texts: Does Roman Catholicism teach that man is body and soul (bipartite) or body, soul, and spirit (tripartite)?

texts:
According to Rev. S. D. F. Salmond's English translation, John of Damascus wrote,(1)

  For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life.

Does Roman Catholicism teach that a human consists of body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit?

References

(1) Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter IX.


texts: God and Satan in the book of Job: how did they know about this conversation?

texts:
Job chapter 1 vers 6 - 12 talks about God and Satan having a conversation.  Where does that story come from?

Job does not know what is going on and I have never heard anyone talk about it. Is it a revelation or is it a tradition that helps us understand what was said in this conversation?  Who knew and who was told that this conversation was going on?

(If there is not another Bible verse that can explain this question maybe the RCC or the Orthodox church have a tradition that can explain such a question).

The author is not as important; how did the author know is the important part.


texts: Do we have free will to choose salvation or is our "choice" an illusion?

texts:
Researching whether angels have free will and whether God has free will, I found myself in the midst of this question.

Is free will an illusion?

Our "choice" is that we either follow God or we do not follow God.  However, God has clearly chosen some people to be saved and some to not be saved:

  Matthew 22:14 (NIV)
  For many are invited, but few are chosen.

  Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV) Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
     before you were born I set you apart;
     I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

  Ephesians 1:5 (NIV) he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will

But, if God chose us to either be saved or not saved, do we have free will in choosing to follow him?


texts: Are today's Catholics encouraged to study the Bible at home?

texts: How do Catholics view personal scripture study? Are members of the congregation encouraged to do any studying at home?


texts: In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, is it possible to laicize a bishop?

texts:
In the Roman Catholic Church, priests are sometimes laicized, either at their own request or as a punishment. It's unclear to me who exactly in the Roman Catholic has the power to laicize a priest, but in practise this seems to be done exclusively through the Vatican. Although this is rarer, Catholic bishops have been laicized as well; indeed, Fernando Lugo, Bishop of San Pedro, was laicized voluntarily in order to run for President of Paraguay, serving in this office from 2008 to 2012. Again, it seems that a bishop can't be laicised without the approval of the Pope. In either case, it is believed that ordination makes a permanent indentation on the priest's or bishop's soul; the laicisation does not annul the ordination, rather it makes it illicit for the priest or bishop in question to administer the sacraments. But that's the Roman Catholic Church. What about the Eastern Orthodox Church, about which I know much less?
I've read that, in the case of an Eastern Orthodox priest but not a bishop, his diocesan bishop has the power to laicise him. Although Eastern Orthodoxy has its own convoluted structure of archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, etc, the difference with Roman Catholicisim is that all Eastern Orthodox bishops are equal, at least in principle. Thus there isn't really any higher (earthly) authority to which to refer the matter, and so the diocesan bishop has the final say. Morevover, the ordination of a priest is not understood to make a permanent indentation on his soul, and therefore laicization returns him to the lay state in the fullest sense. Have I got that right?
Now what about the case of an Eastern Orthodox bishop? My ignorance here touches on two things:

Who, if anyone, has the authority to laicize an Eastern Orthodox bishop?
What would such a laicization be understood to accomplish?

If all bishops are essentially equal, who has the authority to laicize one? I suppose several bishops might have such authority, but how many exactly are required, and why that many and no fewer? The only potential example I can think of is the Great Moscow Synod, where Patriarch Nikon was deposed by several other patriarchs. But it's not totally clear to me whether he was returned to the state of being a simple monk in the Roman Catholic sense - i.e. he was forbidden from carrying out the duties of a priest or bishop - or whether it was understood that his status as a bishop was completely annulled.


texts: Why is there so little written on the greatness of the happiness in Heaven?

texts:
Jonathan Edwards said that terms such as 'ecstacy' and 'joy' were too meager to describe Heaven but were 'low shadows' of the reality.
This (if so) is obviously hugely exciting and, for me, (as a Christian) it is very inspiring. However, one thing puzzles me. If this is the truth (or most likely truth) how come so little is written on the matter? I have done endless research and few other great theologists seem to have hazarded such a guess. Even CS Lewis (my favourite and, indeed, perhaps the most inspirational speaker of recent years to speak on Heaven and joy) never (or, at least, extreemly rarely) seem to venture a guess as to exactly HOW great Heaven's happiness is.
I take it that it is a 'better place'...but does that mean the great happiness of Earth minus the sorrow...or also a greater form of happiness than can be concieved of here?
Seeing God obviously provides a joy as yet unknown and longed for. I assume this joy is above even the greatness of romantic love here? Or is there no higher quantity of happiness than that but, rather, it is unknown because it is qualitively different?

Hope this is clear (and ok). I seem to have a habit of writing the sort of questions this site objects to as I'm not much of a seasoned pro when it comes to scholarship. Maybe I'll get there in the end.


texts: Where is it documented that some people didn't want Gospel of John to be included as canonical?

texts:
I have heard in some debates that the Gospel of John had some push back from people (Church Fathers?) from being included into the Canon.

Can someone shed some light on this topic?  Or provide a book reference?


texts: The founder of Zion's Watch Tower Charles Taze Russell made the following statements and now directly contradict new information by the organization

texts:
One of the statements is from the November 1879 Watch Tower page 48.
https://i.imgur.com/y6dOdXe.jpg Mr.Russell clearly states that all the angels including Michael are to worship Jesus and I agree with him.

My question has to do with the organization’s so called  "New Light" stance and how do they determine that "New Light" makes void so-called old light statements? Mr.Russell clearly states that Jesus should be worshiped and that Jesus is "NOT" Michael the archangel.

Mr. Russell also made the following statement from the February 1881 Watch Tower on page 188. https://i.imgur.com/a1q1mnG.jpg He clearly states that, "New light never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. He also says, "So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for the other." Here again I agree with him. These two quotes by Mr.Russell are from primary sources that I personally have in my possession.

What does God say about His word? Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of God stands forever." Psalm 119:89, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." And John 17:17, "Sanctify them in Thy truth, Thy word is truth."

In summary, what new light did you receive and from where that teaches that Jesus is Michael the archangel which directly contradicts your founder? Moreover, God's word does not contradict itself and God's word is truth and stands forever.

I want to edit what I posted because "New Light" has just became available. The discussion of this thread has somewhat changed to the subject of Mr.Russell and his role of whether or not he is the founder of "Zion's Watch Tower." The following is proof that he was. https://i.imgur.com/lyvQH6p.jpg

Now that this is "settled" I am still waiting for my question to be addressed? What new light did you receive and from where that teaches that Jesus is Michael the archangel which directly contradicts your founder?


texts: Any radical transformation in case of incarnation without fall?

texts:
There are some reasons considered by the Catholic Church to assume the Incarnation even without the Fall. Simply speaking, Jesus would come even if Adam and Eve would not have eaten the apple.

There are good biblical arguments (Romans 5:12-21) that there will be no (human) death. This concept does not contradict science as treated by Aquinas and interpreted here.

An important aspect of incarnation is radical God's self-giving, the kenosis that happened by the death on cross. I assume that also people shall practice similarly radical self-giving (John 15:13).

Question: How it would be possible to lay down one's life for one's friends if there is no death?

Note: I heard somewhere that there would be some transition like this, just without sorrow and pain. Similar to Mary's assumption. How it would look like? Would the person after the transition still be on the Earth?

I would appreciate Catholic position.


texts: Do (or did) any Protestant denominations believe in apostolic succession like Catholics do?

texts: Do (or did) any Protestant denominations believe in apostolic succession? If so, who do they consider the most recent valid Pope?


texts:
Deuteronomy 23:1-8 lists some people that are forbidden to "enter the assembly of the LORD".

  Deuteronomy 23:1-8 (NKJ)

  Those Excluded from the Congregation

  1 “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter
  the assembly of the LORD. 2 “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter
  the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his
  descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.  3 “An Ammonite or
  Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth
  generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the
  LORD forever, 4 because they did not meet you with bread and water on
  the road when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against
  you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse
  you. 5 Nevertheless the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam, but
  the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because
  the LORD your God loves you. 6 You shall not seek their peace nor
  their prosperity all your days forever.  7 “You shall not abhor an
  Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian,
  because you were an alien in his land. 8 The children of the third
  generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

What is the meaning of this? How should it be interpreted? Should this be applied today? If so, how?


texts: What's the biblical basis for Dominionism?

texts:
One stream of Dominion Theology is a growing teaching among Charismatic and Pentecostal churches which states that Christians are meant to acquire authority in seven worldly "domains" referred to as seven cultural mountains that include arts and entertainment, business, education, family, politics, media, and religion. This has been called New Kingdom theology by its proponents, and is associated with the wildly popular Charismatic worship centers of Bethel Church and the International House of Prayer.

What arguments are given by proponents as the biblical basis for this teaching? Especially, from which passages do its teachers derive support for the "dominions" and their number, and why and in what manner should the church seek this authority?


texts: If the old priesthood is abolished, what is the point of having Catholic priests?

texts:
Before Christ, there would be two tabernacles in the temple: an outer and an inner tabernacle. Priests would minister at the outer tabernacle by caring for the lamps, by burning incense to God twice daily, and by giving weekly offerings of bread. Once a year, the high priest of those priests would sacrifice an animal, and then he would dare to enter through the second veil into the inner tabernacle. There, he would sprinkle the mercy seat, the place of God's presence, with the sacrificial blood, and would then invoke the name of the Saviour God in atonement for the sins of Israel. Then he would leave.

When Christ offered up His sacrifice, He did not go to the man-made outer or  inner tabernacle. He passed through into heaven itself to the seat of God the Father. There at the throne of God He sat down at the right hand of the Father as our most perfect intercessor. Our High Priest went up to that most sacred place to ask God to forgive us, and He remained there. That is how Jesus is even now serving as High Priest.

Since we no longer need high priests to intercede for us by way of repeated bloody sacrifice, why do Catholics have priests? They are obviously not re-sacrificing Christ when they say the Mass, so what do they do as priests, and why are they called priests if they are not (to put it bluntly) killing something?

(Answers from other denominations (Orthodox?) that have compatible reasons for having priests are welcome.)


texts: What are the reasons for calling oneself a "follower of Jesus" rather than a Christian?

texts:
In the last several years, I've noticed a trend of people who reject the label "Christian," and instead prefer to use terms like "Christ follower" or "follower of Jesus." (Not to be confused with people who just follow the jesus tag on SE).

What is the impetus behind this relabelling, and is there historical or scriptural justification for this?


texts: Are there Christian churches that believe in isolated living?

texts: I am interested in knowing if there are Christian churches or groups that believe in living separately or allow it, either in total isolation and independence or partial isolation to avoid contact with the people of the outside  world, epsecially in view of the soon return of Jesus and the increasing wickedness.


texts: Homiletic directions from the Vatican to the Universal Church?

texts:
I've noticed that recently sermons in my local church have focused particularly on the life of Saints. I have observed this in other churches I've recently attended too (at least in 3 different churches). A friend of mine has also noted this in several churches in a different continent (and country, and language). (Incidentally, just yesterday I received a new edition of a Catholic magazine, and voila, the focus on Saints was forefront, and this seemed not connected to the upcoming feast of All Saints. Rather, it is asking the reader to write back which is his/her favourite saint(s).)

All this might suggest that there was some form of informal or formal direction from the Vatican to focus homilies on the life of Saints. I've searched the Vatican website for this but cannot find anything about it. Sections of the Roman Curia I've checked include the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Congregation for Divine Worship, Secretariat for Communication, and many many other (full (?) list here).

So, my questions are:

Have you also noticed this in your local church?
If so, has there been a formal/public communication from the Vatican about it?
If not, then this might have been a form of private communication. Is there a precedent about this type of communications regarding homilies?

Maybe this is a specific issue motivated by the upcoming All Saints' celebration (although I observed this earlier than October), or perhaps by the March 2018 Apostolic Exhortation by the Pope, on the call to holiness, or both! All in all, the sudden change of focus might still indicate a formal type of direction from the Vatican.


texts: What Biblical basis supports the idea that questions and answers about Christianity could be sinful?

texts:
I am pretty sure that within biblical language, knowledge and holiness can't be separated from each other. Even in Greek thought this was the case, the logos was moral not just intellectual. The rational and the moral are one.  However, in the world today, an idea is seen as often separate from a moral state or inclination, and questions are (almost always) good.

When trying to determine when it is holy to ask and answer questions, what biblical framework or basis supports a possible answer.


texts: Why is the word "Ark" used for Noah's boat and the Ark of the Covenant?

texts: What exactly is the meaning of an "ark" that applies to a boat and that thing that melts off the Nazi's faces in the first Indiana Jones movie?


texts:
Several years ago, I took a class on the book of Revelation and learned about dispensationalism.  It made sense to me then, but I can't seem to wrap my head around it now.

Also, I hear the term from time to time when discussions come up regarding the end times.

So, what is dispensationalism?

(Preferably in simple words.  Wikipedia made my head hurt when trying to read that.)


texts: Catholic interpretation of Revelation by John?

texts:
Does the Catholic Church have the book of Revelation all fleshed out or do they teach it's sealed?

I'm aware of some elements, like the woman, for example, being Mary. If everything is fleshed out, then could someone point me to a good resource or briefly summarize its views?


texts: Contemporary Evangelical human nature positions that are different than St. Augustine

texts:
St. Augustine's theology is highly embedded in Western Christian denominations today, including among Evangelicals.  But I'm sure his theology is not the only one supported by the Bible.  In other words, there are other legitimate theological options that modern Evangelicals can choose today even though they are not Augustinian, while still respecting sola scriptura and the rule of faith.
As Evangelical theologians became more self-aware of the church fathers influence on even very established doctrines such as the Trinity (now considering Social Trinitarianism for example) more options become available, especially if the Augustinian option was too much linked with Neo-Platonism.  More awareness with the Ancient Near East and Second Temple Literature also contribute to exploring more Biblically aligned options, for example moving away from soul-body dualism to a more Hebraic view of the human person as a highly integrated substance.
One of St. Augustine's most valued contribution is his integration of Christianity with all aspects of human nature: composition, evil, freedom, morality, happiness, etc.  I'm interested in contemporary evangelical human nature positions that are formulated differently than St. Augustine, which include one or more of the following aspects:

Composition of the Human soul: imago Dei, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, psychology, existentialism, romanticism
Evil: how the human soul is affected by demonology, possession, sin, etc.
Freedom: as connected with providence, foreknowledge, etc.
Morality: as connected with virtues, happiness, beatitude, meaning of life, etc.
Spirituality: prayer, beatific vision, theosis, ascetic disciplines, spiritual exercises

Question: I'm looking for contemporary Evangelical human nature positions that are different than St. Augustine, attested by published / credentialed theologians in their books, journals, or blogs.
Excellent example sources for those differences are:

New Studies in Biblical Theology
New Studies in Dogmatics
Counterpoints series


texts: Does Catholicism teach that there is a just interest rate?

texts: Is there a 'just interest rate'?  We see banks having interest rates when loaning money.  Can this be done justly? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.


texts: In Rev 9:4 What grass was left for them to not hurt?

texts:
When the first angel sounds all green grass is burnt up.

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
-Rev 8:7

When the 5th angel sounds it is commanded not to hurt the grass or the earth.

And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
-Rev 9:4

What grass was left for them not to hurt?


texts: Why did Jesus compare the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven?

texts:
The Gospels according to Matthew and Luke mention the parable of the leaven (Mt:16:6 and Lk 13:20) with  a positive image . Elsewhere, Jesus uses the euphemism of leaven to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees ( Lk 12:1, Mt 16:6 , Mk 8:15).

Mt 13:2 (".. and great crowds gathered about him...") suggests that Jesus told the parable of leaven during the days of Passover Feast.

In those days, a housewife would set apart a small portion of the leavened dough at the end of the day for leavening dough on the coming day. In a sense, the leaven would get older and older as days went by. Now, Israelites had a tradition of cleansing the home, of all leaven during Passover, through various means  including sale of the leaven to non-Jews. Food made of leavened dough  was in fact taboo during the  days of Feast of  Passover.

My question is:
Why did Jesus choose to tell the parable of leaven to explain the Kingdom of Heaven, given the negative connotations associated with leaven in the Jewish tradition?
Was it intended to taunt the scrupulosity of the Pharisees?
What do the interpretations of Catholic Church say on the subject ?


texts: Which canon did the Early Church recognize?

texts:
I’m trying to compile the History of the Bible, at least the Christian recognition of what was inspired and what wasn’t in the Old Testament. I‘ll neglect the question of who had the authority to chose what books went where, as that is not the point. I have a question:
What version of the Old Testament did the Early Church recognize as inspired, as in what Jewish canon did they trust to Remove or keep in the Septuagint? From that, when were books from the Septuagint removed from Western Bibles and for what reason, I already know the East kept the whole Septuagint because they aren’t as legalistic and let local tradition mostly rule, but when did the west do away with 3 and 4 Maccabees, 1 and 2 Esdras, and others? Most importantly, why?


texts: How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of the Bible and a positive view of textual criticism?

texts: I know not all people will have the view that is programmed into the question. But for someone who does, or who understands someone who does, how would you answer this?


texts:
The Bible seems to be very specific about when sex is or isn't a sin. From my understanding, The Bible's stance on sexual activity could be summed up as "Any sexual activity unless it is consensual and in the context of a heterosexual marriage is a sin." This includes pre-marital sex, homosexual activity, adultery, pornography, lust, etc.

But does the Bible say anything specific about BDSM? How do the various denominations and Christian doctrines interpret the issue?


texts: When, how, and why did the Moravians stop praying 24-7?

texts:
The Moravians I speak of were a small group that established and resided in a small village named Herrnut on Count Zinzendorf's estate. They experienced a revival in 1727, and following that they did very noteworthy and significant things. Source: Wikipedia.

One of those things was establishing 24-7 prayer that went on uninterrupted for over a hundred years. Now, my question is threefold:

When did it stop? Wikipedia says that it went on for over 100 years, placing the end date past 1827. However, I'm curious to know if there's a precise date recorded.
How did it stop? Was it a sudden end, or did it peter out over the course of months or years?
Why did it stop? Was it because people just slowly got tired of it? Perhaps they were invaded and forced out of their home, an event so disruptive they couldn't continue the continual prayer unbroken? Maybe everyone left for some reason?

I realize that proving a negative is difficult, but an acceptable answer could also be that the answers to these questions were not recorded, though of course I would like to see proper justification for claiming that.


texts: How do proponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary view Matthew 13:53–57?

texts:
Matthew 13:53–57 reads:

  53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. (NIV)

I have read that proponents of the doctrine claim that the word translated as "brothers" in Matthew 13:55 does not necessarily imply biological relationship (http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/jesus-had-brothers). Looking at the verses though, I find it difficult to imagine why the word translated as "brothers" would be anything but biological. Why would people who are in Jesus' hometown (verse 53) and who also used the word "sisters" (verse 56) use "brothers" in a way that is not biological?


texts: What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that artificial birth control is wrong?

texts:
I understand that the original commandment to be fruitful and multiply involves reproduction.  However, planning to wait a little bit here and there seems reasonable enough.

So, what is the reasoning or the basis from which the Catholic Church teaches that any artificial birth control is immoral/sinful?


texts: At what time of day was Jesus crucified?

texts:
Mark 15:25, 18 KJV

  And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

and

  And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

John 19:14-16 KJV

  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
  Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

How can Jesus be crucified on the 3rd hour but Pilate asked for his crucification at the 6th hour?


texts: Why do I sing, "Here I raise my Ebenezer?"

texts:
In "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," the second verse, says, "Here I raise my Ebenezer, hither by thy help I've come."

I have heard that an Ebenezer is a monument of some kind, but even armed with that knowledge, I really don't understand what I'm singing. What is going in that verse?


texts: Complete online editions of the Church Fathers

texts:
Where can one find a complete version of all the Church fathers online or digital?
This is probably not a regular Christianity.SE question, since it is more of an external reference query.

I am more specific looking for Eusebius, and if it can have the verse quotations indexed, even better. (So you could search for Rom 10:17 etc.)


texts: How are the words of Mary in Luke 1:34 incontrovertible proof of her perpetual virginity?

texts:
Based on this question it seems that a lot of weight is given to the simple statement by Mary to Gabriel that she is a virgin.

  Luke 1:34 NIV How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

Various translations use different phrasing here like “I do not know a man” or “I am not knowing a man”. Catholics make a big deal out of this verse declaring it to be proof that Mary was informing Gabriel that she was a woman who had vowed to remain a virgin forever.

What is the reasoning for making this seemingly unexceptional statement  into a cornerstone of the unsubstantiated (in scripture) dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?


texts: Why was God not angry with Solomon's Census

texts: In 2 Chronicles 2:17 we are told "Solomon took a census of all the foreigners residing in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600." Why was God not angry about this Census, yet furious with David for taking a Census?


texts: How can one say the Novena to St. Michael?

texts:
I want to start a novena to St Michael. Found one at Novena in honor of St. Michael the Archangel and in honour of the nine angelic choirs .

How can I say it as there is no specific guide on the page?


texts: The degrees of efficacy in the Eucharistic Celebration

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly that the Eucharist is a sacrifice that is necessary to consume to attain salvation, as an airplane is necessary to cross great distances.

  Gospel of St. John 6:53-56

  53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the
  flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
  54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
  will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and
  my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood
  remains in me, and I in them.

  The Didache (AD 70)

  "Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist;
  but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may
  be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to
  take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any
  profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the
  offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a
  sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and
  my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D.
  70]).

  St. Justin Martyr (AD 155)

  "God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor
  prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time
  presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I
  will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of
  the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified
  among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name,
  and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . .
  [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us
  [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the
  bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue
  with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

We know that God sees this sacrifice as perfect, but as to the one giving/consuming the sacrifice it is another matter. Does God always give us all the ordinary graces that come with its consumption regardless of our dispositions(state of grace presupposed)?

The Question in it's formality:

Assuming that we are in a state of grace, can the Eucharist be more or less beneficial to us based on our dispositions?

Scenario Examples:

((1)) Two men, in a state of grace, consume the Eucharist. But the first man has a sundays-only-catholic attitude while the second man is on fire for God, both of them believe in the real presence but neither of them worship Jesus in the Eucharist. Do they receive equal blessings of God?

((2)) Two women, in a state of grace, consume the Eucharist. But the first woman regards the Eucharist as merely a symbolic act, while the second woman recognizes and worships Christ in the Eucharist. Do they receive equal blessings of God?

PS: Yes the Eucharist takes away all venial sins regardless of dispositions provided we are in a state of grace, but that is just taking away, I am speaking of what it can potentially give based on our dispositions.
The extras if you want.


texts:
John 18:10 (NLT)

   10 Then Simon Peter drew a sword and slashed off the right ear of Malchus, the high priest’s slave.

The pastor at a church I used to go to once said1 that Peter was part of a militant sect of Judaism that felt like it was their duty to kill Roman soldiers as often as possible/prudent. This would explain why Peter had the sword with him and why his first instinct was to attack. However, I don't know either the name of this sect or whether he was involved in one.

1: If absolutely needed, I can dig up the sermon transcript online.


texts: Do any Christian versions of 'Just War Theory' address cases in which foes exploit the principles of Just War to their own advantage?

texts:
The ends justify the means.  - attributed (perhaps unjustly) to Niccolo Machiavelli

Christian proponents of Just War Theory would surely reject the quote above as being entirely antithetical to their doctrine, but are no doubt committed to 'doing something'* in response to the spread of evil. With these things in mind, how do they formulate an appropriate response to a foe that does not share their inhibitions in terms of means used?  For example in asymmetrical warfare, insurgents who utilize terror tactics will often be aware of the principles that their enemy operates under and will exploit them for maximum effect - utilizing human shields, booby-trapping corpses, or using children to carry explosives etc. - what are the relevant principles that ensure that a Just War can continue to be prosecuted both justly and effectively in the face of tactics such as these and not sacrifice one at the expense of the other? Which, if any, scripture references are used to support these principles?

edit: I believe many of the down-votes to this question are a result of misunderstanding the intent of the question. I apologize for any lack of clarity about this and have edited the title in response to feedback to hopefully make the intent of the question clearer. Further clarification of what I am trying to acheive with this question can be gained by considering the counterpart question (linked below) addressed to Christian Pacifists. Further description of who this question is addressed to can be found in the 'Chrisitan Proponents' linked Q & A.

*This is a reference to the quote of Edmund Burke in the counterpart question to this one:

  The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


texts: Does Christianity approve wars for faith?

texts:
Does Christianity approve wars to protect or spread the faith or to defeat the enemies of the Christ?

If so, what are the conditions where faith-wars are endorsed?


texts: Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses cite William Barclay as to the identity of the speaker in Revelation 22:13 knowing he believed it is Jesus?

texts:
This is according to the article, Who or What Is “the Alpha and the Omega”? which also says, "This term occurs three times in the Bible. Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6; and here at Revelation 22:13."
They then say at the end of the article, "Does Revelation 22:13 prove that Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega?" The answer they give is "no," followed by this explanation.

The speaker at Revelation 22:13 is not specifically identified, and there are various speakers in this chapter.

This begs the question? Why were they so "dogmatic" when they clearly stated, "The Alpha and Omega" refers to Jehovah God, the Almighty?"
So to prove their contention that the speaker is not specifically identified they quote Professor William Barclay:

"Things are set down without any apparent order; ...and it is often very difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker." (The Revelation of John, Volume 2, Revised Edition, page 223)

Then the article continues to say

Thus, "the Alpha and the Omega" at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation-Jehovah God."

So being a good Berean according to Acts 17:11 I checked out what Professor Barclay really said under the title,

THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST (Revelation 22:12-13)
22:12,13 Behold, I am coming soon, and I have my reward with me, to render to each man, as his work is. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. You can read his complete analysis at the following site.
Bible Commentaries: William Barclay's Daily Study Bible Revelation 22
The Risen Christ once again announces his speedy coming; and he makes two great claims.

Now, one of the reasons the Jehovah Witnesses deny that this is Jesus Christ is included in their own article.

The term "the First and the Last" occurs at Revelation 1:17, 18 and 2:8. In these verses, the context show that the one referred to died and later returned to life. Thus, these verses cannot refer to God because never died.

However, Jesus died and was resurrected.
The short answer is that the one person of Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine. It was the human nature that died, not His divine nature. One cannot help notice the obvious contradictions.
So here's the question: Why do the Jehovah Witnesses quote Professor William Barclay saying "it is difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker?" Clearly his words are taken out of context in that he identifies the speaker as being Jesus Christ in his commentary on Revelation 22:12-13.
The quote by Barclay was used by the JW's to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is "NOT" the speaker at Revelation 22:12-13. I then showed proof from Barclay himself that the speaker is Jesus Christ. This is according to the context which includes Revelation 22:16, "I, Jesus have sent My angel to (not Michael the arc angel) to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star."
"The bright and morning star." Please read (Psalm 84:11, Malachi 4:2; Matthew 17:2; Revelation 1:16; 2 Peter 1:19.) Finally, Revelation 22:20:20-21, "He who testifies to these things (what things?) says, Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. Verse 21, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all/the saints. Amen."


texts: Does "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23, 5:12) include every single human being?

texts:
My mother and I go round and round on various Catholic vs. Protestant beliefs and in particular the Catholic belief in the pseudo-divinity of Mary. One item is whether Mary was sinless.

I pointed to Paul's statement:

  Romans 3:23For all have sinned…

or

  Romans 5:12…by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

That would seem to include Mary among the "all". Yet her retort is the "all" would then have to mean babies in the womb, infants, etc., who weren't capable of sin. My thinking is Paul might have meant "all" as referring to those actually capable of sinning or old enough to know better.

According to the Catholic Church, what did Paul really mean by that declaration? Does "all" really mean "all"?


texts: Is it possible (intellectually honest) to 'contextualise' the 'anti-divorce' passages, but not the 'anti-homosexual' ones?

texts:
(Disclaimer: This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Also I confess to not having done a great deal of research on this one)

I'm not familiar with the positions of all denominations on the matter, but generally it seems that those who allow remarriage after divorce treat the "clear word of the Lord" with some measure of 'contextualisation/reinterpretation'.

I don't know all of the arguments involved, but I wonder if they aren't the same, or similar, to the ones advanced in defence of skirting the 'plain meaning' of texts condemning homosexuality.

Obviously, the for/against arguments in both cases are extensive, so I'm not asking for a comprehensive review of them: I just want to know if there is a substantive difference in the 'techniques' used to justify both.


texts: How do the Orthodox and Catholics understand the spiration of the Holy Spirit?

texts:
The following are definition(s) of SPIRATION (source):

1
a obsolete :  the action of breathing as a creative or life-giving function of the Deity

b (1) :  the act by or manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son

(2) :  the relation subsisting by virtue of this procession
2
obsolete :  the action of breathing as a physical function of man and animals

The following are additional definitions of "spiration"(source):

(obsolete) the act of breathing
(obsolete) an inspiration
(theology) the work of the Holy Spirit
(theology, obsolete) the life-giving breath of God

How do Orthodox and Catholics understand the spiration of the Holy Spirit?

The begetting of the Son is to some degree understandable (person from another person by begetting) but concerning the Holy Spirit, what makes him who is a divine person come from a divine person? Both Latin and Eastern theologians call it "spiration" but what exactly is the spiration of the Holy Spirit? Please explain.

NOTE

This is not talking about the Filioque but to the Spiration itself.


texts: Does Irenaeus indicate that people were raised from the dead in the 2nd century?

texts:
The following words of Irenaeus are recorded in Eusebius's Church History:

  For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events, and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many years.

This passage was satirized by Edward Gibbon in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2.15.3; he sees no other credible evidence for this during this time and mockingly overstates Irenaeus's quote:

  In the days of Irenaeus, about the end of the second century, the resurrection of the dead was very far from being esteemed an uncommon event; that the miracle was frequently performed on necessary occasions, by great fasting and the joint supplication of the church of the place, and that the persons thus restored to their prayers had lived afterwards among them may years.

Is there an alternative interpretation here?  Is Irenaeus really saying that people were being raised from the dead during his lifetime at the end of the 2nd century?


texts: What is the difference between the Life that Christ gives and the Life that Wisdom brings?

texts:
I noticed that these two passages are rather similar:

Proverbs 8:35-36 (ESV)
For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor
from the Lord, 36 but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who
hate me love death.”
1 John 5:12 (ESV)
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God
does not have life.

What kind of life is being taught about in these two passages? Are they the same thing or how are they different?
Do any church doctrines speak directly to the issue of these two usages of life?


texts: What is the Biblical and Traditional basis for doing Penance for others?

texts: I know we can do penance for ourselves, but how is it possible to do so for others? And also, it seems we can do penance even for non-believers, how does that work?


texts: Does any church denomination believe it possible to go one moment without sinning?

texts:
In looking at the opposite of this question posted here, I realized it seems better to raise this question in the reverse.

Assuming the doctrine of original sin, and God's work of the holy Spirit in a believer, can a believer ever do something where the motive becomes sinless? This would assume that the motive could not be improved upon any moral ground but was perfect and 100% pure.  In this sense I guess that one idea, or one thought, or act, would be no less pure then our acts and thoughts in heaven?  Maybe it means it would be as pure as Christ's thoughts himself? Is this possible, or impossible? Does any church body believe in such perfection for at least one moment.

Note: My own church tradition under Luther, Calvin, St, Augustine, etc. does not believe this is possible, but am curious if any other church does.


texts: What does Catholic Church teach about the interpretation of the metaphor of "salt of the earth?"

texts:
We see Jesus telling at Matthew 5:13 (NRSVCE):

"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot."

My question is: what exactly is the significance which Jesus is attributing to the earth with reference to salt . Does he mean that the earth is the source of salt ; or does he mean that salt is really valuable - both as a taste-maker and as a preservative-- for  mankind which dwells on the earth? What do the teachings of Catholic say about the interpretation of the metaphor or "salt of the earth?"


texts:
Many Christians are saying that smoking is sin. However, there are no cigarettes in the Bible. Personally, I don't smoke because the cigarette cover says "Smoking is injurious to health". Hence, I consider it foolishness to harm yourself. Moreover, I tried to smoke once but I choked and never tried again. There is really no point in inhaling smokes.

Here are my questions to those Christian groups who believe that smoking is a sin.

What is the argument that smoking is sin?
What Bible verses are used to infer that smoking is sin?
Is smoking a sin just because it is injurious to health? If so, it would be a sin to keep on eating fats when the doctor says not to and you can't resist it.


texts: What is the source of the phrase "in your chamber bewail your sins"?

texts:
In the Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis writes (Book I, Chapter XX, paragraph 5):

  If you desire true sorrow of heart, seek the privacy of your cell and
  shut out the uproar of the world, as it is written: “In your chamber
  bewail your sins.”

Does “In your chamber bewail your sins” refer to a particular Scripture passage, or is something else in mind?


texts: Anne and Joachim are the parents of Mary - is this a Catholic dogma?

texts: Apparently the Catholic Church has recognized Joachim and Anne as saints, and it is said that they are the father and mother of the virgin Mary. Is the belief that Joachim and Anne are the parents of Mary dogmatically declared by the Roman Catholic Church?


texts: What is the basis for forbidding prerecorded music in worship services?

texts:
My church's stated philosophy of music requires that all music used in the worship service be performed live – that is, the use of prerecorded accompaniment tracks or other audio is not permitted.

I was asked about the rationale for this, but I didn't have a good answer.  One idea I had was that public use of recorded music might be a copyright violation, but on further reflection I realize that this is surely not an insurmountable obstacle.  I am therefore left to assume that the rationale is primarily theological.

What are the theological reasons for forbidding the use of prerecorded music in the worship service and requiring live performances?


texts: What is the earliest systematic New Testament commentary?

texts: Were Origen's commentaries the earliest attempt to systematically exegete the New Testament texts, so far as there is any record?


texts: Does the Gospel imply that the victim in the Good Samaritan parable was a thief himself?

texts:
The priest at our parish preached a twist on this parable this sunday.

The verse Luke 10:30 being (KJV)

  30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
  Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment,
  and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Using an interpretation of "fell among" to be "fell out with co-conspirators"

I'm not sure this English interpretation is correct - and  I can see other versions are totally different.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

  As a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, robbers attacked
  him and grabbed everything he had. They beat him up and ran off,
  leaving him half dead.

Is this a correct hypothesis or far-fetched?

His additional logic was that this could be why the Priest and the Levites did not want to rescue the man as he lay wounded.


texts: Was defining the New Testament originally condemned as heresy?

texts:
This BBC documentary describes how during the first two centuries, scriptures about Jesus circulated without any author mentioned in them.  It then goes on to suggest that actually writing down a New Testament around then was heretical.  Here's a key quote, from 4:10 in the video:

  The Christian theologian who came up with the idea of having a New Testament was roundly condemned as a heretic.

Is this true?  Why was having a New Testament heretical?  Who might she have been talking about?


texts: Was the Trinity looked upon by John of Damascus and Gregory of Nyssa as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism?

texts:
John of Damascus says "of the Greek we have the distinction of hypostases.".   That is adding Greek doctrine to "Christianity."
When John says "we have" something "from" the Greeks he is speaking of the source of the belief, and not a mere agreement.
Is there an exegetical reason to doubt based on these two statements from Gregory and John that: the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism?
Church Fathers attribute the Trinity to a mixture of Pagan and Jewish teachings.
Gregory of Nyssa - Oratio Catechetica 3 PG 45, 17 D-20 A
Gregory of Nyssa, Last of the great Cappadocians and brother of Basil of Caesarea, was bishop of Nyssa in 372. Gregory states that "Orthodox" doctrine is a combination or syncretizatation of Jewish monotheism and Pagan polytheism:

"the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality."

John of Damascus - De Fide Orth. I, 7 PG 94, 808 A
John of Damascus, who followed Gregory of Nazianzus agrees that "Christianity" takes what s best in Judaism and paganism:

"On the one hand, of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God's nature, and, on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction of hypostases, and that only."

Patristics scholar Wolfson says:

evidently the opposition of orthodoxy to Arianism was not so much on the ground that it was a combination of Jewish monotheism and heathen polytheism as on the ground that the combination was not to its liking. In fact, its own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism**, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus the last of the Church Fathers.
(The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation Third Edition, Revised https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002MS4UN6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_jxjkEbZW3TCV8)


texts: What is the Biblical basis for unitarianism?

texts:
I ask this mostly in reaction to this question: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?

From what I've seen, the majority of Christians believe in Trinitarianism, but some believe in Unitarianism instead.

My understanding of Unitarianism is that, in this view of God, only the Father (as referenced by Christ) is called God. Christ is just a man, created by God and given certain powers/privileges that aren't afforded to most men.

What is the Biblical foundation for Unitarianism?

Note:

I am not asking for a debate on the truthfulness of this position, but I am looking for an argument that defends its soundness with Bible verses, preferably not limited to a single translation.

If a single translation is to be favored, I would like to know why (references to the original Greek/Hebrew used in translation if possible).  I only ask this because it doesn't seem to be a very common position to hold, so I assume there is valid evidence to support it.


texts: Is Mary's virginity evidence that sex is always sinful?

texts:
It seems that sex is always a sin, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus had to be born of a virgin and not by traditional conception in order to be sinless. Is this true?

Any viewpoint is welcome.


texts: How long did the drought that Elijah prayed for really last?

texts:
James and Luke say the drought lasted for three and a half years.

  Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years
  (James 5:17 NLT)

  "Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land.  (Luke 4:25 NLT)

But according to the actual account in the Old Testament the drought was not even a full three years.

  Now Elijah, who was from Tishbe in Gilead, told King Ahab, “As surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives—the God I serve—there will be no dew or rain during the next few years until I give the word!”   (1 Kings 17:1 NLT)

  Later on, IN THE THIRD YEAR of the drought, the LORD said to Elijah, “Go and present yourself to King Ahab. Tell him that I will soon send rain!”
  (1 Kings 18:1 NLT)

  And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel     (1 Kings 18:45 NLT)

So it was in the third year of the drought that the rains came ending it.

Why do Luke and James both say the drought lasted 3 years  and 6  months?


texts: I know that Solomon was a king, but why doesn't the Bible describe his polygamy as sinful? Was he allowed to commit sins others could not because he was a king? I thought God showed no partiality.


texts: Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers?

texts:
Is it true that Martin Luther never considered the works of the early Church Fathers while he was developing and defending his teaching?

Here is the list of some of those Fathers (from Wikipedia):

1 Apostolic Fathers

1.1 Saint Clement of Rome
1.2 Saint Ignatius of Antioch
1.3 Saint Polycarp of Smyrna

2 Greek Fathers

2.1 Saint Irenaeus of Lyons
2.2 Saint Clement of Alexandria
2.3 Origen of Alexandria
2.4 Saint Athanasius of Alexandria
2.5 Cappadocian Fathers
2.6 Saint Cyril of Alexandria
2.7 Saint John Chrysostom
2.8 Saint Maximus the Confessor
2.9 Saint John of Damascus

3 Latin Fathers

3.1 Tertullian
3.2 Saint Cyprian of Carthage
3.3 Saint Hilary of Poitiers
3.4 Saint Ambrose of Milan
3.5 Saint Jerome of Stridonium
3.6 Saint Augustine of Hippo
3.7 Saint Gregory the Great
3.8 Saint Isidore of Seville


texts: At the time of Peter's confession, who knew that Jesus was Messiah?

texts:
In the synoptic gospels, Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Messiah.

Matthew 16:15-17 (NASB) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Mark 8:27–30 (NASB) Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter *answered and *said to Him, “You are the Christ.” And He warned them to tell no one about Him.
Luke 9:18–21 And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?” They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone,

It was apparently a secret, and Jesus instructed his disciples not to tell anyone. According to the chronology given by the synoptic gospels, other than those present at that moment, who was in on the secret?


texts: Did the Christian practice of having a prayer before Bible study evolve during Martin Luther's time?

texts:
In Eric W. Gritsch's book, A History of Lutheranism, he reports,

  He memorized whole portions of the Bible (available in the Latin
  translation of St. Jerome, c. 348-420) and used various existing
  methods of interpretation. "Sometimes one important statement occupied
  my thoughts for a whole day," Luther recalled later, and he reminded
  others that Bible study should always begin with prayer rather than
  the assumption that diligence and intelligence would facilitate a
  proper reading.

  Luther found this kind of approach to Bible study confirmed in the
  writings of the great church father Augustine rather than in the
  scholars of the Middle Ages. What Augustine had to say in The Spirit
  and the Letter (De spiritu et litera) decisively shaped Luther's early
  struggles with the Bible.

The author cites a primary source, one of Martin Luther's letters.

Anyway, is this where all modern Christians get their prayer-before-Bible-study habit? How did individualized Bible study evolve since the Reformation?


texts: Why did God create man with the ability to sin?

texts:
I've read a highly favored answer here on C.SE that when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning yet they still have free will.

So my question is simple, why did he ever create us with capability to sin and then punish us if we do sin? Free will is out of the question now since it was clear that we can have free will without the capability of sinning.


texts: In LDS (Mormon) theology, what is the Aaronic Priesthood and to whom is it conferred?

texts:
I understand that the LDS church institutes that Aaronic Priesthood.  In the Old Testament, this was specifically reserved to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron.

  and you shall gird Aaron and his sons with sashes and bind caps on
  them. And the priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever. Thus
  you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.  Exodus 29:9 ESV

In the LDS Church, is this the same priesthood?  If so, what is the doctrinal precedent where people other than Jews from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can be given that priesthood?  Who receives that Aaronic priesthood today and how long is it held?


texts: Why does the Pope include himself among the sinners?

texts:
'We are all sinners. But God heals us with an abundance of grace,
  mercy and tenderness.' (emp. mine)

the Holy Father, Pope Francis, said on Twitter.

Why does the Pope say 'We are all sinners' clearly including himself among the sinners?

As far as I know, it seems at least strange, if not absurd, that the Holy Father is a sinner, but I'm not an expert of these things and, perhaps, I'm not well aware about what sin is.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I think that a sin is something that is against one or more of the ten commandments. But, if so, I cannot think of the Pope make something in disagreement to the ten commandments.

Please, can anybody explain? (Peace be with you)


texts: Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a five-point Calvinist?

texts:
I think so, but some articles online indicates that he was a Fullerist.

If so, was "Fullerism" orthodox?
Ex: here.

Any thought?


texts: What is the historical Christian view on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle?

texts:
I come from an Evangelical-Charismatic background, and for many years, I've heard much teaching and emphasis on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle/Tent in the end times. The verses used are seen in parallel in the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12 and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15:16-18.

  In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name, declares the LORD, who will do these things. (Amos 9:11-12, NIV)

  After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-18, NIV)

The way I've seen these verses used is in the creation of 24/7 houses of worship modeled after David's tabernacle, with singers and musicians offering up constant praise to God. These ministries are intended to usher in salvation and revival, as glory is offered up to God.

As far as I can tell, this interpretation of the verses (or at least the action taken in response to them) is a fairly new phenomenon, perhaps arising only in the last thirty years. Not that I disagree with this action, but I'm curious, how has the Church historically viewed this prophetic concept?

The Vine's Dictionary entry for the word for "Tabernacle" used in Acts 15:

  (f) the house of David, i.e., metaphorically of his people, Acts 15:16;

Vine's seems to imply that it's only a metaphorical concept describing the entire body of Christ, under the headship of Christ(the heir to the throne of David).

So, my question remains: what is the historic Christian teaching on this rebuilding? Does orthodoxy teach that this will be one literal tabernacle, that it's a metaphor for the Church, or that it's a model we should build into?


texts: According to Catholic Teaching, what is sinning against the Holy Spirit?

texts:
According to Catholic Teaching, what is sinning against the Holy Spirit and why is this unpardonable? [cf. Matt 12:31-32 (RSVCE)]

What are the the sins that are considered sinning against the Holy Spirit?

The desirable answer will be the one that draws from the Church's patrimony e.g. from Church Fathers, Saints & Doctors, and Papal Magisterium.


texts: Do any early Church Fathers record the event of the ceasing of spiritual gifts?

texts:
A central belief held by an overwhelming majority of Cessationists is that the "supernatural spiritual gifts" (e.g., tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles, etc.) ceased with the end of the apostolic age.

Given the Early Church Fathers' meticulous writing and fervor for church history, an event such as the ceasing of the gifts should have been recorded at some point.

So, do any of the Early Church Fathers record the event of the ceasing of the spiritual gifts?


texts: Who first clearly formulated the penal substitution theory of atonement?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on Penal substitution states in its opening paragraph:

  Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment. (italics added)

In the final paragraph of the Overview section, it states further:

  While penal substitution shares themes present in many other theories of the atonement, penal substitution is a distinctively Protestant understanding of the atonement that differs from both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understandings of the atonement. Many trace its origin to Calvin, but it was more concretely formulated by the Reformed theologian Charles Hodge. Traditionally a belief in penal substitution is often regarded as a hallmark of the evangelical faith and is included as an article of faith by many (but not all) evangelical organizations today. (italics added)

These quotes place the development of penal substitution firmly within the Protestant tradition. However, they, and the article as a whole, are not very conclusive about exactly where and when penal substitution theory originated. Its formulation is attributed to figures as distant from one another in time as John Calvin (1509-1564) and Charles Hodge (1797-1878).

Manwe Elder's answer to my earlier related question, "When and where does the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins" first appear?" does a fine job of briefly tracing the history of the idea of Christ paying the penalty for our sins, and showing that it was not present among major theologians before the Protestant Reformation. It also provides some examples of early Protestant theologians who spoke of Christ paying the penalty for our sins.

A related question of mine also asks, "Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution?"

Given that penal substitution is a distinctly Protestant doctrine (this question is not about earlier foreshadowings or bases of the theory):

What Protestant theologian or theologians first clearly formulated the doctrine of penal substitution?

Whatever other sources an answer may use, please provide direct quotations from the relevant theologians' own writings to support the answer.


texts: Where does the thought 'we were not even fit to eat the crumbs from under your table' originate, in the Anglican communion service?

texts: Does anyone know if there is a scripture reference for this, if not what is the thinking behind it?


texts: How does reformed theology reconcile the universal resurrection with limited atonement

texts:
When reading about the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement I can follow the logical flow as follows:

Hell is punishment for sin, the outpouring of the wrath of God
Heaven is being with God in the afterlife, which is only possible if our sins are paid for due to divine justice.
Christ came to offer forgiveness of sins
All those who have their sins forgiven therefore will be in Heaven
Not all end up in heaven
Therefore the atonment is limited to those God has selected to forgive

One of my arguments against this logical construct is to point out that the actual punishment for sin outlined in Genesis is death; and Christ's work obviously does universally redeem all men from death by the resurrection in an unlimited/universal way. How do reformed theologians answer the fact that Christ's atoning work does actually remove the fundamental consequence of sin for everyone? Is it simply to punish those who end up in Hell?

All of the discussions of limited atonement to this point have completely left out the universal resurrection. Is it irrelevant to the point? If so why?


texts: What is the origin of the Mormon Temple Ceremony and how has it changed throughout the years?

texts:
I understand that there is a difference between being a Mormon and being a Temple Mormon (one who has gone through the Temple Ceremony at least once and maintains Temple worthiness).

I also understand that it is quite similar to the Masonic Temple Ceremonies and that Joseph Smith was himself a mason.

Where exactly, then, did this Temple Ceremony come from?  Has it changed throughout the years and, if so, how specifically has it changed?


texts: Catholicism - Consequences of not believing in all dogmas

texts:
What are the consequences according to the Catholic Church for members of the Catholic Church in case of not believing in all dogmas?

For example

Rejecting the notion of the bodily ascension or assumption into heaven (alive) as introduced in 1950
Not believing in Transubstantiation during Eucharist but understanding it as a symbolic act like the Lutherans do

All other teachings and dogmas would be believed.


texts:
Genesis 2:7 KJV reads,

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Why do this?

There must be a very good reason. I read the Bible but don't know it well enough make anything out of this main premise (man).

Any supporting references are helpful (articles, Bible references, etc.)

P.S. Please do not confuse with: Why did God create such complexity in man?


texts: In the "Apostles' Creed" were they referring to themselves when they said "holy catholic church"?

texts:
I know that the stock answer concerning the identity of "the holy catholic church" is to say that it refers to the "Church Universal". But in all honesty, weren't they talking about Constantine's circle of bishops, loyal to Rome?

Weren't they saying, in effect, that "we bishops that are signing this comprise the government of the Church Universal and we write its laws"?


texts: What were the godparent requirements back in the 1960s?

texts:
My mother was baptised in the Catholic Church in the 1960s.

I received information that her godfather (her uncle on her father's side) might not have been Catholic but rather Anglican. Could an Anglican stand as godfather in a Catholic Church? Has this practice changed over the years?


texts:
I understand that my question pokes at a sensitive area, but being a nonreligious person in a largely Christian region, I find it extremely dissatisfying to leave such a core aspect of my neighbor's lifestyles to mystery.

My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible?

The Bible contains loads of information, some of it pleasant, some of it frightening, some of it seeming to be downright silly.  For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing.  I'm also fairly certain the Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennia. Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities.  If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?  The aforementioned followers being of course, the Pope, translators (Monks, probably), Priests, but mostly everyday, normal Christians.

Thanks.


texts: What is an overview of the interpretations of Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."?

texts:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. ... and you and your family will be saved.(Acts 16:31)

What is an overview of the major interpretations of this verse. I would like a simple understanding of both the Catholic and Protestant philosophies.


texts: Do OT scriptures clearly indicate sacrifices will be replaced?

texts: The author of Hebrews builds the case that the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus has replaced the OT system of animal sacrifices. Are there any OT scriptures that clearly indicate the Jewish system of sacrifices would eventually be replaced? There is the Jeremiah 31 passage quoted in Hebrews, but other than that the author doesn't seem to state, "This scripture says sacrifices will one day be replaced, and Jesus did that on the cross."


texts:
I've read several summaries of William Dembski's concept of specified complexity, including one by Dembski himself, and I've got to confess I have no idea what he is talking about.

Is it an attempt to prove God's existence mathematically?


texts: Why do some Christians believe a very young Earth?

texts:
AFAIK, some Young Earth Creationists (YEC) believe that Earth was created less than 10000 years ago; that is a relatively small interval before the creation of human beings.

However, I also perceive that most creationists do not have a problem with a "huge" (i.e. light-years) Universe since this is in sync with God's attribute of infinity.

I am wondering how can YEC's deal with a very "big" God and space, but restrict the time dimension so much. Intuitively, an infinite God is somehow in contradiction with such small time spans (thousands of years).

Question: Why do some Christians believe in a very young Earth?


texts: Did God create Earth as a temporary place of confinement for Lucifer and his Angels?

texts:
I have often wondered if Earth was created not for man, but as a place of temporary confinement for Satan and his demons. That idea was provoked by,

Luk 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

and;

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Since Jesus said he saw Satan cast out of Heaven it would mean that he was present to witness Revelation 12;7 thru 9.

It would also mean that he was present at creation since according to Revelation 12:9 Satan and his Demons were cast into the Earth, indicating that Creation must have progressed at minimum beyond Genesis 1:1.

Confinement to Earth would be about the same as confinement in Prison for them since they would no longer be free to roam endless space.

I have reviewed all those referenced questions, but do not feel that they adequately address  my particular enigma.


texts: Why is Ruth called 'the wife of Mahlon' (Ruth 4:10) whereas in the beginning of the story she is the wife of Elimelech?


texts: What scripture is James 4:5 referring to?

texts:
James 4:5 (ESV)
  Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"?

I don't know of an Old Testament passage similar to James's quote. What is he referring to?


texts: How and when was homosexual practice separated from "homosexuality"?

texts:
Many of the recent denominational statements on the topic of human sexuality make a clear distinction between being aware of having same-sex attractions, and engaging in same-sex erotic activity.  Examples:

The 1980 statement of the American Lutheran Church said,

  We believe it appropriate to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. Persons who do not practice
  their homosexual erotic preference do not violate our understanding
  of Christian sexual behavior.
  The early draft of the 1993 version of the Catechism of the Catholic
  Church said,
  "Homosexuals do not choose their condition. For most
  of them it is an ordeal."

  In contrast, it is not too hard to find on the web condemnations of "homosexuality". As in condemnations of having the orientation.  The point of contention between the two camps is what is to be said of the celibate homosexual: do they exist? do they need to achieve "orientational conversion"?

So my question, for those who agree that there is a distinction, is how and when did such a distinction come about? Can it be found in treatments of the church fathers?  Or is it a relatively modern distinction, coming about after seeing homosexuals in the community?


texts: How does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?

texts:
Does suffering in this life really matter?

How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god?

Both answers above contain the major theme of God refining us, making us more like Him, so that after the period of suffering, the person is better than before. Now, both assume there is a period after suffering, where the person can use the lessons learned (and for many that is true).

However, there are many cases of people who suffer terribly in the world (for some, almost analogous as if they were in Hell on earth) and do not get a chance to use their "refinement".

There suffering appears pointless, sad and for many people - goes on until there last day here on earth.

In the second question, @MasonWheeler answers that it is in "preparation for the eternal world" (assuming the person is a Christian, I guess....)

This answer makes it sounds almost as if this life here on earth is completely irrelevant. (To me that sounds very dangerous way to view life but would be for another question.)

In any event, how does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?


texts: What views are there about the necessity of Jesus' murder?

texts:
In a former question, I was told me that different denominations of Christianity hold many views about if/why it was necessary for Jesus to be murdered instead of dying of old age.

I would now like an overview of what different denominations teach about the subject. (That is, what are the main distinctive opinions?)


texts: Biblical or Historical Devil Worshipper?

texts:
I am writing a novel happening in 1346.

In it, a satanist sect worships some relics of a person that embodies evil (a biblical or historical devil worshipper).
In the novel, the chuch will unroot and dismantle this sect.
The triumph of Faith over Evil.

I have the perfect embodiment of Faith (the Knights Hospitaller) now I need the embodiment of Evil.

If the novel was taking place few centuries later, I would have chosen the relics of "Gilles de Rais". An accurate enough embodiment of evil and a historical devil worshipper. But in 1346 he isn't born yet.

I had several ideas, but couldn't find anyone historical or biblical that would be fitting.

Judas may have repented before his death
Cain is a too obvious choice
Nebuchadnezzar II did embody evil but his expansion was allowed by god
Frederick II was considered the antichrist by pope Gregory IX, but he wasn't that evil and didn't worship the devil
Pope Honorius I was considered a heretic, but wasn't really evil either.
King Solomon did worship idols at the end of his life, but he was blessed by god for his whole life and was never evil.

So far, the best candidate that I have would be "Bishop Nicétas" the antipope of Catharism. But it's not clear how evil the Cathars were and their dogma was not an open worship of the devil.

I have browsed several parts of the bible and the history of Christianity, but couldn't find anyone evil enough. So I would love to have the input of someone more knowledgeable than me :

Who could be a biblical or historical devil worshipper who died before 1346 ?


texts: Did the Jews waiting for their Messiah associate him with the creation of the world?

texts:
Often when discussing the Trinity, Christians refer to Genesis Chapter 1, where 'the Father' says 'let there be', while 'the Son' is that word, and 'the Spirit' brings creation into perfection.  Sure this seems easy to us with an understand of the trinity in retrospect under the light of the gospel, but my question is did the 'pre-Christian church' ever see this?  In particular, I am wondering about the very creation of the world, was this ever though of in connection with the promised Messiah?

Somewhat related question:

Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all?


texts: Are contraceptives ok to treat other conditions?

texts:
What does the Catholic church teach about the use of the hormone medications normally proscribed for use as birth-control to regulate the symptoms of PMS or other conditions brought on by hormone imbalances?

Specifically in situations where they could not be used as birth control because the person taking these medications is not sexually active.


texts:
Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception. What is that?

Is this the same as the virginal conception of Jesus?


texts: Assuming the Gospels are eye-witness accounts, how were certain events recorded where Jesus was alone?

texts:
For instance, the temptation in the desert. It was only Jesus and Satan there. Who could have recorded that?

Or the prayers of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane? Jesus went up alone while the disciples slept. Who could have recorded the words He spoke there as an eye witness?


texts: Hebrew translation for the Deuterocanonical books?

texts: Is there a Hebrew translation for the Deuterocanonical books (including 1,2 Maccabees)?  Any available online?


texts: What did St. Theresa of Àvila mean by the "Prayer of Recollection"?

texts:
From The Way of Perfection, chapter 28

It is a prayer that brings with it many blessings. This prayer is called "recollection," because the soul collects its faculties together and enters within itself to be with its God. And its divine Master comes more quickly to teach it... those who by such a method can enclose themselves within this little Heaven of our soul, where the Maker of Heaven and Earth is present, and grow accustomed to refusing to be where the exterior senses in their distraction have gone or look in that direction should believe they are following an excellent path and that they will not fail to drink water from the fount; for they will journey far in a short time.

The bolded part is the subject of the question.


texts: What is the Swedenborgian (New Church) view of therapies that involve access to the subconscious mind?

texts: What is the Swedenborgian view of such therapies as hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming? Is the human subconscious off-limits due to the possibility of possession by evil forces, or can it be used to bring us closer to God through meditative states similar to hypnosis?


texts: What was the debate at the Reformation concerning "non extra carnem" vs. "extra calvinisticum"?

texts:
In the debate concerning the "hypostatic union" and the "kenosis" the Lutheran church stood opposed to the majority position. I can not seem to find a good resource to explain the distinctives of the two sides of the issue.

As far as I am able to understand it, the debate was over the concept of whether or not the infinite divine nature of the Logos was contained or not contained in the finite body of Jesus.

I believe the majority opinion was that the finite can not contain the infinite, following the Chalcedonian formula of no mixture of the two natures. And the Lutheran belief is that the two natures cannot be sepparated.

I am confused as to the Latin "non extra carnem" not without incarnation. What is it that is "not without incarnation"? Also how does all of this relate to the "kenosis" or emptying (Phil.2:7) during Christ's earthly ministry as compared to after the assention? What is orthdoxy and when do we cross the line into heresy?


texts: Catholic priests in China that reject the papal primacy, are their administration of sacraments considered valid?

texts:
I was just wondering how the Catholic church in Rome views those priests ordained by the Chinese communist government which do not recognize any authority of the Pope?

I realize from an interesting wiki article that there are underground priests that do, but my question is strictly related to those priests that don't recognize the Pope. Are people who receive Catholic sacraments, such as baptism, by these communist government ordained priests considered valid?

I guess another way of asking the same question would be: would a Catholic who was baptized by that priest (who rejects papal supremacy) be considered by the Pope a member of the Catholic church after baptism?


texts: Ancient Western Christianity & Indian Christians

texts: India is well outside the bounds of Roman influence, but there is evidence of Christianity in India very early. After the faith reached India, how much contact was there with Christianity in the Mediterranean world for the first 6 or 7 centuries?


texts: Making a vow and defaulting - is there forgiveness?

texts:
Sometimes we make vows to God that are hard for us to keep and the Bible advised (I couldn't remember this portion: Hosea or Malachi - and Google didn't help too) that we should not be rash when making  a vow for every vow must be kept

  Ecclesiastes 5:4

  When you vow a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he has no
  pleasure in fools: pay that which you have vowed.

And there is another part that talked about it strongly (Hosea or Malachi) but I can't remember.

I made a vow many years ago (less than $5) and I could not fulfill it for a very long time. My finances went off balance until I realized I made a vow and after that peace came to me. Since then I have been cautious of making vows that I can't keep or I wouldn't make any at all.

My question is: Can God forgive someone if he asks for forgiveness after seeing he could not fulfill it or is it a must, you have to pay it?


texts: According to Catholicism, if we can thank God for our fortunes why can we not blame him for our misfortunes?

texts:
If God is all knowing and omnipotent and we are to thank him for all of the boons we have received why can we not also "thank" him for all the misfortunes he has set upon us?

I always see people thank God when something good happens to them, but when something bad happens they never even mention his name.


texts: What is the basis for the Christadelphian belief that Satan is not a personal being?

texts:
The Christadelphians teach that the devil/Satan is not a personal being but an analogy for describing sin.

What is their Biblical defense for such a theology?


texts: Where can I find Julia Smith's translation of the Septuagint?

texts:
Julia Smith writes in her preface to her translation of the Bible,

I had studied Latin and Greek at school, and began by translating the
Greek New Testament, and then the Septuagint, from which our Saviour
quoted one or two texts which are not in the Hebrew Bible, and there
is now said to be no Hebrew Bible extant so old as the Septuagint.

https://studybible.info/version/JuliaSmith
The Old Testament in the link above is translated from Hebrew, so I was wondering if her translation of the Septuagint has survived. If so, where can I find it?


texts: Are there any Christian denominations that reject some of the gospels in the New Testament?

texts: Are all four gospels in the NT accepted by every Christian denomination (whether trinitarian or non-trinitarian)? For example, you could have a christian denomination that accepts Mark’s gospel but rejects the other gospels. I don’t know for sure. These are just speculations.


texts: Is there a deeper meaning for the reason for the new translation of the "Sanctus?"

texts:
In the New Translation of the Mass, the Sanctus changed from

  Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who
  comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

to

  Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the
  name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

Now look at the comma in these words of the LORD on the cross in Luke 23:43 (RSVCE):

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

I believe the meaning changes with the shifting of the comma that followed to you:

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

The question: In the new translation of the Sanctus, is there a deeper meaning regarding the change from Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might to Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts?

I am interested in the comma shift but the fuller answer will also address the change from God of power and might to God of hosts.


texts: What were the original languages of the Nicene Creed?

texts: In what languages were the Nicene Creed originally written? I'm guessing it would have been Latin, the official language of the Roman Empire, but by the end of the Council of Nicea, would versions in other languages have also been created as parallel translations?


texts: What do I do when watching a video of someone praying?

texts:
Every once in a while I'll watch a message on video and the person in the video starts praying. Sometimes I feel compelled to pray along with them (especially if there's a group of us watching it), but then I feel silly as I realize I'm praying along with a video.

Is it nonsensical to pray along with what is essentially an audio clip? I'm not talking about having my own individual prayer while the video is running. I'm talking about having a unified prayer of agreement along with the person/words that are coming out of the screen.

Are there any examples in scripture of prayers being lifted up in such a way, obviously not with video but in some weird equivalent? Certainly God wants us to pray together and in groups and couples--what if it just so happens that the other "person" is a video? Is the spirit of unity and agreement still legit?

This is the kind of "agree" and "together" I'm talking about:

  Matthew 18:19-20 ESV Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

And the context of this verse was about 2 believers together, face-to-face, talking, and agreeing.

Edit: A good point was brought up: what if it's a live video stream? At that point the person is praying at the same time as you, but not together with you. Are you still praying with them even if they don't have a clue that you are? And (now this is messy) what if the video stream is an hour delayed?


texts: Did the Risen Lord appear to Mother Mary?

texts: We see the Gospels narrating how Mother Mary was present at the crucifixion of Jesus (John 19:25–27). But we do not see an explicit narration, or even a mention, of Jesus appearing to His mother after His resurrection. My question is: how does the Catholic Church explain the absence of such a narration  in the Gospels?


texts: What are Jansenism's views of marriage? Were they akin to Manicheans' and Albigensians'? Who was a prominent Jansenist who wrote about marriage?


texts: Looking for source of quote about "doing what you should be"

texts:
The other day I saw a quote I really liked on the board in front of a church as I was passing by. However I don't remember it 100% and wanted to see the source of the quote.

Unfortunately I don't remember exactly which church it was (there are a few on this one street).

The quote was something like this:

"If you are doing what you should be doing, then you will light a fire to the world."

I think it might be a bible quote but I am not completely sure.


texts: What does the quote from the Old Testament in Luke 2: 23 refer to?

texts:
We read at Luke 2: 22-23:

  When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord   (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”) .

Though the cross-references cited in RSVCE are Leviticus 12: 2-8 and Exodus 13: 2& 12, the said references mention purification after the birth of both sons and daughters. It is not clear how and when the exclusiveness of the male child took shape. Insertion of the quote from the OT in parentheses also calls for some elucidation.

My question is: was the narrative of Luke, specifically the reference to the OT, on the dedication of Jesus at the Temple, based on tradition rather than on the exact texts of the OT? What do the teachings of the Catholic Church tell about such a prospect?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, how did Paul become a saint?

texts:
In the eyes of the Catholic Church how did Saint Paul become a saint?
Was it the encounter with Jesus that made him a saint? Or was it something different?
Please answer exactly where he became one, or what the process was.


texts: Did Mary die, or was she translated like Enoch and Elijah?

texts:
According to the Bible, did Mary die?

From a comment on another question, it seems that at least some denominations (including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that, like Elijah and Enoch, Mary did not see death.

From where does this teaching arise?


texts: How do seraphim in Isaiah 6 relate to the cherubim?

texts:
After reading Isaiah chapter 6 I came across the spiritual beings named seraphim.

I have been introduced to other spiritual beings before, such as cherubim, a being that we have a variety of references.

However, the only reference that I saw of seraphim was in Isaiah chapter 6 and they are described to perform a role similar to the cherubim, with some variations, as they have 6 wings (instead of 2 or 4).

But I am struggling to understand what are the seraphims and if they relate to cherubim?

Cherubim

From Genesis 3:24 we can see that cherubim are the guardians between heaven and earth.

  After sending them out, the Lord God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

From Psalms 99:1 we read that they support Yahweh's throne:

  The Lord is king!
      Let the nations tremble! He sits on his throne between the cherubim.
      Let the whole earth quake!

From Ezekiel 9:3:

  Then the glory of the God of Israel rose up from between the cherubim,
  where it had rested, and moved to the entrance of the Temple. And the
  Lord called to the man dressed in linen who was carrying the writer’s
  case.

And Ezekiel 10:1, that they carry his throne-chariot that appears to prophets on earth.

  In my vision I saw what appeared to be a throne of blue lapis lazuli
  above the crystal surface over the heads of the cherubim.

I came across this thread, however it doesn't answer my question.


texts: The temple detailed in prophecy by Ezekiel chapters 40-48 is very specific in detail. Does anybody have any theological evidence or would like to apply a reasoned assertion that it may ever be fulfilled in the Physical Form detailed?


texts: Do any Protestant denominations recognize Latter Day Saints as Christians?

texts:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox churches do not so that leaves the Protestants.

By Protestant, I mean the 'mainstream' Protestant denominations, with minimal (if any) reference to the more obscure sects. This is because I think the term 'Protestant' belongs to those who accept a handful of certain beliefs (trinity, faith-centered outlook, etc) that are often not present in the more rare denominations.

Do any Protestant denominations (not Latter Day Saints themselves) believe that Mormonism is an acceptable permutation of the "true faith" or whatever the essence of Christianity is or do they only respect their right to self-identify as whatever they want?

I am not interested in potential opinions of individual Protestant believers.


texts: What is morphological analysis, as it applies to bible study?

texts:
As far as I can tell, it's a technique used by bible students to better understand the original languages in context.

How does one go about using a tool such as Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes?

Edit: I've also asked this same question on Hermeneutics.SE.


texts: What are the major doctrinal differences between the American Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic church? Why did they split?


texts: Why was Paul annoyed with the loud slave girl in Acts 16?

texts:
In Acts 16, why was Paul annoyed with the slave girl who had a spirit of divination and kept shouting "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation."? Isn't what she is saying the truth? Why would Paul be annoyed by it and cast out the spirit?

  Acts 16:16-18 ESV As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling. She followed Paul and us, crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.


texts:
Luke 14:25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned
  and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own
  father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes,
  and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27“Whoever does not
  carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28“For
  which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit
  down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
  29“Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish,
  all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man began to
  build and was not able to finish.’ 31“Or what king, when he sets out
  to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider
  whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one
  coming against him with twenty thousand? 32“Or else, while the other
  is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
  33“So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all
  his own possessions.

In the above passage, loving God more than anything else is the same as carrying a cross, is the same as paying a huge cost, for the privilege of being a disciple of Christ.

The privilege of being a disciple of Christ is in turn the same as completing a tower, is the same as defeating a strong king. It could be salvation, receiving eternal life or entry to heaven.

The puzzling verse is v32.

Are terms of peace asking for extensions of deadline? Is it delaying the receiving of the benefits of Gospel? Why should the negotiations be with the enemy king?

Similarly, if a person doesn’t have enough money to complete the tower, which can be interpreted to mean enough faith to take on the required amount of good works, since Roman Catholics believe paying a cost means doing good works,  does it mean he loses the claim to be a disciple of Christ, which is required for salvation/eternal life/entry to heaven?

  Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
  kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
  heaven will enter.

What is the Roman Catholic Church's views about Luke 14:32?

All Scripture from the NASB.