texts: Does proclaiming that all non-believers won't be saved count as passing judgement?

texts:
Romans 10:9 (KJV)
  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
  shalt be saved.

If I interpret Romans 10:9 as saying all those who don't confess with their mouth and don't believe in their heart, that they will not be saved and I proclaim this; am I therefore sinning by passing judgement on those who do not confess or believe?

  Romans 2:1 (KJV)
  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself;
  for thou that judgest doest the same things.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for concluding 'Jesus is Yahweh (Jehovah or LORD)'?

texts:
Of course Christianity believes Jesus is God, but I am interested in this question for the argument that Jehovah (I AM), the name of God which later Jews were not allowed to speak, is a term not unique to the Father. In other words, is this special name 'I AM' just as valid for the Son, as it is the Father?

Is Jesus = (Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH) in the flesh?

Note: Yahweh/YHWH are just more original Hebrew representations of the English word Jehovah or capital LORD in our Bibles. These are all the same meaning, i.e. the name 'I AM'.


texts:
I heard an idea that the Magi that followed the star, came and brought gifts to Jesus, came from Japan. However, the one saying this didn't mention the source. He mentioned the fact that Japanese people are really smart and even in those days they knew how to interpret the astronomy.

While the Bible doesn't specify the origin country of the magi, I'm wondering if there is any source we can trust mentioning where they came from.

Wikipedia says:

  The phrase from the east (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν), more literally from the rising [of the sun],[citation needed] is the only information Matthew provides about the region from which they came. Traditionally the view developed that they were Babylonians, Persians, or Jews from Yemen as the kings of Yemen then were Jews, a view held for example by John Chrysostom.[citation needed] There is an Armenian tradition identifying the "Magi of Bethlehem" as Balthasar of Arabia, Melchior of Persia, and Gaspar of India.[26] Bible historian Chuck Missler has also written about this tradition.[27] Historian John of Hildesheim relates a tradition in the ancient silk road city of Taxila (near Islamabad in Pakistan) that one of the Magi passed through the city on the way to Bethlehem.[28]

Are there any other sources?


texts: Did the New World Translation lead to any doctrinal changes?

texts:
The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their denomination is a restoration of the original, ancient form of Christianity.  They claim to have rediscovered this form through principled biblical study and scholarship.

The Witnesses have even produced their own Bible translation, the New World Translation (NWT), which they claim more accurately reflects the intention of the original writers.  While this translation has often been criticized for introducing a bias in favour of the denomination's pre-existing doctrines (and particularly for its use of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament), it has also attracted praise for its scholarly methods and accuracy.

Let's put aside for now the question of whether the pre-existing doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses unduly influenced this translation.  I am interested to learn whether the converse is true:  Did the production of the New World Translation influence the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses?  After all, the Witnesses do claim that their beliefs are based on modern, ongoing Biblical scholarship.  Did the NWT's translators claim to have gained any new insights on early Christianity, and if so, did these insights lead the denomination's leaders to change any of its previous interpretations and teachings, or to introduce new ones?

EDIT: The comments and answers so far indicate that there may be some confusion about what I am asking.  So let me provide an example:

The Jehovah's Witnesses once believed and taught that Jesus was put to death on a cross.  However, in the 1930s this doctrine changed due to what they claimed was a re-examination of the original Greek-language texts of the New Testament.  They noted that these texts use the word σταυρός (stauros) to refer to the instrument of execution.  In consulting the available evidence from historical records and from contemporaneous textual usage of the term, they concluded that the word σταυρός, as used in the Bible, refers to a simple stake without a crossbeam.  This interpretation became part of the official teaching: Jehovah's Witnesses now state that Jesus was put to death on a "torture stake".  The take-home message here is that in the 1930s they claimed that their scholars discovered a significant translation error which, when corrected, led to a change in their teachings.

The question is thus whether the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have discovered and corrected any further major errors or omissions in translation or interpretation during the production of their New World Translation in the 1940s and 1950s.  Did they ever say something to the effect of, "Until now, we Witnesses have mistakenly believed X.  But thanks to the textual and historical evidence that was newly collected and analyzed in the preparation of the NWT, we understand now that we should actually believe Y."?


texts: Can a Catholic Priest attend and provide any type of blessing at a civil wedding preformed outdoors between a catholic man and non-catholic woman?


texts: Conversion from Orthodox to Syro Malabar Syrian Catholics

texts:
I am a Syro Malabar Syrian Catholic working in Dubai from Gujarat (from Kerala). I am getting married to a Swiss Citizen (Malayali) who is born and brought up in Switzerland and is working in Dubai.

His parents are Orthodox and he was baptized as an Orthodox but at the age of 12 or 13 he decided to be a Roman Catholic. He got the sacrament of holy communion and confirmation in a Roman Catholic church in Switzerland. Presently he is a member of a Catholic  church in Dubai.

We are planning to get married in October but in the Syro Malabar Rite. Can anyone tell me what papers are required for us to get married as one of the certificates the church is asking for is the baptism certificate and his baptism certificate mentions he is an orthodox. I heard he can convert by professing the faith. Can someone tell me how I should move fowrard with the same to get him professed in faith. Is there any written letter he needs to submit to the prient or bishop saying he would like to convert?

We also need an NOC from Dubai and the place we belong to but for him from the priest in Zurich church that he goes to have denied saying that they dont give a paper saying he is the member of the church or that he is not married before.

Can someone who knows canon law or has slightest idea of what to do help us.

Thanks


texts:
I have a question, its bothering me.
Noah saved all the animals from the flood, when the flood was over Noah released the animals as well including lions tigers and other now known to be meat eaters.

If lions or tigers started eating other animals that means not many will be left.
My question is, were all the lions and tigers where grass eating? in the Holy Bible it does says in future they will be eating grass


texts: 200 Denarri sufficient for purchasing Bread?

texts:
In Mark 6:37, some disciples comments and indicate that the 200 denarii would have been enough to purchase bread needed to feed the 5000.

But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “Are we to go and buy two hundred denarii[a] worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?” (NRSV)
[a]Mark 6:37 The denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer

But in John 6:7, Philip says that 200 Denarii would not be enough to feed them.

Philip answered him, “Six months’ wages[a] would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” (NRSV)
[a]John 6:7 Gk Two hundred denarii; the denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer

Is there a contradiction here?


texts: How does the relationship compare between earthly children and spiritual children in LDS theology?

texts:
As I understand LDS teaching, a couple may have an eternal family with the children they produce here on earth.  However, that couple may also attain godhood and then produce spiritual children for their own worlds as well.  Thus, a couple may have both earthly children as well as celestial or spiritual children.  Their spiritual children then take on flesh on another world and seek to attain godhood themselves.  (This is the doctrine of eternal progression, as I understand it.)

So, my question concerns the relationship of the couple that attains godhood to their spiritual or celestial children and how that is similar or different from the relationship they have with the children they had here on earth.

Do the celestial or spiritual children become part of their eternal family as well?  Do spiritual children share equal status with earthly children?


texts:
My question comes out of a discussion on this question: How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the unique wording of Colossians 1:15-17 in the NWT? For reference, here is the passage (1971 revision):

  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist. (Colossians 1 NWT)

Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus is "a god." That is, a lesser god; yet one who has a role in creation:

  In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
  (John 1:1 NWT)

  The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself.1

Jehovah ("God") created Jesus ("a god") who was the means by which all other things were created. Conceptually, this is much the way a Gnostic would describe God's work of creation. For example, Valentinus was a Christian Gnostic theologian who attributed creation to a Demiurage:

  The image of Demiurge usually portrayed in the Sethian texts is negative. Apart from anti-Jewish and anti-Christian polemic there are some internal reasons for this, specifically the function of the psychic (soul) element represented by the Demiurge. This element is not, as for Valentinians and other Christian Gnostics, the seat of free will, but a moment (that of animation) in the hylic dimension and, like it, destined to perdition. This is the radical difference from the Valentinian Demiurge, the latter being a representative of the psychic element that is also called upon to participate in the work of salvation.2

Valentinus' second century mythology was complex, but the idea of a Demiurge who created the material world can be found 500 years earlier in Plato's Socratic dialogue Timaeus (c. 360 BC)3

How do Jehovah's Witnesses differentiate Jesus' role in creation from that of a Demiurge?

1. Watchtower Online Library
2. Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, translated by Anthony Alcock, Basil Blackwell, 1990, p. 84
3. Demiurge


texts: Can God reverse the fall of man specifically on earth?

texts:
Life for humans (Adam and Eve) before eating from the tree of knowledge was extremely different - as there was no sin in the physical earth.

  Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous
  existence in potentia.

Then, eating from the tree of knowledge cursed the rest of humanity.

Now, it is also "known" that God has the power to do ANY thing.

Can God allow humanity ever get back to that previous state (i.e. - we all obey Him perfectly)** here on Earth** or is it never an option and why won't He?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?

I have found this very basic question perplexing to different pastors, rectors, and members of churches: If there is a monk who has lived in the mountains of Asia, who has lived a good life, and not sinned by our definition, but does not know of or ever heard of Jesus, does he go to heaven or hell?  He does not reject Jesus or a single God, but he also has never heard of him.


texts: Do Reformed theologians understand the Catholic Church and the Papacy to have been true heirs of Peter until the Reformation?

texts: In other words, say, in the fourth century, were they "on track" and the legitimate heirs of the reins of Christianity, so to speak but then went off track toward the middle ages? Or do they consider the authority of the Popes and all to have been illegitimate all along?


texts:
I heard Pope Francis use the phrase "reciprocal subsidiarity" at his address to the U.S. Congress.

In recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dream of building a future in freedom. We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners. I say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from immigrants. Tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected. For those peoples and their nations, from the heart of American democracy, I wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violent, but it is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present. Nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past. We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us. Building a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best. I am confident that we can do this.
— Via the Catholic Herald

I'm just wondering what he meant by that and if the Holy Father has talked about that in the past.
It seems to me that reciprocal subsidiarity is at the very best a friendly amorphous blob and at the very worst the exact opposite of subsidiarity.


texts: When an offense has been committed, is it OK to talk to the other person through an intermediary or should it be direct?

texts:
When an offense has been committed, does the Bible indicate it is OK to talk to the other person through an intermediary or should it be direct?

For instance, if person A offends person B, is it OK for person B to enlist person C to go to person A on their behalf (as an ambassador/diplomat/emissary), or should person B follow the steps in Matthew 18 and privately and directly go to person A?

Just trying to find any Biblical teaching or example of when sending someone on your behalf might be acceptable, or the best way to proceed.


texts: If someone doesn't know about Christianity, and they sin, do they go to hell?

texts: I was debating with a friend recently and he is from India, he never knew about Christianity until he came to the US, and he made a sin, will he go to hell?


texts: Please clarify Phil 2:8-9 with reference to the Trinity

texts:
In Philippians 2:8-9 we read:

  He [Jesus] humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.
  Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names

For many years I studied with the Jehovah's Witness, and now years later I still have trouble with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Can you please clarify this passage for me:

If Jesus is God, how could he humble himself in obedience to God? (As God he could do no wrong and therefore could not be disobedient by definition?)
If Jesus is God, how could God elevate him [Jesus] to the place of highest honour? (Surely Jesus was already at the highest place because He is equal to God?)


texts: Is there a concept of a theological quadrilemma with regard to the person and divinity of Jesus Christ?

texts:
One well-known trilemma considered a proof of the divinity of Jesus is most commonly known in the version by C. S. Lewis. It proceeds from the premise that Jesus claimed to be God, and that therefore one of the following must be true:
  Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was.
  Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway.
  Lord: Jesus is God.
  Source: Trilemma

However, I have come across other arguments against the person and divinity of Jesus Christ, such as the notion he did not exist, and the suggestion that he lived in India for a time and returned as some sort of mystic.  I am looking for reliable information that gives insights into these arguments and any biblical and Christian counter-arguments. This question is directed at all Trinitarian Christian denominations.


texts: How do the Seventh Day Adventist approach Old Testament laws?

texts: I know the Seventh Day Adventist church is known for following certain Old Testament laws found in Leviticus such as the food/dietary laws. However I'm also under the impression that they don't follow all 600+ Levitical laws either. Is there a reason why they follow certain Levitical laws like food/dietary but don't follow others, such as wearing clothing made of two different materials (Lev 19:19) or cutting the hair at the sides (Lev 19:17)? To what extent do they keep the laws?


texts: Are people who light those candles (votive candles) supposed to take a vow?

texts: In Catholic Churches we light votive candles. I have never really understood what "votive" refers to. Are people who light those candles supposed to take a vow?


texts: Did King James really have his name put into the Bible?

texts:
I have heard it said that the name book of James would more properly be translated as something such as Joshua.

As James is a name of apparent Germanic decent, is it true as I have heard that the King, when the Bible was being translated, had them put his name as the translation instead?


texts: Why do Mark's and Luke's quotations of the Greatest Commandment have four different words instead of three?

texts:
In both Mark's and Luke's accounts of Jesus identification of the Greatest Commandment, they lists four different words rather than three, which Matthew lists and the Deuteronomy passage which they quote has as well.

  And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”  Luke 10:27 ESV

  And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’  Mark 12:30 ESV

  And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  Matthew 22:37 ESV

  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.  Deuteronomy 6:5 ESV

So, why do Mark and Luke mention four words rather than three?


texts: How could Jesus get followers so easily?

texts:
Reading how Jesus called his disciples, I am always perplexed at how they just leave everything and start following him. An example passage:

  Matthew 4:18-22 (ESV)
   18 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 19And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him. 21And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. 22Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

It's really amazing that anyone in their right minds would act like that. Now, one might think that Jesus does some miracles that just aren't mentioned. However, his first sign was at Cana and he already had disciples at that time.

  John 2:11 (ESV)
   11This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

Why were the disciples so eager to start following Jesus?


texts: In Calvinism, is there any correlation with the elect and the "blessed" in the Beatitudes of Matthew 5?

texts:
(x-post from BH)

I ask this as blessed can mean many things. Eternal life, financial wealth, health, having kids, having a job, being happy, etc. Blessings seem to be very broad, so I'd like to see if anyone can narrow it down or define the word for better understanding of what Jesus was intending for his audience to understand.

Does the blessing that Jesus speaks of mean one specific blessing
or type of blessing? Also, does the word blessed point to the same
specific blessing in each new phrase?
Alternatively, does part b of each phrase define the blessing from
part a (e.g. the blessing in v.3 is inheriting the kingdom, the
blessing in v.4 is comfort)?

I guess I'd like to hear a Calvinistic interpretation. Do these words of our Lord indicate then, that all of the elect will be poor in spirit, mournful, meek, etc.? Anybody not demonstrating these qualities would therefore be seen as non-elect?

Thank you.

  Matthew 5:3–11 (NIV)
  3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
      for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

  11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
  say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be
  glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
  persecuted the prophets who were before you.


texts:
Are Anabaptists' re-baptisms really conditional baptisms? By "conditional baptism" I mean one whose formula is something like: "If you are not baptized, I baptize thee… etc."

In other words: Do Anabaptists really accept two valid baptisms per person, or are their re-baptisms conditional on whether the first one validly occurred or not?

If so, does this tradition continue among any of the traditions descended from Anabaptist roots?


texts: I just want to ask this question because when God created us we were naked (I assume) and probably there's not even a leaf covering our genitals like how children's books portray it. But then when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they got ashamed of being naked. So does our awareness and concern of being nude came from Satan? Or is it even bad at all that we are concerned about being naked? Because the bible mentioned like it was kind of a big deal that we have discovered that we are naked and we got ashamed of it. If there is nothing to be ashamed of, then maybe we should go to church naked to honor the purity of humans, like what God had intended right? But on the opposite we wear our best clothes to church. So this is kinda ironic to me.. Does God consider naked good or bad? Or does it even matter at all?


texts: Is it okay for Christians to study philosophy?

texts: With this question I regard the general makeup of philosophy. Many claim that both philosophy and Christianity contradict and therefore cannot coexist. I do not mention this to ask, 'can a Christian study philosophy,' because it obviously is possible. Many philosophers have made themselves famous by finding clever ways to isolate and hide evidence of a God and the discoveries by them is what is fundamentally taught, so I ask, is it okay for Christians to study philosophy?


texts: What is the origin of the term Prima Scriptura and the background against which it was defined?

texts:
Prima Scriptura is the doctrine that

  canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures. (Wikipedia)

It is said to be in contrast to Sola Scriptura, but it has the same meaning as all the explanations of Sola Scriptura I've ever heard (see this question for a brief summary), so I'm not sure why it's portrayed as being in contrast. It also seems to be used both by Methodists and Catholics.

What is the origin of Prima Scriptura? Who first developed it: Methodists, Catholics, or someone else? Was it defined in contrast to Sola Scriptura, and if so, how was Sola Scriptura understood by those who defined Prima Scriptura? Or was it coined as a clearer alternative to Sola Scriptura in the hope it would be misunderstood less (like Definite Atonement instead of Limited Atonement), and only afterwards came to be thought of as different to Sola Scriptura?


texts: What evidence is there to suggest that Daniel never existed?

texts:
In the Wikipedia article on Daniel, the writer states: "the broad consensus is that Daniel never existed.[1]" One book from 1999 written by John J. Collins is referenced with this statement, but I do not have access to it.

What is the evidence to suggest that Daniel was a legendary figure and not an actual living person as the Bible seems to describe him to be?


texts: Do any denominations use the full form of INRI?

texts:
At John 19:19-20 we read:

  Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”  Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

In the crucifixes that we see today, we only see the inscription as INRI which is the short-form of what Pilate actually wrote. It is  quite unlikely that Pilate used the abbreviated  form, since the inscription was meant to be  form of charge-sheet, as is evident from John 19:21 :  " Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’”

My question is: is there any denomination which uses the full text of the inscription that Pilate placed on the Cross of Jesus, in the crucifix used by it ?


texts: Is there any Method in Methodism that people practice?

texts:
I was going to ask, "Why are Methodists called Methodists", but that's pretty easily googleable.  Apparently it's the same reason the Sioux aren't called Lakota.

But, in the days since the "Holy Club" became known as the "Methodists" has there been any attempt to define what "The Method" actually is?


texts: What did Catholics do to ease the time and maintain hope during historical pestilences such as the Black Plague?

texts:
What did Catholics (and other Christians, if applicable) do to ease the time of historical pestilences such as the Black Plague (1347 to 1351), especially in quarantine areas?

I can imagine that Christians prayed for the end of the pestilence, but did they do any other things to make the time pass by more easily?

Perhaps learning from the past, we can learn a few things for dealing with our present situation with the coronavirus-19!


texts: What is the gospel supposed to mean? In what ways can it be used? What do Christians generally mean when they use the term "gospel"?


texts: Do Mormons have Sunday services?/What does the regular Mormon liturgy look like?

texts:
I've gone past a mormon church near my house quite a few times now and I'm keen to give it a visit. However I am prevented by the fact that I can't find any website which lists their service times or any other related information. This got me wondering, what do mormons actually get up to? I'm not even sure that they actually have a Sunday (or other day) service which is comparable to mainstream evangelical churches.

After a bit of research, I've discovered that mormons have a variety of liturgies and sacramental rituals which they perform in special circumstances, and it all seems rather secretive. What I'm wondering about, is if they have some sort of "anyone is welcome" regular meeting similar to mainstream protestants. If so, what happens during this meeting? For example does it follow the usual evangelical format of

song
bible reading
sermon
(optional) Communal confession
(optional) apostles/nicene creed
(optional) lords supper
song
announcements
conclusion
song
informal mingling, doughnuts and coffee/tea and biscuits"?


texts: What is the official stance of various Christian denominations on whether or not non-believers go to hell?   How do denominations which preach that they do, reconcile the damnation of people who grow up in other religions with a just and loving God? To be clear, I'm not asking for individual opinion or biblical interpretation but for sources of the official doctrine.


texts: What does the chaining and locking of Satan in the bottomless pit for the millennial reign accomplish?

texts:
In my study of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I am puzzled by the chaining, and the locking of Satan in the Pit for the millennial reign of Christ.
This question: According to premillenial view, What is the point of the Millenium reign? is similar and has an answer that gives two reasons for  the millennial reign, but they do not seem to answer my question.
Here are some considerations that I have mulled over:

Satan is chained and locked in the pit, so that he can no longer tempt mankind.

Since Satan was defeated at the cross, then why is he loosed to participate in the battle of Armageddon?

Is the battle of Armageddon the final battle of the war begun in Heaven, and if so why then did God, give the one thousand year interlude in that battle?

Is the Battle at Armageddon to show Satan that even though he enlisted such a large number of mankind in his army that that was not sufficient to overcome the army of God?

Assuming that number 4 is true, then why does the judgment immediately follow Armageddon?

And finally, will Satan and all unbelievers have to bear the knowledge that their rebellion was such folly for the Eternity in the lake of fire?

Number 6 is as close as I have come to understanding this passage in the Revelation, but it still does not answer my initial question, of the purpose of the millennial reign, and why Satan is bound and locked in the bottomless pit.
From what I know of the Catholic faith they believe that the dead are put into a place known as Purgatory to await the final judgment, which gives a second chance to get into Heaven, but we protestants do not adhere to such a belief. As far as purgatory goes it would give a chance for those in purgatory to get into heaven while Satan was bound which seems a bit of a stretch to me, but as for Protestants it seems to serve no purpose for those who are already dead since their fate is sealed as far as I understand.
I can see a possible reason for Catholics but not for Protestants. Any ideas from any denomination are welcome.


texts: When were the Fasting Patterns of the Eastern Orthodox Church Established?

texts:
I am under the impression that the fasting patterns of the Orthodox church were established over the course of several centuries. I am interested in some sources that would clarify when the pattern was "cemented". I am having a difficult time googling this question.

I would like to know a general date of when the pattern was established.

By "the fasting patterns", I mean the Lenten fast, the Apostle's fast, the Dormition fast, the Nativity fast, the fasting prior to receiving the mysteries/sacraments, and the normal fasting on Wednesday and Friday.


texts: What does TS Eliot mean by "old dispensation" in The Journey of the Magi?

texts:
In T. S. Eliot's poem The Journey of the Magi he's offering a imaginative view into the interior experience of one of the wise men from the East who came to Jesus's birthplace.

The last few lines of that poem are:

  We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
      But had thought they were different; this Birth was
      Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
      We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
      But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
      With an alien people clutching their gods.
      I should be glad of another death.

What does he mean by old dispensation here?  Does this come from the Bible (I can't find it there)?  Does it come from church history?


texts: How do Young Earth Creationists account for the arising of millions of species after the flood?

texts:
In this debate, about 1:07:18, Bill Nye calculated that about 11 species per day must have been born since the time of the flood in order for the millions of current species to have evolved* from the mere thousands of different kinds that Ken Ham states would have been on the ark.  Ken Ham didn't address this issue later on in the debate.  How do Young Earth Creationists account for this great diversity of species?  Were every single offspring of each kind of animals separate species so that most of the species evolved* quickly after the flood?

EDIT: Here is how Bill Nye came up with his number:

4,000 Years since Ken Ham's flood:
7,000 Ken Ham's "kinds"
16,000,000 species today

4,000 years * 365.25 days per year = 1,461,000 days

Number_of_new_species_per_day = 15,993,000 species / 1,461,000 days = 11 new species per day since the time of the flood

*(By "Evolve," I am referring to micro-evolution)


texts: What is the Christian position on sleeping with a menstruating woman?

texts:
Most mainstream Christian denominations teach that the Ceremonial Law has become obsolete, but consider homosexuality to be a sin that one should not do after becoming a Christian. There are quite a few prohibitions in Leviticus 18 besides homosexuality, such as sleeping with one's sister, and also sleeping with a menstruating woman.

However I haven't heard Christians put nearly the same kind of emphasis on abstinence from sex during a woman's period that they do on sex between a man and a man. My question is, how do they treat the subject? Are Christians actively discouraged from this practice? Both practices are condemned and carry the death penalty. Since Jesus did not mention either one, by what principle do Christians decide how to treat these two activities?

References:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+15
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18


texts: What is the significance of the name, "The Word"?

texts:
God / Jesus has many names which reveal something of His nature / character, e.g.:

Son of God (reveals His divine nature)
Son of Man (reveals His human nature)
etc.

But "The Word" is more puzzling to me. Why is Jesus called "The Word" and what does it reveal about Him?

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1


texts: What was Adolf von Harnack's case that Priscilla wrote Hebrews?

texts:
One of the theories about the authorship of Hebrews is that Priscilla (the wife of Aquilla) wrote Hebrews.  While it is by no means universal (indeed many suggestions have been made), and at least in my estimation not even the most persuasive case, some have suggested female authorship for this epistle.

What factors, other than simple desire on the part of some that there is a female author in the Bible, led people like von Harnack to believe that Priscilla was the author.  While the wikipedia article mentions why a female name would have been blotted out, it doesn't really point to any evidence for the case.  What textual clues led von Harnack to even make the case?


texts: What was the Jewish understanding of baptism?

texts: Considering the message of John the Baptist and the Jewish leaders reaction to it, what was the existing Jewish thought about Baptism? Who needed to be baptized and when?


texts: Can anyone provide any sources where earlier English Theologians distinguished between Holy Ghost and holy Spirit?

texts:
I have heard the claim (and especially here) that English theologians in the Middle Ages made a distinction between the Spirit of Christ as the indwelling Spirit or holy Spirit (holy as an adjective rather than part of the Divine Name/Title) and the Holy Ghost as the third member of the Trinity. I cannot find anything myself that demonstrates that they made this distinction, other than deliberately translating Holy Ghost when referring to the unembodied Third Person of the Trinity, and Spirit (or holy Spirit)(please don't edit this - they lowercase is part of the Translation as an adjective) when referring to the indwelling Spirit of God/Christ in the believer. And this quote from a footnote in the Shepherd of Hermas - Similitude Fifth, Chapter VI.
[If the reader feels that the explanation itself needs to be explained, let him attribute it to the confused and inaccurate state of the text. Grabe says emphatically, that “the created Spirit of Christ as a man and not the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity,” is spoken of in this chapter chiefly. The apparent confusion of words and phrases must be the result of ignorant copying. It is a sufficient answer to certain German critics to cite the providential approval of Athanasius, a fact of the utmost moment. Nobody doubts that Athanasius was sensitive to any discoloration of the Nicene Faith. In the text of Hermas, therefore, as it was in his copy, there could have been nothing heretical, or favouring heresy. That Hermas was an artist, and purposely gave his fiction a very primitive air, is evident. He fears to name the Scriptures he quoted, lest any one should doubt their use, in the days of Clement, in the Western Churches.]
I think the footnote is quoting John Ernest Grabe, but I cannot find his work on the Shepherd of Hermas.
Can anyone direct me to this or some other sources where this distinction seems to be made by earlier English theologians?


texts: What biblical (scriptural) basis does a Christian have to command the blessings?

texts: I hear some Christians say that we should command the blessings or command our morning to align itself with our day and faith. I believe this is true, but I want a biblical framework to reference when this topic comes about. I believe the kingdom is based on Kingdom principles, and when we act in faith upon these biblical principles, it becomes the key that unlocks Heaven's riches to us.  However, it's something I just believe, but where is that found? How do I explain this theory to a newbie, or a young believer in Christ from a scriptural basis?


texts: Do the scriptures indicate the physical appearance of the Israelites?

texts:
I have seen ancient depictions of the ancient Israelites and there features were different than I expected.

Linguistic experts have stated that Hebrew is one of the early Asiatic-African languages.

The Hamitic people were a dark skinned people, Noah's wife was Hamitic, moses' wife was Hamitic, the ancient Israelites mixed with Hamitic Egyptians for centuries before exodus.

In Acts 21:37-38 the soldier mistakenly took Paul for a Hamitic Egyptian. How could the soldier mistake Paul for an Egyptian unless the ancient Israelites were of a darker skin tone?

Is there any references in Scripture to the physical identity of the ancient Israelites?


texts: If Orthodox Christians must repent of any act of violence, how does this not entail pacifism?

texts:
I have heard from many Orthodox that one should repent of any act of violence, including violence committed in self-defense or in the service of military duties.

As I understand it, true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same situation again, one would act differently.

How can this be squared with the church's non-pacifism? The church plainly is not pacifistic and has recognized in several places the unfortunate need for violence in this world.

For Catholics there is no inconsistency, for one doesn't repent of just violence. But this seems to be a problem for the Orthodox, at least from my reading. How does Orthodox Theology resolve this apparent contradiction/paradox?


texts:
We use the phrase "The Early Church" all the time around here, which leads me to ask...  What exactly is "the early Church"?

The New testament Church is easy to define – the fellowship of believers that existed during New testament times.  But I've never come across a definitive date range for the "Early Church" or even a specific event or marker.

For comparison, the "Middle Ages" sounds like it might be a relative term, but the term "Middle Ages" refers to a specific time period – the 5th to the 15th century A.D.

Does "The Early Church" refer to a specific, commonly accepted time period in the history of the Church, or do we just use it to refer to "Sometime early A.D." with the definition of "early" being up to open interpretation?


texts: How important is a "moment" of conversion?

texts:
Some people can specify the day and hour when they became Christians. Others were brought up Christians and say that, though they are Christian now, they cannot specify exactly when the change took place.

Is it important to be able to specify the moment of conversion?

Update: this is not about remembering the date and time but about being able to specify the moment.


texts: Did Luther believe in gnomish creatures?

texts:
Luther in his translation of Isa. 34:14 renders Lilith as Kobold, a gnomish creature from German folklore who inhabits mines and mischievously contaminates silver.

Did Luther really believe in this mythical creature?


texts: Do The Original Houses of Numbers Still Exist?

texts:
Are there still leaders of these households or are they obsolete?

Reuben: 46,500
Simeon: 59,300
Gad: 45,650
Judah: 74,600
Issachar: 54,400
Zebulun: 57,400
Joseph:

Ephraim: 40,500
Manasseh: 32,200

Benjamin: 35,400
Dan: 62,700
Asher: 41,500
Naphtali: 53,400
Levites: ?


texts: How do monothelites explain Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane?

texts:
...monothelitism is the view that Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will. - Wikipedia

In the garden, Jesus prayed:

  Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. - Luke 22:42 NIV

How do (trinitarian) monothelites explain this? Do they believe that the Son's will can vary from the Father's (in which case, why doesn't the Son's willingness to accede to the will of the Father also represent an expression of the Son's will); or that the first half of this prayer does not actually represent an expression of the Son's will (in which case, for what reason does he pray this - wouldn't it then be a disingenuous request)?


texts: Can the human spirit remember anything without a physical body? (LDS perspective)

texts:
I work doing support work for adults with disabilities. I have a friend who recently graduated with a degree in psychology. One day we got talking about all the ways that brain damage (through accident, injury, age, disease, etc.) can affect a person.

Both of us being Christian as well, the conversation eventually shifted into a more spiritual discussion about the consistent/unchanging nature of the spirit and the inconsistent nature of the body. We got stumped on a couple of question, but they can be summarized into this one: There is no question whether or not the human brain can store memories – but is the human spirit able to store memories (without a physical body)?

My friend is Christian, I am LDS. Despite having access to the vast knowledge of both Christian viewpoints, we couldn't find any answer to the question with just the two of us looking.

The Bible didn't seem to have any answers (it's a big book though with only two people looking) and the only things I could find in the Book of Mormon were references to a person remembering all their guilt or joy at judgement (i. e., after the resurrection). I'm no scholar in other canonized Christian literature or in the other LDS books, but nothing we found seemed to specifically reference a spirit remembering something without a physical brain.

Is there anywhere in scripture or LDS doctrine reference to a spirit, outside of the presence of God (i. e., fallen man, those in spirit prison, or Satan and his followers), remembering something? Or a doctrine that clearly suggests spirits can remember things?


texts: Why don't most Protestants consider confession to be a sacrament?

texts:
Most Protestants recognise only two sacraments, saying something like this (from the Anglican 39 Articles):

  There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel,
  that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord

But in the Gospels it is written:

John 20:21-23

  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am
  sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the
  Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if
  you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Mt 16,18-20

  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
  church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give
  you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will
  be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
  loosed in heaven.”

Mt 18,18

  "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound
  in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in
  heaven.

For who tells that was introduced by Pope Innocent III:

Acts 19,18

  Some believers, too, came forward to admit in detail how they had used
  spells

John 1,1:9

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

2 Corinthians 5,18

  All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and
  gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Why isn't confession/penance considered a sacrament by most Protestants? Why don't they think these verses institute the sacrament of confession?


texts:
In chapter 9 of the revelation we learn that:

  Revelation 9:1 and 2 NKJV  Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit. 2  And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace. So the sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit.

And in verse 11 we find:

  Revelation 9:11 NKJV  And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

Smith’s Bible dictionary defines the two words as:

  Apollyon
  Apol'lyon. Apollyon or, as it is literally in the margin of the Authorized Version of Rev_9:11, "a destroyer", is the rendering of the Hebrew word, Abaddon, "the angel of the bottomless pit". From the occurrence of the word in Psa_88:11, the rabbins have made Abaddon, the nethermost of the two regions into which they divide the lower world; but that in Rev_9:11, Abaddon is the angel and not the abyss, is perfectly evident in the Greek.

  Psa 88:11  Shall Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place of destruction?

Psalm 88:11 Westminster Leningrad Codex

הֲלַמֵּתִים תַּעֲשֶׂה־פֶּלֶא אִם־רְפָאִים יָקוּמוּ ׀ יֹודוּךָ סֶּֽלָה׃

According to my Linear translation:

11 [e]

bā•’ă•ḇad•dō•wn.

בָּאֲבַדּֽוֹן׃

in Abaddon

Noun

In Revelation chapter 12 it says:

  Revelation12:7 through 12 NKJV  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, *Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. * 11  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Is there any Doctrine in any denomination which addresses this, since the best I can derive from these passages is that the bottomless pit is a Spiritual prison, in which God has placed Satan and the rebellious Angels.

Chapter 12 of the Revelation has me the most confused, since the indication here; is when this happened, Salvation was set into motion.

In trying to understand these Scriptures I have concluded that the Revelation Chapter nine, Psalm 88:11 and Revelation 12:7 through 9 are pre Crucifixion while 10 through 12 are at the Crucifixion, especially since:

  Luke 23:44 and 45 NKJV  And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45  And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Since following the war in Heaven Satan and his Angels were cast into the Earth can the bottomless pit be the Earth as described in Genesis?

  Genesis 1:1 and 2 NKJV  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


texts: Does Isaiah foretell any births that are not about Jesus?

texts:
Are there any births foretold in the book of Isaiah which scholars have held NOT to be about Jesus, the Messiah?

What textual clues have been used to distinguish between passages that predict some other prophet versus Jesus himself?


texts: How do Christians discern whether they are on the narrow path that leads to life or the broad path that leads to destruction?

texts:
Matthew 7:13-14 (ESV):

13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

How do Christians discern if they are part of the privileged minority walking the narrow path to life? Are there recommended and well-tested practices in Christianity for making that assessment, or is this a subject matter which is inherently subjective and, therefore, devoid of any objective and reliable way of discerning?


texts: What is LDS church view of a baptized member owning machine guns?

texts:
This other question mentions a harm threshold above which an offender's participation counts as "serious". The examples given include

defacing more than 10 postage stamps in a 48 hour period
possessing more than 2 unregistered machine guns

Actually both of these are sort of interesting to me, but for different reasons.

(Note: commenters brought out that these are hypothetical examples, not to be taken as representative of actual rules.)

The question I would like to ask though is about owning guns that are not used for hunting or for protecting against wild animals, such as is the case with machine guns.

What is the LDS Church viewpoint about a baptized member owning machine guns? Does that affect the members standing in the congregation?


texts: What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach about who Jesus is and where He came from?

texts:
From the answer to another question, someone suggested that the LDS (Mormon) church teaches that Jesus is distinct from God—that though He is a part of the Godhead, the Godhead is not a Trinity defined by the "Three-in-One" idea.

What specifically, then, does the LDS Church teach about who Jesus is and where He came from?  Is He eternal, not eternal, uncreated, created?


texts: What is the Old Testament Biblical basis to the idea that only God can forgive sins?

texts:
Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21 have scribes and Pharisees claiming that only God can forgive sins.

"Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive
sins but God alone?"

and

"But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to themselves, “Who is
this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”"

What is the Old Testament Biblical basis to the claim that God alone can forgive sins, and not one who is delegated with authority by God?


texts: How to know whether God truly spoke to you?

texts:
In many churches nowadays, there are a lot of people claiming to have the gifts of the holy spirit(prophets, speaking in tongues etc). In my experience, most of them are just looking for personal gain that's why I started thinking they are all false prophets.

However, recently I had an experience which I believe truly is a message from God through a prophet(see first edit for more details).

That's why I am asking what are some biblical ways to test whether someone is speaking from God(guided by the Holy spirit) or by themselves?


texts: How is spiritual progress described in eastern monastic traditions?

texts:
Catholic church has a long monastic history, and there are excellent exponents of spiritual progress whose concepts are used even today. Take Theresa of Avila's "interior castle" or Juan de la Cruz' "dark night of the soul" which describe specific and well defined spiritual stages in which a person may live. Another example may be Therese de Lisieux' "little way".

I've read excepts from some spiritual books of the east like "The ladder of divine ascent" or "Philokalia", but I found them excessively cryptic and hard to understand. I'm actually asking about any spiritual concept or rule of spiritual progress that comes from orthodox churches that is still used today; of course I'm also interested in the explanation of such concepts and if possible to know the author and source.

I appreciate your help in understanding the eastern monastic spirituality.

UPDATE: After researching, I've figured out the deepness of eastern spirituality. I would like to limit my question to the explanation of Hesychasm (whose practices I don't understand) and Imiaslavie practices.


texts:
Today I heard an instructor (a monk) saying:

At The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, met in 680/681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical and defined Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills (divine and human).

And he explained that Jesus had two wills, as a human, he was able to do the wrong or the right thing, he chose the right path, to show us that we could be just like him and follow the road to salvation. He also had the will of a God, because he is God.

He added, we all have two wills, take saints as an example, they have the will of a human, they can make decisions, to do the wrong or the right thing, but when they become saints, they have the will of a saint, which is to be with God and so on.

So I asked him: well the devil was a spirit right? So he made the wrong decision and became a devil, in fact all devils were angels. Which poses two questions.

If Spirits/souls/angels (call them what you want) do think and make decisions, wouldn't be possible to someone in heaven, maybe a saint, to make a wrong decision and end up in hell, just like the devil?
If they don't think and don't make decisions, meaning that if you were a saint on earth, you'll be a saint forever. Then how did the devil make the wrong decision? Furthermore, how do spirits live in heaven or hell, as objects?

He said we'll discuss that later, let me finish the course, so I'm bringing this topic to here.


texts: When was the "Evangelist" title first applied to the Gospel authors?

texts:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are known as the "Four Evangelists" because they are believed to have written the four canonical Gospels. The word "evangelist" means a messenger of good news, but is usually used by Christians to refer to those who preach the Gospel to the lost. While it's easy to understand why it is also used for the Gospels' authors, as these books are messages of the good news, it does have a different sense. While we think of evangelists as people whose primary ministry was the direct preaching of the Gospel, this was not necessarily the case with the Gospel authors.
This question is a simple one: when in church history was the title "Evangelist" first applied to the Gospel authors for their role in writing the Gospel texts? If it is not known who first called them evangelists, then what is the earliest clear mention of them with this title?


texts: Does Satan have a physical dwelling place on earth?

texts:
I read some articles years ago before I joined Christianity.SE and I will like us to throw more light on the content. This article authoritatively states that Satan's dwelling place is in Turkey, according to this passage:

  Revelation 2:12-13

  12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things
  saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

  13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat
  is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even
  in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain
  among you, where Satan dwelleth

Is this passage really saying that Satan has or had a physical dwelling place?


texts: According to the Eastern Orthodox, what are the rules for acquiring / owning icons?

texts: The Eastern Orthodox churches generally place great importance on icons. I remember reading that they say private owners should not buy icons (but can e.g. get them as a gift). I'd like to know what the rules are, where they are documented, and whether they are different for different kinds of icon (historically important ones, normal "written" ones, machine reprints etc).


texts: How do Protestants respond to the JW interpretation of John 14:28?

texts:
According to What Does the Bible Really Teach?, a Watchtower publication, pp.41–42:

The only-begotton Son never even considered trying to be equal to his Father. The Bible clearly teaches that the Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28).

John 14:28 says:

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Which, on the surface, appears to agree with the JW claim that Jesus himself says he is "not equal" to his Father.
What is the Protestant response to this, in the context of the divinity of Jesus.  How can Jesus be divine, and also "lesser" than the Father?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses use different language for theological reasons?

texts:
They don't have churches: they have Kingdom Halls (though it's not wrong to refer to a Kingdom Hall as a type of church).

They don't have hymns: they have Kingdom Songs (though it's not wrong to refer to a Kingdom Song as a hymn).

They don't have priests; they have elders (maybe this one is more understandable: they're not alone in having elders, and not having priests is a theological point).

They divide the Bible into the "Hebrew (and Aramaic) Scriptures" and the "Christian Greek Scriptures" (not just the "Greek Scriptures", to prevent possible confusion with the Septuagint).

Are any of these differences actually theologically meaningful?


texts:
Reading Matthew 12:26

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

I cant seem to pin point where is his kingdom? Evil men dont seem to be united?


texts: How does the Passover foreshadow the coming of Jesus as the Messiah?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 5:7, Paul refers to Jesus as "Christ, our Passover", suggesting that the Passover of Exodus somehow foreshadowed the life of Jesus.

How specifically does the Passover do this?

  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really
  are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  1
  Corinthians 5:7 ESV


texts: What is the biblical basis for the freedom of religion?

texts:
Christianity generally believes in the exclusivity of believers in Jesus the Christ.

John 14:6 NIV

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

What is the biblical basis for a majority Christian society allowing religious freedom, as opposed to establishing a Christian theocracy?


texts: When would a Mormon choose to go to the temple instead of the church?

texts:
The accepted answer to this other question mentions that Mormons have two types of meeting locations: temples and churches.

According to the answer, the churches have a 3-hour meeting every Sunday.

In what kind of cases or times would a Mormon then visit a temple for a meeting?


texts: What does the Bible say about being a witness to sin?

texts: I want to know what guidance the Bible has for Christians who are witness to sin, and adultery specifically.


texts: Is there any Biblical argument against using "cuss words"?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say about “bad” words?

In modern Christianity, we tend to hold a certain set of (approximately) four letter words as taboo words.  In Ephesians, Paul writes:

  Ephesians 4:29 (NASB)
  29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

Most of these taboo words have unwholesome roots, but have now been overloaded with non-unwholesome definitions, so that in everyday dialect, they are not typically used with any unwholesome meaning.

Is there any Biblical or cultural[1] argument against using cuss words[2]?

[1] A cultural argument is an argument based on the cultural context in which the Bible was written, or perhaps an extra Biblical source describing a view point held by the very early church.

[2] I mean cuss words in the most general sense - obviously the definition of which words are cuss words varies between cultures/languages.


texts: Why is Easter celebrated on a different day every year and Christmas is not?

texts: It is well known that on Easter we celebrate Jesus' resurrection, but every year it is held on a different date, whereas Jesus' birthday—Christmas—is celebrated on the same day every year. So why is the day we celebrate Jesus' resurrection different every year when Christmas is not?


texts: How do those who believe in a works or works + faith based salvation interpret Jesus' words to the criminal in Luke 23:43?

texts:
Luke 23:39-43 tells of Jesus' interaction with the two criminals being crucified on either side of him:

  39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
  40 But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
  41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
  42 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
  43 And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43, ESV)

After the second criminal acknowledges Christ's sinlessness in contrast to their own sinful ways, and fear of condemnation from God, Jesus tells him that he will be saved.

How do those who believe in a works based salvation (either in whole, or in part along with faith) interpret this statement by Jesus in light of the thief's inability to perform good works?


texts: Can you re-enter the catholic church after leaving?

texts:
I was a Catholic. I did my sacraments according to the Catholic lifestyle. When I was born, I was baptized. Around age of 8 years, I got my First Holy Communion, and around 14 years of age, I went to confirmation classes and got confirmed.

Most of these things were done to live up to my parents expectations. I did not pay attention or go to church so when I was 20, I got myself excluded from the church by sending a formal letter to my parish. I think I filled in the form "Defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali," or "Defection from the Catholic Church by a Formal Act" (the information can be found here).

I remember filling in the following information:

Name
Full address
Where I was baptised
Date of my baptism
Parish Church of my baptism
Date of birth

I did not fill in:

The name of my parents
The name of my godparents.

I got a confirmation letter back stating I had officially left the Roman Catholic church.

I have recently found peace with myself. In my search for meaning with life, I found myself back in the church. My questions are:

Can I re-join the catholic church after leaving it? I guess I got wiped-out from the registers. I believe I have the confirmation letter stating that I left the church, send by my parish when I wanted out.
Do I still have the right to a Catholic wedding & funeral in the future?
How does God see me after leaving the Catholic church?

I agree that my first thing would be to talk to my local priest. I do not have good relationship with my current priest. I find it somewhat embarrassing and am afraid of being judged for my previous actions by leaving the church. Should I bring the letter stating that I have left the church? Or do I need some other documentation with me?


texts: Can you give air-kisses to icons in the Eastern Orthodox church instead of physical kisses? I was reading this website, which teaches church etiquette to church-going Christians. The website seems to imply that the kisses are physical kisses, because the writer of the article is concerned with lipstick on the icons. That said, is it okay to give air-kisses? Are chapsticks allowed? What about the etiquette of the non-Christian visitor? Should he kiss the icon too to pay respect to the icon, or is the behavior exclusively for observant Orthodox Christians?


texts: What is the highest position a married man can achieve in the Catholic church?

texts:
If a man is married, but feels the need to formally take part in the day-to-day operations of his local Catholic church what would be the best post for him to apply to and what is the highest post he will be able to achieve?

What type of religious instruction does the catholic church provide for married men?


texts: How is Jesus' will in union with the Father's? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in
you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you
have sent me. (John 17:21)
Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will,
but yours be done. (Luke 22:42)

In Luke we can see that Jesus' will was or could be different from the Father's. According to the Catholic Church, in what sense is Jesus' will united (the same) with that of God the Father? Or what is the Catholic interpretation regarding Jesus' remark, "yet not my will" if their will is fully united?


texts: Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel? (LDS perspective)

texts:
Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel?
Paul tells us not to accept any other gospels apart from the one he has preached. Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another gospel? If so, why?

Inviting Mormon perspectives.

  6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you
  in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another;
  but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of
  Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
  gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
  9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any
  other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

  Galatians 1:6-9


texts: What is the purpose and meaning of the Christian Flag?

texts:
Many of you have probably seen the Christian flag: a white flag with a red cross on a blue corner.

It's a staple of some churches and many Christian schools.

Do the colors have specific significance? How to the flag come to be and what purpose does it serve to the church?


texts: Approximate amount of money per year the Catholic church spends for charity?

texts:
I'm curious of how much money the Catholic Church spends globally for charity per year. I could not find the information I wanted by a simple Google search, and even on Wikipedia, I could only  find some figures for the USA.

I'm not interested in a debate about who gives more or who gives less, or whether it's too little or too much. I'm only interested in the cold hard sum expressed in a notable currency, with a source where the information or approximations comes from.

For the sake of simplicity, I do not include Catholic persons who privately give to charity, I'm only interested in Church-owned funds.

Edit: some comments pointed out, that the word "charity" is too ambiguous. I used it in a sense like charity outside of supporting the upkeep of the Church, but charity in the sense of giving to poor people, starving children, etc. (and schools, sanitation and hospitals in poor countries)

What's the best word for "charity" in this sense? "External charity" seems odd to me and even more prone to be misunderstood. Or should I say Vatican, not Catholic Church? I'm not Catholic myself, so my understanding of Catholic organization and structure might be flawed.


texts: Why did Augustine attempt to stop Christians from walking barefoot?

texts:
In The Confessions, Augustine relates the story of an ascetic named Alypius who "tamed his body" to such an extent that "he went barefoot on the icy soil of Italy" (IX.vi).  Henry Chadwick notes:

  Much ancient evidence records the axiom that for cultic acts bare feet are necessary; Augustine himself found it impossible to stop the practice when he became a bishop.  Monks in ancient Egypt removed their shoes for communion.  In Syria it was customary for candidates for baptism, in the West for Regation processions.

Apparently, then, some Christians walked barefoot only for short times associated with communion or baptism, while others went without shoes for long periods, even outdoors during the winter.  Chadwick's note makes it sound as though Augustine objected to the practice generally, not just to the extreme forms, but this isn't clear. So:

Did Augustine attempt to stop Christians from removing their shoes for all types of worship and ceremonies (if so, why?)?  Or was he only concerned about the more dangerous types like that done by Alypius?  Where in his writings does he address this topic?


texts: What is the current stance of the Catholic Church regarding the legality of non-Catholic religions?

texts:
The famous Syllabus of Errors by Bl. Pope Pius IX condemns, among others, that:

  In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the
  exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution "Nemo vestrum,"
  July 26, 1855.
  Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the
  public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution
  "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. - The Syllabus of Pius IX

Therefore, it would seem that Pius IX orders that all religions bar Catholicism are to be declared illegal by the State.

I am confused. While I don’t know about any official modern document of the Church regarding this issue, the Church really, really doesn’t seem to hold such a position nowadays. Instead, St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have both participated in interfaith prayers for peace alongside not only non-Catholic Christians, but also leaders of heathen religions. This seems to me to hardly reconcile with the above condemnations of Pius IX.

My explanation, up to now, was that the Syllabus has never been officially declared infallible and the current activities of modern Popes like the aforementioned prayer for peace and others prove that the Church has shifted its position on this subject and therefore, these points of the Syllabus are no longer in force.

Am I right? At least, they were in force in the beginning of the XX century, because the Catholic Encyclopedia wrote that:

  Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that
  unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the
  binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is
  beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official
  communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope
  speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over.
  All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly
  they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must
  also assent to it interiorly. -
  The syllabus of Pius IX

Some questions force themselves into my mind:

Are condemnations 77-78 from the Syllabus of Error still in force, binding all Catholics to adhere to them and agree with them?
Does this mean that the Church wants worship of non-Christian and non-Catholic Christian religions banned by the State?
How to reconcile numerous ecumenical and interfaith activities held by modern popes, like the interfaith prayers for peace with these condemnations?


texts: Where does calling Heaven "My True Country" come from?

texts: I was reading C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity yesterday; in the chapter on Hope, Lewis refers to Heaven and his "True Country".  Perhaps it's a coincidence, but there's a Newsboys song with that as a lyric.  Is that a Biblical reference or does it start with C.S. Lewis or is it just a Protestant meme?


texts: What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's law regarding the Communion fast?

texts:
We know from scripture that the institution of the Eucharist was during supper with the taking of the cup being after supper. And it appears from St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians that there was a common meal before the Eucharist where food and drink were to be shared. Yet canon law requires the communicant to fast beforehand:

  Can.  919 §1. A person who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist
  is to abstain for at least one hour before holy communion from any
  food and drink, except for only water and medicine.

What then is the reason for this law, since to me, there isn't a readily apparent scriptural basis for it?


texts: On the topic of marriage in heaven, how does the LDS church reconcile Matthew 22:23-33?

texts:
Curious

Based on this document which appears to outline celestial marriage, and LDS temple rites pertaining to the eternal sealing of husbands and wives; children as well, born after the sealing of a husband and wife, are said to be partakers; 'born in the covenant', or, having been born before the sealing, through provision of temple rites, can be sealed to the covenant of their parents; what is to be done with these words of Jesus Christ.

  The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
  (Mat 22:23-33)

Thinking that they could find some error in the perfect doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Sadducees had designed to ensnare him, by a solicitation of his doctrine on the resurrection of the dead. I see, had he agreed with their position, being that, to them, there was no resurrection of the dead, they would have been content to take his part, in turning it to their advantage; a sharp disagreement between their sect, and the Pharisees; or equally content to have an open declaration from him on the matter, to give a doctrinal prerogative for their rejection of him.

A short personal aside, on that captivating matter-of-course; entering through the back door, while his adversaries guarded the front, in a figure of speech; their preoccupation with the expected answer, left them vulnerable to his triage of the matter.

Jesus begins first by addressing that particular pretext of theirs, a convoluted arrangement on their part; apparently to them, of no significance, but for the occasion it afforded. 'Ye do err', and though their expectation, as I said, being his answer to the resurrection, 'not knowing the scriptures' (I suspect the other half 'nor the Power of God', is in reserve for the ensuing 'as touching the resurrection of the dead') --'they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.'

Question

How do Latter Day Saints perceive this, in regard to the LDS doctrine on divine confirmation of the figurative covenant of marriage, carried on in perpetuity? Being that it is in apparent opposition to the explicit revelation of Jesus Christ; in priority over, even the resurrection of the dead? (Feel free to strike the last two clauses, if you perceive an assertive veneer.)


texts:
From a Trinitarian perspective, does the term 'only begotten Son' make sense outside of the concept of the incarnation? If so, how? If not, why not?

The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed states (in part):

  We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds... (emphasis added)

My question in extended form: Is the 'begotten-ness' eternal if and only if the incarnation is viewed from an eternal perspective as well (our sense of what begotten means would consequentially be inextricably linked to the incarnation) or is there some logic in conceiving that somehow a temporal locus of the incarnation imparts a distinction between it and 'eternally begotten'?

I imagine this is the sort of issue Thomas Aquinas would have considered - if so can someone direct me to how he addresses the issue.

I am also interested in the views of any other relevant trinitarian theologians as well.

This question: Is there any proof from the Bible that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation? is related but distinct.


texts: Does extreme use of capital punishment in ANE & Mosaic laws attest to a universal recognition of God's wrath, or God's tolerance of universal cruelty?

texts:
If you read any of the ancient near east (ANE) codes such as Hammurabi's Code of Laws there is a strikingly similiar severity in the widespread use of capital punishment. This gives a similiar feel to reading the Mosaic laws.

Although the Mosaic laws differ substantially in their higher status and justice, for example rights given to slaves, the Mosaic laws still use capital punishment equally, if not more severely, than the ANE laws. For example, what would seem as a small religious infraction in a post-New Testament influenced culture, such as 'gathering sticks on the Sabbath', the Old Testament strictly mandated group stoning of the criminal (Numbers 15:32)! This might even seem 'severe' and even raise an eyebrow from Hammurabi's people.

The question I ask then is: 'Under an infallabillity of scripture belief, does this widespread and frequent use of capital punishment in ANE & Mosaic laws attest to an innate recognition of God's wrath under the Old Testament economy, or God's tolerance of cruel societies that coincidentally happened to steer towards a more merciful paradigm after the New Covenant? Or something else?'

Related more general question: Mosaic Laws derived/related to ANE laws?


texts: What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? Please include a summary of both the Catholic and Protestant definitions in the answer.


texts: Is the Genesis creation account consistent with the Big Bang theory according to Catholic theology?

texts: I'm doing some research and am trying to determine whether the creation story of Genesis, chapter 1 (7 days-let there be light) is consistent with the Big Bang Theory. I am finding sources that contradict one another. I'd like to know if the Genesis story of creation is consistent with the Big bang theory solely from a Catholic point of view.


texts: Do good works always express saving faith in Christ, even when that faith is not explicit?

texts:
My understanding of the Catholic view on the relationship between faith and works is that faith and works are inseparable. Which is to say that true faith will always find expression in works, and that every good work is automatically an expression of faith. (And as such every good work leads to an increase in justification, because it demonstrates an increase in faith)

I'd like to hone in on the second part of that equation in this question: "Every good work is automatically an expression of faith." Does this hold true for people who are completely ignorant of Christ? For example if a Muslim in Saudi Arabia who has no knowledge of Christianity performs a truly good work, does that work demonstrate implicit faith in Christ?

Just to clarify the example:

The Muslim may have a totally warped view of Christianity and actually believe that accepting Christ is a heretical action/mortal sin according to Islam. So they would be explicitly denying Christ with their beliefs while implicitly demonstrating an acceptance of Christ with their actions.
By "truly good work" I'm talking about a work which truly demonstrates Christian charity. Not a work which merely appears to be good or is actually self-righteous. I'm talking about a genuinely good work which is pleasing to God. One which totally fulfils the great commandment to "Love your neighbour as yourself"
If it's the case that the Muslim demonstrates implicit faith in Christ by their good work despite explicitly rejecting Christ in their beliefs, this would lead to an increase in Justification, just as it would for a Christian.

Consequences if it is true that good works always demonstrate saving faith: It is possible to demonstrate saving faith in Christ in your actions whilst explicitly rejecting him in your mind.

To restate the question: Does the phrase Every good work is automatically an expression of faith mean that non-Christians can demonstrate saving faith through their loving works without even realising it?


texts:
Sometimes to make the idea controversial, atheists depict God as a humanly being residing in the space and then compare him to other fairy tale creatures. To counter this, some sort of logical or may be philosophical answer is needed to the question, "Where is God?"
What is an overview of the positions within Christianity about this subject?


texts: Is there a biblical reason to limit information about creation to Genesis?

texts:
Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham.  These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens"

Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?


texts: Why did Jesus never address God by the name "Jehovah"?

texts: What explanations have been offered for why Jesus never addressed God in His prayers by the name "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"?


texts: What is going on in Matthew 21 and Mark 12?

texts:
In Matthew 21:33-46 and Mark 12:1-12, Jesus tells pretty much the exact same parable:

  Husbandman leases his vineyard and leaves. He sends some servants to check it out, and they get whooped. He sends his son, the caretakers kill him. The moral - don't mess with the Son.

But the question-response conversation afterward with the pharisees is a touch different in both.

In Matthew 21:40-42 Jesus asks:

  "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

In Mark 12-8-11:

  What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

The Jesus answers his own question in Mark, and in Matthew, Jesus seems to be responding negatively to the Pharisees' answer. But they were right, right?  What am I missing here?


texts: What is the difference between "catholicism" and "catholic"?

texts:
In the Apostle's Creed, the term "catholic" is used in describing the reciter's belief:

  I believe ... in the holy catholic church

This creed is used by a wide variety of denominations, and therefore I'd find it very hard to believe that it always refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

Some English translations of the Apostle's Creed use "holy Christian church" instead of "holy catholic church" - is "catholic", therefore, a synonym for "Christian"?

What is its use in the Apostle's Creed (and other documents)?


texts: Can Saints in Heaven Refuse to Pray for us?

texts:
Specification : When we deliberatly ask them to pray for us.
I would like explanations which take into account the state of mortal sin as well as the scenarios in a state of grace.


texts: How does Proverbs 2:21-22 not disprove "once saved, always saved"?

texts:
For the upright will live in the land,
       and the blameless will remain in it;
  but the wicked will be cut off from the land,
       and the unfaithful will be torn from it."

  Proverbs 2:21-22 (NIV)

"The land" seems like it is the land of God, which might symbolize heaven. So how is the eternal security doctrine defended in light of these verses? Does it have something to do with the fact that they are in the Old Testament?


texts: Efforts and motivation on sanctification

texts: Does sanctification require effort on part of the believer, God, or both combined? If on part of the believer, then who provides motivation for sanctification, God or self?


texts: Reading "Mere Christianity" and having a hard time with book III, chapter 12

texts:
I am reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and just finished Chapter 12 in the 3rd section. In this chapter he is discussing the idea that we need to realize we cannot fight sin ourselves, but we must "leave it up to God". We need to trust in following the path of Christ rather than simply putting our own effort forth to stop sinning. That's all great, but I'm having a hard time with the last two paragraphs. I was hoping someone could clarify what he is trying to say.

  I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all
  about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into
  something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except
  perhaps as a joke. Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled
  with light But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it.

  They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes. But this is near the stage where the road
  passes over the rim of our world. No one's eyes can see very far beyond that: lots of people's eyes can
  see further than mine.


texts: Who first described Pentecost as a reversal of Babel?

texts:
In Spiritual Maturity, J. Oswald Sanders describes Pentecost as a reversal of Babel. An online search shows this to be a link made by others, and in a related thesis on the topic, Paul J. Pastor goes as far as to claim:

  Pentecost as a reversal of Babel has been widely seen by exegetes since the early days of the Church.

Who are some of these early exegetes?


texts:
I know this is an old question, but does anyone have any new ideas on it?

One argument is that God has always existed, but why should anything exist at all? How could this happen?

Another approach is that God (and possibly God's creator(s)) came into being at some point, before He then created the universe. But how could there to be a point at which something began to exist, where before there was nothing? Scientists argue that something can come out of nothing, and that this happened at Big Bang. Some of them say 'Nothing is an unstable state - it is not surprising that something has emerged'. However their 'nothing' is a particular condition of space-time, under various science laws that already exist; why should there even be physics laws?

I'd be interested if anyone had any thoughts? Thank you.


texts:
Through the scriptures we know that God created the world and the species and saw that it was good.

He also created us and we were good in the beginning. Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, we were not capable of doing evil. We were in some way, perfect beings as well.

Was the world (and I guess therefore the universe as well) perfect in the beginning? Didn't it suffer from any natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, storms...?


texts: Whether beatific vision gives us univocal knowledge of God?

texts: Here on this world, we can have only analogous (analogy of proper proportionality) knowledge of God. When someone attains the beatific vision, does he have univocal knowledge of God? If not, is knowledge attained in beatific vision analogous also? Please explain your answer.


texts: Has there been any major discussion in Catholicism about whether Christ smiled or laughed?

texts: I recall having heard that there was a major discussion inside the Catholic Church centuries ago about whether Christ laughed or simply smiled in the gospels. This question is not about whether he smiled or laughed, but about: has there been such discussion through "official" channels (e.g. inside an Ecumenical Council) within the Catholic Church? When did such discussion happen and were there any consequences?


texts:
Should the following scriptures be Hosea 2:16-17 or Hosea 2:14-15 Complete Jewish Bible:

  “But now I am going to woo her —
  I will bring her out to the desert
  and I will speak to her heart.
  I will give her her vineyards from there
  and the Akhor Valley as a gateway to hope.
  She will respond there as she did when young,
  as she did when she came up from Egypt.


texts: What evidence is there that the Apostle Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin?

texts: I remember hearing someone make the claim that Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin prior to his conversion to Christianity.  Is there any evidence for this claim?  If so, what is it?


texts: How do Jehovah Witnesses explain the anger of Caiphas?

texts:
So the high priest said to him: “I put you under oath by the living God to tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him: “You yourself said it. But I say to you: From now on you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65  Then the high priest ripped his outer garments, saying: “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? See! Now you have heard the blasphemy. Matthew 26:63-65

  Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: “Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus said: “I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” At this the high priest ripped his garments and said: “What further need do we have of witnesses? You heard the blasphemy.Mark 14:61-64

John Calvin and St.Thomas Aquinas both met on a very similar conclusion, that Caiaphas was angry because Jesus claimed divinity. How do Jehovah witnesses explain the anger of the high priest?
And what was the "blasphemy" that he was angry about?


texts: According to Biblical Unitarians, is it theoretically possible for God to incarnate as a human and live a holy and humble life?

texts: For Biblical Unitarians, and from a theoretical standpoint, can God make use of His omnipotence and free will to take on human form and teach us by way of example what it is to live a holy and humble life, from birth to death? According to Biblical Unitarians, is this something possible for God, or is it beyond His capabilities?


texts: What is the basis for the Catechism saying that one can always be forgiven by perfect contrition come from?

texts:
According to CCC 1452:

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51
51 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1677.

Thus, all sins, venial or mortal, can be forgiven by perfect contrition—that a sinner must sincerely repent and confess, and that's enough for God to forgive all sins, even the ones against Holy Spirit (as long as the sinner shows repentance).
What are, either Biblical, or infallible Catholic, statements, supporting this?


texts: What exactly is the process of becoming a Jesuit?

texts: I have heard that becoming a Jesuit is one of the hardest and longest religious ordinances in the world. What exactly is the purpose of making the process so long and what exactly does it entail? I would also like to know if there is a female version of the Jesuits as I understand it is not open to women?


texts: What does Jesus mean when He says that we should be like children?

texts:
Matthew 18:1-4:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

What does this mean? How can we apply it?


texts:
At Matthew 27: 19 we see the advice given to Pilate by his wife during the trial of Jesus:

  While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.

Had Pilate acceeded to the advice his wife, Jesus could not have accomplished His Mission. Was it possible that the dream of Pilate's wife had been induced by The Enemy?  What is the take of Catholic Church on the dream of Pilate's wife?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?


texts: In Catholicism if God is infinite love, can love always increase in intensity or does that mean quantity?

texts: According to the official facts laid out by the Pope and his Magesterium, as God is unending love and joy, does that mean that these emotions can always 'rise' in their intensity? For instance, we know the beatific vision is joyous beyond anything to be had or imagined here but in experiencing God would we be loving and happy to this degree because He is many, many, many good things or because our actual ability to enjoy is able to be increased? Can emotions increase beyond their greatest scale on Earth? Water cannot get wetter than water...are emotions the same? Can love be more loving than the best kind of love?


texts: Where do Mormons believe heaven is right now?

texts:
Do Mormons believe heaven is outside of the universe or do they believe it's a city/kingdom floating in space or do they believe its on a planet in another star system?

Where do Mormons believe the current heaven is?


texts: What is the nature of the "Communion of the Saints"?

texts:
In the Episcopalian Prayers of the People, Rite I, we pray as follows:

  In the communion of [__ and of all the] saints, let
  us commend ourselves, and one another, and all our life, to
  Christ our God.

As such, we have at least one Protestant (sort of) group that acknowledges the concept of the communion of the saints.  That said, there isn't a lot of understanding of that loaded term.

This term, of course, harkens back to the Apostle's Creed which states:

  I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints: the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting.

The question, however, is what is the nature of this communion?  Is it a fixed gathering of all believers at one time in one place, or is it like an earthly institution, like say, the Boy Scouts, where the membership changes over time, but there is always a membership.