texts: On what basis was Jesus’ death sufficient for redemption according Non-Trinitarians who maintain that Jesus was not eternal God as God the Father is?

texts:
To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is.

“For by a single offering (blood offering) he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
Hebrews 10:14

.

“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9:12

To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian)
——————
The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged

“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:4

Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind
But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient?
If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind?
It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’Hebrews 10:5,7
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6:38

And secondly
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from eternity.””
Micah 5:2
If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient?

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
Hebrews 9:11-14

Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God?
————

Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing
One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution
Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind?
It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?


texts: Did Luther say he "might well have entrusted the whole affair of this [Eucharist] controversy to [Calvin] from the beginning"?

texts:
I've seen this quote in various internet discussions, and until recently, was only able to trace it back as far as the 1990s. However, the earliest English version of the story that I can find is from the 1851 book The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer, Volume 2, by Paul Henry, pages 97-98. In the following, Henry appears to be quoting (not merely paraphrasing) the story from another source:

Calvin's book [A Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper], thus far translated into Latin by Galasius, appeared again in 1545 and was brought to Wittenberg. On the Monday after Quasimodogeniti, when Dr. Luther had finished his lecture on Genesis, upon which he was still engaged, he proceeded to the shop of the bookseller Maurice Goltschen, who had just returned from the great Easter fair. Luther welcomed him home, and continued in these words: 'Well, Maurice, what good news is there at Frankfort? Do they wish to burn the arch-heretic Luther?'
Thereupon Maurice replied, 'I have heard nothing thereof, honoured sir; but I have brought with me a little book, which John Calvin wrote some time ago in French, on the Lord's Supper, and which has been lately republished in Latin. It is said of Calvin, that he is a young but a pious and learned man. In this little book he seems to have shown in what respect your reverence, and both Zwinglius and Oecolampadius have gone too far in your controversy on this subject.'
As Maurice Goltschen did not express himself very well, Luther answered quickly, 'Give me the book, friend!' The bookseller immediately gave him an octavo copy, stitched up. Having taken it in his hands, Dr. Luther sat down and read the first three leaves after the title, and then the last four and a half to the end. These he read with particular attention, and at last said, 'Maurice, this is certainly a learned and pious man, and I might well have entrusted the whole affair of this controversy to him from the beginning. I confess my part. If my opponents had done the like, we should soon have been reconciled, since it only needed that Oecolampadius and Zwinglius should have thus explained themselves, to prevent the controversy from proceeding to such lengths.'
This was heard by Matthias Stoius, who was one of the numerous students by whom Dr. Luther was then surrounded. He was at that time a boarder in his house, but subsequently became a doctor of medicine, and was appointed private physician to the old duke of Prussia. The story was repeated in the presence of many of the nobility of the archduke Albrecht.

What is the ultimate source of the story? Did Luther actually express this sentiment about Calvin at any time?


texts: Worklabor during construction of Solomon's palace?

texts:
I am curious about non-Israelites employed in building of Solomon's palace?

Was it common to use such non-Israeli force, especially in position of foreman?


texts: What are the oldest surviving manuscripts of the scriptures?

texts:
Torah, Tanach, gospels, septuagint, dead sea scrolls, masoretic, whatever.

Which one is the oldest and how far?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's position of a marriage between a menopausal woman and an impotent man?

texts: Since the purpose of marriage in Catholicism is for procreation, what is the position of the Catholic Church of a man and a woman being married for the first time when the woman is past childbearing age and the man is impotent because of his age? (The marriage cannot be consummated.)


texts: Which denominations would say that Jesus weeps for the souls in Hell?

texts:
I was reading about a girl named Angelica, who claimed to have visited Heaven and Hell. I am touched from her testimony that Jesus was weeping when they were visiting Hell.

When the Lord weeps, it’s different than we do.  He would weep with
this pain in His heart and He would sob profoundly.  “I did not create
hell for humanity,” Jesus said.  So I asked Him, “Then why is humanity
here, Lord?” He answered, “Daughter, I created hell for satan and his
angels, who are the demons; (Matt.  25:41) but, because of sin and the
lack of repentance, humanity ends here, and there are more that perish
than those who reach My glory!” (Matt 7:14) He continued weeping and
it would hurt me so much to see how He cried.  “Daughter, I gave My
life for humanity, so that it would not perish, so that it would not
end up in this place.  I gave My life out of love and mercy, so that
humanity would proceed to repentance and could enter the Kingdom of
Heaven.”  Jesus would moan as someone who could no longer withstand
the pain, that’s how much pain He felt watching the people here.

Is it possible that Jesus is weeping right now whenever(not always) he sees souls going to Hell?
I mean, if Jesus happens to see the souls being tortured in Hell, would he weep as described by Angelica?
Which denominations believe that Jesus would weep for the souls in Hell? (I think I remember once a Seventh-Day Adventist preacher was preaching something similar to this.)


texts: Is it possible to be Christian but not interpret the religion as fact?

texts:
There are cultural Jews.  Are there cultural Christians who do not interpret the religion as factual?  Is this possible?

Apparently it's also called a "Nominal Christian" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian

From the comments:

To my understanding there are people who call themselves Jewish but don't take the religion as factual. They just abide by the culture that coincides. I'm wondering if the same exists for Christians.

I am asking if someone can call themselves Christian and not believe the claims are factual but they abide by the messages as metaphors instead


texts:
Currently the Catholic Church has a Pope Emeritus (Benedict XVI). This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that such position has existed. There have been and still are plenty of bishop emeritus elsewhere, but this is the first time it happens in the diocese of Rome. Is he infallible?

This is more of an hypothetical question, as it seems unlikely Benedict XVI will ever attempt to speak about moral or faith issues ex cathedra. So far, he has rather kept a very low public profile. If he ever tries to, it will probably be with the consent (and perhaps sponsorship, if not directly under the name) of the Pope.

My guess is that he is not. In my view, the Chair of St. Peter is occupied by Pope Francis and not by Benedict XVI, so he has lost the infallible protection the Holy Spirit gives to the occupier of that Chair. But maybe I'm wrong. Any ideas?


texts:
In 325 CE, following the defeat of Arius at the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine the Great went on a campaign of book burning to eradicate all memory of Arius and his beliefs:

After the First Council of Nicea (325 CE), Roman emperor Constantine the Great issued an edict against nontrinitarian Arians which included a prescription for systematic book-burning:
"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."[3]
According to Elaine Pagels, "In AD 367, Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria... issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all such unacceptable writings, except for those he specifically listed as 'acceptable' even 'canonical'—a list that constitutes the present 'New Testament'".[4] (Pagels cites Athanasius's Paschal letter (letter 39) for 367 CE, which prescribes a canon but does not explicitly order monks to destroy excluded works.[5][original research?]) Heretical texts do not turn up as palimpsests, scraped clean and overwritten, as do many texts of Classical antiquity. According to author Rebecca Knuth, multitudes of early Christian texts have been as thoroughly "destroyed" as if they had been publicly burnt.[6]

The great Alexandrian library was destroyed under mysterious circumstances around that time.
So my thought is that it might be impossible to get my hands on Arius' writings. Is it? Or have any of his words survived?


texts: Do Protestants understand Jesus to be both "the son of Adam" and "the son of God"?


texts: What is a gospel, and how many gospels are there in the Catholic Bible?

texts: Is there a difference between 'books' and 'gospels'? I've read that there are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, but are all of these considered gospels? Or are there just four gospels in total: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?


texts: Before St. Thomas Aquinas, who laid the foundation for the existence of God?

texts:
During His preaching ministry, Jesus described the nature of God. But before doing so, did He have to lay a foundation and convince people that God exists? Or had oral tradition and the Old Testament already convinced most people that God exists?

Reason I ask:

Christians typically credit Saint Thomas Aquinas' 'Quinque viae' as the best arguments for the existence of God.
But I assume that most of Jesus' contemporary followers must have already believed in "a god", because if they didn't then Jesus would have needed to spend a good deal of His effort persuading the masses that "a god" (that is any god) exists, as opposed to "the God" that He existed as in the Holy Trinity.


texts: To what extent (if any) does the Catholic Church recognize adoption?

texts:
Assuming the Church recognizes adoption, if a man or woman were to invite another to live together as a loving relationship as parent and child, but without any secular legal process, would the Church recognize the adoption?

I ask this because some Catholics in history and today have lived/live in a land where there is no secular legal process to recognize an adoption.

If the legal document is required, why does secular law have such an impact on Church teaching? (In some countries adoption is completely illegal.)

By "recognize" I mean if it would be a mortal sin if at some point in time the 2 parties changed their minds on the nature of the relationship and decided to get married, or the parent giving up and cutting all ties with the child. So the adoption being just as permanent and having the same dignity as a biological parenthood.


texts: Does the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church believe in replacement theology?

texts: I belong to Associate Reformed Presbyterian church and would like to know if they believe in replacement theology .  Do they believe in the prophecy and the thousand year reign of Christ on the earth??


texts: Have any prominent theologians written on what the ascension looked like?

texts:
Some postmodernists believe the picture of Jesus floating up into the sky like a balloon is absurd. I remember C. S. Lewis saying (in Miracles) that we don't necessarily have to believe that if we believe he ascended. But are there any commentators, pastors, church fathers, or theologians who have written on what it may have looked like? More specifically than just parroting Luke's account, that is.

  And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”


texts:
Why do JW think other faiths are unbelievers?

I have a JW friend and we have always respected each others faiths. I would ask Questions about her faith and she would answer, with out getting it getting out of hand. Thank God for our awesome friendship. She is always trying to hook me up with a respectful JW brother, and I am open to the idea (I'm Catholic) because of my great friendship with my friend, but I'm trying to understand what he thinks I don't believe in. I am believer in Christ, and the Good and only GOD. Please help me understand.


texts: Why does Catholicism have priests but Protestantism does not?

texts: The Catholic Church (and apparently Lutheran, Anglican and Episcopalian churches) have clergy with the title of "priest", as did Old Testament Judaism.  Are Protestant "preachers", "reverends", "pastors", "ministers", etc. all essentially "priests", or is there some difference between these two systems of clergy titles?  Why didn't Protestants just keep on with the title "priest" for it's clergy?  Why does Catholicism not follow the same logic and avoid that title?


texts: How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods?

texts:
A follow-up to this question, if the LDS church teaches that men can become gods, how does it reconcile this with the concept that there is only one God?

Isaiah 45:5:

  I am the LORD, and there is no other;
     apart from me there is no God.
  I will strengthen you,
     though you have not acknowledged me,

Exodus 20:3:

  “You shall have no other gods before me.


texts: Where is the reference in bible that JESUS preached for three and Half years?

texts: Required bible reference that JESUS Preached for three and half years.


texts: Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth?

texts:
Genesis 1:1

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Why ?

Does the Bible state a reason anywhere?


texts: When was Sunday first called the Sabbath?

texts:
I am looking for the first extant record of Sunday being referred to specifically as the "Sabbath" or "Christian Sabbath"

I am not asking which day the early church gathered.

I am not asking which day is the Christian Sabbath.

I am not looking for evidence of the transfer of observance or meaning of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but for evidence of the transfer of title or label of "Sabbath" to Sunday.

I am asking for the first record of Sunday being labeled the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath.

Context of my question:

It is quite evident to me that in many early church writings that the idea of the Jewish Sabbath is actually rejected. Sunday was certainly a common day of gathering and to the Jewish believers the seventh day would still have possibly been thought of as the Sabbath day. But from Justin Martyr through the Council of Laodicea a Judaizing celebration of any Sabbath is discouraged and the true Sabbath is not any singular day, but as a status in Christ and an attitude of repentance and rest in Him.

I understand many may even disagree with the above statements, but I tell you this so you can understand what kind of statement I am looking for and the question can be answered regardless. At some point in Christian theology someone labeled Sunday not just a day to gather or even a day to rest and enjoy a Sabbath, but someone labeled it as the Christian Sabbath. A true shift of the same Sabbath from the Jewish seventh day to a Christian first day.

Also many may agree with me, even to the point that the idea of Sunday Sabbath seems foreign or wrong. This question remains agnostic on which is right and on what the source may have truly meant.

Finding the earliest record would certainly impact answers to related questions, but all that is outside the bounds of this question.

When is Sunday first recorded as being labeled the Sabbath? Not just a day of rest or gathering or worship.

Contemporary examples

From About Christianity website:

  Today, many Christian traditions believe Sunday is the Christian Sabbath day.

Westminster Confession Chapter 21 Article 7:

  He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[37]

A lengthily titled treatise on the Sabbath by John Owen says:

  And for a holy day of rest, ...he determined the observation of the first day of the week;
  ...
  Now, as God’s rest, and his being refreshed in his work, on the seventh day of old, ... so the rest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being refreshed in and from his works, on the first day, is a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest to be observed under the dispensation of the new covenant, now confirmed and established (pp. 409-410).

I'm not entirely sure that is how Owen meant it but that is how that part alone could be understood (the treatise is quite long, the above link is a summary with quotations). So perhaps this is a "missing link" of sorts in the direction of the earlier quotes.


texts: What is the significance of the phrase "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi"?

texts:
The phrase is used during the ceremony of assigning a new pope, and can be interpreted in many ways.

A translation would be: "So pass the worldly glories."

How would you interpret its meaning, think of its context being used in Christianity and, possibly, some esoteric circles as well?

To clarify, I know the translation and the instance in which it is used. What I'm looking for is if there is some contextual knowledge that would add to the symbolic, historical or ethical meaning of it.


texts: Where do I go to get official Catholic answers?

texts: If a Catholic had questions, where should he or she go for answers other than the Bible (and the catechism)? Specifically, I'd like to know where to get answers on topics I find divisive, intolerant or racist. [This cuts out the fat, but turns it into a "list" type question, like a long list of URLs.]


texts: During communion, when does the wafer stop being Jesus' body?

texts:
So according to Catholicism, the wafer/wine becomes Jesus' body/blood instantly when the priest says so, but when does it stop being Jesus' body/blood?

When it is chewed up, or when it is in the throat, or when it reaches the stomach, or when it passes through the intestines, or when it is evacuated out of the body? Or does it never stop being Jesus' body?


texts: Is the Catholic faith based purely on the Bible?

texts: I have heard that, although Catholics use the Bible, their faith is not solely based upon it. I have heard it said that for Catholics, tradition precedes the Bible, and that is why there are some practices and doctrines that the Church has that cannot be found in the Bible. The alleged reasoning behind this is that tradition predates the Bible and it's the tradition that influenced the making of the Bible. I'm not sure about this though. Is it true that the Catholic Church has some beliefs that override the Bible, or are not based upon it? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't really have a clue.


texts:
Theonomy is a view held by some Christians which argues that the Mosaic law should be applied in modern society. One of the things that some proponents of this view argue for is that atheists should be punished by governments for sharing their beliefs.  Many theologians have argued for and against this belief, but I'll quote one that is critical of this view, the Free Church of Scotland, discussing the views of theonomist Greg Bahnsen:

  [Bahnsen] believes the Confession to teach that the magistrate is to enforce the death penalty on those who are guilty of breaking "the first table of the law" – those who are judged to be atheists, blasphemers, heretics and schismatics (Theonomy, p.538,539). This is completely contrary to the Free Church's position which opposes persecution and favours toleration. [source]

The Free Church goes on to make a few biblical arguments in favor of its view of tolerance for atheists.  I'm not sure, however, that those arguments are representative of all proponents of this sort of tolerance. So that's my question:

What is the biblical basis for allowing atheists to speak openly and freely in society?

Of course, there is some historical precedence for theonomist views; Thomas Aikenhead was hanged in 1697 at the insistence of the Church of Scotland on account of his atheistic or at least unorthodox beliefs.  So I suspect that this question could be tackled from a historical perspective as well, since Christians since then have probably used the Bible to argue against such practices.


texts: I just want to know what bible verse is it that talks about God appearing to a group of non-believers and even after seeing God they still didn't believe.


texts:
When Moses led the people of Israel through the desert, there were two interesting occasions when God wanted to destroy the people of Israel and start over. (There may be more occasions that I don't know of.)
The first one is when Moses went up on mount Sinai and stayed there for 40 days and 40 nights. During that time, the people of Israel grew weary and made themselves a golden calf to worship, since they believed God had deserted them. This made God very angry (and would have made me very angry too) and he told Moses this:

“I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” (Exodus 32:9-10, NIV)

In verses 11-14, Moses replies:

But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. “LORD,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Some time later, some of the Levites rose up against Moses and were then destroyed by God. The day after, this happened:

The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. “You have killed the LORD’s people,” they said.
But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the tent of meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the tent of meeting, and the LORD said to Moses, “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown.
Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with burning coals from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started.” So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the tent of meeting, for the plague had stopped. (Numbers 16:41-45, NIV)

So, the question is: Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? I certainly would, but would God really? If Moses had said: "Okay, go ahead", would God have done it? Moses reminded God of the promise he gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I know that the sum of the Bible is true, thus it is important to understand a passage in its context and the Bible in its entirety. I have a little problem of getting God's unlimited love and grace to sum up with these two places where he wants to destroy the people of Israel.


texts: Genesis 19. 8 Why should he protect strangers above protect his daughters?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Why was Lot “let off the hook” for offering his daughters to be raped?

I was interested in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, cause I remembered at it as I heard it in my youth.

There is a part where Lot said that the people who wanted to have the strangers could have his two virgin daughters instead.

  Genesis 19:
      8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. [KJV]

What is the reason behind this behavior? He protects two strangers (he doesn’t know at this moment that they are angels) before protecting his own daughters?

As I'm an atheist and a reasonable person, I would preferring protecting my own daughters before some strangers, if I had just one choice. So I can’t answer my question by myself.


texts: Was the Holy Spirit or God (the Godhead), the father of Jesus?

texts:
Holy Spirit conceives Jesus

Matthew 1:20 ESV

  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
  appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear
  to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from
  the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name
  Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Luke 1:35 ESV

  And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
  the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to
  be born[a] will be called holy— the Son of God.

Jesus is distinct from God

Clearly during "life" Jesus was distinct from God:

John 20:17 ESV

  Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to
  the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to
  my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Matthew 27:46 ESV

  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,
  “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you
  forsaken me?”

And in heaven:

Psalm 110:1 YLT

  A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah (LORD) to my Lord: `Sit at My
  right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'

and

Mark 16:19 ESV

  So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into
  heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

The question

So then, the Holy Spirit must also be distinct.  Is it better proper to say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus?


texts:
Is there any Christian denomination which obligates its believers to fast (no drink no food) as the bible mentioned and in Jewish practice? I've never heard of obligated fasting in Christianity but I want to ensure it.
I know that there are different interpretations to the mentioned bible, but I just wanted to point out this place rather than discussing the interpretations. Just want to know if such tradition exists anywhere in Christianity world.


texts: What's the big deal about God's love by allowing Jesus to die and resurrect?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  How is Christ's death so significant?

I actually expect lots of downvotes for this question as it's close to blasphemy and fear it will be closed. But with a purely positive aim in faith and humility, I need help with this question:

If many prophecies foretold Jesus' resurrection, what is the big deal about God's love in allowing Jesus to die for us?  After all, Jesus himself knew he would rise on the third day.

  "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you,
  while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which
  were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
  psalms, concerning me....And said unto them, Thus it is written, and
  thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third
  day: " (Luke 24:46)

What special love have you shown if you lose something (even if it were the only one you had) out of sharing or sacrifice knowing definitely you will get the same thing back? 'Special' will fit if Jesus were dead forever like all men do.

I thought about this for a while and trust me, the only 'point' I could raise is the fact that Jesus had to go through physical pain, humiliation and torture which no man will be willing to go through for anyone. But I want more to justify that this sign of God's love, despite the resurrection, is more than the ordinary.


texts: According to Thomas A. Bailey what does “stark but reassuring order in the divine plan” mean?

texts:
I am reading “The American Pageant” by Thomas A. Bailey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Bailey. Bailey has given a short introduction of Calvinism.

  Calvin argued, was all- powerful and all-good. Humans, because of the
  corrupting effect of original sin, were weak and wicked. God was also
  all-knowing—and he knew who was going to heaven and who was going to
  hell. Since the first moment of creation, some souls—the elect—had
  been destined for eternal bliss and others for eternal torment. Good
  works could not save those whom “predestination” had marked for the
  infernal fires.

  But neither could the elect count on their predetermined salvation and
  lead lives of wild, immoral abandon. For one thing, no one could be
  certain of his or her status in the heavenly ledger. Gnawing doubts
  about their eternal fate plagued Calvinists. They constantly sought,
  in themselves and others, signs of “conversion,” or the receipt of
  God’s free gift of saving grace. Conversion was thought to be an
  intense, identifiable personal experience in which God revealed to the
  elect their heavenly destiny. Thereafter they were expected to lead
  “sanctified” lives, demonstrating by their holy behavior that they
  were among the “visible saints.”

  These doctrines swept into England just as King Henry VIII was
  breaking his ties with the Roman Catholic Church in the 1530s, making
  himself the head of the Church of England. Henry would have been
  content to retain Roman rituals and creeds, but his action powerfully
  stimulated some English religious reformers to undertake a total
  purification of English Christianity. Many of these “Puritans,” as it
  happened, came from the commercially depressed woolen districts (see
  p. 28). Calvinism, with its message of stark but reassuring order in
  the divine plan, fed on this social unrest and provided spiritual
  comfort to the economically disadvantaged.

Well, "the American pageant" is an American high school history textbook. I am teaching this book to my students. The quote is from chapter 3 under the section title "The Protestant Reformation Produces Puritanism". The whole chapter can be read here. https://wchs.pasco.k12.fl.us/wp-content/uploads/wchs/2012/05/American-Pageant-CH-3.pdf

I need help interpreting the part in bold. I think "divine plan" means “predestination”.But what does "order" mean here?


texts: Cultural evidence or origins that name order indicated importance or authority

texts:
In the situation with Priscilla and Aquila, name order is often an argument within the egalitarian/complementation debates.

Listing order has been used to point out significance or importance in a number of areas and commentaries of biblical text.  It seems to be an accepted norm and most sources refer to well known cultural and traditional standards of the practice.

I have not been able to find any basis for this.  I’m not disagreeing with it but I would like to find a source where this is clear rather than just referencing “that what everyone says”.  What are the origins of this teaching?


texts:
To the best of my knowledge (which might be incomplete), pretty much all instances of tithing in the Bible involve agricultural produce or animals. Even in the time of Jesus, when money was commonplace in the Roman Empire, the Pharisees would tithe "mint, dill and cumin", as indicated by Matthew 23:23 (NIV):

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

What is the biblical basis for tithing money instead of agricultural produce or animals?


texts: What is the difference between an Apostate and an Antichrist?

texts:
The bible dictionary defines Antichrist as:

  "A word used by John to describe one who would assume the guise of
  Christ but in reality would be opposed to Christ. In a broader sense
  it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of
  salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to
  Christ. The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants
  both as spirit beings and as mortals."

There isn't a definition given in the bible dictionary for what an Apostate is. but the guide to the scriptures describes Apostasy as:

  "A turning away from the truth by individuals, the Church, or entire
  nations."

So it would appear that we have two different definitions, one pretends to be, but secretly isn't, the other simply turns away. But then there'e this scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants:

  "And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church,
  the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to
  drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to
  reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat
  and drive the church into the wilderness." (D&C 86:3)

So now we've got two words describing one person. Lucifer is apparently both and apostate and and antichrist.

My question is, what is the significant difference? Can you be one without being the other?


texts: How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

texts:
As discussed in Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for reasons in scripture.  I have trouble with the idea. What about the sanctity of life with scriptures such as:

Deuteronomy 30:19 (ESV)

  I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live

How do Protestants (Church of England for example) counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?


texts:
There seems to be a sense among many Christians that sins are somehow "less bad" if they were accidental. Leaving aside two salient points, namely:

The entire point of grace is that sins are forgiven.
That all sins are equal in the sight of a perfect God

the question is then, how do people get to the place where they look to the intentionality of the sin?

Are there denominational confessions that differentiate? Is there a biblical basis for making intentional sin somehow worse?


texts: Why did the conclave elect Pope Stephen I, when he died prior to taking office?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, Pope Stephen I was elected to the papacy in March of 752 A.D., but died a few days later, prior to being installed.  As I understand it, Catholic teaching indicates that God's will is accomplished through the voting of the papal conclave.

This, however, brings up a question with regard to Pope Stephen I.  Why was he elected as pope if was going to die prior to taking office?  What purpose did God have in working through the conclave to elect him?  What is the Catholic understanding of this?  Did he, after being elected, somehow become unworthy?


texts: The inhabitants of Heaven will express love intimately through the use of their sex organs?

texts:
I have often wondered on our relationships in the New Earth, after resurrection.

Men and women will enjoy each another in a physical sense? will we still have "sexual feelings", And sexual pleasure in Heaven?

If we look at the paradise lost, it gives you some inkling what paradise restored will be like.  In paradise lost there were flesh and sex, there were trees, it was a physical place. Paradise restored will be this universe minus death, disease, decay, and destruction.
Personally, I do not see any reason why there would not be a physical dimension to a gender based spiritual relationship. God made us male and female for eternity and for some reason.


texts: Is the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" the same as the "tree of life"?

texts: Is there one off-limits tree in the Garden of Eden or two? Genesis speaks of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17) and then later talks of the tree of life (Genesis 3:22). Are they the same tree or two different trees?


texts: Should a Baptist marry a Jehovah's witness?

texts: My fiancee is a Jehovah's witness.  We're supposed to be married in three weeks and I'm just now finding out about the mechanics of his religion. With my being a Baptist I can't help but think it's wrong but I won't judge him. I'd like to work past it  but I'm afraid of how this will work with our future children. I love him. I'm just worried. What should I do?


texts: What evidence does the LDS church forward for the claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?

texts:
I just recently read that Joseph Smith taught that the Garden of Eden was actually in Jackson County Missouri and not in Mesopotamia.  You can read it on lds.org here.  (Search for "Garden of Eden")

Genesis 2 describes the geology of the Garden of Eden as follows:

  A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided
  and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is
  the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is
  gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone
  are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one
  that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the
  third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth
  river is the Euphrates.  Genesis 2:10-14 ESV

How, then, does this description fit with the location in Missouri?  Is there a specific location that is identified as being the exact location of the Garden of Eden.  Is there geological evidence of ancient rivers and such?


texts: "living water" association with Feast of Tabernacles

texts: Is there authoritative support for the claim that John intends to portray Jesus as a replacement for the Feast of Tabernacles? I am interested in articles that develop this interpretation of the Woman at the Well story (John 4:5-42).


texts: How have major theological traditions handled "continuing to indulge in sin when saved?"

texts:
There is interest in the question of what happens to someone who continues to indulge in a specific sinful habit while (apparently, originally) saved. What happens to this person?

So far, I've asked a Truth Question, and to make matters worse,  there's probably stridently different schools of thought on this not only between denominations but within congregations, if you worship in a real one.  Nonetheless,  can anyone provide an overview of the major theological schools of thought on this topic?

A good answer might be along the lines of Puritans saying, "No sinner remains in fellowship"; Luther's Theology of the Cross saying, "Only those who realize they are a slave to sin cling to Jesus like the truly saved"; and Total Depravity saying, "You're hell-bound: go make trouble."   I'm hoping that someone qualified to answer this would be familiar with at least this variety of opinion and succinctly pick out three to six major schools and explain them briefly. A poor answer would be your denomination vs. the devil. The identifiable schools of thought could all be popes or all Tent Revivalists—it doesn't matter.


texts:
Most Mormons seem to be under the impression that the Community of Christ agreed to denounce the Book of Mormon as scripture in order to be accepted into the World Council of Churches. It's obvious that this isn't true, because the CofChrist names the Book of Mormon as accepted scripture in their Basic Beliefs.

Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon? If not, then why are the LDS under the impression that they did?


texts: Who first explicitly understood "works of the law" in Galatians 3:10 as referring to only the ritual law, and not the Mosaic law generally?

texts:
One of the key verses used to defend the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone is Galatians 3:10:

  For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” [ESV]

Proponents of "faith + works" justification often argue that "works of the law" in this verse actually refers to the ritual or ceremonial law, not to the entire Mosaic law, in spite of the word "all" in Paul's quotation.

J. Gresham Machen critiques one such opponent of sola fide and calls his commentary on Galatians "medieval," saying that this sort of exegesis is "a return to the religion of the Middle Ages" (Christianity and Liberalism, 121).  In at least one sense he's right, since this was the typical understanding prior to the Reformation.  But his implication, perhaps, is that this view was not held in the early church.

So my question is: when do we first see an explicit claim that "works of the law" in Galatians 3:10 refers not to the Mosaic law generally but only to a subset of it (i.e., ritual/ceremonial law, excluding moral law)? Is Machen's implication correct, or does such analysis originate in the early church?

Related: In the NPP, if Paul's “works of the law” are only circumcision and diet, how is Galatians 3:10 interpreted?


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for God the Holy Spirit having a spouse?

texts:
The following are taken from Pure Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort

By the light which the Holy Spirit will give you through Mary, his faithful spouse, you will perceive the evil inclinations of your fallen nature and how incapable you are of any good apart from that which God produces in you as Author of nature and of grace.

The Holy Spirit, finding his dear Spouse (Mary) present again in souls, will come down into them with great power. He will fill them with his gifts, especially wisdom, by which they will produce wonders of grace.

What is the Biblical Basis for the belief that God the Holy Spirit has a spouse?


texts: Questions about this icon of Saint Sophia

texts:
Below is an icon of Saint Sophia and her three daughters (Faith, Hope, and Charity). It's so cute! I hope someone who is knowledgeable about iconography can answer a couple questions I have about it.

Who is who in the icon? We obviously know which figure represents St. Sophia, but what about the three daughters? There are no inscriptions. Which is Faith? Which is Hope? Which is Charity? In other icons, the three girls are different heights so they are easily distinguishable (according to the hagiography, Faith was 12 years old, Hope was 10, Charity was 9), but in this icon they look equally heighted to me. The middle one looks slightly taller, but maybe that's only because she is in front. Most icons I've seen online have Faith in the middle, Hope on the left, and Charity on the right, but not all of them follow this convention. [I realize the placement of the three figures in my icon most likely can't be answered with 100% certainty, but is there a probable answer?]
Are the three girls wearing veils in this icon? Looking at their shoulders, it seems as if they have white veils. But the tops of their heads look brown (like hair) to me, not white! What's going on? Is this just because the image is faded?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses pay obeisance to Jesus in their daily lives?

texts: I would like to know how Jehovah's Witnesses pay obeisance to Jesus Christ in their daily lives. Do they use expressions such as “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Rev. 5:14)? How often, when and where do they commonly pay obeisance to Jesus?


texts: Why was the Bible not available to common people in the Medieval period?

texts:
The Bible was not available in the hands of common people in Medieval times (5th - 15th century). Which of these possible reasons are plausible?

The common people were poor and could not afford to get the Bible.
The Bible was not for sale in the market.
The Catholic Church did not want the common people to read the Bible.
The common people were illiterate.
The common people did not speak Latin.
The people were not pious enough to bother reading the Bible.
The people had a mindset that reading the Bible is the job of scholars or bishops.

Are there any other possible reasons?


texts: Did Martin Luther accept or reject the existence of Purgatory?

texts: Martin Luther rejected many dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. What was his belief concerning Purgatory? Did he accept it or reject it?


texts: What is the significance of the name "Jesus"?

texts:
A prominent theological understanding in Christianity is that God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit.  About 2,000 years ago, He entered into creation through a virgin birth and was given the name "Jesus" ("Yeshua" in Hebrew).

So, why did God the Son choose this particular name as His own at His birth?


texts: Can a baby be baptized in a Catholic Church if the mother does not have papers proving she was baptized?

texts: I tried to baptize my baby at a local Catholic Church in Toronto, but the priest told me I need to provide documents proving I was baptized.  I don't have such documents because I was baptized and confirmed in another country, and I don't even remember in which church.  Without the paperwork from my country of birth the priest refuses to baptize my son.  Is this really a requirement in the catholic church?  Or is it possible to find another priest who is more easy going?


texts: Is there any Biblical prophecy about Damascus?

texts: Recently I saw a video clip with pieces of an Christian lecturer telling about a Biblical end time prophecy about Damascus. And it may have some connection with the recent chemical attack happened there. Is there any such prophecy in Bible?


texts: How do I verbalize "Lesson: 1 John 4:7-21"?

texts: Is it correct to say: "Today's lesson is from the first book of John, Chapter 4, verses 7 through 21"?


texts: What is the difference between obeisance and worship?

texts:
After reading the answers to this question, I realized that many do not necessarily see it as idolatry if someone prostrates before someone else (e.g. Jesus), as long as it is done to pay obeisance rather than as an act of worship. However, from an external observer's point of view, doing obeisance and worshipping are indistinguishable acts. In both there is a person in prostration, saying nice things to someone else. This must imply that if there is any difference, it is not found in the physical act itself, but in the attitude of the heart.
Question: what is the difference between obeisance and worship? In particular, I'm interested in understanding what aspects of obeisance make it different from worship so as to not be considered idolatry when targeted to someone other than God.


texts:
I am a Catholic.

There are many visions and ecstasy and saints.

As a Catholic, am I obliged to believe in visions and saints?


texts: What is significant about the swaddling clothes with which Jesus was wrapped as a baby?

texts:
Luke gives the account of Jesus' birth and mentions that Mary wrapped Him in "swaddling cloths".

  And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling
  cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them
  in the inn.  Luke 2:7 ESV

What is particular significant about this?  Is there any historical material on whether this was a common practice for newborns or whether it was unique to this birth?


texts: According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation, where did the Father live as a man?

texts: According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation (the Father was once a man who was exalted by his Creator to Godhood as Christ is exalted by the Father), did the Father live on this Earth at a previous time, on another planet in this cosmos, or in a previous cosmos that we are unable to observe?


texts: Was Abraham justified by faith alone or works also?

texts:
I ask this question in this forum as I am seeking the truth.
a. I have always been taught that faith in Jesus and his sacrifice saves me from sin.
b. I listen to a lot of Rabbi's and learnt that Sin-offering is only for Unintentional sins also no one can die for another person's sins
The Christian faith is tied to faith in Jesus and lay the foundation with the statement that Abraham was blessed because of his Faith and not the circumcision / Law.
My view is Obeying the Law is what brings us close to G-d so he can bless us as he did to Abraham.
Paul makes this assertion about faith.

In Romans 4:3 Paul says “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”.
Later in Romand 4:10 he establishes that since the faith came before circumcision, the circumcision was a sign/seal and faith was key.
In Romans 4:14 Paul says that if following the law could achieve this promise then faith is worthless.
Lastly in Romans 4:16 Paul says because Abraham was promised to be the father of many nations, we as gentiles inherit the same promise by the faith that Abraham had.

Question: Is Paul saying that Abraham saw the promised fulfilled by faith alone or by having faith and obeying the law?
Genesis 18:18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
Genesis 22:18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
Genesis 26:4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”
James 2:20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

All above verses clearly show that faith alone does not work but you need to obey G-d


texts: Why do some Christians bowdlerise words like "God", writing "G-d" instead?

texts:
Some Christians bowdlerise words like "God", writing it as "G-d" or even "G d". This practice is likely inspired by the Jewish practice to do similar. But while some Jews explain their practice as a means to ensure that the names of God including the word "God" are never thrown out, I have never heard any Christians give such an explanation, which seems to me to be both more legalistic and more mystical than is found in most branches of Christianity. And it doesn't seem to square with how God inspired the authors of the Bible: considering that the New Testament's use of κύριος (lord) for the Tetragrammaton could be considered a bowdlerisation, if this practice was God's intention, it seems to me that he could easily have inspired the New Testmanent's authors to do likewise for θεός (god).

What reasons do these Christians give for this practice? Why is it sufficient to obscure one letter but still write the two consonants, shouldn't the whole word be avoided? (Do they also avoid writing words like "godly"?) And do they explain why, if it's either wrong or imprudent to write "God" in English, God did not inspire the Biblical authors to avoid the Hebrew and Greek words for "god"?


texts: Does the Minimal Facts Argument have the potential to the biggest Christian revelation over the last thousand years?

texts:
I recently came across the "Minimal Facts Argument" by Dr Gary Habermas. In short, the argument is that there are a half dozen reliable historical facts (even for those who'd judge the NT as unreliable) showing that the disciples of Jesus went through a powerful transformation based on their experience of the resurrected Jesus, from which we can conclude that the resurrection of Jesus is historically defensible.

I've been a Christian for 26 years and it struck me very very hard and it occurs to me that this line of reasoning has already adjusted the academic majority view substantially over the last 40 years (since its inception).

My question is: does the argument have the potential to be as long term ground breaking within the church (and it's Christian theology) as it is largely not common knowledge among Christians, whereas it has been able to utterly revolutionise academia (where it turned a whole myriad of cynics' presuppositions upside-down) i.e. could it end up being the biggest landmark "discovery" of the last thousand years?

I must say it has markedly increased my emphasis on the historicity of the gospels.


texts: What exactly are private vows? After somebody I vaguely know noted that she has taken private vows, I have been rather too fearful to admit my ignorance. I went home, looked through the Code of Canon Law and after an hour or so, I was even more confused. Apparently, it's not the same as recognised private vows, which apparently are public vows despite the name. Can somebody shed light on this conundrum?


texts: How does Jesus' pre-incarnational existence relate to oneness pentecostalist godhead doctrine?

texts:
I've watched a few Youtube debates on trinitarianism vs unitarianism and the trinitarian apologists invariably try to prove Jesus "backwards" eternality (that he existed before the incarnation).

But I don't get why this is so important? Why do trinitarians go after this argument so often, and why do oneness adherents resist it?  That is, if it was hypothetically proved that Jesus was pre-existent, then what does that say about oneness godhead?


texts: What is the support for the idea that the "angel of the Lord" is actually God?

texts:
For many years, I've held the idea that every place where the phrase "an angel of the Lord" (as opposed to just a plain angel) appears, the angel is actually God taking the form of an angel. Is there any particular reason for believing this rather than just seeing the phrase as a sort of generic add-on, like "Jesus of Nazareth"?

I was raised Wesleyan, so the closer to that, the better.


texts: Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays?

texts:
A quick search on Google will come up with several Christian holidays including:

Valentine's Day
Good Friday
Thanksgiving
Christmas

However, in many multi-cultural countries, there are often holidays which are from other religions, other beliefs or even tradition itself. For example a Chinese Christian celebrating Mid-Autumn Festival. Is that allowed?

PS: Today is Mid-Autumn Festival, the 15th day of the 8th Month on the Lunar Calendar. Chinese celebrate this day by bring out laterns, eating mooncakes, and reciting poems. It's kind of a tradition to me personally, but there are beliefs and myths behind the festival.


texts: According to Dispensationalism is "the land" of Ezekiel 37:24-28 interpreted as "Heaven"?

texts:
ESV Ezekiel 37:

  24“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. 26I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 28Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”

And are the "rules and statutes" the Torah?


texts: The Pope Pius XII in the encyclical AD CAELI REGINAM recognizes Mary as the "queen of heaven", although historically she was already known that way. If the Pope knows the Bible, why not distance himself in his encyclical from the references to the "queen of heaven" found in Jeremiah chapter 7 and 44?


texts: Was the Gathering Relics of Holy Men in 1st Century common in the Early Church?

texts:
I am hoping to understand or know if Jesus' apostles would have had gathering relics of something like the crucifixion in mind at some point when it as still possible to locate them (ex: the true cross, crown of thorns, nails), such as a few days following the crucifixion?

Was this something Jews had a habit of doing for Holy men during Christ's time on earth? Unless this was a cultural/religious practice, I have some skepticism on the likelihood that this would have been a priority.


texts: According to Catholic doctrine, how can an angel be a saint?

texts:
In Catholic doctrine, a saint has to (a) be “a dead person” and (b) be “in Heaven”.

  How is someone deemed a saint? The pope canonizes a dead person who has lived a life of heroic virtue and has performed a posthumous miracle in addition to the miracle required for beatification.
  Peter Turner

  Being in Heaven is the definition of a ‘capital-S’ Saint.
  Ethel Evans

Alternatively, a saint may be an angel, though this is a different “category” of saint.

  Angels, like Saint Michael, may be called Saints but aren’t in quite the same category as human believers.
  James T.

So, what is an angelic saint? Are all angels saints, or just some of them? How is this determined?

I can see one possible solution: All angels are in Heaven, and are therefore saints (per Ethel Evans), but they are not ‘deemed’ as saints (or, not canonized), because (per Peter Turner) they are not dead. They are therefore a different ‘category’ of saint (per James T.). This makes sense to me, but is it valid?


texts: In Acts 25:10 Paul appeals to Caesar. What aspect of Roman law/citizenship was he invoking?

texts:
Some commentators claim it was provacatio, others amplius. Most commentators simply state he had the right to appeal but what exactly was he invoking?

The wikipedia article on Valerian and Porcian law provides support for Paul's right to not be flogged as an interrogation technique on a separate occasion. But not for appeal to Caesar.

Edited: for clarity.


texts:
The Bible tells us repeatedly that our earthly actions will impact our ability to enter the gates of Heaven. Some Biblical passages say that our earthly actions can improve or lessen our experience of Heaven if we are in fact lucky enough to reach it.

With that being said, I conclude that we must retain our earthly identities and our earthly experiences. But if that's the case, then I must ask:

Do we retain our gender in Heaven?

Reason for my question:

A person's gender shapes their experience on planet Earth. Gender is a quality that you simply cannot shake. It opens some doors and closes others (and I'm not talking about the rest rooms :/) On the other hand, the Bible describes Heaven as a state of perfection and a place without bounds. As I see it, gender creates bounds, or at least a lane within which to operate. Such a lane would seem to run contrary to the nature of Heaven.


texts: What evidence is there that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic?

texts:
The Hebraic Roots Bible makes the claim,

  The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic.

I thought that only the Gospel of Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, and that the rest of the NT was originally written in Greek.

There is also the strange claim that the name Yahshua (Jesus) appears in the Old Testament:

  There are also almost 100 scriptures in the Tanach (Old Testament) that personify our Savior’s name. Due to the fact that most translations do not use our Savior’s original Hebrew name they totally miss this fact.

This is impossible because the Old Testament was written before Jesus was famous. Perhaps the word in these passages that the Hebraic Roots Bible translates as Yahshua should be translated as a simple word, not a name, as it is in other translations.


texts:
I have noticed this word ‘concupiscence’ a lot while studying Catholic Theology. It seems to significantly change what ‘Original Sin’ means, making a Catholic meaning of ‘Original Sin’ very different from the Protestant meaning. It appears to be a key word because the Catholic Church actually condemned the Protestant view during the reformation as being heretical. A lot of it seems to boil down to the word ‘concupiscence’.

I have not encountered the word a lot in Protestant theology but it is coming up left, right and center, as I study Catholic Theology.

Why is the word ‘concupiscence’ so important in understanding the difference between a Catholic view and a Protestant view of ‘Original Sin’?


texts: What is the/any Arminian/Catholic interpretation of Hebrews 10:14?

texts:
Hebrews 10:14 reads:

  For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being
  sanctified.

How do Christians who believe that salvation can be lost interpret this verse? I hear lots of Reformed people using it, but in all the commentaries I've read the subject isn't really addressed, so I don't know.


texts: Regarding women participation in extraordinary ministry (Roman-Catholic Church)

texts:
I've seen similar questions like these:

Why doesn't the Catholic Church ordain women to be deacons?
Why does the Roman Catholic church allow girls to serve the altar?

but they do not cover what I want to ask here.

I've recently moved to Ireland from Russia, where I was attending a Catholic Church for some time. So I have never seen women there serving on the altar (I've heard about girls-ministrants who handle
 lights, giving the censer and so on - this is quite traditional, even in the Orthodox Church girls serve on the altar sometimes).

But, to be honest, I was quite shocked by seeing the local Irish Catholic tradition: women here mainly, without any liturgical vestements, are taking Communion on the altar from the Ciborium and then hand out Communion alongside the priests in the Church during mass.

It looks quite shocking and resembles the Protestant church more than something traditional (These women do not have any kind of vestements, but are dressed in regular clothes with make-up and perfume).

I've recently discussed this problem with my Russian Catholic friends and they said that this is some kind of malpractice, that Second Vatican Council wasn't intended to provide such a kind of extraordinary ministry where the use of laymen (here laywomen?) distributing Sacraments becomes regular practice.

What can you tell me about it? Is it really an abuse of Canon?


texts:
When Adam and Eve first eat the forbidden fruit, they put clothes on to hide their nakedness, indicating man was meant to be naked. However, angels show up in the Bible "dressed in white garments".

Why would angels wear clothes when they are holy?


texts:
What I mean here by "regenerated" is being born of God, i.e. become a child of God. Has this matter been discussed in Christianity? If the question is too broad, then I am firstly after the protestant-tradition answer here.

So, once again: Is it possible to believe in Jesus, pray to Him and be baptized and yet not get regenerated?


texts: Were humans worshipped as gods in Biblical times?

texts:
Word "god"  in Bible is not always interpreted as idols but sometimes they are depicted as humans like in these following verses.

Ex. 12:12 I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the LORD
Num. 33:4 Now the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had killed among them; the LORD also executed judgments on their gods.

Who are these humans gods that people were worshipping. Anywhere any names of these gods  are mentioned in the Bible?


texts:
If a priest prematurely says the prayer for absolution, is the confession still valid?

Is the confession still valid even when the priest is not wearing his normal vestments? Or if I didn't say the prayers the priest asked me to pray until I got home because I couldn't focus during the mass?

Is it necessary for a penitent to bring up unconfenssed sins the next time they receive the sacrament of reconciliation?


texts: Did the early church teach that God performed the first animal sacrifice in Gen 3:21?

texts:
An earlier question asks about the first animal sacrifice. The two top answers both suggest that God instituted animal sacrifice by example when He killed an animal to provide Adam and Eve with clothing in Gen 3:21. It is easy to find that opinion in sermons or statements about Christian doctrine, but I wondered if the animal skins were regarded as sacrificial in the early church?

What is the earliest statement that the clothing in Gen 3:21 represent a sacrifice? I would hope to find an answer within the first few centuries of Christianity, but if not then the earliest teaching of any Christian leader is fair game.


texts: According to Mormonism, what are angels?

texts:
According to mainstream christianity, an angel is a spirit creation that exists to serve God which is often portrayed in pop-culture looking something like this:

Could someone please give the Mormon definition of exactly what an angel is?


texts: Best practices for finding lay academic reading communities in your local church?

texts: A n00b here with my first question. I've long struggled to find lay reading communities within the local church who are interested in reading books that are more academic in nature or journal articles. Here are just some current examples of books or topics that I would like to process with others: Metzger's Canon of the NT, many of NT Wright's academic work, 5 views on biblical inerrancy (Counterpoints series), patristic fathers on Gen. 1. My reformed/covenantal perspective suggests that I should not read alone, but my experience has been that I've repeatedly knocked and sought over the years, and the most common reactions I receive are well-intentioned folks who think that I should: (1) stop asking questions, (2) think these topics uninteresting, or (3) that I am a heretic (implicitly). If you've succeeded in forming a local reading community, could you please share your secret? It's not that I don't appreciate this wonderful forum or other digital media, it's just that, for me, I really long for an in person community, COVID notwithstanding.


texts: What do Christianity and Judaism have in common?

texts: Most Christians relate to Judaism more than to Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any other religion. So, my question is, what do Christianity and Judaism have in common so as to make them so related to one another? Thanks.


texts: Why would Jesus begin to be called the Son of God?

texts:
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35, NIV)

This verse seems to suggest that Jesus will begin to be called the Son of God after he is born, rather than always being the Son of God as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

How should we understand this verse?


texts:
One of the main reasons Jacobus Arminius split with Calvinism was his opposition to the doctrine of supralapsarianism taught by his colleagues at Leiden University.

What is supralapsarianism? Is it a commonly held belief among Calvinists?


texts: Is the doctrine of the Trinity the primary difference between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism?

texts: Judaism got its root in 1st millennium BC; Islam originated in 7th century AD; Christianity took birth in the 1st century AD. Did doctrinal differences regarding the Trinity necessitate the creation of these entirely new religions, or were there any other reasons?


texts: What do Calvinists teach about the Election of mankind? Is it before or after the Creation?

texts:
From this link:

  Calvin also reminds us that Paul states that the love God had for us
  before the creation of the world had always been founded in Christ

From this link:

  Calvinists believe that God picked those who he will save and bring
  with him to Heaven before the world was created

From this link:

  Election is an act of God before creation

From this link:

  Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation

From the sentences of the quotes above lead me to think that Calvinist teach that the U (from Unconditional Election) is before the creation

but because in my other question, there is a comment like this :
Neither scripture nor Calvin make any statements about mankind before it is created. It would be illogical to do so.

That's why I ask the question.


texts: In the 4th Century there was a strong monastic tradition, which usually involved living in solitude or small groups in the wilderness. By the 12th Century the monastic life was being lived in large groups, and generally close to large communities. How did one tradition evolve into the other?


texts:
Recently, I read (in this pamphlet) that Martin Luther had some disputes with prominent thomist and Cardinal Thomas Cajetan. why did these two intellignet man not come to an agreement and dispute honestly (or did they)?

In the pamphlet is the story from the side of Luther: are there any documents that speak from Cardinal Cajetan's perspective?

I am intrested in both versions of the story. Are there original texts of what they actually said during their dispute?

Since there are obviously some Protestants and Catholics on this site, I do not care from which "side" you write but I would appricate quotation from original texts from side of Luther and side of Cajetan.

Thank you for any help.


texts: If there were no punishment for sin would salvation be necessary?

texts:
Every time I hear someone say that 'If God were a loving God he would not send people to Hell', It makes me wonder Why does God, who is such a loving God send unbelievers to Hell.

Since Jesus said that the Lake of fire was created for the Devil and his angels, and not for unbelievers;

Matthew 25:41  KJV

  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

I have heard that there are some Christians who do not believe that God will so punish unbelievers.

Are there any mainstream Churches who endorse this position?


texts: What might the capitalization of the word "church" indicate?

texts:
Does capitalization of the word "church" matter, or is it more of a personal preference?

It is obvious why the Bible or Christian is capitalized; they are proper names. A lowercase bible may refer to a reference book, manual, or textbook. Christian is capitalized, presumably because it is a proper name for follower of Christ.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying “Least of these commandments "?

texts:
We see Jesus saying at Matthew 5:18-19:

  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one  stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I am interested in knowing as to what Jesus meant by `these commandments'. Did he refer to the Ten Commandments and if so, which ones are the least of the commandments, according to the Catholic Church ?


texts: Theology question: why hasn't God stopped Satan and his demons?

texts:
I'm just trying to find some theological or philosophical discussion of why God hasn't stopped Satan and his demons. Why not imprison them? Why not take away their free will? Why not annihilate them? Why allow them what dominion they have over us?

I recognize that, according to traditional Christianity, God will subject them to eternal punishment at some point in the future. But this seems on the face of it to be a far less desirable alternative: i.e., the courses of action I mention above seem better for everyone. I've looked in a few thinkers (Aquinas, Leibniz, ...), but I can't find anyone addressing this question.

Thanks!


texts: Burying a fish as a Christmas tradition?

texts:
To me this almost sounds like a joke, and I want to know if this is really a tradition...

I was at a dinner tonight with some vendors, one of whom was from New England.  He was telling the group about a catholic tradition of burying a dead fish in the back yard on Christmas.  He wasn't Catholic himself, and couldn't elaborate, but swore his friend's family did this as a tradition, and that it was a "Catholic thing".

Google is coming up blank, so I'm asking our Catholicism experts here:  Is this truly a tradition, and if so, what can you tell me about it? Origins, meanings, etc.


texts: St. Thomas Aquinas' contingency proof and LDS cosmology

texts:
The argument from contingency summarized by St. Thomas illustrates that in order for existence to be a reality there must be an "Uncaused Cause" that possesses existence in and of Himself.  Everything else that exist does so by way of created contingency.
See CONTINGENCY

According to Mormon theology, God the Father is a physical being of
"flesh and bones."  Mormons identify him as the Biblical god Elohim.
Latter-day Saint leaders have also taught that God the Father was once a
mortal man who has completed the process of becoming an exalted
being. According to Joseph Smith, God "once was a man like one of us
and…once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the
flesh and like us."
According to Mormon scripture, "the elements are eternal". This
means, according to Smith, that the elements are co-existent with God,
and "they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They
had not beginning, and can have no end." This was elaborated by
Brigham Young, who said, "God never made something out of nothing; it
is not in the economy or law of which the worlds were, are, or will exist."
Thus, Mormons deny ex nihilo creation and instead believe that God
created or "organized" the universe out of pre-existing elements.

See MORMON COSMOLOGY
How does LDS cosmology address or reason with St. Thomas' contingency proof? In other words, according to the LDS, who or what causes existence to exist?


texts: How are Catholic priests chosen and assigned to specific parishes?

texts: I know that a certain amount of education is necessary before men can be ordained as a Catholic priest. But are all men that received the necessary education ordained as priests? If not, what is the selection process? And how are they assigned to a specific parish?


texts: What person(s) of the Trinity were the people of the Old Testament interacting with?

texts:
When a someone or groups of people were interacting with God, as recorded in the Old Testament, in general were they simply interacting with person of 'God the Father' within the Trinity? Or were they interacting with the 3 in one at the same time? Or where they sometimes speaking with the 3 in one, and sometimes God the father?

Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding what the Trinity is, but the reason I am asking I because I am wondering if the second and third person of the Trinity ever interacted with humanity prior to the incarnation of Christ?


texts: Orthodox views on it state that any sort of lie is a sin by itself. More liberal Christians will say that it doesn't really mean that much provided it doesn't hurt anybody. But more importantly than personal opinions; what does the Bible have to say about white lies?


texts: A.W. Pink and the Tripartite Theory of Man

texts:
Related

I have asked a similar question on Philosophy.SE.

Background

Reading Arthur W. Pink's pamphlet Regeneration: Or, the New Birth recently, I was surprised to find that he had a tripartite view of man; and even more surprised to see the nuance in the way he related this to the doctrine of regeneration.

He says, "Man was a tri-partite being" before the Fall. But the Fall "does not mean that either his spirit or soul, or any part thereof, ceased to be, for in Scripture 'death' never signifies annihilation, but is a state of separation." (p. 16 in my copy, which is printed by the Bible Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa.)

But he goes on to say (referencing Galatians 5 and similar passages), "The 'flesh' refers to the degenerate state of man's spirit and soul and body, as the 'spirit' refers to the regenerate state of the spirit and soul—the regeneration of the body being yet future." (18, italics original) This would be a tripartite view much more palatable to those who hold to bipartite view. (The tripartite theory I am more familiar with, associated with Pentecostalism, teaches that at regeneration the spirit is regenerated but not the soul.)

Question

In what works does Pink deal with this doctrine further? The only other work I've read by him is The Attributes of God. How does he distinguish between the soul and the spirit, and what functions does he ascribe to each? What other theologians would agree with this brand of tripartite anthropology?


texts: What was the early American church like?

texts:
Which denominations were prevalent among the churches of North America in the late 17th century and 18th century?

During that time, was there significant of cooperation or communication between church groups in America and the rest of the world?

When did the first "American denominations" emerge in earnest?


texts: What's the scriptural basis for Protestants to believe that their future sins have been forgiven?

texts:
Majority of Protestants believe that their sins are fully forgiven - not only the ones they had committed before believing in Christ but even all the sins that they have not yet committed during their lifetime since believing in Jesus. As far as I know, the Orthodox believers strongly oppose to that idea.

What do those of Protestants who believe that all their future since have already been forgiven take as their basis for such a belief in the Scripture?


texts: How did the tree of life in the Garden of Eden serve its purpose? (Roman Catholic perspective)

texts:
In Genesis 2:9 (RSVCE) we read:

  And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We further read in Genesis 3:2-3:

  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;  but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

My question is: How did the tree of life serve its purpose, if Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating its fruit? Are any teachings from the side of Catholic Church available on the topic?


texts: Who is credited with being the first to use these terms "conservatives", “traditionalists”, “progressives and liberals” within the Catholic Church?

texts:
Pope Francis in his speech at the conclusion of the Synod 2014, said

  One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close
  oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself
  to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within
  the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still
  need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the
  temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of
  the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the
  intellectuals.

  The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo],
  that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first
  curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the
  causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the
  fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

Do we know who is credited with being the first to use these terms "conservatives", “traditionalists”, “progressives and liberals” for describing certain groups within the Catholic Church? When was that?

How are these labels understood within the Church?


texts: Use of "the LORD" in Old Testament names

texts:
Many traditional Hebrew personal names contain a reference to God in their meaning. For example the name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ׃ Joshua means 'Yahwah is salvation'.

But what about Yahwah itself [יְהוָ֨ה] ? Is the tetragrammaton wholly and directly used in any name of a person in the OT?

The only place I know is at Jeremiah 23:6. "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD [יְהוָ֨ה] our righteousness.'"

Follow-up questions: is Jeremiah referring to a the name of a person? And is this a reference to the Messiah?


texts: What's the source of "I can only give what I have"?

texts:
Right now, I'm reading When Heaven Invades Earth by Bill Johnson. I just came across this sentence: "If I am filled with anxiety in any given situation, it becomes hard for me to release peace--because I can only give what I have." (Emphasis mine.)

The phrase by itself is a good and noteworthy one, but the reason I'm posting this question is that I've heard this phrase used before, spoken by Mike Cavanaugh. Both Bill Johnson and Mike Cavanaugh have done many great things by following the Lord, both are senior pastors, and both have used this phrase. This suggests to me that there's an earlier source that both have read and drawn from. Hence, I ask: does this earlier source exist, and if so, what is it?

I kept reading and I came across "As glorious as the gift of tongues is, it is an entrance point to a lifestyle of power.", which is another thing Mike Cavanaugh said. The answer to this question may very well be a negative in that Mike may have drawn from this book, not an earlier source. If this is the case, an answer should show this.


texts: What was done with animals WITH defects?

texts: A quick search reveals that the phrase "without defect" appears at least 46 times in the Old Testament. What happened to the animals that had defects? What is a defect, and were they fit for consumption by people?


texts: What is the Baptist justification for anti-confessionalism?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, "Confessionalism, in a religious (and particularly Christian) sense, is a belief in the importance of full and unambiguous assent to the whole of a religious teaching. Confessionalists believe that differing interpretations or understandings, especially those in direct opposition to a held teaching, cannot be accommodated within a church communion."

So, the main question is this: what is the Baptist justification for anti-confessionalism?

Baptists are one group that may be anti-confessional.


texts: Were the Jews right in accusing Jesus of claiming to be God?

texts:
I was once asked this question by a Jehovah Witness to prove if the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. I affirm that they did while the Jehovah Witnesses deny it.

Related question here


texts:
There has been a long standing association between ashes and repentance within Christianity stretching all the way back to Tertullian not to mention various grief filled moments of repentance found in the Old Testament. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent a period of fasting, inner reflection and repentance within the church calendar.

For a long time (until about the 8th century), however, the practice of sprinkling ashes or applying an ashen cross to the forehead as a mark of repentance was not used on the first day of lent.

Why did this change? Was it a cultural shift? Was it an idea from the papacy or other church authority? Where did this particular practice come from? In essence then what is the origin of the Ash Wednesday ritual traditions?


texts: According to Emanuel Swedenborg, do infants go to heaven?

texts:
According to Emanuel Swedenborg, or the New Church, do infants who die young go to heaven?

If not, do they go to hell?


texts: What is the basis for the idiomatic understanding of "three days in the tomb" as two nights and a day?

texts:
The Messiah said that He would be three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth"
There are those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week with the resurrection taking place on the 1st day of the week.
Of those, there are some who think that the "heart of the earth" is referring to the tomb.
A 6th day of the week crucifixion/1st day of the week resurrection allows for only 2 nights to be involved.
To account for the lack of a 3rd night, some of those mentioned above say that the Messiah was employing a common figure of speech/colloquial language.

I wonder if anyone who thinks that it was common could provide examples to support that belief; i.e., instances where a daytime or a night time was forecast or said to be involved with an event when no part of the daytime and/or no part of the night time could have occurred.


texts:
If the traditional “Church Fathers' are from about 160-380 AD, why are they called the Church Fathers?
The Church was started by Jesus and ministered by the apostles from the very beginning - teaching, baptising and sorting out problems and misunderstandings which are written about throughout the NT.
Why aren't the Apostles called the Church Fathers?
Who decided which figures would be “Church Fathers”, ignoring the Apostles unquestioned esteem, experience and de facto appointment for that title and role?


texts: How do Evangelicals celebrate Pentecost?

texts:
Wikipedia sayeth in vague generalities:

  In Evangelical churches, where a lesser degree of emphasis on the liturgical year is generally placed, Pentecost may indeed be one of the greatest celebrations in the year. In many other cases though, Pentecost may be a holiday ignored in these churches. Perhaps ironically, this includes many Pentecostal congregations. Christians of these traditions may be surprised to learn of the significance assigned to the holiday by others, and in fact in many evangelical churches in the United States, secular Mother's Day is more celebrated than the ancient and biblical feast of Pentecost

Specifically, how do Evangelicals who do celebrate Pentecost do it?  Pentecost is one of the only two holy days that not only is a carry over from the Jewish tradition, but also a huge gigantic and utterly important point in the history of the Christian Church.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the theory that Christians should not eat pork?

texts:
I've been tormented by hearing from friends and such (that aren't religious) that they've heard and been told eating pork and chicken is a sin. And that it means going to hell....which is obviously out of proportion.

My Question: where, how, and why did this come about? Was it haters? Or people against Christianity totally? Or what?

Note: I know it's of a muslim culture/religion but not christian that I am aware of. At least not of a religious law like the 10 commandments.


texts: First Occurrence of "Sea of Forgetfulness" in Christian Literature

texts:
Apparently "Sea of Forgetfulness" is a well known example of Christian jargon.  This is news to me, as I have never heard this phrase before today (perhaps because I am relatively young, and this phrase was more prevalent among the older generations).  The phrase appears to be an embellished derivative of Micah 7:19, "You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea."

I am curious to know when the first instance of this phrase occurred, specifically in the Christian sense.

Here is a graph of instances of the phrase, using Google's Ngram viewer.  The first spike appears around 1817.  This might be an artifact resulting from the algorithm, however. (Google's literary database only extends from 1800 to today, with a highly irregular sample rate)


texts: Earlier use of this argument for the necessity of evil?

texts:
I seem to recall hearing or reading that Augustine posited that perhaps evil as such did not exist, i.e., that evil is more a void or absence of existence.  I think this line of reasoning is used to indicate that God did not create evil as such.

Is there a documented extension of this reasoning along the following lines: In order for God to cause to be an other that is not God (the term begetting would presumably be used for causing to be an other that is God), some absence or void would be necessary and that this void is constrained to include evil (whether because any conceivable void of this nature is "unGodly"/evil or because God's will to maximize the glory of God "compresses" such a void [i.e., one could conceive of a non-Godly but not evil void but maximizing the expression of "Godlikeness" constrains the void to be evil] or perhaps some other reason)?

(This line of reasoning occurred to me and I wondered if anyone had already considered it and thought it plausible and worth recording.  It seems a basic enough extension of a known argument that it probably came to someone's mind at some point, though it might have been rejected as absurd or useless or just not worth recording.)


texts: What was the population of the world at the time of the flood?

texts:
I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C.  and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth.

So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood?  In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood?

Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.


texts: On what basis is mental illness considered the result of sin?

texts: I have heard some Christians say that mental illness is the result of sin. On what grounds, Biblical or otherwise, do they make this claim?


texts: How much did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' Imminent Death?

texts:
Luke 9:31 (NLT 1996) [Moses and Elijah] were glorious to see. And they were speaking of how [Jesus] was about to fulfill God's plan by dying in Jerusalem.

Shortly before, Jesus had told his apostles about his impending death, and prophecies of it were scattered throughout the Scriptures. Plus, Moses and Elijah were both men that talked with God personally, so He may have told them details about Jesus' death before they joined Him in Heaven. Yet, the tone of the passage makes it seem as if Moses and Elijah knew a good deal about what was to happen and for a reason distinct from the ones I just listed.

What did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' death and fulfillment of God's plan, and how did they know it? What do the writings of the great Protestant theologians (particularly John Wesley) have to say about this?


texts: Did St. Joachim prevent the transmission of original sin to Mary by overcoming concupiscence?

texts:
St. Joachim is known to live a pious and humble life. If St. Joachim lived according to God's will and followed His inspirations in making a marital procreative act with St. Anne under the grace of God, is this how original sin was not transmitted to Mary?
The Council of Trent defined the de fide dogma that original sin is transmitted by natural generation. It says:

propagatione, non imitatione transfusum omnibus. (D 790)
In the baptism of children that is expurgated which they have incurred through generation. (D 791)

As original sin is a peccatum naturæ, it is transmitted in the same way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of grace.
The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to the connection of the individual human being with the head of the race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation, the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin. Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3.
Based on the Council of Trent definition on concupiscence, it is the "instrumental cause of transmission" and in the Gospel the concupiscence can be overcome as testified by St. Paul (Galatians 5:24-25):

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

Galatians 2:20:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God,who loved me and gave himself for me.

Is there a Church teachings or writings that states St. Joachim may have overcome "concupiscence" and thus prevented the transmission of original sin?


texts: Why is the matter of women's authority determined by Eve's acts in her life?

texts:
1st Timothy 2:12-14 (NIV):

  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;
  she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was
  not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a
  sinner.

I don't quite get Paul's logic here. Why does the fact that Eve was not created first and was the one deceived serve as the basis (= the valid reason) for women not to be allowed to teach or to assume authority?

Could it be so that Paul was simply following the lines of how it was with God-created humans before their fall? I mean, in the Old Testament Paul could see only two people that were shown in their pure God-designed pre-fall state - Adam and Eve. Paul must have thought, "So, if with the two humans that have just been created by God and who have not yet fallen things were such that the woman was somehow minor to man and was more prone to make a mistake and that was exactly how God had created them, then in the Church of God this God-preordained order of things should be restored and kept" No?