someone tell me if we are safe.


texts: What's the reasoning behind sacramental architecture?

texts:
What is the basis for catholic sacred architecture, or sacramental architecture as I've heard it said and what are it's main components? Is this a doctrine rooted in scripture somewhere? When was sacramental architecture adopted?

From the little that I've been able to find on Google regarding it, it seems like it's just the catholic standard for its buildings--an effort to exude holiness through material things, or something like that. But I haven't been able to find more info, like when it started and why.


texts: Where in the Bible did God tell Adam and Eve that they have sinned?

texts: I was wondering where in the Bible I can find that God told Adam and Eve that they have sinned after they have eaten the forbidden fruit from the tree.


texts: Can a Catholic married to an Orthodox in an Orthodox church re-celebrate her wedding in a Catholic church?

texts: My Catholic daughter will marry an Orthodox boy in an Orthodox church in Macedonia. After this ceremony we will go to Slovakia to continue the celebration. Can we celebrate a Mass in a Catholic church (not a wedding) and repeat the promise to God to validate the wedding?


texts: Where in the Bible does it say we have a sin nature?

texts:
Romans 5:12 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:

Notice the verse says death is passed on and not that sin nature is passed on to all men. Many denominations make our sin nature as part of their doctrinal statement.

searching under doctrinal statements and checking some links:

Southern Evangelical: ( see http://ses.edu/about-us/doctrinal-statement ) says in point 9 "total depravity of human nature, has been transmitted to the entire human race"

Ariel Ministries: ( http://ariel.org/doctrinal-statement.htm ) says under Man: Created and Fallen "totally depraved; that this fallen nature is transmitted to every descendent of Adam"

We see that Romans 5:12 says "death" and the statements say "depraved" or "depravity" and I have heard the term "sin nature" used by other organizations. Are these doctrinal statements twisting scripture?

In fact in Calvinism we have TULIP where the T stands for Total Depravity so perhaps this doctrine is Calvinistic in nature (pun intended).


texts: According to Evangelicals, who now has the authority to bind and loose (per Matt. 18:18)?

texts:
According to Matt. 18:18, the Lord Jesus Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose, that is, to prohibit and permit.

  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV, 1769)

According to Evangelicals,

Did this authority to bind and loose cease with the apostles?
If not, who among the Church now has the authority to bind and loose?
What is the criteria to effectively bind or loose?

Not a Duplicate

This question is not a duplicate of this question which requests the Protestant interpretation of Matt. 16:13-20. Matt. 16:13-20 focuses on the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to the apostle Peter and is used by Roman Catholics as a basis for Petrine primacy. My question is requesting the Evangelical interpretation of Matt. 18:18 wherein the Lord Jesus Christ grants all the apostles the ability to bind and loose. Two different verses, two different contexts, two different perspectives. Furthermore, in no way does the "best answer" to the other question provide an answer to this question.


texts: Did Jesus tell us that we should give a tenth to The Church and then give of the excess to the poor?

texts:
Matthew 23:23  KJV  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and
cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye
to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I was intrigued by Jesus saying that they were fastidious in their tithes, but omitting judgment, mercy, and
faith. So I looked up the meaning of both tithe, and alms in Webster's dictionary.
TITHE  The tenth part of any thing; but appropriately, the tenth part of the
increase annually arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the
clergy for their support. Tithes are personal, predial, or mixed; personal, when
accruing from labor, art, trade and navigation; predial, when issuing from the
earth, as hay, wood and fruit; and mixed, when accruing from beasts, which are
fed from the ground.

ALMS  Any thing given gratuitously to relieve the poor, as money, food, or clothing,
otherwise called charity.

I also ran across the following verses:

Luke 6:38  KJV  Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Luke 12:34  KJV  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I have taken those to say that Christians have  a bigger obligation, than just giving a tenth to the Church.
I have checked for similar questions on the site, but found that none specifically answer my question.


texts: How are prayer and asking the saints to intercede distinguished?

texts:
The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches encourage us to ask the dead saints to intercede for us. To quote from Software Monkey's answer to another question:

  First off, it's useful to understand that Catholics (and that's Roman or Eastern Catholic, and, for that matter Eastern Orthodox) do not pray to the saints, so much as ask the faithful departed to pray for them to God.

Distinguishing between prayer and asking the saints to intercede on their behalf removes the problem with verses like Deuteronomy 18:11 which forbid 'inquiring of the dead'.

But my understanding is that pray is essentially synonymous to ask. Many of the Greek words translated pray seem to have that meaning: δέησις, δέομαι, ἔντευξις, ἐρωτάω, παρακαλέω. I have read a book which even says that prayer should be distinguished from thanking God, and should be used strictly to refer to asking God. If pray and ask are synonyms, then clearly distinguishing between them doesn't help anyone escape the Bible's prohibitions.

Is this analysis of the meaning of pray correct? Or is there a way in which pray and ask can legitimately be distinguished?


texts: Do Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 contradict each other?

texts: I have been replaying Luke 1:48 and Luke 11:27-28 in my mind. Something doesn't make sense here. Luke 1:48 is the part of Mary's song where Mary announces that all successive generations will call her blessed because of her son Jesus. Then, in Luke 11:27-28, when Jesus is a grown man in his ministry, a woman tells him that his mother is blessed for carrying him in the womb and nursing him, which ironically seems to allude to what Mary says earlier, but Jesus replies, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." Apparently, Jesus is not concerned with his own pedigree, and if that is the case, does this mean that he rejects Mary's happiness? What's going on here?


texts: Commandment about idols and idolatry in OT

texts:
God continually tells people throughout the Hebrew Bible to not turn to idolatry.

Exodus 20:4:

  “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

Does this mean that they should not try to understand what God "looks" like by trying to recreate an image of Him (we are finite minds, God is an infinite mind), or that they should not make such images because that would lead them to venerate nature gods?

Because the Israelites do make carved images of something that is "in heaven above," namely angels (cherubim): God tells Moses to place cherubim on the Ark.

So then the making of images mentioned in Exodus 20:4 (and other laws concerning idolatry) does not pertain to, for example, making an image of Jesus or making images of various Saints, because those figures are, (in the Christian sense), a continuation of the OT, and thus they are beings created "in the image of God"?

What is actually meant by all this?   To not make images of various things for worship because they were not created "in the image of God"? (God is above, beyond, and outside of nature, and equating God to nature images by creating what is "in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath" is offensive to God?)

Because, once again, didn't God tell Moses to place Cherubim on the Ark?


texts: What does Catholic Church say about the post-resurrection wound marks of Jesus?

texts:
At John 20:24-27 (NRSVCE) we see:

  But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.  So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.

A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”  Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”

My question is: Why was it necessary for Jesus to retain the wounds he had received at the cross, even after His glorious resurrection? Was it done to convince the disciples that it was Jesus Himself appearing before them, or was it a symbolic statement that Jesus continues to suffer for the sins of mankind? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about the post-resurrection wound marks of Jesus?


texts:
I saw a local play about the life of St.John Vianney (1786–1859). One of the characters noted that in over 1800 years of Catholic history, a parish priest had never become a saint (to which another character quipped that the profession seemed to be a barrier to sainthood). The irony of course was that Father John Vianney would later become a saint, and is in fact the patron saint of parish priests.

Is this statement accurate? Was St. John Vianney the first parish priest to become canonized? If there were parish priests who were martyred, was he the first non-martyr parish priest to become canonized?


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, at what point does original sin affect the human soul?

texts:
CCC 366 teaches that every soul is immediately created by God and not produced by the parents.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents

CCC 365 states that soul and body are not two separate aspects of man but form an inseparable unity

in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

CCC 404 says that original sin is transmitted by propagation, through the parents, of a deprived human nature

Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

If human nature is an inseparable unity of body and soul and, if original sin is passed through a deprived human nature, then it must be concluded that, in human nature both body and soul are equally deprived.  If God immediately creates each soul, what is it's state at the moment of it's creation:  Is it A) created already deprived or does it B) share equally in the deprivation of the flesh once united with it?
If A, which I doubt will be the answer, then original sin is imparted to the soul at creation rather than inherited.
If B then it is actually the flesh only that transmits original sin.
Is there a third logical option that this question is missing?


texts: How do Unitarians interpret the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20)

texts: When Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I think that those who believe that God is a Trinity of Divine Persons see this as one God and not three distinct beings.  How do Unitarians interpret this, if the Person referenced as the Son by Jesus is just Himself (i.e. not divine) and not the Second Person of the Trinity, is that Person interchangeable with other prophets? Why baptize in the name of the Father and anyone else?


texts:
OK, people seem to agree who is in Christ's kingdom. But if there is a Satan's kingdom. Are non-Christians or sinners part of his kingdom? what does that say about rich evil politicians? Does the bible say who is in his kingdom? Is it ethical to say?

Reading Matthew 12:26

If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

just want to know what the bible says so I warn myself.


texts: (Catholic perspective) Why was the Jesus body consumed at the Last Supper due to transsubstantiation was not mentioned to Thomas?

texts:
My question is inspired by the top answer to this question, according to which transubstantiation (that the bread and the wine literally became the flesh and blood of Jesus) also occurred on the last supper.

I take this means that they ate of Jesus body before his crucifixion(?)

Later, after this death, he appeared to the disciples while Thomas was present, as explained in John 20:24-27:

  24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not
  with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told
  him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the
  nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and
  put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his
  disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though
  the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said,
  “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here;
  see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop
  doubting and believe.”

This passage only mentions the marks from the nails and the spear wound on his side.

Question:

Would the consuming of his flesh not have left some kind of marks that he could then have been identified on?


texts: Does Luke 6:30 imply that the person asking has a genuine need?

texts:
There was another thread in Mi Yodeya where a Jewish individual played a "prank" on a Christian in order to get his money ($20) since he figured the Christian was obligated to give it to him if he asked, according to his understanding of Luke 6:30. Needless to say, this Jewish individual, since he admitted it was a "prank," didn't have a genuine need for the money.

I have been approached many times by people who were scamming for money.

For example, I am approached by a man/ woman outside a grocery store, as many people are. He/ she says, "My truck broke down and I need to call a taxi." I tell him/ her I don't have any money on me, which is the truth. I rarely ever do. I go into the store, and as I walk out, I witness the same  individual driving down the street in his/ her car. It was a scam. What were they scamming for? Likely narcotics or alcohol.

If I had given this individual money, they would have likely used it to buy narcotics or alcohol. Essentially, I would be contributing to and enabling their lifestyle --- a lifestlye which is by no means beneficial for them. In fact, if they bought narcotics with my money, they could very well overdose and die.

A culture of drug abuse didn't exist in the time of Jesus. But, it does today.

Hence, my question. Should a Christian indiscriminately give or lend his money (if indeed he has the money on his person) to everyone who asks him? Should a Christian discriminate who and who he does not give his money to?

If so, what are some things that could assist a Christian in this situation?


texts: What was the meaning of that? I have read about this in the bible on numerous occasions.


texts: Almost every denomination and sect of Christianity believes it is wrong to use cannabis. For some reason they always quote Scripture that pertains to alcohol as reasons for why one should not use it. Why do Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis?


texts: Interpreting the Bible as a cultural piece of literature?

texts:
A lot of churches I've gone to and conversations I've had with family and friends always speak so absolute and/or literal about the bible. Are there thoughts on the bible as being a cultural piece of literature only intended for the audience at the time?

The bible seems to have a lot of cultural references for the time that it was written. Probably the most relevant instance is "the eye of the needle" in Matthew. To my understanding, it's not literal at all. It's not talking about a physical sewing needle but a small gate in the town wall. These kinds of references are lost of today's culture if you only read the bible. What if a lot of our understandings are misunderstandings of cultural habits/events/places at the time?

What if the law on eating pork was only because the culture at the time didn't clean the pork properly? It wasn't spiritually dirty, just literally dirty.

What if premarital sex is only looked down on because "premarital" meant 11 or 12 year old girls because of the cultural standard of young marriages?

These are examples of possible misinterpretations, not questions I'm trying to get answered.

What kind of interpretation of the bible lends itself to the bible being cultural and not intended to be timeless?

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying the bible is wrong or does not have valid lessons to learn. Just curious about the thought of interpreting it through specific contexts.)


texts: What was the Biblical Basis Tertullian used to support what he termed the "refrigerium interim"?

texts:
The early Christian theologian Tertullian used the term refrigerium interim to describe a happy state in which the souls of the blessed are refreshed while they await the Last Judgment and their definitive entry into Heaven (source).

What was the Biblical Basis he used to support this concept?


texts: Say for example a Pope infallibly declares that Mary was not a virgin, and is currently rotting in Hell. This obviously contradicts established Catholic Dogma. What would happen in this case? Would the cardinals get together and kick the Pope out of his office? Is a heretical ex cathedra definition cause for an automatic loss of the Papal position which would lead to a sedevacantism situation?


texts: Are there any Bible verses about 'Being on your Knees' that do not specifically mention praying?

texts:
I'm writing a dystopian novel and am looking for a Bible verse that I could potentially take out of context. Although it sounds bad, I can assure you in no way, shape, or form is this book anti-Christian.

That being said, I'm looking for a Bible verse, preferably short(er), one that mentions being on your knees but does not specifically mention praying.

Obviously, in the actual Bible there's more surrounding context in nearby verses but once that verse is removed from the context, I am then able to twist the words to something more suggestive.

In essence, I'm searching for something I could use as a double-entendre but although I've been searching for awhile now, have continued to come up empty handed.

I should clarify that I am unsure of whether or not a Bible verse mentioning one 'being on their knees' in a potentially suggestive manner exists.


texts: Explanation of the bell, book, and candle ritual of excommunication

texts:
Wikipedia's page contains a rather disturbing translation of the ritual:

  ... we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth,  ... we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, ... we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

which sounds as if the priests are actually claiming power both over God and over the person's eternal soul.

I'm assuming there is a more innocent explanation; does anybody know of it?


texts: Why do many bishops oppose the Vatican ban on blessing same-sex marriages?

texts:
Why do bishops (catholic) in some dioceses say that the Pope is outdated and ignoring scripture by refusing same-sex couples the sacrament of marriage, i.e. making their union holy. (Example). They believe that blessing these couples is supported by scripture, but I am not sure where they find support for that claim. One priest in my city says God is "I am" not "I was", and as our understanding develops we ought to see that we should extend our blessings to even "non-traditional" marriages.
Since it's not just one or two priests accusing the Pope, but rather many bishops including the president of the bishops' conference in Germany, I don't think this can easily be dismissed as a heretical priest or something like that. I would therefore like to know why they believe it is justified and in line with Scripture to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual marriages.


texts: Why do today's Christians never express any kind of criticism against other religions?

texts:
I've been listening to local and far-away Christian radio stations for a long time.
What strikes me is that, not even once, have I heard them (any of them) say a single word that could in any way be interpreted as criticism in any manner against Jews, Muslims, etc.
If anything, they are very eager to speak about the "people of Israel", etc., in very positive wording, almost as if they were speaking about themselves. There seems to be no question to them whatsoever about the question whether Jesus was a Jew or not; as far as they are concerned, this is 100% established, and not a contradiction in any way.
Maybe there is some kind of Christian branch which does have such criticism, but if they exist, I have certainly never been able to find them. And I suspect that they must have a very small following/reach if such is the case.
But how can this be? One would assume that they would be talking about how the other religions are wrong and theirs is right, but... nope. I almost get the feeling that they actually consider themselves to be Jews, only with a slightly different view on some things.
Even just the fact that the Old Testament is the basis of Christianity (expanded with the New Testament) is very strange to me since it only talks about Jews and not Christians.
"Back in the day", I get the feeling that they had a quite different perspective. What has happened in recent decades?


texts:
Were any prophets sent to the Canaanites before Jewish immigration? I seem to recall there was a verse stating there were not, but I wasn't able to find it.

Are there any verses in support of or opposition to the premise, "All Gentile nations received prophets pre-Christ, especially those peoples living in the promised land"?

I would be most interested in whether any prophets were sent to the Canaanites before the Jews arrived in the Holy Land. But if there is any evidence of prophets being sent to them before the Incarnation, I would be interested to know that as well.


texts: How do monergists respond to Bible verses that support the doctrine of synergism?

texts:
How do Lutherans, Calvinists and other protestants that believe in monergism respond to biblical passages that seem to support synergism such as these?
For example:

  "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48
  "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." Matthew 19:17
  "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they
  with me." Revelation 3:20

The parable of the goats and sheep Matthew 25:31-46

  You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love. Galatians 5:13


texts: Have Jehovah's Witnesses indicated the upper limit for "overlapping generations"?

texts:
As I understand things the JWs teach that based on references to "this generation" in the gospels the end of the world must happen within "the generation" of those alive in 1914 (when the JW organization was founded, I believe).

However, this has been redefined as the lifespan of two generations that intersect.

So my question is, do the JWs deduce that the end of the world must occur by a certain date? For example, if the end of the world does not happen before 2050 then has the overlapping generations theory failed? IE: At what point will the overlapping generations solution be abandoned? At the time of this writing it has been 104 years since 1914. Do they say that when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" he meant:

one generation = two overlapping generations
two overlapping generations must be <= two generations
in scripture a generation seems to be 40 years (because it took 40 years to kill off the generation that left Egypt):

  [Psa 95:10 KJV] 10 Forty years long was I grieved with [this] generation, and said, It [is] a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

It was about 40 years from when Jesus said "upon this generation shall come wrath" until the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem and over a million Jews.

So it seems that:

a generation is 40 years
two generations is 80 years
two overlapping generations is <= 80 years

So their math is different. What is the math they are doing to come up with their still-future upper date and what is that date? (I want to put "repenting" on my calendar for the day before)!


texts: Who are the "Sons of Israel" mentioned in Numbers 28

texts:
This verse sounds like God is telling Moses to tell the Israelites what they should do, but from what needs to be done it sounds like he is really going to be telling the priests what God wants done.
Therefore the question of who are the "sons of Israel.",
Numbers 28:1-3

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Command the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall [a]be careful to present My offering, My food for My offerings by fire, of a soothing aroma to Me, at their appointed time.’
3 You shall say to them, ‘This is the offering by fire which you shall offer to the Lord: two male lambs one year old without defect as a continual burnt offering every day.


texts: Who said that the mere sight of devils was one of the greatest torments of hell?

texts:
In Perelandra, chapter 9, C. S. Lewis writes:

  In certain old philosophers and poets he had read that the mere sight of the devils was one of the greatest among the torments of Hell.

Elsewhere in the Space Trilogy, Lewis makes specific references to John Milton and other real-world figures, so I doubt that this reference is fictional.  But he doesn't provide more detail regarding who said it.

Who might Lewis be referring to here?  Who originally said that the mere sight of devils in hell was one of its worst torments?


texts: What are the differences between "spiration" and "procession"?

texts:
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, proceed means:

  Full Definition of proceed; intransitive verb

  1:  to come forth from a source :  issue

  2
  a:  to continue after a pause or interruption
  b:  to go on in an orderly regulated way

  3
  a:  to begin and carry on an action, process, or movement
  b:  to be in the process of being accomplished; the work is proceeding well

  4:  to move along a course

Spiration means:

  b (1):  the act by or manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son (2):  the relation subsisting by virtue of this procession

Procession means:

  a:  continuous forward movement:  progression
  b:  emanation; the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father

The Nicene Creed says God proceeds (verb) from God and God.

The noun spiration is the act of this proceeding.

Sort of like how the noun "hearing" is "the act of perceiving sounds" to describe the verb "hear".

The noun procession means "continuous motion forward".

So procession is the act of proceeding.

What are the differences between spiration and procession so that we could understand them as two distinct acts?


texts: In LDS doctrine, what is the difference between the Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ?

texts: The Holy Ghost is usually described as the member of the Godhead that helps us know what is true, prompts us to do good, and generally helps us feel God's influence. I've often heard it described as something similar to a "conscience" that helps us know what is right and what is wrong. I've heard very similar descriptions for the Light of Christ. Both are available in some degree to everyone, and both are experienced less when we go against God's will. So what's the difference between the two, or are they the same thing?


texts: How is the belief that Christians are both adopted and begotten sons of God reconciled?

texts:
If one is begotten, then one cannot be adopted by those same parents. The idea of being begotten means that you are the biological progeny of your parents. In other words, the woman whom you call “mother” is the same woman who gave birth to you. But, in the case of adoption, the woman whom you call “mother” is not the same woman who gave birth to you. (Let’s recall that the New Testament was written in the 1st century A.D. There were no such things as in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood.) Likewise, if you are adopted, your father is not the same man who begat you. With that being said, how can we reconcile the fact that Christians are said to be both begotten/born again and adopted?
Begotten

John 1:12-13 cp. 1 Pet. 1:3

12 But to those who received him, he gave them power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe that believe in his name, 13 who were begotten, neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
ΙΒʹ ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ΙΓʹ οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν TR, 1550

Adopted

Gal. 4:5 cp. Rom. 8:15; Eph. 1:5

5 in order to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we may receive the adoption of sons.
Εʹ ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν TR, 1550

Michael Peppard wrote,

In the move from proclamation to narration, however, each early Christian theologian had to make a decision about how to portray the metaphor of divine sonship. Is it begotten or adopted? By the fourth century, the answer would become mostly clear: the divine sonship of Jesus Christ was by begetting and that of everyone else was by adoption. But in the first two centuries, and especially in areas more influenced by Roman culture, a high view of adopted sons was well established.

References
Peppard, Michael. “Adopted and Begotten Sons of God: Paul and John on Divine Sonship.” Catholic Bible Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 1, 2011, pp. 92–110.


texts: What name was used by Peter for Baptism?

texts:
We know that Jesus gave this command.

  Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

  Therefore go and make
  disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
  of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

But later, we find a statement made by Peter.

  Acts 2:38 (NIV)

  Peter replied, “Repent
  and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
  forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy
  Spirit.

Are these two words contradicting each other?


texts:
In Luke 7:16, after Jesus raised the widow's son his disciples and the crowd said:

  They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has
  appeared among us,” they said.

Who is the great prophet mentioned here? Was it Jesus?


texts: On what basis do Catholics continue doctrinal development after the Bible canon was closed?


texts: If God is omniscient how can he "Forget our Sins"?

texts: God is all knowing. It says in the bible that God forgets our sins and transgressions. Is this a correct translation? It seems very contradictory.


texts: Which Catholic writer(s) has compared St Paul's "third heaven" to the third stage of interior prayer?

texts:
There is a Catholic author who compared St Paul's vision of the third heaven to the third or final stage or way of perfection. I can remember reading it some years ago, but cannot recall it now.

This concept is not easy for me to understand. Many authors have written about the Ways of Perfection, But I am looking for the one who used St Paul's vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1-7 as a comparison to the unitive state of prayer.

  Paul’s Vision and His Thorn

  12 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In Catholic thought the three stages (ways,state) of interior life or prayer are the purgative stage, the illuminative stage and the unitive stage.

This link I hope, can get the idea of where I am coming from: On the Purgative, Illuminative and Unitive Stages of Spiritual Life, as seen in a Cartoon.


texts: Biblical basis or rationale for Christian Identity Movement?

texts:
After discovering the Christian Identity movement, and investigating them further to answer another question, I've been pondering how they justify their doctrine.

On the homepage of Christian Identity Ministries they quote Luke 1:68-75 and then make this bold statement:

"The Anglo-Saxon-Keltic-Germanic-Scandinavian People are Israel"

How does Christian Identity interpret the bible to justify a white supremacist theology?


texts:
As a continuation of this question, this question and this question:

Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Does the LDS Church have an official interpretation of these verses? And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by it?


texts: Is the sequencing of three tests of Jesus at Matthew 22 in chronological order?

texts:
We read of three different tests of Jesus `taken'by the Pharisees and the Sadducees at Matthew 22:
""Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.  They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, ...... Tell us then, ...Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”......Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.  ........ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ....He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”  ......Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Sequencing of the three tests: first  one on paying of taxes taken by the Pharisees, second one on resurrection taken by the Sadducees and the third one on the most important Commandments taken by the Pharisees suggests that they happened in chronological order, with the fist two happening on the same day. But then, the Pharisees having once failed in trapping Jesus, would not have dared to come back with a fresh trap, at least immediately,  just because Jesus had silenced the Sadducees.  That implies either that the third test  took place much later, or that the first and the third test took place together after the second test. My question therefore is: Did the three tests of Jesus taken by the Pharisees and Sadducees, as mentioned at Mtt: 22 take place in chronological order ? What does the Catholic Church teach about the sequencing of the said tests ?


texts: What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?

texts:
It's said that Satan is a very smart creature.

Satan, and 1/3 of the other angels, chose what seems to be a very foolish fate. Knowing that God is all-powerful, we ask, what could have compelled Satan - presumably a rational, intelligent being - to choose what would clearly be, a terrible end for him?  Did he not know that God would win and that he would be punished forever? And what would be so compelling to the heavenly host, that a third of them would choose 'to reign in hell, rather than serve in heaven?'


texts: How would they know if Timothy was circumcised or not?

texts:
During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey.  The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews:

  Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)
   1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish.  How would they know that he had been circumcised?  Would Paul and Timothy just announce it?  Would the Jews insist on verifying it?


texts: Can any catholic rite call themself Roman Catholic?

texts: I have seen some oriential catholic rites call themself as roman catholic. In my knowledge roman catholic church is the latin rite of the church. Can any rite of the catholic church call themself as Roman Catholic?


texts: What is the theological basis for readmitting a Protestant preacher to preaching after divorce?

texts:
So, in my Baptist circles, a divorced pastor causes a lot of consternation.  It sort of went without saying that a minister in the midst of a divorce needed to resign, or at least take several years away from ministry.   In other words, there seems to be this idea that preachers who divorce are at least temporarily disqualified from ministry, and in some cases permanently so.
Andy Stanley picks up on this in his book "Deep and Wide," speaking of his father (Charles Stanley), who in 1992, underwent a very public divorce.  He writes:

While most of the congregants at First Baptist Atlanta (FBA) were willing to stand by my dad no matter what, there was a group that insisted he take some time off to work on his marriage. ... In addition to the take-some-time-off group, there was an element in the church that thought my dad should resign. It was their conviction that if my mom actually went through with the divorce, he would be disqualified to serve in his current capacity. As cruel as that may sound, you need to understand that until that time, First Baptist Atlanta had never had a divorced staff member or deacon. You couldn't be elected to the deacon board if you had been divorced. So, in the minds of the resign-now crowd, they were simply applying what they had been taught.
Stanley, Andy (2012-09-25). Deep & Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend (p. 38). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

This seems related to the whole "deacons need to be the husband of one wife thing,"  but if this is the case, where does the chance at rehabilitation come from?
In short, what teachings would only temporarily disqualify a divorced pastor from preaching?


texts:
God does not play dice with the universe. - Albert Einstein

The Bible gives us reason to believe that God (presumably, God the Father) chose the time of Jesus' arrival on Earth.

My Question:

According to Catholic Tradition - Was Jesus' experience on Earth scripted? Or did human actors shape it?

Specifically:

According to Catholic Tradition - Were the people who came into contact with Jesus acting of their own free will? Or did God "move" them to act in a certain way to fulfill prophecies and lay the foundation for the Gospels?

For reference, a similar question was asked about Judas Iscariot.