texts: Do Mormons believe in the immortality of the soul?

texts:
Some scriptures refer to the soul as something that can die.

For example, Acts 3, verse 23:

  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that
  prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

And Ezekiel 18, verse 4:

  Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the
  soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Some scriptures say that there is no life after death.

For example, Psalm 146, verses 3 and 4:

  Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is
  no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that
  very day his thoughts perish.

What is the LDS interpretation of these verses, according to their doctrine? Do Mormons believe that man has an immortal soul?


texts: Are there any biblical examples of Early Church disciples praying to deceased saints in order to request their intercessory prayer?

texts:
Certain Christian denominations, notably Catholicism and Orthodoxy, hold the belief that living Christians can pray to deceased saints in order to request their supportive intercessory prayer. Is there any evidence in the New Testament that this was a common practice among Early Church disciples? Can we find examples of this practice in the book of Acts, or any other New Testament book for that matter?
If we can't find such Early Church examples, are there any instances of this practice in the whole Bible at all?


texts:
In the time of Christ, were there mystics, Jewish or otherwise, with whom Christ consorted before or during the time of His ministry?

By "mystics" is meant those comparable to Sufi mystics, who seek hidden spiritual truths by various means, and not those who perform acts the results of which are unexplained by temporal science ("magicians".)


texts: What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?

texts:
The terms orthodox and catholic have immense significance to those that seek to make exclusive truth claims about their particular Christian Tradition. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox trace their descent from (prior to schism) one catholic and orthodox Church. As a result, it would seem to be virtually impossible to concede the exclusive use of one of these terms to "the other side".

How does the Roman Catholic Church view using the terms orthodox or Orthodox generally, but particularly in regard to describing Eastern Orthodoxy?

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism?
At what point did the Roman see start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?
At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?


texts: According to Catholics, was faith in the assertions made in the Creed of St. Athanasius required of those in the first 3 centuries?

texts:
If the person that penned the Creed of St. Athanasius that was identified by St. Thomas Aquinas as being St. Athanasius based on "style" had not published his opus and had it declared Truth until the Fourth (4th) Century AD; and

One must believe every word of it or burn in Hell forever; and

No one before St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) had heard of this information.

Should we understand there to have been no Christians prior to the fourth (4th) century AD?

If not, why not?


texts: What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy?

texts:
In the Journal of Discourses, LDS apostles suggest that Jesus Himself was married, that He had children, and that He and His disciples endorsed polygamy.

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion.  Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 259
What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “He shall see his seed, prolong his days, &c.” Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This be witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty.  Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 260
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a
plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers.   We might almost think they were "Mormons".  Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, Page 346.

Was this ever the official teaching of the LDS Church?  If so, what biblical support for these doctrines is there?


texts: Is there any evidence to support the claim that the Apostle St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch and, if so, what are the implications?

texts:
According to tradition, the Apostle Peter founded the Church in Antioch in A.D. 34 and is regarded as the first Bishop of Antioch.  Here are a few extracts from  sources I found regarding this claim:

  Peter preached the Gospel in Judea, founded the Church of Antioch and finally came to Rome... St. Peter traditionally is regarded as the leader of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus... In the course of his missionary journeys, Peter founded the Church in Antioch, where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. St. Peter is regarded by the Church as the first Bishop of Antioch, and the present-day Patriarch of Antioch is his successor in that Apostolic See. - Saints Peter and Paul

  Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34... It was the resolution of this conflict [male circumcision] at the Council of Jerusalem under Saint James the Apostle that determined the direction of the Antiochian mission to the Gentiles, and the dynamic nature of that Christian community in its missionary outreach. - The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul

  Patriarch of Antioch is a traditional title held by the Bishop of Antioch (founded by Saint Peter). As the traditional "overseer" (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos, from which the word bishop is derived) of the first gentile Christian community, the position has been of prime importance in the church from its earliest period. This diocese is one of the few for which the names of its bishops from the apostolic beginnings have been preserved...  According to church tradition, this ancient Patriarchate was founded by the Apostle Saint Peter. - Patriarch of Antioch (Wikipedia)

Apparently Ignatius was bishop of Antioch (martyred under Emperor Trajan circa A.D. 110)

Theophilus was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 169-183)

Serapion was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203)

Is there any substantive evidence to support the claim by the Antiochian Orthodox Church that the apostle Peter founded their church?  And, if so, what are the implications with regard to the Roman Catholic Church claiming Peter founded their church in Rome?


texts: What religious beliefs did the Galatians hold when Paul first preached the gospel to them?

texts:
When Paul originally proclaimed the Gospel to the Galatians, were they at that time pagan, Jewish, or something else. Did they ever hear of Christ Jesus before Paul?
For reference:

You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
Galatians 4:13-14


texts: Why does Romans 5:19 say "many" instead of "all"? (Overview)

texts:
By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners
Rom 5:19

Why does it not say "all" but "many"? Because the previous verse says:

By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation
Rom. 5:18

Does this mean that not all were made sinners though upon all came to condemnation?
I am interested in an overview of the major views in Christianity.


texts: Trying to understand the footnotes in the documents of the Vatican II council

texts:
PREFACE:

I am trying to familiarize myself more with more proper catholic doctrines declared by the Vatican II council for when I interact with Catholics, more than just reading the Catechism. A monumental task that I am slown down by the somewhat cryptic footnotes.

EXAMPLE:

cf. St. Augustine, "De Catechizandis Rudibus," C.IV 8: PL. 40, 316. | the very first footnote of the very first constitution listed here, Deī Werbum.

It is fairly easy to understand: confer to "De Catechizandis Rudibus," by St. Augustine of Hippo circa IV... However, I can find nothing for Pl.

What source am I supposed to use? The only compy of the document I can find is not arranged in any such chapters or verses that this could mean, I have no idea. And the only usage of PL. I am acquanted with and can find is plural.

What is 4 8: plural 40, 316?

THESE ARE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES:

f. Council of Trent, session IV, loc. cit.: Denzinger 783 (1501).

What is Denzinger 783?

I can list far more examples, but it just looks very disorganised. I assume it is a very traditional way of doing it and there is nothing wrong with that, I am just both unfamiliar with this format and have no idea where they would want anyone else to look for these citations. This is meant to be the clear, dogmatic statement that
can be checked back and back again to confirm what the all the council has decided on and what the catholic Church should hold in common, so  I know it is not un-understandable.


texts: In Christ's time the Jews believed in Purgatory and still do. Why don't Protestants?

texts: The Jews believe in Purgatory, why don't Protestants?


texts: Why Jesus died on the cross and not by any other mean?

texts: I know why Jesus died for us? But why the cross? Why not by any other mean?


texts: Which monk states that the Old Testament is about the Father and the New Testament about the Holy Ghost

texts:
Somebody mentioned to me in a conversation that there was a monk in the 13th century who held the belief that the OT is about the Father and the NT is about the Holy Ghost. The death and resurrection are right in the middle of this. The monk was considered a heretic in his time.
However, he forgot the name of the monk.
Is there a monk who held this belief?


texts: 144,000: is there any denomination or group holding this symbolic interpretation?

texts:
Motivation: We know that a way to express fullness or completion in Hebrew is to double the word, e.g. Isaiah 26:3 speaks of perfect peace as shalom shalom.  And there are clear cases in Revelation where the author uses doubles; in fact, at 5:11 he doubles the double! (Myriad myriad, and thousand thousand angels).

My speculation: When we read of the 144,000 (at 12:4) perhaps this could mean something like a perfect completion of multitudes (?) fitting in with verse 9.  Of course, an obvious counter would be "But he specifies 12,000 coming from each of the tribes of Israel." Got it.

Yet I wonder if there is still a symbolism going on here.  The 12 tribes have corresponding gemstones, as on the high priest's garments -- see Ex 28:21; the gemstones  in turn correspond to zodiacal constellations (see, for example, this link http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/12stones.html).  And it does not seem like too big a stretch to also see those constellations as representative of all nations and tribes and so on, since they circle the earth.

My question: Does anyone know of a denomination, school of thought, or theologian holding this symbolic view, or a compatible view?


texts: According to the Eastern Orthodox, in what sense did the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) give birth to Christ's divinity?

texts:
Nestorianism would claim that Mary only gave birth to Christ's humanity.  When I thought about it and considered it, I realized my prior attitude towards the Virgin Birth had been somewhat Nestorian, and so now I'm awe-struck at the fact, according to Orthodox understanding, that Mary gave birth to both Christ's humanity and divinity in some way.

How far does this go?  How does a finite, created being give birth to the pre-eternal God who existed before the Ages, including His divinity?  As we say in Small Compline in the hymn 'Awed by the beauty', "I am in doubt, and stand in awe", but yet, I want to know, how much does the Eastern Orthodox Church know on this topic?  In what sense did the Virgin give birth to the Divine?  Was the Divine Nature recreated through her, or was she somehow infused with the Divine Nature so that Christ inherited it from her in birth? How much do we know?  What do the Saints say on this topic?


texts: What resurrection are they talking about? Matthew 22:28

texts:
I've developed the habit of not-just-reading the Bible, but dedicated my precious moment-just-after-waking-up time to give some effort to study the Bible every morning slowly. I read the Gospel chapters (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) at least once in a lifetime, well I'm reading it yet again with a hope that I might find something new and astounding and now I'm hit with this particular verse

“Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
(Matthew 22:28 NIV)

What resurrection are the Sadducees talking about? Because what I presume of the resurrection is that Jesus will come to earth, departing the heavens at the time no one knows, not even the angels (and we must be always prepared for him, living a blameless life, well, I repent all the time in Jesus's name, nevertheless, God loves me whatsoever). And while he comes again, the dead in Christ will rise first and are gathered together and ascend into heaven with Jesus. This what I imagine of the "resurrection" (of humankind) but when I read this particular verse, I am confused as to how they see "resurrection", from what I understand is that the Sadducees think "resurrection" is continuation of bloodline or something, when a husband dies, it is his male siblings' responsibility to continue his bloodline by making love with his wife or something like that or even if all his siblings die, the wife remains by herself as a childless widow, or someone "should" bear her children(I assume this is hard so that's the reason the Sadducees must have thought there is no "resurrection"). But my question here is,
What resurrection are they talking about?


texts: Any philosphers arguing that the Christian worldview is the most rational?

texts:
I have seen life at either extreme, first as a Hindu, with a sort of blind faith in general religiosity, and later as an atheist, with a blind faith in knowledge obtained through the senses alone. I have now been a Christian for 2 years, and I find that it resonates with my life experiences, and I am wiser and more balanced in living my life. Christianity seems to be the most rational of all worldviews I have experienced, if we define rationality not solely at an intellectual level, but at a level which takes into account the human experience. In fact, since we are embodied beings, and not merely thinking agents(or philosophers), I would suggest that the very definition of rationality of a worldview needs to take this "experiential" reality into account. To try and put things another way, Christianity seems rational at a holistic and integrative level -- one involving faith, reason, emotion, intellect and experience -- a level that transcends pure reason alone.

I would like to know if any Christian philosophers or apologists have made a case for Christianity from this sort of definition of what it means to be rational.

I would like to add the excerpt below, taken from Wikipedia, as a guide to the notion of rationality that I refer to.

  In philosophy, rationality is the characteristic of any action,
  belief, or desire, that makes their choice optimal under a set of
  constraints.


texts: Can a non-christian be trusted to translate the Bible?

texts:
I've seen a number of comments and answers (here and elsewhere) regarding the [un]reliability of a specific translation. Occasionally, the angle of attack on a given translation is (kind of) ad hominem toward the translator(s).

Is it possible for a non-Christian to produce a "good" translation of the Bible?

The definition of a "good translation" is perhaps up for debate, but the upshot of the question is, should a Christian avoid studying (perhaps only primarily) a translation that is not made by a (group of) believer(s)?

I read Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible?, but this question was not really addressed. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'm sure that I haven't considered all angles of the question.


texts: According to Catholicism, what is the purpose of praying for the dead?

texts: What is the purpose of praying for the dead according to Catholicism?


texts: Using the invitatory at the office of Vigils

texts:
I read the Office of Readings every day. On Sundays and solemnities, I read it as a vigil office, before Compline/night prayer.

I know broadly how to do it -- after the second responsory, you read the seasonal canticles, then the gospel of the Sunday/solemnity, followed by the closing prayer.

I'm interested, however, in one particular detail.

This is the invitatory. This is supposed to be said before the first office of the day, which for me is almost always the Office of Readings. I'm not sure what to do, however, if I'm reading the Office of Readings as the Office of Vigils the previous evening.

Should the invitatory be said at Vigils, or is it said at Lauds on those days?


texts:
2 Kings 6:15-17 (KJV)
  15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
  16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
  17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Is this the result of the power of Elisha's prayer and/or is it possible that while on this earth, I will ever be able to see like this?


texts: Was Hebrews included in the canon solely because it was assumed to be authored by Paul, or was there any other basis for its canonization?


texts: Why do Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart?

texts: I wonder why Roman Catholics show devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary if their devotion can be shown to Jesus Christ and Mary instead? What's the difference?


texts: Why didn't Jesus want the demon possessed people to tell who he was?

texts:
So Jesus healed great numbers of sick people who had many different kinds of diseases, and he ordered many demons to come out of their victims. But because they knew who he was, he refused to allow the demons to speak. Mark 1:34  NLT

  So Jesus healed many people who were sick with various diseases, and
  he cast out many demons. But because the demons knew who he was, he
  did not allow them to speak

Mark 3:12 NLT

But Jesus strictly warned them not to say who he was.


texts: Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? Does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit?

texts:
Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? From this comes following: does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit?

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 3:23, KJV, emphasis mine)
They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:5-6, KJV latter)

This site claims that John 3:23 refutes LDS claim of pre-existence.


texts: Was Joseph Smith interested in and familiar with Kabbalah?

texts:
We know that historically Joseph Smith taught himself Hebrew (as to how well, I'm not sure), and that he held beliefs similar to Jewish mysticism (degrees of heaven, preexistence, fall of angels, etc.), but do we know if he had access to and was familiar with Kabbalah writings? Did he study them in the original Hebrew?

How familiar would the average American Christian leader at that time be with Kabbalah? Is Joseph Smith exceptional in this regard?


texts:
Should a wife of permanent deacon candidate be a Catholic?

Can she belong to some schismatic (non-Catholic) church, like Eastern Orthodox, for instance?


texts: What about all those who just don't know?

texts:
Romans 10:9

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

John 14:6

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Combining the passages of Romans 10:9 and John 14:6 it can be interpreted that the only way to heaven is by knowing of Christ Jesus, confessing that He is Lord and believing in the Resurrection. If this is indeed the case, what of all those who have never heard of Jesus or simply don't understand who Christ really is? Without first knowing a Christ has indeed lived, died and been resurrected, how can someone make such a confession and believe in something they haven't first heard of or truly understood. I know the year we live in, and I understand how it might, to some, seem unlikely that there are actually people who have never heard anything about Christianity. But there really are people who haven't heard the whole Gospel and some who wouldn't know what the word Gospel meant. What is to be of these people? Some of "these" people rake the neighbors leaves in the fall just to be nice, call you up to watch a game when your dog dies, talk you up when you didn't think you had it in you to meet your future wife etc etc.


texts:
I'm reading a book on prayer, and one of the claims that the author makes is that the Lord's Prayer was not intended to be recited word-for-word in corporate worship.  Part of his argument relates to its use in the early church:

  Through the many years which the New Testament history embraces [...] we find no allusion, not even the most remote, to the prayer in question. [...] We find no evidence of its having been statedly introduced into public worship until several centuries after the death of the apostles.

Thus my question: When did the early church begin reciting the Lord's Prayer in corporate worship?

Reference: Thoughts on Public Prayer, 54


texts: What is the basis for the LDS (Mormon) teaching regarding Atonement in Gethsemane rather than at Calvary?

texts:
I recently read the the LDS Church teaches that it was in Gethsemane while Jesus was praying where the atonement occurred rather than on the Cross of Calvary.

What is the biblical basis for this doctrine, and when did this teaching originate in the LDS Church?


texts: Question about the PCUSA treatment of Scriptures

texts:
I read an article the other day about the PCUSA church, and I will preface this question with the disclaimer that I have not done extensive research on the church, but it said that they hold the Bible to be doctrine and teach from it, but do not believe that it is without error. The article was written in response to the PCUSA changing their definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people", essentially supporting gay marriage.

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

If the Bible itself says that ALL scripture is God breathed, how can one believe this is not true (by saying it is not inerrant) and yet still hold it to be doctrine?

I guess I'm just curious as to the logic behind teaching from the bible which explicitly says something is wrong, but then supporting it? The Bible doesn't really seem to me like something you get to pick and choose what of it you want to believe.


texts: Mere Christianity Book I Chapters 1 and 2: How would Lewis explain morality being inherently known but also taught?

texts:
I recently started reading Mere Christianity, and I am trying to figure out Lewis's view on whether morality is taught or is something that every person knows by nature. He seems to claim both views, and  I am trying to figure out how he reconciles them (or if I have just misunderstood something).
In chapter 1 ("The Law of Human Nature"), Lewis states the following:

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right.

Then in chapter 2 ("Some Objections"), Lewis addresses an objection that the Law of Nature is just a social convention "that is put into us by education." He responds with the following:

The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else.

He then goes on to explain why the Law of Nature / Moral Law / Rule of Decent Behavior falls into the same category as mathematics, being a real truth instead of a convention.
On the surface, it seems like Lewis is making opposing statements: first that this moral law is intrinsically known by humans without being taught and second that it is something that is in fact taught. My guess at this point is that he sees our sense of right and wrong as a faculty that must be developed. While we may know the principles of morality as children, we do not know all of the applications of those principles and must be taught. And perhaps it is a sense that can become sharpened or dulled, so good teaching could sharpen it.
That's how I would reconcile those statements based on how in the first quote someone without moral knowledge is likened to someone with an impaired sense. But that may just be the way I would explain it, and I'm not confident that that is actually the way he would explain those statements. Perhaps there is something that is so obvious to him (and everyone else in the world since his target audience was all of the UK) that it goes without saying, and I have completely missed it.
So if anyone has any insights into what Lewis has said or would say on how morality is inherently known while also being taught, please share. Thanks!


texts: Are all of the red letter text the words of Jesus?

texts: To what extent can we be sure that the red letters in a KJV Bible are the actual words of Jesus?


texts: Can Catholics serve as godparents at an Anglican infant's baptism?

texts: My wife and I (both Catholic) have been asked to serve as godparents at our niece's baptism. The child's parents are fully aware of our strong commitment to the Catholic faith. I've received conflicting advice, and I wonder if anyone here can point to clear teaching on whether or not it is licit for us to serve as godparents at a baptism in an Anglican church.


texts:
The sainted apostle "Doubting" Thomas is called Didymus, the Twin. Indeed, Thomas also means Twin.

  Thomas, called Didymus  /  Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2)

There is no clear indication in the Bible of who his twin might have been, but it seems that several extra-Biblical traditions exist that try to fill in the gap.

Can anyone run through the different possibilities, and their level of support and acceptance?

It seems to me that since a lot of this comes from the NT Apocrypha, there's a greater than usual density of Internet rubbish around the topic. Thanks in advance to anyone who can wade through it, or find more reliable sources instead!


texts: What was the language that Enoch spoke and did the Book of Enoch get written 3000 years BC is there any proof or carbon dating of that?

texts: I would like to know if the Book of Enoch was dated around 3000 BC and what language did he speak and is there any carbon dating that was use on any book found? And where are the oldest Scripture of his writings kept?


texts: Will we be reunited with our family and friends in heaven?

texts: Yes, I have faith in God and I would really like to go to heaven after I die, not hell, no way! I trust in God and would like to see my family and friends in heaven after they die, only if they make it there. I would never, ever want to go to hell!


texts: Why is it said that the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as the King of the Jews?

texts:
I have heard it stated that the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as, specifically, the King of the Jews, rather than the Messiah, the Incarnate Word, or anything else.

What is the basis for this assertion?


texts: Why do Roman Catholics consider eating fish on Friday a good work?

texts: Please forgive me if there are caveats or circumstances to this idea that I am not aware of.


texts: What does Paul grieving over the Corinthians imply?

texts:
impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.
  ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening. 20 For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21 I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged. - 2 Corinthians 12:19-21

In this passage Paul mentions that when he comes to the Corinthians again he fears that he would "be grieved" also those who have not repented of their sins.

Does this imply Christians falling away from faith, sin resulting in death or is it a contextual issue?


texts: Was Jesus an adherent to 'Sola Scriptura'?

texts:
Adherents to Sola Scriptura basically believe that Scripture should be the foundation of all doctrine.  (NOTE: That is not to say that outside sources cannot be used to aide us in understanding the text - see here.)

Based on what we know about Jesus from Scripture, could Jesus be considered an adherent to this philosophy?


texts: What is Young-Earth Creationism, and how is it argued for?

texts: What is Young-Earth Creationism, and the Biblical basis for it?


texts: Did the Catholics or Orthodox suspend the Lenten fast during times of war?

texts:
It would make sense for an enemy nation with knowledge of the Catholic or Orthodox systems of fasting to attack during the fasting seasons, when the faithful were not well fed. As a corollary, it would make sense for a Catholic or Orthodox nation to abstain from war during a fasting season.
Are there any recorded instances, or perhaps some Catholic canon law or Orthodox economy, regarding the suspension of Lenten or other fasts during times of war?


texts: In Catholicism, what does it mean for a priest to bless an object or person?

texts: Catholic priests bless water to make holy water and they bless the faithful at the end of Sunday masses. The Pope has a special apostolic blessing that he gives out sometimes. I know that it is good to be blessed in this way. But why? Does anything change in the receptor of the blessing? If so, what exactly changes?


texts: What are the historical arguments against a literal interpretation of Luke 22:44?

texts:
This question led me to reread Luke 22:44 in various translations, and I noticed that all of them used a comparison, as if Jesus’s sweat was similar to great drops of blood, but not actually great drops of blood. Then I read this commentary:

  Athanasius even goes so far as to pronounce a ban upon those who deny this sweat of blood.

What arguments was Athanasius fighting against? In addition, what made this issue so significant to Athanasius that he banned the belief outright? As of yet, I’ve been unable to find either his attackers’ arguments or anything from Athanasius himself on the issue. The commentary mentions one “Theophylact”, but I can’t seem to find him either. All Wikipedia had is this list, and all of them lived well after Athanasius.


texts: St Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs - Translation

texts:
My wife has currently undertaken a project to translate a prayer card from English to Polish. There is a reference on the card to Saint Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs.

My question is, what are these "Needs"? I presume that this is a reference to a specific text written by St. Augustine. Does anyone know which one? Translating the footnote "Saint Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs" is difficult since we don't know what this means.

Thanks,
mj

Edit 1 ----

The prayer card is somewhat ambiguous in this in that it describes how to pray and references these "needs." It references 6 of them. I've copied the text and preserved the bolding/italics.

Pray a very sorrowful, very sincere, heartfelt "Act of Perfect Contrition." This will give us the correct disposition to pray. The best way to present your petitions is with less sins on your soul. St. Augustine's 1st and 2nd Needs

Pray the 3 "All Healing Prayers" slowly and wholeheartedly! Perseveringly and vocally to hear and to emphasize your prayers! By praying this way you are praying as perfectly as you can, praying the way Jesus taught us. St. Augustine's 3rd and 4th Needs

Pray the following Mary Mediatrix, proven "All Healing Prayers". When you pray, hold out your right hand to Mary's hand in the Miraculous icon and she will spiritually hold your hand in prayer! By praying this way, you are praying most lovingly, most reverently, most humbly - with deep faith, deep trust, like a small child, tenderly holding Our Dearest, Most Loving Mother's comforting hand. St. Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs

/Edit 1 ----


texts: Baptismal names in the Greek Orthodox Church!

texts:
Where can I find an EXHAUSTIVE list of baptismal names in the Greek Orthodox Church; i.e an EXHAUSTIVE list of Names that have been given to a person (the frequency; i.e the number of people given each name are secondary) by the Greek Orthodox Church?

There are certainly some ancient Greek names like Alexandros, Leonidas, Aristotelis, Socratis, Hermis, Afroditi, Dimitra, Aris, Paris, Ektoras, Euklidis, Achilleas e.t.c

But others like Anaximandros, Anaxagoras, Dias e.t.c are unheard of. At least I know no person named as such.


texts:
In Luke 11:50-51, the Lord Jesus Christ calls Abel a prophet:

  "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of
  all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
  from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed
  between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation
  will be held responsible for it all." Luke 11:50-51 NIV

I have in mind the concept of prophet as one who acted as God's mouthpiece, relaying the words of God to men in accordance with God's instructions.
However, I coun't find no record of any prophetic utterance from Abel.

What then made him a prophet?


texts: Why aren't there any Baptist monasteries?

texts: So, why aren't there any Baptist monasteries? Is there some sort of theological opposition, or do Baptists just don't do it?


texts: What is the Christian counterpart of Sharia and Halakha?

texts:
Both Islam and Judaism have religious law which cover matters from acts of worship to the principles of government. In Islam it is Sharia (Arabic: الشريعة; literally "law") and in Judaism it is Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה; literally "walking").

So my question is does Christianity also have anything similar? And if yes, then is it still considered valid?


texts: Which order/choir of angels did Satan most likely belong to before he fell?

texts:
In the Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas answers that Satan could have belonged to either the lower grade of angels or to the higher angels before he fell.

According to Catholic texts, which of the orders/choirs of angels revealed in the Bible did Satan most likely belong to before he fell?


texts: If marriage is not a sacrament for reformed churches, how to interpret Ephesians 5:32?

texts:
As far as I know, Martin Luther in his "Vom ehelichem Leben" indicates that marriage is not a sacrament. Calvin mentioned in the Institutes that it was Gregory I who denoted marriage as a sacrament.

I would like to know how the reformed churches interpret Ephesians 5:32 where marriage is linked to a great mystery (=sacramentum?) between Christ and his church. I will appreciate especially citations from Luther, Calvin or other similar authorities.


texts: What has been said about happy unbelievers?

texts:
I've listened to many sermons, from Jerry Falwell to Tim Keller to Tullian Tchividjian. One common theme is that bad theology, that misapplication of Scripture, can be the direct cause of temporal sadness, even clinical depression. It wouldn't be too hard to find citations from the above pastors' work, and I imagine that every pastor eventually makes the claim.

For example, I just heard a sermon from Tullian that said having a legalistic, reward/punishment view for improving the behavior of your wife only leads to conflict. Here's another similar quote: "Legalism breeds a sense of entitlement that turns us into complainers".

Yet "legalism" may be a fair description of many philosophies and non-Christian religions. And we don't necessarily see a 1:1 correlation between depression and having other religions. I've known nonbelievers, usually immigrants, who have a very cheerful disposition.

Q:What have prominent theologians said about happy nonbelievers? Are they said not to be really happy? Having a short, temporal happiness? Or have they been careful to point out that bad theology causing unhappiness isn't indication lack of good theology dooms one to general unhappiness?


texts: Under a Protestant perspective what sort of ‘sacrifices’ as a symbolic priest can a believer perform within the ‘priesthood’ of all believers?

texts:
In 1 Peter believers are represented as a Priesthood that 'offer spiritual sacrifices'. Assuming that they can't be for expiation as only Christ was worthy to offer his own soul for that (represented by animal blood in the OT) what sort of sacrifices are these?:

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (ESV, 1 Peter 2:4-5)

Note: I used a technical word that seems to require a definition.
Expiation definition
Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be "covered" by vicarious satisfaction. The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the law against the sins of God's people, whereby he became "propitious" to them. The idea of vicarious expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. (Bible Dictionary)


texts: Can a mentally ill person who takes medication regularly be a Catholic priest?

texts:
If a person is mentally ill but his mental illness is controlled by medication and he feels God is and was calling him earnestly for the last forty years of his life to become a priest, can he become a Catholic Diocesan priest?

Will his mental illness be a barrier between him and his priesthood?


texts: Why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus? What were they trying to achieve?

texts: I would like to know why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus (in his words) and what were they trying to achieve by it?


texts:
I've heard it reported that Martin Luther told his parishioners to "sin boldly". I'm not sure if this is based in fact and his writings or something that is made up by Catholics to paint him badly.

If he did say this, what's the original source/context, and how is it explained? Is he claiming that sin has no ultimate consequences? Is he claiming that sin has no consequences whatsoever? Is he claiming that it's "ok" to sin?

Please help me to exegete Luther's statement.


texts: What does the Bible say about giving your life away for Jesus?

texts:
On a Christian radio station I constantly hear the phrase "to give your life away for Jesus" but they never say what that means.

I am very confused about this concept. Any clarification is helpful, thanks !


texts: What is the Biblical basis that God's sacrifice is sufficient for all of our sins (past included)?

texts:
I spoke to a friend recently and they said:

  I feel like I've done so much in my past, and that is holding me back from having a relationship with God. How can I know that God will accept me, even after I have done wrong in my past? Can God really look beyond my past?

My question is probably best asked as:

What is the biblical basis to support the position that a person's sins (past included) do not preclude them from being able to receive salvation?

I'm looking for answers that come from Bible passages (purely exegesis). My friend doesn't subscribe to a specific denomination; with that in mind, I'm searching for Biblical answers rather than Catholic or JW doctrinal backed answers, for instance.


texts: How do we explain Paul's encounters with disciples of Jesus in light of the Great Commission?

texts:
The following passage relates the "Great Commission" that Jesus gave to 11 disciples:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20

But Paul, a man who never met Jesus during his life, seems to have taken up the mantle all by himself:

  13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the
  Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow
  arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their
  rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their
  acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough
  offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the
  root is holy, so are the branches.

In Acts 10, Cornelius comes to Peter, and he is already following God. And then Peter baptizes him. OK, but that's hardly "going out and making disciples of all the nations".

In Acts 15, Peter seems to recall that he (alone?) was supposed to be apostle to the Gentiles. He concludes by saying:

  19“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
  for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to
  them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
  immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For
  the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
  times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So it was only then decided what the gentiles should do. Which means that this whole time, it was mostly Paul converting the gentiles. What happened to the 11 apostles? Where are their epistles? Who were they converting among the gentiles? According to the Great Commission, they should be baptizing them in the name of the trinity. Why was Paul given the job?

Is part of the explanation that the Great Commission was added later to the Gospel of Matthew?


texts: What are the origins and history of the practice of holding massive healing crusades in large stadiums or arenas?

texts:
For some time I've been interested in the topic of Christian revivals throughout history. In particular, Argentina stands out in my opinion during the second half of the 20th century with a track record of very notable revivals involving massive healing crusades. The one that amazes me the most is the one that took place in 1954 with Tommy Hicks, which I only knew about from informal sources until very recently. What I find fascinating about this revival is the fact that Tommy Hicks managed to convince Argentine president Juan Peron to grant him free access to the press, the radio and the permission to hold a massive healing crusade in the Atlanta and Huracán soccer stadiums, which several sources affirm were full to overflow with people (see the previous link for details). Another example is Carlos Annacondia, a very popular Argentine revivalist preacher who was very active during the 80s and 90s in Argentina first, and abroad later. In this video you can see him preaching to a whole stadium in what appears to be a healing crusade in China. Lastly, Claudio Freidzon had his fair share of soccer stadium renting and massive healing crusades during the 90s in Argentina, as evidenced by these videos.
My question: How did the practice of holding massive healing crusades in large stadiums, arenas or similar spaces begin? How has it evolved over the course of history? What are the denominations most frequently involved in this practice?


texts: What was the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on the Vietnam War?

texts:
Communism has been  an enemy of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for a long time, but also capitalism has been a problem. To many people, the Vietnam War did seem like a meaningless war. But Jesus said, "War must come" (see, for example, Matthew 24:6).

My questions is: Did the RCC take a stand for the Vietnam War or against it? Did they support one side? What was its official reaction?


texts: Among modern critics who believe in the attributed authorship of the Gospels, what are their arguments?

texts:
According to the many online lectures by biblical scholars, not to mention entries in  Wikipedia and other online sites, whether the experts are on either the liberal side or the conservative side of the table, they all state the four Gospels were actually anonymous works and that someone appended the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to them long after the anonymous writers wrote them.

The average person you talk with has no idea of this, and he or she wholly believe the actual eyewitnesses (viz., the apostles) wrote the Gospels.

I am interested in the views of critical scholars who believe the Gospels were written by the men whose names are appended to them. I am not interested in purely religious answers such as, "The Holy Spirit guided the church to ascribe authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."  Would someone please 1) point  me to scholars in the field of historical criticism who believe the attributions are accurate; and more importantly 2) summarize their arguments for me?


texts: What is the origin of vicars/priests wearing the white dog collar?

texts: What is the origin of vicars/priests wearing the white dog collar, and is there a scriptural basis for such an item?


texts: How do you know when you are truly saved, and how do you live as a Christian afterwards?

texts:
I'm 18 years old, and I was born in a Christian family (Evangelical), so I've been going to church and believed in Jesus my whole life. However, I am concerned about salvation. According to what I know, to get saved you have to repent, believe in Jesus, and try to sin as little as possible afterwards. However, I think there are more requirements because I do all of those things but I'm not really sure if I'm saved. Whenever I do sin I repent again (I pray for forgiveness) I know that many people would even consider me unsaved since I asked this question, because supposedly when you are saved you know it for sure and are confident. But the reason that I included my background in the question is because I am already saved, but I just don't see a difference because I don't have the luxury that a non-believer-turned-Christian would have. That is, I can't compare my current situation with my very sinful past and see a distinction, because I've always believed in God. What do you think? I think that even if I am saved, my lack of confidence shows that I am very weak. (By the way please be as direct as you need, and do not worry about offending me at all; this is a very serious topic and I need to know the answer).

P.S. Please include any relevant passages for me if you have any in mind.


texts: According to Catholicism, does faith or trust in God guarantee protection from poverty?

texts:
Pope Francis said:

  Poverty is not inevitable! Source

But in John 12:8 Jesus said:

  You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.

Does faith or trust in God guarantee protection from poverty or help with it?

And if so, is it because faith, sacramental or prayerful life provides protection from demons who torture humans also through financial difficulties?

Note: I'm not asking if faith guaranties wealth.


texts:
In Acts 1:12, the distance between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives is described as a "Sabbath day's walk." Now, my Bible's footnote attributes this distance to be one kilometer long but it gives no indication as to how it got that number.

In the NIV Text Notes that my Bible comes with, it says that a Sabbath day's walk was a distance "drawn from rabbinical reasoning based on several OT passages" and gives a few Old Testament verse references. One reference is to Exodus 16:29, which says

  Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.

So based on this, wouldn't a "Sabbath day's walk" be a total of zero kilometers? Because "no one is to go out" on that day?

Another verse that my Text Note references (and is also referenced by other sources, such as this website) is Joshua 3:4, which, when added to verse two and three says

  After three days the officers went throughout the camp, giving orders to the people: “When you see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the Levitical priests carrying it, you are to move out from your positions and follow it. Then you will know which way to go, since you have never been this way before. But keep a distance of about two thousand cubits between you and the ark; do not go near it.”

But this is just describing the Israelites crossing the Jordan River, and how much distance they should keep from the Ark of the Covenant? It has nothing to do with the Sabbath or a distance of walking?

So where does the term "a Sabbath's walk" come from? And how long is it?

*And if it really does stem from the Joshua reference, why would the rabbis use that verse? How does it make any sense?


texts: What is role of speaking in tongues in Assemblies of God denomination?

texts: A previous question was answered listing perhaps only one denomination, and it wasn't AOG, that held speaking in tongues as sign of spiritual maturity. Does the Assemblies of God group speak in tongues?


texts: Why are both Joseph and Manasseh listed as separate tribes in Revelation chapter seven?

texts:
The Patriarch Joseph had two sons Manasseh, and Ephraim:

  Genesis 46:20  KJV  And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.

Israel gave Joseph an extra share among his brothers in:

  Genesis 48:22  KJV  Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

Both Manasseh and Ephraim were given equal shares of the promised land, when it was divided among the tribes. Manasseh also was given an area outside the promised land.

  Joshua 14:4  KJV  For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim: therefore they gave no part unto the Levites in the land, save cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for their cattle and for their substance.

  Joshua 22:7  KJV  Now to the one half of the tribe of Manasseh Moses had given possession in Bashan: but unto the other half thereof gave Joshua among their brethren on this side Jordan westward. And when Joshua sent them away also unto their tents, then he blessed them,

In the Revelation chapter 7 Manasseh and Joseph are listed as tribes, but Ephraim is not.

Rev 7:4 through 8     KJV

  And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of *Aser***were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of ***Nepthalim* were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of *Manasses ***were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of ***Simeon* were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Is the Tribe of Joseph supposed to be Ephraim?


texts: Why can't the laity preach a homily, and can a lay person ever preach?

texts: From this, Rochester diocese ends illicit practice of allowing lay people to preach homilies, perhaps because this was going on for such a long time, a person would ask what is the authoritative Catholic Church Teaching that prohibits a lay person (of either gender) from preaching the homily at Mass and are there cases where the laity may (men or women) can be allowed to preach in a church or oratory? Under what circumstances?


texts: How does a Christian justify free thinking?

texts:
What types of Christianity promote free thinking or thinking for yourself?

The more I go to church, the more I feel guilty for free thinking and feel I should be passive to let the Holy Spirit guide me (but I find it is the will of other men that becomes bigger).

So what does Christianity say about free thinking?
How and when are we not supposed to think freely?

EDIT
What if after deep prayer and meditation and critical thinking, my interpretation of a Biblical concept is different than the logical understanding of it, held by the majority \?


texts: What is the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and Catholicism?

texts:
I read about Anglo-Catholicism and what I found is that there aren't differences between them and Catholic (in term of doctrine).
Am I wrong?

If I'm not in wrong, the only difference is in the Pope's authority vs the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the Queen of England), so why they do not come together?

I can't understand the schism.


texts: I want to buy this Bible, does anyone know what the title of this version of the Bible is, or know any versions which has highlighted text? Only ESV. Thank you.


texts: Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) translational differences

texts:
When reading on Biblical Prophecies, a big one is Genesis 3:15. The Douay-Rheims translation says

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

When it says "She  shall crush thy head..." is it refering to Mary, Jesus, or the both of them doing so? Growing up as a Methodist, the Bible has always said "He shall..." and not "She shall..". Why is it translated the way it is?


texts: Has there been a shift in Christian metaphysics from a unitary cosmos to a binary one?

texts:
It seems to me that before the Enlightenment, the predominant understanding of the structure of the universe was that the cosmos, while stratified, is unitary- that "the Heavens", which include the spheres of the stars, then of the angels, and the abode of YHWH, have substantial existence in the same way that the Earth does.

An example that this belief was commonplace is Pauls refusal, upon describing an event in which a man "went up to the third Heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2, to say if he went up in the body, that is physically, or in the spirit.

It also seems that after the Enlightenment, the predominant understanding of the structure of the cosmos became binary- that there is a physical realm of existence and a spiritual realm of existence, where the spiritual realm both fills and transcends the physical.

Is there historical evidence to suggest that such a transition has taken place within Christendom?


texts: How do I interpret this list of mediaeval rectors?

texts:
This is a rewording of the question What differentiates a priest, a clerk, a capellanus, a subdeacon and a rector?.  While I asked much the same questions within the body of the article there, the title was different, and I'm afraid that misled people. Can I try again? The specific questions I am asking are listed below.

I have been looking at the list of rectors of Eversholt church, Bedfordshire, from the Bedfordshire Archives Service Catalogue. The various people listed there are each described as one of: (with dates through which this description appears)

  clerk (1290-1702)
  priest (1331-1493)
  subdeacon (1227-1293)
  rector (1374-1680)
  capellanus (1420?-1507)

and from 1680 onwards:

  BA, MA, BD, AM

which are degree qualifications.

Here are my questions:

Are all of these words actually describing the qualifications of the man to become rector, or are they describing what the man was called after he became rector?
Do these different qualities mean that when they became rector, they did different things? Had different responsibilities? Or did all the rectors do essentially the same things? For example, would all of these people (before the switch to CofE) be able to hear confessions and give absolution?
Can we tell anything about the relative education level of these people from the descriptions? Or how rich they were, or how well connected?
Rector and capellanus seem to be jobs, while priest, subdeacon and clerk (in that order) are hierarchical grades within the Holy Orders of the Roman Catholic church. Do I have that right? Is it true that any of priest, subdeacon or clerk might have been a rector or capellanus? So where "rector" or "capellanus" is given as the qualification, I can't really tell anything about the person's position in the hierarchy?

Sorry to bang on about this but it has been puzzling me for years and I'd love to get to the bottom of it. Thanks!


texts: How did these people see God's face? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
In John 1:18, it seems no one has seen God's face:

  No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

And in Exodus 33:20, it is also mentioned that you cannot see God's face as you will die if you see his face.

  "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Now we know that it is impossible to see God's face as you won't live after it, but somehow Moses saw his face and lived. Exodus 33:11:

  The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

So did Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel. Exodus 24:9-11:

  Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Oh, and Abram too. Genesis 12:7:

  Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

According to the Catholic Church, how did these people see God's face and live even though he clearly says no one can see his face and live?


texts:
Will we really go to heaven but it's only until the new Earth comes as described in Revelation (when we're to return to Earth)?

Revelation 21:1-2 NIV

  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and
  the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I
  saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from
  God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.


texts: How do trinity-believers explain these verses from John 17?

texts:
Christians that believe in the Trinity believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are one and the same God. How then, do they explain John 17:21 where Jesus prays that his disciples "may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us"?

Are the disciples supposed to become one with each other in the same way that God the Son is with God the Father?

Two other similar phrases appear in the same chapter:

v. 11: "that they may be one, as we are"

v. 22-23: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one"


texts: Needing help locating a specific verse in the Bible about casting out bad influences?

texts:
This might be a fool's errand, but it's my hope that someone out there more able than me will have an idea of what I'm talking about (I'm not sure my explanation is going to be very good and it will just cause headaches).

The other day, I found a verse about essentially standing up to people and/or bad influences and forcing them out of your life.  I feel like it had a lot to do with being complicit in your own misery, that evil or pain only has as much power over you as you allow it to have in your life...and I can't for the life of me find it anywhere.  I wish I had written it down.

Does anyone have any idea what I'm talking about?  Or any good leads?  I remember it being fairly short, fairly simple.  I have a suspicion it might be a Psalm or a Proverb, but I don't want to assume that and end up being way off.  Please, any help would be appreciated.  Thank you.


texts: Does Catholicism have a stance on horoscopes?

texts:
Does the Roman Catholic Church have a stance on the use of horoscopes (such as for the twelve astrological signs, e.g. Gemini, Virgo, Scorpio)? Specifically, I'd like to know if the Church has taken a stance on:

Believing that horoscopes can predict one's future
Reading horoscopes for fun, but not taking them seriously

Given that horoscopes have traditionally been used for divination, I am curious if that means that faithful Catholics shouldn't use them, since only God knows the future. Also, has any modern stance been taken for the less serious horoscopes in today's daily newspapers?


texts: Had Jesus formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue?

texts:
At Luke 4:16-17 we read:

" When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him...."

I would like to know what the relevance of a synagogue in day-to-day life of an average Jew was;  and whether Jesus had  formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue. What does the Catholic  tell us on the subject ?


texts: How it is possible to be one God in three persons (Jesus, Holy Ghost, and God the Father)?

texts:
1)”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Deuteronomy 6:4

  2)And the Word( Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[a] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

  3)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

  4)He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Coossians 1:15-17

  5)”and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Mathew 3:17

According to these 5 verses, it tells that Jesus was created before all the rest. And in another verse says that Jesus always existed. And in another verse, it says that Jesus is God. This where I can’t explain. How can Jesus, Holy Ghost and God be one God?

In first, I thought that Jesus and Holy Ghost are 2 different creators that are uncreated and God is the uncreated one which it will equal 3 gods.

CLARIFICATION

I had a conversation today with my religious teacher, and I asked him, “sir, can I ask you something?” And he said, “yes, you can” and I asked him, “is that true that Jesus is God’s creation?” And he said, “no, Jesus is God, in fact, he part from trinity of one God.” And I asked, “how can this be possible?” And he said, “I don’t know”. What I found that in Bible says that God has sent Jesus, what is that suppose to mean? Is Jesus another creator like God Himself? And in another verse I find this:

  ”this is My beloved son! So listen to him”

Which it indicates that Jesus and God are different and not 3 in one God. But some rumors say opposite that Jesus, Holy Ghost and Father are three persons in one God.

  “I’ll be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty” [Corinthians, 6:18]

My questions are:

How it is possible to be 3 persons in one God?
Is there anything in Bible that clarifies the concept of trinity?

Can anyone please find something in Bible that can clearly explain how this is possible?


texts: Does the Bible say if animals in Eden were carnivorous, or when animals on Earth became carnivorous?

texts: Do the canonical writings of any Christian group say if animals in Eden were carnivorous, or when animals on Earth became carnivorous?


texts: What did Jesus actually get up to in America (according to Mormons)?

texts: I'm wondering where I should flick to in my LDS quad in order to learn about what Jesus supposedly got up to when he visited America. Could someone provide an outline of his interactions on the American continent(s) along with scriptural citations? I'll be happy to hear from anything in the LDS corpus of scripture.


texts: Does anyone remember prophecy of beast with thousand names or possible Mandela effect?

texts:
I have a memory of reading about end times prophecy that talks about beast with thousand names and at that time I thought that now when people have lot of nicknames and usernames on internet, maybe somebody can have thousand usernames.
But now when I try to Google this with different search words, I cannot find it. Is this a Mandela effect or do I just remember incorrectly or is the prophecy so obscure that it cannot be found on the internet?

Does anyone else remember this prophecy about the beast or antichrist?


texts: According to Catholicism what does it mean for every relationship in heaven to be perfect and fulfilling?

texts:
The Catholic church teaches that every relationship in heaven will be perfect and fulfilling (for example, see this American Catholic reflection written by Friar Jim Van Vurst, O.F.M.).

What does this mean?

Will every relationship in heaven be perfect and fulfilling in the sense that

I will receive everything I want to receive from every relationship,
I will give everything I want to give in every relationship,

AND

everything that I receive and give in the relationship will be at the level I desire in heaven (everything such as affection, care, intimacy, etc)?


texts: How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?

texts:
Wikipedia explains three archaeological studies of the Jericho site, and concludes that the city was abandoned at the time the supposed Biblical battle took place.

How do Christians reconcile the Biblical account with this science?


texts: Why does Jesus refer to serpents positively in Matthew 10:16?

texts:
It seems that most places in the bible where serpents are referred to they are a reference to Satan/the devil. Yet in Matthew 10:16 Christ says

  "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (KJV)

Why does Christ ask us to derive inspiration of wisdom from something that typically represents the devil? I am confused and find this to be a bit contradictory.


texts: Difference in Hebrew between חֹ֔שֶׁךְ (ḥō·šeḵ) and וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ (wə·ḥō·šeḵ)

texts:
I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide illumination on the difference between the following Hebrew words. Both utilize the same Strong's definition # 2822.

ḥō·šeḵ | חֹ֔שֶׁךְ | Reference example: Isa 45:7

wə·ḥō·šeḵ | וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ | Reference Example: Ge 1:2

Are these the exact same word? Does the inclusion of "we" in "wehosek" changing the meaning at all?

Thank you!


texts: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on what happens to humans after death?

texts:
My (rather superficial) understanding is that most Christians would agree that human beings are composed of body, spirit and soul. Now, I'm aware that the terms "soul" and "spirit" can be a little bit confusing, that some would claim that there is only "body" and "spirit" and that "spirit" and "soul" are just synonymous, etc. To be honest, my understanding of these terms is not particularly the strongest.
That said, at the moment of death, something happens to this union of body, soul and spirit (whatever these terms mean). With regard to the body, I would expect everyone to agree that it decomposes and turns into dust -- at least this much shouldn't be controversial. But what about the soul and the spirit? Do soul and spirit stay together after death or do they part ways too? And where do they go? And what about a person's consciousness? Are they still conscious or in deep sleep, waiting for the resurrection of the body? And what about their ability to communicate? Can the dead communicate with each other? Can the dead communicate with the living?
As you see, tons of questions can be asked, but I think they can be summarized in a single question: what happens (or can happen) to people once they die?
Since answers are obviously dependent on the particular beliefs of each denomination, I'm interested in an overview of the main Christian viewpoints regarding these questions. References to the biblical basis of each view will be appreciated as well.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, will we have physical bodies in heaven?

texts:
I've heard and read that when we die, and we go to heaven, we won't have bodies. We'll be spirits only, but so happy that we won't need bodies or objects.

In School we were taught that when we go to Heaven, we can have everything we want. Now, that's not possible at all if we're only spirits, and there is no physical world (i.e. an Earth)
Doesn't the Bible talk about God's Kingdom, White horses and gates and pearls? I mean, what good is all of that if we can't touch/interact with it (remember, we won't have bodies)?

So this leads me to ask, does the Catholic church teach that we will have physical bodies in heaven?


texts: What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching?

texts:
Related: What is the basis for Topical Preaching?

Expository preaching is, in short, preaching through the Bible or a complete portion of the Bible and expounding upon the topics and applications therein. For example, my Pastor is currently working his way through Luke, connecting each portion to earlier chapters, relating what we read to the context of Luke, and expounding on the topics and lessons in the passage.

What is the triumvirate basis for this method? That is, what is the

Scriptural Basis. Obviously this is the #1 basis, but I'm not aware of any passages specifically addressing this, so you might need...
Reasonable Basis. What's the logical, practical point of expository preaching? What's a logical argument for it?
Traditional Basis. I've heard that many preachers in the past used this method, so that's a good starter argument in its favor. Who or what denominations have used this method in the past? Do they specify a reason?

(I'm not asking for experience as I don't think that could be particularly helpful here. If you think it is, by all means, reference it)


texts: Is there a group of Christians that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically?

texts:
Is there a group of Christians or confession that believes that Jesus was resurrected metaphorically rather than physically?

Sometimes I encountered with opinions that Jesus was resurrected in the minds of Christians and that the Church is the everlasting and immortal Christ's body. I do not know whether such beliefs actually endorsed by the Church though.

Are there any Christian beliefs about the resurrection that would parallel these cases among non-Christian beliefs?

The ancient pagan Proto-Indo-Europeans believed that true immortality is possible only by means of imperishable fame, so if there are poets who sing fame to you, you become immortal in a sense.
In more recent times the Communists often claimed that Lenin was eternally alive because he lived in their hearts (an idea which could be borrowed from a particular understanding of Christianity).

Update

From the former version of the answer by Caleb, this quote from Peter may indicate that he was one of the people who believed that the resurrection was spiritual as opposed to physical death:

  1 Peter 3:18 (ESV) 18  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the
  righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being
  put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit


texts:
For some reference as to why this question interests me, one of the evidences that is often given for proof that Jesus really did die and was resurrected is the change wrought in his original disciples.

Example: Key Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus Christ -- Changed Lives of The Disciples

  Another evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the changed lives of
  the disciples. How do you account for the fact that before the
  resurrection they were frightened men and were hiding away in fear of
  their lives? After the resurrection they preached everywhere for no
  earthly benefit -- only suffering and martyrdom. The early believers
  were beaten, stoned, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified for
  sharing a lie -- if the resurrection had not occurred. The ultimate
  martyrdom of thousands of believers is one of the strongest proofs of
  the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since the argument is often used by Apologists (and is therefore of interest to me), I'd like to have it on the site as a reference to the claim.

So, how did the Apostles die?


texts: Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandments such as "Do not murder"?

texts:
In the Bible God gives many commands, but he doesn't seem to have to keep all of them himself.

For example in the Ten Commandments God instructs his people not to murder (Exodus 20:13). But God frequently executes people himself, such as when he killed Korah and his 250 followers in Numbers 16.

Why doesn't God have to keep his own commandment not to kill?  To disobey any of God's commandments is sinful. So how can God ignore them? Does the Bible explain why?


texts: According to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are there any doctrinal barriers to Christians sharing places of worship with non-Christians?

texts:
Hagia Sophia was originally the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople, then the chief mosque of the Ottoman Empire, then a museum. A few days ago, it reverted to being a mosque once more. Numerous Christian religious leaders have decried this last transition (as, in my opinion, they ought to), but it left me wondering what a long-term resolution of the matter would actually look like.
The building could, in principle, revert to being a church. Personally, I feel that, given the centuries of history that Muslims have with said structure, this would be unjust; and, in any case, short of a Christian reconquest of Constantinople/Istanbul, it's never going to happen. Atatürk's compromise of turning the building into a museum seems well-intentioned but ultimately unsatisfactory: this building was built for the glory of God.
The one remaining option that I can see is to share the building. Christianity's and Islam's holy days seldom overlap. Could the building be a church on Sundays and a mosque on Fridays? I'm a practising Roman Catholic myself, and I can't think of any insurmountable reason forbidding sharing a place of worship outright. There are, after all, stories of Catholic priests celebrating the eucharist in Auschwitz; I can't imagine that any putative unholiness brought on by reciting the Quran could compete with an extermination camp. But I'm far from an expert, and I hardly need to add that the Eastern Orthodox perspective would be essential in the case of Hagia Sophia.
And, of course, Hagia Sophia is just a prominent example. There are plenty of other locations, e.g. the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba, where it might be reasonable for Christians to share a place of worship with another faith.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, do conjoined twins have two souls?

texts: Do conjoined twins have two souls or one? The Catholic position would be useful to know.


texts:
Most of us probably have a lot of vague ideas about Heaven, the place where the faithful are said to spend their afterlife. But when I really start to think about it, I can't back most of my ideas with the Bible.

What do we actually know about Heaven?


texts: By what ordinary methods has God preserved infallibility in the Catholic Church?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that in order for the saving truths of the faith to be preserved, explained, or observed, Christ endowed his Church with the charism of infallibility.1

It is not uncommon to hear that the Holy Spirit will intervene directly in order to preserve the purity of faith [e.g. this YouTube video].

From Scripture, we know that God can and has saved miraculously and with an outstretched arm.

The question is, through Church history, by what evident ordinary methods [grace working in, with, and through imperfect men] has God preserved infallibility in the Catholic Church?

1. cf. E.g. CCC 2035 and CCC 889.


texts:
According to Catholicism, did Jesus have a Guardian Angel?
If so do we know their name(s)?
We see the Angels ministering to the needs of the Godman while on earth, but Scripture does not employ the term Guardian Angel to them.

Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him. - Matthew 4:10-11

According to Catholic theologians or mystics, who was Our Lord’s guardian angel(s), if any?


texts: How does the Hebrew Roots movement handle Paul's statements which imply Christians should not be enslaved to the Jewish Law?

texts:
My understanding of the Hebrew Roots movement is that they celebrate feast days and more closely resemble Jewish traditions rather than "Christian" ones.  For example, most Christians would celebrate Christmas while Hebrew Roots would celebrate Hanukkah, though both believe in Christ as savior.  If I'm misunderstanding, feel free to set me straight.

My question is how the Hebrew Roots (denomination?) handles Paul's writings, since a lot of it seems to disapprove of following the traditionally Jewish practices.  For example, Galatians 4 says things like

  But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces ? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you (9-11) NIV

And verses 21 through 31 talk about being "children of promise" where those under the law are slaves to it.

Does the Hebrew Roots movement have an explanation for scriptures like these?


texts: Was there any meaningful difference between the terms "presbyter" and "priest" in early Christianity?

texts:
There has been much debate between Christian denominations on whether or not there is a special priesthood rooted in apostolic succession. I do not mean to disturb this debate with my question, but I would like some clarification.

Are there any early Christian sources that demonstrate that they recognized a difference between a "presbyter" and a "priest"? By early Christian, I mean ~2nd to 4th century.

For example, if there were a document where an early Christian distinguishes between presbyters and priests, that would be highly relevant here. Or if there were a document where an early Christian completely conflates presbyters and priests, that would also be highly relevant here.

If there are some who distinguish and some who conflate the terms, please cite both.


texts: What's the position of main Christian churches about brothers of Jesus?

texts:
In this article about visit of Jerusalem's Orthodox Patriarch to Moscow, it is said (in Russian) "Первым епископом стал брат Господень по плоти Иаков" "The first bishop [of the Jerusalem Church] became the Lord's brother by blood, Jacob".

I looked in the Wikipedia and it says that Christian churches do not recognize that Jesus had biological brothers: Mary remained virgin throughout her life, and Joseph was not a biological father of Jesus.

Does this difference in opinion indicate that there is a significant point of view in the clergy that in fact Josephus was the real biological father of Jesus or that Mary had sexual relations with Josephus after the birth of Jesus?


texts: According to Catholicism can you be saved without being baptised?

texts: Is faith through Jesus Christ without baptism enough for salvation? According to the bible, “without faith, it is hard to please God”. If someone at a young age whose been baptised didn’t have faith when they reach maturity, would this cancel out the grace of salvation through baptism? Would this also be the same for those who have faith but without baptism?


texts: Does the Catholic Church accept all the teachings of the Byzantine Church after the union?

texts:
Late Pope John Paul II said, "Byzantine Church is the other lung of Catholic Church."

Does this mean these two churches are united together now?

Does the Catholic Church, the bride of Jesus (according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church), accept all the teachings of the Byzantine Church?


texts: Which Protestant churches as of today officially recognize homosexual marriage unions? Is there any such information available?


texts: Does this scripture shed light on the humanity of the unborn child?

texts:
As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman
  with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
  Ecclesiastes 11:5 (ESV)

This quote states clearly that the "spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child". This spirit, in my understanding, is the child's human spirit, as opposed to the Spirit of God that comes to a person to do the work of regeneration and the many blessings that flow out of that work.

The spirit "comes to the bones", which implies that it does not come until bones are formed, beginning at around 9 weeks.

Can this scripture be used to determine the beginning of a human life? Also, what do various denominations teach about the beginning of a human life in relation to this verse?


texts:
I was listening to a recorded sermon on my way to work today and the preacher mentioned the eschatological tension. Is there a good definition of what the eschatological tension is?

If it makes a difference to this question then answers should be from a protestant view.


texts: Was St. Patrick a really Roman Catholic and did he keep the 7th day Sabbath?

texts: Does anyone have a  historical reference  that Saint Patrick actually kept the seventh day Sabbath and was not a Roman Catholic?


texts: What is the scriptural basis for the idea that salvation can still be obtained after death?

texts: What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?


texts: What is the process for remarried couples to convert to Catholicism?

texts:
I was reading and trying to understand Amoris Laetitia
  and came up with this question below.

The documents talk about irregular couples and basically say that everyone undergoes different timing of conversion.

This is a situation:
A non-practicing Catholic couple "divorces" and re-marry by state. They end up having families, let's say with 3 or more kids with another husband/wife. According to the Catholic teaching, they live in adultery. Now, they start to be interested in spiritual life and undergo what we call a conversion. But they are stuck because they can't just split and leave their kids or whatever dependencies they have.

I know the ideal would be to get an annulment and solve this problem. But let's say they aren't entitled to an annulment.
My question is what does the church offer to such couples as a solution?
Suggesting to live like a brother and sister isn't going to work unless they stop living in the same household but that might not be ideal for kids (I guess) or it can still cause a scandal.

Is splitting couples really the only way to go if they want to live a sacramental life? I know this happened to St. Augustine but his situation wasn't that complicated. Do we have other examples from the past where families needed to separate in order to return back to living in the state of grace?

Have Catholic theologians written on this subject and if so could someone explain it to me?


texts: Do we answer the arguments of fools or not? How are Proverbs 26:4-5 to be understood?

texts:
Proverbs 26:4-5 (NLT)

  4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
          or you will become as foolish as they are.

  5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
          or they will become wise in their own estimation.

At first read, these seem to be contradicting one another. Verse 4 tells us not to answer fools' arguments and verse 5 tells us do answer fools' arguments. With such a seeming contradiction, there is certainly some sort of official material out there that resolves this issue. According to the Wesleyan denomination (or as close as possible), how is this apparent contradiction resolved?


texts: Difference between Eutychianism and Monophysitism

texts: I was reading about some Catholic Christological heresies. Then I came across Monophysitisism and Eutychianism. Both discuss the divine and human nature of Christ. They both theorize that Christ had only one nature. As opposed to adoptionism the single nature of Christ according to these doctrines is divine. Now I am a bit confused. Are these two doctrines one and the same? Or are there some subtle differences between these two doctrines?


texts:
Quite often "prince" and "princes" are mentioned in the scriptures. Of particular interest are expressions such as these:

"Prince of Persia"
"Prince of Peace"

And similar expressions - especially those found in Daniel.
I've always known a "prince" to be a future king.
Is this the definition in the scriptures? Or is "prince" a title denoting a different sort of authority?
In essense: Does prince = future king?


texts: What were people called who believed in the "Christ" before Jesus was born?

texts: About 2000 years ago Jesus Christ died on a cross. A person who is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings is called Christian. My question is what were people called who followed the Messiah before Jesus Christ?


texts: What Bible verses deal with a man stealing bread and having to pay double?

texts:
While using a Bible reading plan, a verse came to my attention about thieves that steal bread. The verse(s) may have had something to do with the thief trying to feed his or her family, but the judgement (if my memory is correct) would be that the thief would have to pay double if caught. The crime and judgment are mentioned in one of the first four books of the Old Testament (probably Exodus or Leviticus). After spending over thirty minutes searching for it with Bible software, in a physical book, and on the internet, the identity of the verse(s) have yet to be discovered. Any help trying to locate them would be appreciated.

Which verses in Exodus or Leviticus deal with a man stealing bread and having to pay double?


texts: What do Jehovah's Witnesses say about Matthew 16:28?

texts:
If Jesus didn't come until 1914 why didn't those surrounding Jesus not experience death until then?

  [Mat 16:28 KJV] 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Were the people "standing there" part of the "first class anointed ones" or of the "second anointed class"?


texts: How, as a spiritual person do you differentiate your Intuition from Holy Spirit's guidance?

texts: Is there some biblical verses that would support how one could differentiate spiritual guidance with our own intuition? By mistake we (at least, I) do think sometimes take decision based on my own wish without knowing if that is what God wants when we are satisfied with the the direction we move. How do you help yourself in this regard?


texts: For what did the quakers win the Nobel Prize?

texts: I read that the Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) won the Noble Peace prize in 1947. Does anyone know what for exactly. I would think it was for something to do with the second world war, but I'm not sure.


texts: What do Christians, namely Evangelicals, mean when they say it? To what extent must the Bible be "believed"? Does this connote a literal interpretation of the scriptures, or does this connote a general attitude of how a Christian may view the Bible?


texts: Although most Christian denominations do not require keeping kosher, are there any that prohibit keeping kosher? I'm most interested in Reformed, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox views, but also others (to a lesser extent).


texts: Why doesn't the Catholic Church give indulgences to everybody, regardless of their works?

texts:
In learning about indulgences, I started to wonder why a work was necessary for the giving of an indulgence. In looking at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it appears to me that a work is necessary because the Church chooses to make it necessary (italics mine):

  Obtaining indulgence from God through the Church

  1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

I'm not really sure that I understand this view. Of course, these works of devotion, penance, and charity are good things, but it seems like it would be more compassionate to give out indulgences to everybody so that they do not suffer from punishment for their sins in purgatory, and find other ways to encourage people to do these works. Indeed, there seems to be a similar argument in Thesis 82 in Martin Luther's 95 Theses:

  Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?

I realize that this thesis was addressing the idea that "when the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs" and and other abuses of indulgences. But the sentiment seems to match the question I am asking: wouldn't it be more merciful if the pope were to choose to grant indulgences to everybody, thus reducing the suffering of those in purgatory (or empty it entirely) regardless of their works?


texts: Does the Catholic Church allow the use of birth control to save the woman's life?

texts: Does the Catholic Church have any process of being allowed to use birth control if it is necessary to preserve the life of the woman?  (For example, suppose a woman must take certain medications to control a serious health condition and it is not allowed to take such medications during pregnancy)


texts:
Catholics believe that the communion bread and wine are not bread and wine anymore but the Lord Jesus Christ himself appearing as bread and wine.

Since in Catholic dogma the communion bread and wine becomes Jesus Christ, who is himself a person, that raises the question about what pronoun is used to describe the Eucharist. This change of substance (Transubstantiation) does not include the change in form, though.

What pronoun do Catholics typically use to refer to the Eucharist? Do they use the pronoun "He"?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for withholding communion from believers who are unbaptized?

texts:
My home church has a policy of asking non-believers not to participate in communion, but never asks if a believer has yet been baptized.

I have visited or attended several other churches where communion is withheld from anyone who has not been baptized, regardless of whether or not they profess a faith in Christ. What is the Biblical basis for setting the bar at baptism as opposed to a profession of faith?


texts:
What made Jesus question at Mt 21:25 a good example for Christians or was it a bad question because the Jews could not answer?

Jesus asked the question to the chief priests:

  Mt 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?..."

  25 And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Was it wrong for Jesus to ask what he knew they could not answer because of the parameters of his question?

Answers from a mainstream evangelical doctrinal perspective please.


texts: By what process were the Scriptures written down?

texts:
In a Sunday school class I recently attended, the teacher used a word to describe the process by which Scripture was revealed by the Spirit to the Apostles, then written down. I believe the word he used was 'concoursis'. However, I can't find the word used anywhere.

Is the word 'concoursis' used by any theologian to name that process, or is any other word used specifically as a name for the process?

Note regarding duplicate: I'm not asking if Scripture is inspired, what that means, or how that process works. I'm simply asking if there is a name similar to that word that is used by any writers for the process. This question is no more a duplicate of that question than "What's the name of that blue singing book of Psalms that was a popular children's devotional in the nineties?" is a duplicate of "Does the Bible exhort Christians to teach their children biblical principles?"