texts: Did Noah's family still have Original Sin?

texts:
From what I understand, God created Adam and Eve, banished them from the garden, and humanity became corrupted and stained with Original Sin.

Some time passed. God said enough was enough, and started over with the great flood and Noah's Ark. The flood killed everyone on earth except Noah and his family and a pair of each species of animals on earth.

The idea of "starting over": Does it mean that Noah's family didn't have Original Sin anymore? Or did they still?

If they still had Original Sin, was it really starting over in the eyes of God? If they lost Original Sin, how did humans get it back?

I'm kind of confused on this part of the story. I'm not necessarily looking for bible quotes, just a simple explanation.


texts: What was the usage of the "dove dung" mentioned in 2 Kings 6:25?

texts:
When reading about Samaria's condition, I have came across the following:
2 Kings 6:25

And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged
it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and
the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver.

However I didn't fully grasp the meaning of "dove's dung" here so I went to the Hebrew.
From BlueLetterBible, one can see that the Masoretic text is the following:

6:25  וַיְהִי רָעָב גָּדֹול בְּשֹׁמְרֹון וְהִנֵּה צָרִים עָלֶיהָ עַד
הֱיֹות רֹאשׁ־חֲמֹור בִּשְׁמֹנִים כֶּסֶף וְרֹבַע הַקַּב חרי יונים
בַּחֲמִשָּׁה־כָֽסֶף׃

And from it, we take Strong's H1686 that matches the Hebrew דִּבְיוֹנִים (dibyown), as we can see here.
From the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon we have the following:

This expression is hard do comprehend.
I appreciate any guidance on understanding it this expression, specially with it's practical component, so that I can grasp why would one buy dove's dung for five pieces of silver.


texts: Is the Trinity, particularly Jesus, considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter?

texts: Is the Trinity considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter?  We are taught that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  That would be a problem if Jesus was Homoousios physically.


texts: Reasons for Restriction of Tridentine Rite post Vatican II

texts:
If I understand correctly, the Second Vatican Council ordered the revision of the liturgical books based on the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. These revisions where carried out in the years after the council and implemented in 1969/70.

Even during the council and even more up to the implementation of the revised books there was plenty of criticism of the council as a whole, specific teachings in particular and of the liturgy and the upcoming liturgical reform.

If my research is correct, in 1974 the congregation for divine worship announced that no more permissions would be given to those who intended to celebrate the liturgy according to the pre-vatican formulae.

This situation eventually led to the founding of SSPX and the schismatic consecration of four bishops by Marcel Lefebvre.

Later on the restrictions on the use of the older liturgy where loosened until Benecit XVI made access to the now called extraordinary form widely an mostly unrestrictedly availably.

This leads me to the following two questions:

What reasons where there to heavily restrict access to the old liturgy after the council?
Was it expected that these restrictions might give further rise to the SSPX-schism (or similar problems within the church)?


texts: Is there a Biblical basis for believing someone can be saved after dying and going to Hell?

texts:
As the title suggests, is there any Biblical reason to believe it is possible to escape Hell after dying and going there?

Is there any way to save those people after these punishments? Or are they permanently locked in hell?  Is there any way suggested anywhere in Scripture?


texts: Is Jesus' statement that Satan is the father of the Jews anti-Jewish?

texts:
“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” (John 8:39-47, NIV)

In this passage Jesus seems to be saying pretty clearly that Satan is the father of the Jews. I know a lot of Christians that love Jews, but this verse seems pretty anti-Jewish. Is there some way of understanding this verse to be not anti-Jewish, or are there Christians that do not accept this verse as authoritative?


texts: What would be the consequences for refusing confirmation in the Anglican Church?

texts:
What would be the consequences for a teenage child of committed Australian Anglican parents who chose to refuse confirmation?

The confirmation may be refused either before the ceremony, i.e. refusing to attend, or during the ceremony.

I'm interested in what church doctrine would say as to how to deal with such a person.


texts:
In Psalm 39 (NIV) starting with verse 12, David said:

  "Hear my prayer, Lord, listen to my cry for help; do not be deaf to my weeping. I dwell with you as a foreigner, a stranger, as all my ancestors were.

So he's asking God to hear his prayer, listen to his cry for help, and to not be deaf to his weeping.

Then in verse 13, he says:

  Look away from me, that I may enjoy life again before I depart and am no more."

What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like he is contradicting himself.


texts: According to the Methodist Church, is white grape juice an acceptable alternative in communion?

texts: A Methodist Church has changed from regular grape juice to white grape juice to keep stains from the carpet. Is this a valid Methodist traditional usage? Are there any historical sources explaining this usage?


texts: How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who do NOT consider it a literal, historical event?

texts:
Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) – this question; 2) those who interpret this event as literal – see my other question.

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

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

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

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

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

Did Matthew have a reason as to why he interpolated this into the text (if we take the stance that it isn't a literal event)? If so, what role does this pericope play? How does it assist in the overall message that Matthew is conveying to his audience? Is there some symbolism? If so, what?


texts: What does the Bible say about Egypt aside from the story of Moses in Exodus?

texts:
I am fascinated with ancient civilizations and the civilization that leaves me with the MOST questions is Ancient Egypt. Like many ancient cultures, the Egyptians were very advanced(construction, writing, navigation, astronomy).  I remember being at church once, and the preacher was telling the story of the Exile. While the Egyptians decided to go after Moses( after he parted the sea ) one of the Pharoah's servants said, "They've got God on their side! We must turn back!"

We all know that the Pharoah pushed forward, leading to the death of him and his men.

My question is about the servant's comment.

Were the Egyptians fully aware of the existence of the Christian (at the time Hebrew) God, yet actively go against him and live life worshipping their own deities?

How were the Egyptians able to build the most amazing structure on the planet without(or even "actively against") God?

Does the Bible shed any light on these ancient "slave-drivers" ?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, does God punish sinners?

texts: When reading the Old Testament it seems that God punishes bad behavior. But according to the Catholic Church (catechism?) are sins punished by God, for example, in purgatory is it more like a karma, that sins themselves cause 'punishments'?


texts: Christianity and extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking

texts:
I've noticed here and there the odd practice of inducing an extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking in oneself, which seems quite strange to me; it's not at all clear what the purpose is. Some people claim that it may have come from the Quakers, although Pentecostal's do it, and it occurs when the Holy Spirit fills the body. It also seems to be encouraged in some Evangelical circles, as it was explicitly said to be the force of the holy spirit in the movie Jesus Camp (2006).
What exactly is this practice called, and where did it come from?
I don't recall reading anything about it in the Bible.
If you require an example, since I don't know what it's called I'm unable to find videos of it successfully on Google ("christian shaking" doesn't quite work), but what reminded me of it was the few seconds of this clip of one of the "Sweet Brown" remixes.


texts: Does the Catholic Church perform non-civil marriages in the Dominican Republic?

texts:
In 2013, as many as 200,000 people born in the Dominican Republic were stripped of their citizenship, due to their Haitian ancestry.  Most of these people were thus rendered "stateless," making government courts unavailable to them.  Furthermore, many are destitute and find it virtually impossible to get proper legal identification, which often requires a trip to Haiti and high legal expenses.  (For more on the situation, see this 30-minute documentary or its 2-minute trailer)

From a religious perspective, one of the biggest challenges these people face is that they cannot be legally married – civil marriage is not available to them unless they have proper identification.  In at least some Protestant denominations, such people who faithfully live together and have children are thus considered to be committing adultery, and are not given the opportunity to have a "church wedding" to change this status.

I'd like to know how the Catholic Church handles this situation.  Put simply: does the Catholic Church offer "religious-only" (non-civil) weddings in the DR to those who cannot obtain a civil marriage?  If so, are these weddings considered sufficient by the Catholic Church to comply with biblical prohibitions of adultery and fornication?


texts: The Middle Ages as a Model for the Orderly Society?

texts:
I'm interested in finding books and studies (both for and against) the idea that Medieval European society had a kind of order that's desirable. Foundationally, there's a clear religious order--officially Western Europe was completely Catholic. In turn, this kind of religious uniformity supported a clear political order--the secular authorities were committed to this religious order and drew from it as a basis for their political order.
I believe this is a version of "Medievalism", but there may be a better more specific name for it.
Whether such a description of Medieval society is accurate or not really is irrelevant for me: the fact is that a minority of Christians (Catholics and others) seem to have this belief. I'd like to understand more about its recent origins, key apologists for it, and any significant criticisms of the idea. Catholic critiques in particular would be helpful. Patrick Deneen is one key thinker I've already identified.
Thanks so much.
See: Medievalism (Wikipedia).


texts: Why are sandals considered to be unholy?

texts:
As I was reading Exodus 3 chapter 5, this passage got my attention.

  Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

Why it is considered as unholy?  Even in churches they are said to remove your sandals and shoes.  When considered this as unholy, what about other things as our clothes, etc.


texts:
Ignatius wrote in A.D. 110 that Jesus was gennetos kai agennetos, meaning “begotten and not begotten.”

Did Ignatius believe in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son? Why did he say that Jesus is not begotten in his divinity?


texts: Does God shape your destiny by the genes you inherit?

texts: From the Christian perspective: Does God allow the process of recessive genes being over-powered by dominant genes to create who you are - personality traits, interests etc. - and then see how a person with your qualities would fit best in this world. . . thus, molding your destiny?


texts: The book of Hebrews in the New Testament shares a name with the Hebrew people of the Mosaic Law. Why was that book named Hebrews?


texts:
I have been trying to look for a work of St. Augustine in Latin but I have had no luck of finding it. Not only that, I don't think it's been translated to English. It's called "La Fe, Dedicada a Pedro o La Regla de La Fe Verdadera" which in English is "On Faith, Dedicated to Peter" or "On the Rule of the True Faith." You can find it here. Any help?

Note: It's not referring to the Apostle St. Peter, in case anyone was wondering.


texts: What, if any, were the Catholic orders that opposed the Catholic Inquisition?

texts:
During the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Dominicans and Franciscans were the main church inquisitors. I was wondering if there were other religious orders that, as a whole, opposed the Inquisition.  I am not interested in merely individuals within orders who objected, but rather groups as a whole that did so.

I have only found mention of an individual monastery in Spain (San Isidro del Campo), not of any religious orders.


texts: According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, what things have the power to decrease a person's time in purgatory?

texts:
Roman Catholic teaching states that many people spend a certain amount of time in purgatory after they die before going to heaven.  I remember hearing something to the effect that people who are still living have the power to decrease the amount of time a deceased person has to spend in purgatory.

So, is this true?  According to Roman Catholic teaching, can people who are still alive do things that will decrease the amount of time a deceased person has to spend in purgatory?  If so, what sorts of things can be done and how much do each of them reduce the time?  Is there an understanding of how much time one generally has to spend in purgatory in the first place?


texts: Contemporary Catholic views on music in the Church: is music for God or for the people?

texts:
I'm a non-believer church organist; I just moved to Spain and it's my first time playing regularly for a church service -- this one is Catholic.

I want to understand why Catholics have music in the church services: is it for God, or for the people? This question seems crucial to me, because as I get more creative with the music, with the organ stops / embellishments / polyphony, I want to understand what do Catholics believe about who is ultimately judging my music, them or God.

Being a non-believer, I don't really want to get into details of theology with the priest (he knows I'm a non-believer who is baptized Eastern Orthodox, and that was fine by him), so I'd just like to find out more about contemporary Catholic philosophy on this matter; I did some Googling but couldn't find anything relevant.

One random interesting thing: we have both German-language and Spanish-language services in our church; the words to the Spanish Gloria and Sanctus are always the same, but the words for the German Glorias and Sanctuses vary (if they're not the standardized ones, they are called Lied); but my priest considers this variation of the text practiced by German churches to be decadent / a corruption of the true text, and so we always do the same Gloria and Sanctus for the German-language services. So my interpretation is that, in this case, a change in the words is something that is being judged negatively by God, i.e. it is not good enough to worship Him. So I wonder if I can also do the same thing with musical notes, and so what should I avoid?...


texts: Popes' Coat of Arms and Saint Malachy Prophecy of the Popes

texts:
I was going to ask about the potential validity of the Saint Malachy's Prophecy of the Popes as I once did on "Catholic Answers" message board years ago, but doing a search to check for redundancy, I see someone else has asked something similar, so I'm spinning my question in a little different direction.

Question on Status

When I've talked to online Catholics about this prophesy it is often dismissed.     New Advent's entry on it is a bit more neutral.

  They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St. Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of St. Bernard especially, who wrote the "Life of St. Malachy", is a strong argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those 400 years.

I have noticed one thing.   It seems like if you check the Coat of Arms and personal background of various popes, it seems like this prophesy has been fairly accurate!

So I'm curious if there is any discussion and explanation of this in Catholic circles?    At the very least, it appears to me that popes of the modern era, unofficially seem to be choosing their coat of arms, and maybe their name based on it.


texts:
What is the New Perspective on Paul?

It's promoted by numerous New Testament scholars such as N.T Wright, James D. G. Dunn and E.P Sanders. I have read a lot of their articles and books on it. I find it really intriguing, and it has shaped my theology. It does kind of challenge the traditional Protestant interpretation of Pauline theology. Although, the scholars I mentioned above themselves are Protestants. What does the New Perspective say that is different?


texts: How do Catholics justify confessing to a priest?

texts:
Roman Catholic churches have a practice where congregational members confess their sins and the like to a priest in a confessional. As I was saying to a friend a couple days ago, the practice doesn't make sense to me as Jesus is our High Priest, and as such, we don't need to go through another man.

  Hebrews 4:14-16 (NLT)
  14 So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. 15 This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. 16 So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most.

Thus, my question is: what is the (Roman) Catholic justification for this practice?

To clarify, I'm talking about confessing to the priest, essentially putting them in the position of being the mediator between the confessor and God, despite Hebrews saying that we need no other mediator than Jesus.


texts: In Reformed theology, where are baptism and the Lord's supper in the ordo salutis?

texts:
Baptism and the Lord's supper are means of grace in Reformed theology, but yet we don't see it explicitly mentioned in Calvinist ordo salutis.
According to one Reformed pastor writing for the Theopolis Institute in his essay 2017 "The Changing Face of Reformed Theology" this is a problem that is recently being addressed by going back to Calvin and looking afresh at how Paul views the benefits of union with Christ, which according to the author can roughly be viewed as colors refracted from a multi-faceted diamond instead of sequentially:

Most people are taught in Reformed churches and seminaries, to think linearly about salvation (e.g. Justification leads to Sanctification which leads to Glorification). ... This is called the ordo salutis (Latin term: “order of salvation”). It’s the Reformed way of explaining the application of salvation to a person from beginning to end. Once a person is justified, the other benefits follow in due course. If a person is “truly” justified, the rest will follow.
This is one reason why Reformed theology has always struggled to “fit” the sacraments into any meaningful place in its systematic theology. If the golden chain of salvation can’t break, then it’s difficult to see how baptism is really all that important or why the Lord’s Supper is necessary. ... While Reformed theology held to the Lord’s Supper as a “means of grace” it was rare to find a Reformed church practice weekly communion or place it on par with preaching. The sacraments were aids to faith–crutches if you will–but not really necessary in the life and practice of Reformed churches considering the logical consequences of the “golden chain.” ...
...
... Calvin had a strong view of union with Christ and saw the benefits of Christ flowing from that union. But after Calvin, as Reformed theology developed historically into a system—forged in the fires of conflict against Catholicism, Arminianism, and Lutheranism, etc.—it began to use salvation terminology in a way that was distinct from the bible. ...
...
Dr. Gaffin noticed, in the Apostle Paul’s language, a person is engrafted into union with the resurrected Christ. As a result of this union, one is justified, adopted, sanctified, glorified–and all the other benefits of this union—at the moment one has faith in Christ. But Dr. Gaffin also saw that there are future aspects to the benefits of salvation as well, “…for Paul the justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification of the believer are future as well as present.”((Ibid. p. 133)) In Paul’s usage, salvation language is not nicely sequential–flowing from one benefit or distinct act to another such as justification leading to sanctification—as if they are in some golden chain.
...
The diamond is union with Christ. All the different colors that are refracted from the diamond are the benefits that are seen depending upon the angle you view the diamond.  ...

My question: How do key Reformed theologians, past and present, connect Baptism and the Lord's supper as means of grace into the ordo salutis in their systematic theologies?


texts: What is the Catholic/Anglican understanding of how the Sacrament of Reconciliation began?

texts:
How did the Sacrament of Reconciliation begin?

I have tried to find this answer but can not trust Wikipedia and do not need any more answers for when it came to be.


texts: Does the new testament override, or replace the commandment of honor your mother and father, and thy shall not murder?


texts: How do Catholics reconcile a metaphorical Adam and Eve with Original Sin

texts:
It is known that many Catholics believe that Adam and Eve is a story better left to the metaphorical imagination, rather than literal interpretation (though other denominations may feel differently). Going off of this belief, wouldn't that imply that since it is just a metaphor, and not literal, that it never really happened, and if it never really happened, then there is no REAL original sin?

If it is a metaphor and there is no original sin, then why did Jesus come to earth? Why did he have to repent us of this non-existent sin?


texts: Are there any surviving hymns from the Valdensian movement?

texts:
The Valdensians preached and celebrated the Lord's Supper in the native tongue of the people, not in Latin. However, every source I've read about their customs focus on what was spoken, while I also want to know what they sang.

Do we have any sources that describe their songs, when and how they were sung or indeed if they did sing during their worship services at all?

Of course this question is about the oldest era of the Valdensian movement, way before it merged with Calvinistic Protestantism.


texts: Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why God exists?

texts:
I know Christianity at a glance as I haven't read the Bible thoroughly from start to finish. I haven't found bad things Jesus taught us. But I have a crucial question to raise my confidence in believing Jesus as my savior. The question is:

Is there a mentioning (in the Bible) about why god exists?


texts: Biblical basis for Heaven *not* being a physical place?

texts:
In Rev. 12 Satan is cast "down" out of heaven.
When the Lord blesses the bread which feeds 5000, He looks "up" into
heaven.
When Stephen is stoned, he also looks "up".
After resurrection, Jesus is physically lifted up into the clouds.

Yet, despite all these references, I don't think heaven can be a physical place (e.g. outerspace, or somewhere near Jupiter).

What is the biblical basis for heaven not being a physical place?


texts: What is the Calvinist perspective on John 5:28–29 in regard to earning salvation?

texts:
John 5:28–29 seems to teach salvation by works:

  Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (ESV)

How do Calvinists explain this passage?


texts: Within the Catholic Church, when and by whom did the story that Jesus was born in a house arise?

texts:
This post is a counterpart to this other question of mine: What is earliest mention of the Church tradition that Jesus was born in a cave?

In the World Library Publications Missalettes, which have an Ecclesiastical Approval given by Rev. Msgr. John F. Canary, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Chicago, there are liturgical reflections before  the liturgy of that day.

If I recall correctly, in one of these over Christmastide, there is a reflection to the effect that

  Mary and Joseph lodged with relatives in Bethlehem; the "no place for them in the inn" means that no room for them in the main part of the
  house and therefore they were placed in a part of the same house where
  animals were kept at night. Another reflection had: the shepherds find Mother and child in such meager conditions, cannot bear to leave them in the place they found them, and take them to better conditions, etc.

The question is, since this appears in a publication with Ecclesiastical approval, whence and by whom has such a story come because it is at odds with the traditional teaching and understanding of the Christmas story?


texts: What is the name of this theological problem?

texts:
I have formulated a theological problem, and I would like to research different answers people have for it. This process would be a lot easier if I had a solid starting point. I am wondering if there is a formalized name for this question (ex. some subcategory in theodicy), or a similar question. Or if not that, then possibly the names of some books or papers that discuss it.

Here is the problem, as I have structured it:

  God made humans. (Genesis 1:27)
  God knows the future. (Isaiah 46:10)
  If we don’t follow God, we will go to hell. (Revelation 21:8)
  Many people do not follow God. (Matthew 7:13-14)
  It is better to have not been born than to go to hell. (Mark 14:21)
  God is good. (Psalm 107:1)

  Therefore God made humans knowing that most of them would go to hell (a place that it would be better to have not been born than to end up in).

  Would it not have been better to not have been created?

Note: I have structured it like a very informal logic proof, as that is what I am most familiar with.


texts: What is the biblical basis for Christians NOT to quit their jobs, sell all their possessions, and preach the gospel?

texts: While an argument can be made that all Christians should quit their "secular" jobs, sell all their possessions, and preach the gospel fulltime, I am thinking that its basis may not biblical. What then could be a biblical basis for not quitting one's job?


texts: When Jacob "blessed" his sons in Genesis 49, why does he seem to curse some of them? What kind of blessing is it to say "you will no longer excel"? Granted, the curses were meted out according to deeds, but the Bible does, ironically, state that "this is what their father said to them when he blessed them, giving each the blessing appropriate to him" (italics added). I'm curious about the original meaning of "blessing" and "blessed" -- perhaps the original word was not as restrictive?


texts: Was Jesus' power limited relative to the belief of others?

texts:
Mark 6 4-6:

  4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet,
  except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 Jesus
  was not able to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick
  people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people
  there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and
  taught.

Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief.

However, there is a difference: He won't vs. He cannot - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked.

Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today?

Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above?

Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?

Any studies, papers, speeches on this?


texts: What is the process of the Church approving a Marian apparition?

texts:
Say that a person claimed to have had Mary appear to them in a way similar to the Marian apparitions of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. What is the process of the Church approving a Marian apparition as being authetic?

Some apparition sites like Our Lady of Guadalupe have accompanying miracles that would lend to the authenticity of the apparition (in that case, the tilma of Juan Diego being imprinted with the image of Mary). But others like Our Lady of Good Help appear to only have the eyewitness testimony of a single person.

Is the process similar to canonization in which they look for miracles that have occurred at the site? Or is there some other way of the Church approving a Marian apparition?


texts:
Master of Ceremonies wears purple at High Masses according to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?
I can recall reading in some liturgical book that the Master of Ceremonies (MC) had the privilege of wearing purple (at least the sash) when fulfilling this office at the High Mass in accordance with some norm of rubrics according to the Tridentine Rite. Most MCs would not avail themselves of this privilege. The MC does not have to be a priest, but could be a cleric of lower rank (even a seminarian).
While watching this YouTube video Levithögmässa. 23 november 2019, Göteborg, it is quite apparent that the MC is availing himself of this privilege. It seems equally possible the Master of Ceremonies is a seminarian!
My question is as follows: Can anyone direct me to a reference indicating the use of  a Master of Ceremonies wearing either a purple sash and black soutane or a purple sash and purple soutane?
Once again, I know I have read about it, but I can not recall the source! It may in fact only be a local tradition? I also can recall that the purple sash could be worn.


texts: What is the origin of the "religion vs. relationship" dichotomy?

texts:
These days the word "religion" often has a bad connotation.  Christians (including myself) often emphasize that they have a "relationship" with Jesus, not that they are "religious."

But this doesn't seem to be the case if we look back a little ways in church history.  John Calvin wrote The Institutes of the Christian Religion, for example, in the 16th century.  More recently than that, J. Gresham Machen wrote The Origin of Paul's Religion (1921).  These positive references to the word seem to be in line with James 1:27, which says:

  Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (ESV)

But somewhere along the way, the word "religion" started getting compared negatively to a "relationship."  So here's my question: who was the first Christian theologian to place the words "religion" and "relationship" in sharp contrast, with a negative connotation for "religion"?

Note that I'm not interested in those who criticize "false religion" or "impure religion" or "mere religion" or the like – just those who treat "religion," unmodified, as negative and in sharp contrast to "relationship."

I've heard it claimed that it was Billy Graham, which seems plausible, but I'd love to see a published source indicating that he or someone else was the originator of this now-popular dichotomy.


texts: What is according to the RCC the creation story in Genesis?

texts: Is the creation of Adam and eve a real event in history or is this just a story which actually never really happened and can it according to RCC also be seen as a methaphore? Or is it 'just' a spiritual reality? If so, does this induce problems with the reality of our Earth and other creations?


texts:
According to Mark Burkholder, the three types of members of a cathedral chapter that weren't dignitaries were canons, prebendaries (racioneros), and half prebendaries (medios racioneros).

I am studying the appointment of a particular canon in Durango in 1821. He was entitled in writing to a prebend (una ración) from the cathedral. Donald Cutter in Writings of Mariano Payeras later described him in English as "Lord Prebendary Don X".

Is a canon also a prebendary and vice-versa, or are these different categories on the same payscale?


texts: What is an overview of interpretations of "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26? (Catholic/Protestant overview)

texts:
The phrase "all Israel" in Romans 11:25–26 has been a source a significant disagreement in church history, particularly since the Reformation:

  25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” [ESV]

What is an overview of Catholic and Protestant teaching on the meaning of the phrase "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26?


texts:
Some say that name "Ahmed" (the Muslims' prophet who is also known as "Mohamed") is mentioned in scripture, and it is foretold that he would be a prophet, but his name was censored years after Jesus.

Does modern Christianity accept this? Are there any references?

I know that Mohamed was born many years after Jesus, but I'm looking for something in the way of a divination or a enunciation.


texts: What is the Biblical basis that prayer is sufficient as a way to recognize truth?

texts: I have talked to many people who question the theology behind prayer as a way to recognize truth. A common argument is that people may get differing answers. What is the Biblical basis for this?


texts: When to attribute things in this world to things not of this world

texts:
Some Christians take every situation and claim "God did this" or "the holy spirit is moving in this place" when something good happens, and "Satan did this" or "this place has evil spirits"  when something bad happens. Sometimes you even hear "God did this out of anger/jealousy" when something bad happens (see natural disasters).

The Bible shows countless times where God intervenes (see the plagues in Exodus) and also where evil spirits intervene (see demon-possession in Matthew). Ultimately God is in control, but how can one determine if a situation occurred due to divine intervention?


texts: Does Jeremiah 8:8 imply that the scriptures were corrupted?

texts:
Most Christians think the Bible has been accurately preserved over the ages, and that the textual differences that exist are largely insignificant.

But I came across this verse which makes me question whether the Old Testament really was accurately preserved:

  ‘How can you say, “We are wise,
      for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes
      has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8, NIV)

Note how it says lying pen not lying tongue.

It's no wonder that many people think some like this one couldn't be divinely inspired:

  There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were
  like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezekiel 23:20, NIV)

Is God saying in Jeremiah 8:8 that the scribes corrupted the scriptures? If so, are the Old Testament scriptures we have today still corrupted?


texts: Is wearing makeup sinful according to Catholic teaching?

texts:
Is wearing makeup is sinful according to Catholic teaching? If so, why?

I am not asking about someone who would put makeup to cover some kind of deformity on his face (like when someone gets burned on his face) but about regular cases.

Edit (My conclusion so far).

It would seem to me that Aquinas is saying that wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin. It seems to me that Aquinas in his article separates two questions:

Whether the adornment (and here adornment (ornatus) means wearing clothes, jewelry or something which is added onto the body and is not like makeup which applies paint on the body as Aquinas says in a replay to the second objection) of women is devoid of mortal sin?

With this question, it seems to me, he deals in 'I answer with (Respondeo)'.

Whether applying paint(and here is painting (fucatio) something that we would call wearing makeup) on the body can be devoid of sin?

With this question, it seems to me, he deals in 'Reply to Objection 2'.

I am here interested in question 2 and as far as I can see, Aquinas says in Reply to Objection 2 that it is sinful to wear makeup:

  Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a kind of
  falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin.

It seems to me, that the reason that he gives for why wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin is that it is some kind of deceiving. I could try to formalize his argument in this way:

It is wrong to deceive others.
Wearing makeup is the same as counterfeiting a beauty one has not, therefore wearing makeup includes deceiving others.
Therefore, it is wrong to wear makeup.

The reason why this argument would not work for wearing clothes is that clothes are to cover the body, while makeup applies paint on the body. Clothes to the body are not the same as makeup to face.

Also, this argument would not convict applying products against skin dehydration (or something like that) because those products could be understood as medicine.

Also, we could see that the same argument (principle) which I gave is used against those who paint themselves in a way to seem to be of different sex (ie. transgenders). One of the reasons why is it sinful for them to paint themselves that way is because they deceive others.

If I am still misunderstanding something please correct me.


texts:
I have asked earlier how Christians understand God in relation to the scientific concept of energy.  Ultimately that line of questioning was stopped by the observation that my ontology was very different from the likely respondents.  While I addressed the issue of ontology in the physics stack exchange (and consequently had the question moved to the philosophy stack exchange), there seemed to be very little interest and even less consensus on a coherent and widely accepted ontology.  This got me wondering,

Is there a widely (or historically) accepted Christian ontology?

FYI: My personal definition of "existence" would run something like "that property which, when possessed by a well defined object, allows for causal interaction with other well defined objects that share the property of existence."


texts: How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint?

texts:
In days of yore, tradesman and guilds had patron saints.  These days patrons seem to only be attributed to profession in vague ways via papal declaration (i.e. St. John Vianney is the Patron of all priests as of 2010), not from the ground up.

As a computer programmer, I'd like to have a patron, but Catholic programmers seem few and far between.  I'm not specifically asking as a programmer, but as a person who has a noble trade, how can I get Rome to acknowledge that me and my cohort say a particular saint should be the patron of our work?


texts: Looking for references from the early Church Fathers on Galatians 3:13

texts:
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: [Galatians 3:13, KJV]

...As it relates to a Luther(esque) view of justification... which largely hinges on this verse.
 I have found some good stuff from John Chrysostom, but besides that, I am having a difficult time.


texts: Why does Christmas end on the Baptism of the Lord and not on the Presentation of the Lord?

texts:
The Presentation of the Lord is celebrated exactly 40 days after Christmas, yet Christmas ends on the Baptism of the Lord, which is the beginning of Ordinary Time.

Why is the Christmas season short when compared to the Easter season, which is celebrated for 50 days? How was it decided that the day celebrating the Lord's baptism marked the end of Christmas?


texts: Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation

texts:
Some people believe that if you have not been baptized, you cannot be saved.

Others (including myself) believe that it is merely the outward declaration of what has already happened in the heart.

Given that Jesus baptized no one, and that one of the most famous conversions involved no baptism (the thief on the cross), what Biblical basis does the argument for baptism giving or being a prerequisite to salvation have?


texts: According to Catholicism, in the Eucharist, does the bread become Christ’s “spiritual body” or “natural body”?

texts:
According to Catholicism, in the act of transubstantiation which occurs during the Eucharist, when the bread becomes Christ’s body, and the wine becomes Christ’s blood, does the bread become the “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν) or “natural body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν) of our Lord Jesus Christ?1

Footnotes

1 The terms “spiritual body” and “natural body” are translated verbatim from 1 Cor. 15:44 in the New American Bible, Revised Edition.


texts: In light of Article of Religion XVII, why is teaching predestination a good thing?

texts:
Article 17 of the Articles of Religion, on the topic of predestination, asserts that for the non-elect having the sentence of predestination before their eyes causes them to sin more and more.  So, why did the framers of this confession consider that a good thing?  Wouldn't this be a good reason to shut up about predestination? If it indeed causes people to sin more and more and thus do more damage to others? Does Anglicanism consider the moral meltdown of society which can result (according to this article) from dwelling on the "sentence" of predestination, to be a good thing?

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.


texts: What sources are used for the Christian Bible translations?

texts:
When I was looking in the store to buy a bible, I noticed that the different bible translations not only differ in their style of translation, but also in the sources they use.

What are the sources used in common bible translations?


texts: What difference does baptism make when it comes to marriage?

texts:
Here is a hypothetical example of what may be a very common situation.

Bill and Martha have been seeing each other for four years. Both were raised in Catholic families, but were not baptized. They are not married, but instead, they had been living together for a while now. Now Bill sees that both want to continue in their relationship, and because of their upbringing, they would like to get married under the Catholic Church.

Would it make any difference if Bill and Martha got married before they were both baptised, or after?


texts: Should non-believers be allowed in church?

texts:
Very interesting and very edgy question. The mention of Church in the Bible is often referring to the multitudes of Christians and not just the building. I'm curious about the building in this question.

I know that these days most churches are designed to be seeker-friendly, in a way that their doors are "open" to all individuals during all hours, including service. What I'm curious about, is why some Christians believe that their church should not be opened to the non-believing population during service hours.

More specifically J.H. Skelly and his street preaching ministries believes that non-believers should not be allowed inside of the church during the service hours.

What is the Biblical basis for this kind of thinking?


texts: Do all Christian sects believe that Paul's writings are words of God?

texts:
In other words, do all Christian sects see Paul's writings as divinely inspired? And when I say "Paul's writings", I mean all of Paul's writings in the New Testament. Not just some of the writings. Are all of Paul's writings accepted by all sects (regardless of how they're interpreted)?

Pauline epistles:

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

First Thessalonians

Second Thessalonians

Hebrews

First Timothy

Second Timothy

Titus

Philemon


texts: What was the rationale for worship only in Latin?

texts:
Notice I said was because since 1969, the liturgy may be celebrated in the vernacular.

I know the Roman Catholicism no longer employs Latin-only, but I am wondering why they did.  Not interested in the history of it, but rather what scriptural/doctrinal/theological rationale was stated for it being mandatory.


texts: Besides Jesus, is there any other figure in the Bible that would claim that some of the prophecies in the Scriptures were about him?


texts: Why does Paul emphasise that Jesus is the Son of David in 2 Timothy

texts:
In 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Paul writes:

  8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal (NIV, emphases mine)

From my reading of this, Paul's gospel is Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. I understand why Jesus rising from the dead would be part of the Gospel, but why include descendant of David? Wouldn't something like Son of God be more important to have in your gospel?


texts: Do both officiant and recorder need holy orders to perform a Catholic baptism?

texts:
Many Catholic baptismal records from Spanish California (circa 1800) list the same clergyman as officiant and recorder (example), while some records separate the roles (example).

I guess this distinction represents a team effort: some visiting priest performing the ceremony and the resident priest writing it down. To help nail down their identity, though, does canon law require that both officiant and recorder have holy orders?

(Source: the Early California Population Project is a large database that restructures the contents of the sacramental books of the Franciscan missions in California.)


texts: How do those who reject the deity of Christ understand the 'sameness of honor' in John 5?

texts:
John 5:21-23 (DRB) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.1 22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. 23 That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father.2 He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.

There are only two possibilities here:

"as they honor the Father" describes being honored as common to the Father and the Son, but not necessarily of the same degree
"as they honor the Father" describes equality of honor

Question

How is it argued that the former is meant? (isn't it a bit like saying 'honor your parents as you honor God,' which is severely misleading?)
Isn't "as they honor the Father" redundant given this interpretation?

1 Notice that 'so also' refers to enjoying the very same perogative, one which doesn't admit of 'degree' (raising the dead either occurs or it doesn't—and clearly Jesus is speaking of something clearly unique to the Son, not a 'prophetic' ability to raise the dead with God's help: cf. "to whom He will").

2 In the Greek, it's even stronger, since the tenses are thus: "all men may honor the Son even as they do [currently] honor the Father." Which was and is of course by acts of the fullest worship.


texts: Scholarly discussion of claims that Paul is a "false apostle"

texts:
There is a claim in some circles that Paul is a "false apostle", creating a new religion from whole cloth. I fear trying to flesh out any one particular version of such a claim, but one such example is chapter 7 here. This seems like a relatively recent historical claim.

Are there any scholarly discussions of the matter? I know Vermes wrote something from the Jewish perspective awhile ago, making some version of the above argument. I would be especially interested in a robust criticism of this doctrine.


texts: Jacob and Esau: what is this story all about?

texts:
This is how I see the story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25 and 26):

They are two very different twins who seem to fight a lot. Esau goes hunting and he is starving when he gets back. He asks Jacob for some stew. Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright." "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?" So Esau accepts the trade and it says "he despised his birthright."

1) When Esau says he is about to die, is this figuratively (from hunger) or literally he thinks he is close to dying from old age?

Then it gets kinda weird because Isaac's wife, Rebekah, tells her son, Jacob, to trick Isaac into thinking he is Esau and give the blessing to him. Jacob is hesitant and says "I would appear to be tricking him and would bring down a curse on myself rather than a blessing." But then she says, "Let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say." Jacob then lies and tricks his father into believe he is Esau so Isaac blesses him.

2) Isn't Rebekah promoting lying, deception, and disrespecting elders?

3) What is the difference between birthright and blessing? They sound similar.

4) If they are similar, why didn't Jacob just tell his father that Esau willingly gave up his birthright?

5) Are Isaac's words/blessings/curses really powerful enough to change the course of Jacob/Esau's life?

Sorry for all the questions but this whole passage seems really confusing to me.


texts: Did John Calvin believe that the grandchildren of a believer are entitled to infant baptism?

texts:
In Calvinism, the children of believers are considered "members of the covenant" and as a sign of that covenant, they are baptized as infants.

Practically speaking, this means that if at least one parent is a Christian and member of the church, then the child may be baptized.  But sometimes, people other than the parents might be considered "responsible" for that child's spiritual well-being, and thus a child could be baptized even if neither parent is a Christian/church member.

Sometimes those other people are grandparents, but the issue quickly gets tricky – for example, what about the cases of household slaves or foster children?  Usually, the litmus test is that the "sponsors" of the child must be in a situation to train and nurture the child.

However, I recently saw the claim that John Calvin believed that descendants of Christians, even several generations removed, were entitled to the sign of the covenant, without the requirement of a Christian "sponsor."  So, for example, the grandchild of a deceased member of the church would be entitled to infant baptism, even if no one else in the family is a Christian.

My initial reaction to this claim was skepticism, but on reflection I'm wondering if this would fit well within Calvin's system.  Did Calvin believe that descendants of church members, even to two or more generations, were entitled to infant baptism, even without a Christian guardian?  Where in his works does he argue for or against such a position?


texts: How did Pope Urban II justify the first Crusade?

texts:
According to the ten commandments, you shall not kill anyone. How did Pope Urban II justify from a theological standpoint the First Crusade? Since it was successful, Pope Urban II must have had to deal with the theological ramifications of killing all of the innocent people that were in the way of the armies.

What did he do/say to defend his position?


texts: Is Christian mysticism an oxymoron or is it a legitimate path for a Christian?

texts:
I've been in a debate online with another Christian of a different tradition (I'm Catholic, he is Baptist, I think) regarding mysticism, specifically Christian mysticism. He stated that mysticism is inherently pagan and non-Christian, and attempts to use the term Christian mysticism are essentially modern attempts to take a pagan concept and "Christianize" it. I believe that it is not necessarily unChristian, if it is done in a Christian manner. Christian mysticism and pagan mysticism may not be the same thing in practice, though similar in concept, where a Christian is experiencing a fuller communion with Christ but through Christ working in him, and a pagan using ritual to try and attain some deeper sense of the supernatural.

Is there such a thing as Christian mysticism? I've heard the term "mystic" used to describe some saints of the Church. Is this a fluke or is it legitimate? Or is it referring to something other than mysticism?


texts:
A gay pride rainbow flag flies along with the U.S. flag in front of the Asbury United Methodist Church in Prairie Village, Kan., on April 19, 2019. United Methodist Church leaders are proposing the creation of a separate division that would let more traditional denominations break away because of the disagreement with churches over the UMC’s official stance on gay marriage.
  AP FILE.
  Story here

What arguments do traditional UMC leaders make for separating themselves from the church over its  stance on gay marriage?


texts: Why is Jesus very implicit regarding his identity?

texts:
Why is Jesus very implicit in sharing his identity?
In the synoptic gospels Jesus speaks in parables and metaphors and at the end of many of these encounters it is mentioned that the people did not understand what Jesus meant (Luke 2:49-50, Luke 9:45, Luke 18:34).
Jesus uses various titles and refers to himself as the Son of Man, and calls God his Father.
In Luke 9:20 Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, they say the Messiah of God, and he leaves it at that, and does not give them further information.
Demons he cast out would tell of his identity yet he would silence them (Luke 4:35, Luke 4:41)
After some of his miracles he tells people not to share what they've seen (Luke 5:14, Luke 8:56).
People are stumped at his authority to cast out demons, forgive sins, and control the weather, yet he does not explain this to them and leaves them befuddled (Luke 4:36, Luke 5:21, Luke 7:49, Luke 8:25)
And whenever he does share or speak of his identity, he also does so implicitly, never clearly (Luke 17:18).
During his temptation he alludes to himself being God when he recites biblical verses. (Luke 4:12)
There are also confusing verses which might lead us to believe that Jesus is not claiming to be God (Luke 18:19).
Jesus has no issue exhibiting his supernatural powers either to crowds or to individuals, but in some instances requests that they be kept secret in order to conceal his identity. Jesus tends to be very mystical in his speech -- he speaks in parables and does not expand upon them even if his audience does not understand. Jesus does not correct his followers regarding his identity or directly explain to them who he is. Even if Jesus alludes to his divinity it is always muddy and never a clear-cut and definitive "I am God" or "I am the Messiah".
Why is Jesus very vague about his identity and sometimes outright tries to conceal it?


texts: Old Testament verses other than Genesis 3:15 speak of the "seed" of a woman. How, then, does it indicate a virgin birth?

texts:
I am researching prophecies about the virgin birth of Jesus in the Old Testament and am currently trying to find answers on specific issues.

Genesis 16:10; 24:60; 4:25; Leviticus 22:13; 1 Samuel 2:20-21.

The above verses talk about women and their "seed". How do these verses and prophecies agree with the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 if this verse refers to the virgin birth?

And how does the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15 differ from the 'seed of' the women mentioned in all the other Old Testament verses?

Can anyone enlighten me as to how these verses fit together?


texts: What is the Protestant view on a woman praying in the family when a man is present

texts:
The Bible says at 1 Cor 11:3 (ASV)

  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Also Ephesian 5:23 adds

  because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body.

However 1 Cor 11:5 says a woman should cover her head

  But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

An exempt from one article of JW had this to say

  A Christian wife would not normally pray aloud in the presence of her believing husband except in unusual circumstances, such as if he has been rendered mute by an illness.

This would rule out a woman praying in whatever circumstances unless the man is infirmed.

So the question is: Is it acceptable in Protestant view for a woman (wife, sister, grown child) to pray in the household when a man present?

I'd like an explanation with backings and not a backlash on any group. Thanks.


texts: Does the Catholic Church quote any saying of Jesus to which His question in John 14:2 can be attributed?

texts:
In John 14:2 we hear Jesus saying:  "... My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? "

I am not able to connect the said words of Jesus to any of His saying in the earlier chapters of John.  In other words,  Jesus does not appear to have promised  his disciples that He would be going to prepare a place for them, prior to His saying at John 14:2, nor is the Evangelist adding a remark from his side explaining that Jesus had said so at such and such time. In fact, John 14 seems to have an abrupt beginning.

My question is: does the Catholic Church quote any saying of Jesus to which His question to the disciples in John 14:2 can be attributed?


texts:
Jesus preached that the faithful should give up their wealth and worldly possessions and spend a humble existence in servitude of God. A church must have a certain amount of wealth in order to continue operating, serving its parishioners, and delivering the word to non-believers. However, churches of all denominations certainly amass wealth for its own sake. The canonical example of this is the Roman Catholic Church, whose ostentatious wealth I find shameful in the light of Jesus's teachings.

What does Christianity say about the wealth of a church? Its priests? Does wealth acquired in the name of the service of God have the same stigma as wealth acquired for ordinary reasons? Why or why not?

(Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, merely a curious agnostic.)


texts: Why did the Bishop of Rome accept (and retains until today) the title "Pontifex Maximus" and how were the rights and duties transferred/transformed?

texts:
According to the annual yearbook of the Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome holds many other titles:

Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.

The title Supreme Pontiff originated from a title usually held by the Roman Emperor, pontifex maximus (chief priest), whose main duty was to maintain the pax deorum (peace of the gods) by regulating expiatory sacrifices (to pagan gods) as well as administering the divine law (see wikipedia).
The first few Roman emperors who were Christian starting with Emperor Constantine still held this title, converting the title by imperial law (not church law) to make them the Head of the Church (giving Constantine the authority call the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to settle the Arian controversy!), until Emperor Gratian gave the title to Pope Damasus I. (Source: The Title Pontifex Maximus).
Since it was a title having to do with official state religion, what was the reason that Pope Damasus accepted (and the subsequent bishops of Rome retained) the title "Pontifex Maximus" and how were the rights & duties transferred / transformed?  Related subquestions (to help form the answer only):

Why wasn't the title retired instead, since "Vicar of Jesus Christ" is the title derived from the authority given by Jesus?

What is the significance of the title today (see picture of the inscription "Benedict XVI, Pontifex Maximus")? What are the rights the current Pope enjoys and the duties that he needs to perform under this title that is not already covered by other titles?

When did the title become "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" and what was the significance?

What does the Canon Law say about it?

Since the title originated when the Roman empire used to have an official religion (which became Christianity starting in AD 380) what is the relevance of the title in today's systems of secular governments, especially those holding the doctrine of separation of church and state?

If the title became useful as a state legal authority (as the article referenced above implies) can this title then be construed as potential interference with secular governments now that the age of Christendom has ceased?

Accepted answer should address the bold question at the minimum.


texts: We were reading the bible this morning and I asked my mum who named the books of the bible. She wasn't able to answer. Can you?


texts: How are 3 days/nights in grave prophecy reconclied if Jesus died on Good Fri & arose Sun?

texts:
Did Jesus die on "Good Friday"? If so, how is it that 3 days & 3 nights are reckoned between Fri - Sun?
“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40).


texts: What time is the "sixth hour" in John 4?

texts:
"...and Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with
  his journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour." John
  4:6 ASV

It was translated as "noon" in the NIV

  "...Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the
  journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon." John 4:6 NIV

But The Halley's Bible Handbook says that the "sixth hour" is in the afternoon (6 p.m.), because it's roman hour system

  "The 'sixth hour', v. 6, is the roman time, ie, 6 p.m." Halley's Bible
  Handbook page 474

In "Rome in Late Antiquity: Everyday Life and Urban Change, AD 312-609", by Bertrand Lançon, page 132, We found other time definition.

What time system John used?


texts: Is the tripartite God the judge in the Old Testament, and Jesus the appointed only judge in the New Testament?

texts:
In the Old Testament, Justice was meted out immediately by God, when Uzza touched the Ark, was this LORD the tripartite Godhead or the pre-incarnate Jesus.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

1st Chronicles 13:10 (New revised King James version) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he stroke him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
Revelation 20:11-12  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Jesus said:

John 5:26 and 27  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

and also:

John 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It is hard for me to determine if the Trinity or the pre-incarnate Jesus was the judge in the Old Testament, because of Jesus statement that he is the son of man, and whether that would be applicable prior to his earthly existence.
my question is not concerned with the immediate judgment, but who is making the judgment. In my use of the Old Testament quote was not to emphasize the quickness, but rather the fact that Uzza was killed by the 'LORD' while in the Revelation it is clear that it is Jesus who is judging. And if these are the same.
The use of the word 'LORD' in the Old Testament seemingly does not have the same connotation as it does in the new. Since in the New Testament it is used for Jesus also.
Old Testament:

Genesis 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

New Testament:

Matthew 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 24:42  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

In Matthew 24:42 it can only be referring to Jesus since it refers to his second coming.


texts: Location of the tabernacle in Catholic churches?

texts:
This is not just a church architecture question but also a theology question. I've noticed that the tabernacle where the consecrated hosts are stored is often located in the center of the older Catholic churches, behind the altar, so when you enter the church, it is a focal point. But in more contemporary churches, the tabernacle is somewhere else and instead when you enter the church you see chairs where the priests sit.
I would like to understand why this change occurred. Was there a change in theology? The message the newer layout sends compared to the old is that the priest has displaced the tabernacle. Surely that can't be the intended effect?


texts: How do advocates of Christian mortalism (aka "Soul sleep") interpret passages that suggest that humans remain conscious after leaving their bodies?

texts:
There are several passages in Scripture that suggest that human beings are still alive/conscious after being separated from their bodies (because of death or due to some sort of out-of-body experience). For instance:

The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Saul's conversation with Samuel's spirit through the assistance of a medium/spiritist. (1 Samuel 28:8-19)

Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8)

2 Corinthians 12:2-4

2 I know a man in Christ, who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.

2 Corinthians 5:8

8 but we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

Philippians 1:21-24

21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24 yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sakes.

The apostle John, who claims to be "in the Spirit" multiple times in Revelation:

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, (Revelation 1:10)

2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and someone was sitting on the throne. (Revelation 4:2)

3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. (Revelation 17:3)

10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, (Revelation 21:10)

I'm not sure if this list is exhaustive (edits are welcome), but at least these are some of the most notable examples in my opinion. How do Christian mortalism advocates make sense of these and similar passages?


texts: Does the New Testament mention Christians worshipping the Holy Spirit?

texts: The New Testament often mentions Christians worshipping God the Father, as well as His only-begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:23). However, does the New Testament mention Christians worshipping the Holy Spirit?


texts: What do "sin" and "death" mean in Romans 5:12?

texts:
Romans 5:12 NASB
  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

In my country's language, the word "sinned" is translated as an act against God's will. And the word "death" means spiritually dead.

So my interpretation is that someone— either a very young child age of 3 or a teenager to adult— has to do something against God's will first, then this person is spiritually dead. So (for example) if a toddler has not done something which is against God's will yet, this toddler is still spiritually alive.

My questions:

In the English language world, does the word "sinned" in that verse also mean an act against God's will or something else?
In the English language world, what does the word "death" mean in that verse? Does it mean that the person is not breathing anymore, or that they are spiritually dead?


texts: writing and pronouncing Bible references

texts:
How would you say this Bible reference:  Malachi 3:7b,8 & 10,11?
Also, is it written correctly?


texts:
Can anyone give me a concise summary of Martin Luther's "Two Kingdoms" theology, and also provide some references back to his original works on the subject?

Two kingdoms doctrine


texts: What does it mean that "many parts which are plain have been taken away"?

texts:
The question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35704/to-what-point-in-time-can-the-bible-be-proven-accurate made me wonder: Is the common interpretation of 1 Nephi 13:26-28 that something was physically omitted from scripture? I am aware of the Joseph Smith Translation, but is the point to bring back physically removed parts? In at least one instance I know of, the "translation" is just a commentary, with no changed text, that makes it clear what is meant. This makes me wonder whether the goal was a corrected understanding, not so much a corrected text.

An other interpretation I can come up with is that, without requiring much change to scripture, doctrines that are introduced (e.g. Trinity) became basis for further theology, scripture translation (translation is always also in part interpretation) and so on. That also "[take] away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious".

So, is the official position as of now that there were things physically omitted from scripture, or that the cause is rather false doctrines themselves that became the spiritual basis for later generations? Or is there no "official" interpretation?


texts: How did all the animals fit into Noah's ark?

texts:
During the great flood Noah was ordered by God to fetch two animals of each species and put them into his ark.

  19    And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of
  every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be
  male and female.

  20    Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals
  after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its
  kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

  21    As
  for you, take for yourself some of all afood which is edible, and
  gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.

Genesis 6:19-21

There are more than 1 million different species of animals in existence (that we know of), many of them are quite large or dangerous. How can all of those animals even fit into the ark, together with the vast amounts of food that would be needed?


texts: Why is the Gospel of Mark said to present Jesus as "the Servant"?

texts:
It is often asserted that the Gospel of Mark distinctively presents Jesus as the Servant, even the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

What is it about the particular content of the gospel of Mark that gives rise to this assertion?  What is the basis for this distinction?


texts: Are Matthew, Mark and Luke the same book in different version?

texts: I always thought Matthew, Mark and Luke are different books originally were written by different people. But recently I was told that Matthew, Mark and Luke are originally the same book but in different versions. At the beginning there was one book only and then it was edited or adjusted by different people so at the end we left with three versions of the same book. Is it true?


texts: What is "the moon runs down in a purple stream" referring to?

texts:
Regarding this verse of the traditional folk song “Didn’t My Lord Deliver Daniel”:

The moon runs down in a purple stream
And the sun refused to shine
And every star did disappear
Yes, freedom shall be mine

I realize that the second and third line allude to the Biblical passage about the sun disappearing at the moment of Christ's death. But what about the first line? What is this an allusion to?


texts: Why was Jehu considered a "bad" king of Israel?

texts: He started off well by killing Jezebel, thereby ridding the country of an evil presence. Where did he go wrong afterward? Did he for instance, adopt her idolatrous practices (or similar ones)?


texts: Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, why the elaborate ruse?

texts:
Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result.

Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons:

He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself.
He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive.
He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge.

In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?


texts: Why is the "serpent" in the Fall believed to be literal by many?

texts:
We know there is only suppositions that Satan was probably the "snake", but nothing solid proves this.  However many times, even today, we say "that bitch slapped me",  or that "dirty rat" hit me on the head... and so forth, neither of which assume we are speaking of a dog or a rat respectively.

There is no reason ignore this of the "snake" in Eden, as no scripture says otherwise. Keep in mind there are many things "cultural that are left out when books of the Bible were written. We may say "I drove to the grocery store", yet what is the word "drove?" How fast? etc.. But we leave that out in the paper, because it is obvious. This may be true of the Serpent.

Further more you can see there is a hint in Gen 3:14, that whoever/whatever Eve was conversing with, was already UPRIGHT - standing, or flying if we are dealing with Nephilim. God cursed "it" to the ground on "its" belly. To eat dirt for the rest of "its" life.

so it is quite possible that the dirty rat conned Eve. I have not found any scripture that says This is Satan, Are the churches teaching it literal? If so why?


texts: What is the difference between the names of "Jehovah God" and "The Lord"?

texts:
I noticed that the American Standard Version of the Bible describes God in a couple different ways.  For example, Genesis 3:8:

  And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden.

compared to Genesis 18:30

  And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

In the Old Testament, what is the difference between the names of "Jehovah God" and "the Lord"?


texts: Which denominations are considered mainstream in the UK?

texts:
Wikipedia lists these denominations as "mainline protestant" churches in the United States:

American Baptists
Disciples of Christ
Congregationalists / United Church of Christ
Episcopalians
Lutherans
Methodists
Presbyterians

However in the UK some of those denominations don't exist; I've always understood the British mainstream protestant denominations to be:

Anglican
Baptist
Methodist
United Reformed Church (The Congregationalists and Presbyterians merged a few decades ago to form this denomination).

Does such a definitive list exist anywhere? Is there a way in which some denominations are "officially recognised" in the UK while others aren't?


texts: When did the Oriental Orthodox Churches start being called 'Orthodox'?

texts:
The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian and so on) are distinct from the Oriental Orthodox (Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and so on).

Do we know when the term "Oriental Orthodox" started being used for these churches as a group? Likewise, do we know when the individual churches started referring to themselves as "Orthodox"? I'm curious if the term "Orthodox" was first used in other languages (possibly by missionaries) and then later adopted by the churches.

I believe that the Syriac Orthodox, for example, only started using the word Orthodox fairly recently, in the 19th century.


texts: In Theistic Evolution when do the genealogies in Genesis become real?

texts:
In Genesis there is the genealogy of Adam to Noah, then the account of the flood. After that is the genealogy of Noah to Abraham. The accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's sons then follow. After that is an unspecific number of persons to Moses.

Theistic Evolution, I would think, must reject the creation account as literal, therefore, the created Adam was not a real person. I would also think that Theistic Evolutionists reject the Flood as factual, at least in its scope being global, but the point is that I would bet there are many who say that Noah was not a real person, either. After that I have not heard much discussion from Theistic Evolutionists.

So, moving down the genealogy in Genesis, when is there majority consensus among Theistic Evolutionists that the persons become real and are no longer figurative? Seeing as how the Theistic Evolution movement is not really unified perhaps this question is too broad, but Catholicism has a stance that is very close to it so I would accept answers from that perspective, if there are any.


texts: Did John know Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God during Jesus's baptism?

texts:
We see that in John 1:31, John the Baptist said that he did not know Jesus. Some Bible commentators have said that what this meant was that John did not know Jesus was the Messiah.
However, we see in Matthew 3:14, John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized by him because Jesus needed no repentance. Jesus had no sins to repent. So does that mean that John knew Jesus was the Messiah or not? Did John believe Jesus was perfect or not?


texts: Why does a priest say "The Lord Be With You” and a bishop say "Peace Be With You" as a liturgical greeting?

texts:
One option for the liturgical greeting at the beginning of the Mass is:

Priest: The Lord be with you.
[or Bishop: Peace be with you.]
All: And with your spirit.

The phrase "The Lord be with you /  And with your spirit." is used in other parts of the Mass too without that difference.

Where does this difference between bishop and "ordinary" priest come from?
Are there theological and/or historical reasons?


texts: What is the Holy See and when is it appropriate to use this term?

texts:
Is the Pope, himself, ever referred to as the Holy See or is it simply the place where he lives?

Wikipedia says, "Often incorrectly referred to as 'the Vatican', the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929; the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times."

So what is it, exactly, and when should this term be used? Please include examples of when you would use the following, so that I might see the difference in selecting the most appropriate term for the right usage.

The Pope...
The Vatican...
The Holy See...


texts: Does the Bible say anything about a Conscious and Unconscious Mind?

texts:
Unfortunately, I don't have a rigorous definition of "conscious" and "unconscious" mind, although I think most of us would agree that they exist.

Question: Is there any verse in the Bible that says anything about the split between conscious and unconscious mind?


texts: Why doesn't the Catholic Bible include all books from Septuagint?

texts:
The Catholic Bible (as opposed to the Protestant Bible) includes the so-called deuterocanonical books. It's commonly simply stated that the books in Septuagint are included in the Catholic canon. However, some parts are not:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151
Prayer of Manasseh

I used the list of books in Septuagint from Wikipedia. Many of these are included in the Orthodox canons.

Why were these books of the Septuagint omitted from the Catholic Bible?


texts: What evidence is there that Jesus died on the cross?

texts:
Inspired by How long was Jesus in the tomb?, the question could be reasonably raised "if Jesus was only in the tomb for a day and a half, can we be sure that he really died, or were the witnesses mistaken?"

I'm looking not simply for biblical assertions by the biblical authors that Jesus died on the cross, but more objective facts about what happened. For example, if he got cold and blue, or if rigor mortis set in, or if the tomb began to smell, this type of data would be supporting evidence of his death.


texts:
Why did Rome become the seat of the Pope and the central location for the Church? I would think that Jerusalem would be the first choice. There are also a number of other cities that I would personally pick over Rome because of location and centrality to the early Church. Maybe the issue is that Rome was more central to the early church than I think it was.

I am looking for an answer that discusses the history mostly and the RCC opinion on this.


texts: What's the right terminology here for what God's allowing something, but not blessing it?

texts:
What's the right terminology here for when God's allowing something, but not blessing it?
I once had it, but now I forgot. It's something about two different types of God's will. One is kind of "allowing" will, for example, in such things like earthquakes, in which children die, and the other one is a "good-pleasure" will, for example, in such things like preaching the gospel and saving people. So, what are the correct words here?


texts: There is a a range of opinion of different denominations on how far Mosaic law should be practiced. Messianic Judaism stands very much at the "one law" end of the scale. However, I am wondering how far this is practicable. Some Mosaic law is difficult to practice within a larger context. For example, Messianic Jews do not generally (as far as I know never) stone people. However, I was wondering if they practice the jubilee year? Although this would be difficult for them concerning outside trading it could be practicable within the group.


texts: Catholic Exegesis: The Cleansing of the Temple

texts:
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16

My Questions:

Is this passage a "call to action" for Catholics?
Should Catholics be on alert for those who may hijack and corrupt the Church for unsavory purposes?
And should Catholics feel compelled or obligated to eradicate such individuals from the Church?


texts: In John 14 Jesus tells the disciples that he was going to prepare a place for them. Isn't it that heaven was already founded from creation?  So, what place was he referring to? Was this just a figure of speech?


texts: Using the Hebrew calendar is there a way to determine when the seventy seven's starts and ends?

texts: Using the Hebrew calendar is there a way to determine the start and end of the seventy seven's. Will it end on a jubilee year, and how will that date translate to our current calendar, for example what year? Or will this require to much speculation and be outside the scope of this site?


texts: People always make jokes about the number 666 and how it's evil and such. What is the basis of this?


texts: Does the Russian Orthodox Church venerate the saints of the Orthodox Church in America?

texts: After the Russian Revolution, the Orthodox Church in America became nominally independent of the mother church. The OCA has since canonized saints who lived in Russian America such as German and Petr (the former was also reportedly "venerated" by Patriarch Alexy II). Do these saints enjoy any formal status in the Russian church, or are they only of interest to Orthodox belivers in America?


texts: Jesus' power to forgive sins and to cure the sick

texts:
If one is to answer this question which Jesus  posed to the scribes :  "..For which is easier, to say,  'Your sins are forgiven ', or to say 'Rise and walk' ?... "(Matt. 9:5)  one would opt in favor of the former for an answer. But, Jesus appears to have had the latter option in mind, as is forthcoming from the subsequent narrative. Is it true that the power to forgive sins was entrusted to a limited few, and those who exercised that power without authority were  treated to have committed blasphemy , thereby putting themselves at risk ?
Can someone enlighten me ?


texts: Did Christ have the freedom to choose to avoid crucifixion?

texts:
Inspired by this answer, Jesus talks about this authority in John 10:18 (NIV):

  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

In precisely what sense does Jesus have this "authority?"  @Richard's answer (linked above), suggests that this means Christ had the authority to either lay down his life or not...  But that's not the only way we use the phrase "authority."

Consider a police officer with a warrant to arrest a suspect.  He knocks on the door and says "I have the authority to arrest you."  This doesn't imply that the officer has a choice in the matter.  He does have the authority to make the arrest, but he also has the obligation to make the arrest.  A failure to make the arrest (except for extenuating circumstances) would result in disciplinary action against the officer.

Did Christ really have "free will" in this matter?

In fact, Christ even says it's a command from His Father; which suggests that he did not have authority not to give up his life.


texts: Why is being gay considered more sinful than being divorced or commiting adultery?

texts:
I am looking for Biblical evidence that homosexuality is a greater sin than adultery or divorce (for any reason other than adultery).

Prohibitions of "sexual immorality" could cover homosexuality, and I understand that Christian marriage is to be the joining of a man and woman as long as they live. I have also read Paul's warnings about men acting/dressing like women and vice versa, but these still don't seem to be outweighed by the passages relating to adultery.

Many Christians are opposed secular gay marriage but do not seem to oppose secular divorce that can set aside a Christian marriage for "no fault".


texts: What is the difference between evangelizing and proselytizing?

texts: Aren't they both focused on converting people? What's the difference?


texts: Why is God considered by many to be a male?

texts:
I am not a Christian, but I believe in many of the biblical stories and the message that they provide for the world to be a better place. I think the Bible could be more accepted and it’s strong ethical messages become regarded and understood better, if people discussing the Bible would use more inclusive language.

I just wanted to see you alls thoughts.


texts: Why is Freemasonry considered by many evangelicals to be incompatible with Christianity?

texts: Many Protestant and Evangelical churches and Christians view Freemasonry as incompatible with Christianity and teach that a Christian should not be a member of the group. What is the basis, biblical or otherwise, for this position?


texts: Are there sola scriptura inerrantists who reject sensus unum as a general hermeneutic?

texts:
I have noticed that adherers to sola scriptura that defend biblical inerrancy nearly always argue from a sensus unum understanding of scripture as opposed to a sensus plenior understanding of scripture.

Those who argue for a sensus unum will say that a sensus plenior contradicts biblical inerrancy.

Are there any schools of Reformed thought (liberal or otherwise) which have rejected the sensus unum view and yet still affirm biblical inerrancy from a view of sensus plenior?
Or for that matter, are there any Reformed persons who argue for such a position?


texts: What theological differences exist between Baptist and Evangelical Free denominations?

texts:
What theological differences exist between Baptist churches and the Evangelical Free Church of America?

Where Baptist viewpoints might differ, assume American Baptist Churches USA as the specific Baptist denomination.


texts: How would a Christian explain the contradiction of loving but calling homosexuality a sin?

texts:
In the Bible it is said many times that homosexuality is a sin.

It is also said that love is the most important thing, and compassion is important as well; love your neighbor as yourself.

This appears to be a contradiction - in calling something a sin and yet being called to love.

How do Christians explain what seems to be a contradiction here?


texts: Do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December?

texts: Being a denomination which prides itself of the restored beliefs of the original church before false doctrine infiltrated the truth, do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December? If so on what scriptural basis do they have for that date?


texts:
Genesis 5:3-32 ESV spends a great deal of time describing the age of the men in Adam's lineage through Seth.  Why are the men of Genesis so old? Were the dating systems just different? Are all of these old ages supposed to have symbolic meaning? Why does the Bible focus on the age at which they had one child in particular, and then how much time passed until each died?

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
"When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh.  Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.
"When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan.  Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.
"When Kenan had lived 70 years, he fathered Mahalalel.  Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died.
"When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he fathered Jared.  Mahalalel lived after he fathered Jared 830 years and had other sons and daughters.  Thus all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years, and he died.
"When Jared had lived 162 years he fathered Enoch. Jared lived after he fathered Enoch 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Jared were 962 years, and he died.
"When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not,for God took him.
"When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.
"When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died.
"After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth."