texts: What's up with churches and guitars in this joke from The Big Bang Theory?

texts:
From The Big Bang Theory S10E12:

Mary: Thank you, God, for the food we are about to receive and for the nourishment of our bodies and bless the hands that prepared it. Amen.
Sheldon: Given that your hands prepared it, isn't that a little self-serving?
Mary: You start changing the words to the prayers, next thing you know, you're in a church with a guitar.

Not sure if this is to do with Christianity or some TBBT inside joke I'm missing like Sheldon changes words to prayers at home and then later changes words to prayers in church.


texts: What are the main reasons of EOC for why the Protoevangelium of James was not to be included in the canon?

texts: What are the main reasons of Eastern Orthodox Church for why the Protoevangelium of James was not to be included in the canon? I was looking for a resource stating those reasons, but couldn't find. Wiki's article on Protoevangelium of James doesn't say anything about that.


texts: When a person is described as a Davidide, what is being said about that person?

texts: In my NABRE Bible, there are footnotes on Isaiah 11:1-9 (10) that say Isaiah is "looking forward to a new Davidide who will realize the ancient ideals (see Psalm 72). The oracle does not seem to have a particular historical person in mind." I think it might be one of David's descendants but I am not sure as I have never come across or heard this term. Psalm 72 is a prayer for the king.


texts: Ghosts Appearing as Children [Latter-day Saint perspective]

texts:
Elder Mark E. Petersen (1900–1984) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that the physical body and our spirit are similar in appearance: “Every one of us is a spirit, and our spirit occupies a body of flesh and bone. The spirit is the real person. Our spirit resembles our body, or rather our body was ‘tailored’ to fit our spirit. The spirit bears the image and likeness of God, and the body, if normal, is in the image and likeness of the spirit” (The Way of the Master [1974], 124; see also 1 Nephi 11:11).

From this, the spirits of those who have dies should  look like the individual as they lived; however, it is also taught that our spirits were adults before this life began.

As I understand it, this earth is also the world which is inhabited by those who have died.  Assuming that ghosts are those spirits of those who currently do not have a body (either due to death or as one of Satan's host), why would ghosts ever appear as children?


texts: How to reconcile Kierkegaard's model of worship with Existential authenticity?

texts:
I've been told Kierkegaard suggested that worship be a form of theater where the congregants are actors and pastors are directors.  (This is the only on-line reference I could find, does anyone have a link to a more authoritative source for this?)

Kierkegaard is regarded as an Existentialist.  Existentialists stress the importance of Authenticity.

Can someone please explain how it would be possible to worship authentically if a worshiper is merely acting?


texts: Do humans inherit sin from their earthly father?

texts:
When I was young, someone told me that one of the reasons that a virgin had to give birth to Jesus was that sinful nature is inherited through the father, and so in order to be perfect, Jesus had to have a sinless father. Is this conjecture, or an actual statement in the Bible?

The way I see it, it makes sense when likened to the mother having to be Jewish for the offspring to be Jewish. On the other hand, it was Eve who committed the original sin, which doesn't make sense with this concept.


texts: Without Hell, from what does Jesus save?

texts:
This question is about the liberal versions of Christianity, the versions which don’t have a conception of Hell. Put simply, without Hell, just what exactly is Jesus saving me from?

Even the most liberal Christians say that sin is inescapable. So Jesus cannot be saving me from sin. Without Hell, he can’t be saving me from God either. Or the Devil.

I really don’t see how a liberal Jesus could be anyone’s personal saviour.

Question inspired by Nathaniel in the comments at Slacktivist.


texts: Would a JW be disfellowshipped if they join a military (and are unrepentant about it)?

texts:
On my reading of a Anton Gill's 1989 book "The journey back from hell", he speaks briefly about JWs in the concentration camps. According to Gill, one of the issues the Nazis had with this group was their unwillingness to do military service.

Videos like this and this by Amnesty International indicates that they still rather suffer the consequences of prison and difficulties in finding employment than do military service, at least in South Korea.

What would the consequences be for a Jehovah's Witness, from their religious organization, if they join a military? Would the person be excommunicated or disfellowshipped if this is found out?

(In case it makes a difference, I am asking about a scenario where the person is unrepentant.)


texts: What is the Christian Reformed Church in North America's views about Luke 14:32 with regard to the doctrine of discipleship?

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

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

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

The puzzling verse is v32.

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

Similarly, if a person doesn’t have enough money to complete the tower, which can be interpreted to mean courage to face persecution, since Protestants believe paying a cost means facing persecution,  does it mean he loses the claim to be a disciple of Christ, which is required for salvation/eternal life/entry to heaven?

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

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

All Scripture from the NASB.

PS I checked the commentaries on the Biblehub site.

Protestant Commentaries

They are very contradictory. I may answer my own question with a coherent post if nothing is forthcoming from Reformed Church members.

Note: By Reformed, I mean the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the CRCNA, Modified-Presbyterians  with a largely Calvinist Theology.


texts: What is the origin of the doctrine of perspicuity?

texts:
Fundamentally, Catholics and Protestants read Scripture differently.

Catholics believe that any private interpretation of Scripture is subject to the teachings of the church, whereas Protestants, subscribing to the priesthood of all believers, afford more latitude for private interpretation. Within that "private interpretation," however, is the doctrine of perspicuity – a term that ironically means that Scripture is always clear.  (Ask any congregation to define it, and I'll bet 75% can't!)

The question, however, is how this doctrine developed.  Is it Scriptural, for example, to say that the Bible proclaims itself as having obvious application?  (The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing)  Or is it more of a historical reaction? (The answer to Pope is not to install a new Pope)

In other words, where does this doctrine come from?


texts: What is the meaning of the following Bible quote

texts:
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

If people don't repent then they are not ressurected in Heaven and so are not joyous- therefore the 'more than' would go without saying...however, I assume it does not mean this.

If it's talking about truly 'just' people with no sin (and its not being ironic) then, erm, they don't exist. Does it mean angels? Does it mean we are happier for having sinned but repented and, thereby, better off than Adam and Eve pre-sin?! Help!


texts: From what I've heard, God wants us to glorify him and give him praise, and he enjoys when we do this.  Does God need us to do this for some reason?


texts: Did the midwives in Exodus 1 sin by disobeying and lying to Pharaoh? (Catholic/Protestant overview)

texts:
In Exodus 1:15–16, the king of Egypt orders the Hebrew midwives to kill the sons born to Hebrew women.  However, they do not obey:

  But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. (Exodus 1:17, ESV)

When the king questions them, they respond by saying:

  “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” (Exodus 1:19, ESV)

The following verses show God's response:

  So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. (Exodus 1:20–21, ESV)

What is an overview of Catholic and Protestant understandings of the actions and words of the midwives, especially in light of other passages on civil authority?  Were their actions and words sinful or not?


texts: How do married clergy (preachers) in Protestant denominations support their family?

texts:
In Roman Catholicism the clergy is predominantly celibate and hence there is no pressure of sustaining a family.

What exactly is the system in a Protestant clergy? Are they employed in a gainful job, in addition to being involved in preaching? If so, how do they make time for God as well as for family? How do they sustain their family?


texts: Where does Augustine say that the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body?

texts:
In The Weight of Glory, C. S. Lewis writes:

  What would it be to taste at the fountainhead that stream of which even these lower reaches prove so intoxicating?  Yet that, I believe, is what lies before us.  The whole man is to drink joy from the fountain of joy.  As St. Augustine said, the rapture of the saved soul will "flow over" into the glorified body.  In light of our present specialised and depraved appetites, we cannot imagine this torrens voluptatis, and I warn everyone most seriously not to try.

I haven't been able to find where Augustine actually said this.  Where in Augustine's writings is the original quote and its context?


texts: Why no specific names of false apostles and false brothers in Acts and epistles?

texts: Why is it so that while we are told in the Acts and epistles of many false-apostles and false brothers, there are no specific names mentioned? Has this matter ever been considered in Christianity?


texts: Does the Catholic Church put the death of Samson in the category of suicide?

texts:
At Judges 16: 289-30 (NRSVCE) we see the account of death of Samson:

  Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “Lord God, remember me and strengthen me only this once, O God, so that with this one act of revenge I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes.” And Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other.   Then Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” He strained with all his might; and the house fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life.

One is inclined to refer to the death of Samson as one akin to death at wartime. But then, he was also aware that he would kill himself if he brought down the structure. My question therefore is: Does the Catholic Church put the death of Samson in the category of suicide ?


texts: How to ask a Catholic priest to bless something for someone else?

texts:
So, I am traveling abroad from my home country and will have the opportunity to visit some really cool, super old churches and cathedrals in Europe. I would like to bring a gift back home for a friend who is a Catholic, and I was thinking of bringing something related to the church like a rosary, etc. since I will be so close to so many important historical sites of this organization that's important to their life. I've read that when people get things like that ("sacramentals"?) they often have them blessed (?) and I think that would be something cool to have done in one of the medieval/Renaissance churches I'll visit, it would make it a more unique gift.

I have access to translation tools/know enough Spanish and Italian to physically ask a priest to, but is there like a proper way to approach him or an appropriate time? Should I specify that it's not going to be mine, but a gift? Would he care that I am not religious? And for my friend, are there any steps I would need to take to avoid delegitimizing the blessing in their eyes (not touching item directly afterwards, not taking an active role in the blessing and asking a nearby Catholic to deal with it for me, etc.)? Thanks


texts: Why did early Christians in Acts still go to the Jewish temple every day?

texts:
In the Acts of the Apostles we find that the early believers were every day visiting the temple and afterwards meeting in each others homes.

  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47, NIV)

If the Old ceremonial ways of the Old Testament were finished at the death of Christ (or as other conjecture after Pentecost) why did the church still attend temple gatherings?  Was it because they were not fully aware of the full implication of the New Covenant and may have even offered sacrifices? Was it because they just wanted to get together and evangelize their brethren? Was it some mishmash of both reasons plus possibly more?  What was going on in their heads?


texts: Is Aquinas' idea of 'Beatific Vision' widely accepted today?

texts:
Thomas Aquinas defined the beatific vision as the human being's "final end" in which one attains to a perfect happiness. Aquinas reasons that one is perfectly happy only when all one's desires are perfectly satisfied, to the degree that happiness could not increase and could not be lost.

"Man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to desire and seek."STh I–II, q., 3, a. 8.

But this kind of perfect happiness cannot be found in any physical pleasure, any amount of worldly power, any degree of temporal fame or honor, or indeed in any finite reality. It can only be found in something that is infinite and perfect – and this is God. STh I–II, q. 2, a. 8.
And since God is not a material thing but is pure spirit, we are united to God by knowing and loving him. Consequently, the most perfect union with God is the most perfect human happiness and the goal of the whole of the human life. But we cannot attain to this happiness by our own natural powers; it is a gift that must be given to us by God, who strengthens us by the "light of glory" so that we can see him as he is, without any intermediary. (Thomas quotes Psalm 35:10 on this point:

"In your light we shall see light.")STh I, q. 12, a. 4.

Further, since every created image or likeness of God (including even the most perfect "ideas" or "images" of God we might generate in our minds) is necessarily finite, it would thus be infinitely less than God himself.STh I, q. 12, a. 2.
The only perfect and infinite good, therefore, is God himself, which is why Aquinas argues that our perfect happiness and final end can only be the direct union with God himself and not with any created image of him. This union comes about by a kind of "seeing" perfectly the divine essence itself, a gift given to our intellects when God joins them directly to himself without any intermediary. And since in seeing this perfect vision of what (and who) God is, we grasp also his perfect goodness, this act of "seeing" is at the same time a perfect act of loving God as the highest and infinite goodness"

Wikipedia 'Beatific Vision'.

Is this largely accepted in the 'present' or are there other popular philosophies of theology that combat this?


texts: Can Catholics knowingly work for evil entities?

texts:
Suppose you happen to suspect that the company you work for have evil intentions.

It's a big company and you are a small employee and your work is not evil and you need it, or perhaps you have to feed your family.

Let's say you're a programmer for INC company, you discovered that grosso modo the company you're working for is anti Christ or doing unethical things with data they gathered. Let's say it's all suspicions because you did research or you believe in a conspiracy theory.

As a programmer, you will never be able to verify your suspicions because you're just a worker and you can't come forward. From a Catholic point of view, should you quit the job?


texts: Why are there so many First Congregational Churches in the US?

texts: A simple google earth search turns up hundreds of "First Congregational Churches" all over the U.S. What is the significance of this name?


texts: How do paedo-baptists interpret the Great Commission?

texts:
In the Great Commission of Matt.28:19 (NIV) we read:

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Some people have argued that given Jesus' direct link between baptism and discipleship this command to baptise can only apply to those old enough to respond as active disciples (which would exclude babies and young children).

How do paedo-baptists interpret this text?


texts: What does the Bible say about "bad" words?

texts:
I know the Bible says not to let "unwholesome talk" come out of our mouths (Ephesians 4:29), but to my knowledge it doesn't speak specifically about "bad words."

In fact, to my knowledge, the English language (and especially American English) is somewhat unique in that it has words that are always considered bad, in any context. In my (limited) study of other languages (which is mostly Spanish), most "bad words" are perfectly good words, used in a specifically "bad" context.

Is it possible to use a "bad" word in a context that is not "unwholesome?"

I have a very close (Christian) friend, and he and I occasionally use "bad" words in our conversation, but always in a joking sense. Never out of anger or malice toward the other person. Is this okay, or should we change our behavior?


texts: How do non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty explain how Jesus can effect atonement for all of humanity?

texts:
Non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty include Unitarians, Socinians, Arians, Jehova's Witnesses, etc. This would not include, supposedly, Modalists and LDS/Mormons.

The idea of atonement in the Old Testament was that a sinner would bring an offering to atone for his sin, and the death of that animal (and thus, its life) would take the place of the sinner's.

In his Temple, Its Ministry and Services, Alfred Edersheim wrote,

  The fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution, which again seems to imply everything else—atonement and redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. The firstfruits go for the whole products; the firstlings for the flock; the redemption-money for that which cannot be offered; and the life of the sacrifice, which is in its blood (Lev 17:11), for the life of the sacrificer. Hence also the strict prohibition to partake of blood. Even in the ‘Korban,’ gift (Mark 7:11) or free-will offering, it is still the gift for the giver. This idea of substitution, as introduced, adopted, and sanctioned by God Himself, is expressed by the sacrificial term rendered in our version ‘atonement,’ but which really means covering, the substitute in the acceptance of God taking the place of, and so covering, as it were, the person of the offerer.

Now, this would be a 1:1 relationship, i.e. one sinner, one animal. If Jesus is just a man (or even an angel, another created being), even if he be a sinless man (just like the animal was sinless and was offered as an atonement), how can Jesus effect atonement for all of humanity (John 1:29) rather than just one person?


texts: Is there consensus between Christian commentators about how Jesus came to be atop the temple when being tempted by Satan in the wilderness?

texts:
After his baptism we read that Jesus went off into the wilderness fasting for 40 days and being tempted by the devil.
Matthew 4:1-11 NIV:

  1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
  4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
  5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
  He will command his angels concerning you,  and they will lift you up in their hands,
      so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
  7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
  8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
  10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”
  11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

For this temptation to hold to the pattern of a man being tested the danger of a deadly fall would need to be a reality.
What explanations do Christian commentators offer for how Jesus came to be standing atop the temple during this temptation?


texts:
The Nicene Creed professed during the Sunday mass  contain these words :

For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, died, and was buried.

Over the centuries, the Nicene Creed underwent certain changes, one of them being the addition of the word “died”. When the word "crucified” itself implies  death , one wonders why there was a need to add that the Lord died .
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the addition of the word “died” in the Nicene Creed which is professed during the Sunday Mass?


texts: Why do some earlier Bibles not have a publishing date?

texts: Ive noticed that some King James Bibles that look several decades old don't have a date of any kind.  How can one get an idea of how old a Bible is or when it would have been published?


texts: Why did God create the idea of opposites?

texts: While I was finding out more about God, the ubiquitous question- did God create Hell? - often turned up. And many answers I have read mentioned that Hell was an inevitability due to the existence of Heaven; this is often paralleled by how darkness is a concomitant of light, and evil a concomitant of good. But where did this idea of oppposites even come from? Why did God who created this universe from a blank canvas decide that there must be opposites? It is as though he split up the canvas into half- one half for good and the other for evil. Isn't the idea of opposites a very 'human' concept?


texts: How do the Pope, Bishops, Priests relate to one another in the Catholic Church's hierarchy?

texts:
This excellent question What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? | @Reluctant_Linux_User and its answers have revived some questions on my part which I am hoping to get some understanding and clarity to.

In the wake of the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal, a lawsuit was filed against the Holy See to my understanding, on the grounds that the Pope was the boss of the bishops who by their actions and omissions, allowed for the abusing priests to continue abusing.

Restricting the answer to the following: Pope, Bishops, Priests, how do these relate to one another in the Church's hierarchy? What is the reporting structure like and how does that differ from a Corporate company structure headed by a CEO?

Please note that in my answer, even though the priest ranks higher than the deacon, they both seems to be responsible to the Bishop.

Please note:

The other referenced question and its answers do not fully answer:

Where in those answers does it address the comparisons with a Corporate company structure headed by a CEO?
Where do those answers explain the priests and deacons both being responsible to the Bishop yet the deacon is of a lower rank?
Where do those answers clarify that the Pope is NOT the "boss" of Bishops as understood by the secular world?
The question what are is very different from how do.


texts:
It is my understanding that a “demon” (either Greek δαιμόνιον or δαίμων) is an “evil spirit” (Greek πνεῦμα πονηρόν).

In Acts 19:13, it is written,

  Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over those who had evil spirits [τὰ πνεύματα τὰ πονηρὰ] the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.”

I think most agree that these “evil spirits” are equivalent to “demons.” Furthermore, I did a phrase search on the phrase “evil spirit” in the Old Testament, which produced the following results:

  Jdg. 9:23
  Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:

  1 Sam. 16:14
  But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

  1 Sam. 16:15
  And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

  1 Sam. 16:16
  Let our lord now command thy servants, [which are] before thee, to seek out a man, [who is] a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

  1 Sam. 16:23
  And it came to pass, when the [evil] spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

  1 Sam. 18:10
  And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and [there was] a javelin in Saul's hand.

  1 Sam. 19:9
  And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with [his] hand.

Each of those use the same Greek expression in the LXX that is found for “evil spirit” in the NT (πνεῦμα πονηρόν or an inflection thereof). Also, the only other time we see the phrase “evil spirit(s)” is in Luke 7:21, 8:2 and Acts 19:12–13, 19:15–16. If we examine those passages in the Old Testament, most if not all say something to the effect of “evil spirit of/ from Yahveh/God.”

So, does God have control over demons? It seems so in the Old Testament. He is the one said to be sending the evil spirit. If this be the case, does God allow people to become possessed by demons, including those said to be possessed in the New Testament?


texts: What are the rules of Exorcism (Catholic Perspective)

texts:
I've read conflicting perspectives if lay person's are able to perform exorcisms in the Catholic religion.

Wikipedia states

  Catholic exorcists were both priestly and lay, since every Christian was considered as having the power to command demons and drive them out in the name of Christ.

But the Catholic News Agency adds

  According to Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, “Canon law requires a bishop to give permission before a priest can do a major exorcism, but bishops don’t receive any formal training in exorcism.”

Is there a solid rule in Catholicism about who can perform an exorcism and has this changed through the years?


texts: How could Jesus get through locked doors?

texts:
Since Jesus tomb was empty, he obviously arose in his material body, and throughout the Bible references to shutting the door at night, is the same as us locking the door at night since it is obvious in Acts 12:13-16 that Peter was unable to open the door until someone inside opened it for him.
Acts 12:13-16, KJV

13  And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
14  And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.
15  And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.
16  But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.

Yet in John 20 He appears inside a locked door in his physical body since Thomas was physically able to touch him.
John 20:26-27, KJV

26  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.


texts: Is Israel still God's Chosen Nation according to Catholic doctrine?

texts:
I encountered an opinion that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Israel is still the Chosen Nation of God. I haven't checked the accuracy of the source, but I read on the Internet that St. John Paul II said that "God has never revoked the Old Covenant". Also, St. Paul wrote in Romans 11 a difficult passage about the Jews, particularly in Romans 11:29 :

  "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (RSV).

On the other hand, in my language, during the Liturgy of Good Friday, something like "Jews that used to be Chosen Nation in past" is said. (Some say that's a wrong translation; I didn't check the Latin original). Also, the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 says:

  "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (v. 43).

This seems to state that the Church replaced Israel as a Chosen People.

So, what is the Catholic solution to this seeming contradiction?


texts: Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?

texts:
There are a lot of claims that famous figures in history were gay. Peter Tatchell speculates that Jesus could have been. His claim, however, is based on a dubious manuscript.

Have any well-established, credible scholars (historians, psychologists, etc.) claimed in a scholarly setting that, based on the contents of widely accepted historical documents, there is some indication, beyond that of mere speculation, that Jesus engaged in homosexual behavior?

If not, please explain why similar claims are not generally accepted in scholarly settings.


texts: Why are Ahimelech and Abiathar reversed in 2 Sam. 8:17?

texts:
In 1 Samuel 22:20-23, we see that Ahimelech was killed by the order of Saul and his son Abiathar escaped:

  20 But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped
  and fled after David. 21 Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the
  priests of the LORD. 22 Then David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that
  day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul.
  I have brought about the death of every person in your father’s
  household. 23 “Stay with me; do not be afraid, for he who seeks my
  life seeks your life, for you are safe with me.”

However, in 2 Samuel 8:17, Ahimelech is referenced as one of David's priests, and the son of Abiathar:

  17 and Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, and Seraiah was secretary,

Obviously both can't be true, but I can't seem to find any compelling information that would explain this reversal of names.


texts:
When did we begin to exist? I suppose there are really only two options:

We were created before we were born (our spirits existed in some state similar to our state after death, without a body)
Our spirits were created at the time of conception or birth (I'm not interested in a discussion about whether it was conception or birth; that can be another question)


texts: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation?

texts:
The title says it all, really.

What did the ECF believe and teach with regards to baptism being or not being necessary for salvation?

Related: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?


texts: In LDS, how are 'milk' doctrines distinguished from 'meat' doctrines?

texts:
When discussing doctrine with ex-LDS acquaintances, they've mentioned the concept of "milk before meat," presumably based on these words from Joseph Smith's revelation in Doctrines & Covenants 19:

  "And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish" (Doctrine & Covenants 19:21-22).

The individuals I discussed this with said that there are teachings of the LDS church that are considered "meat" doctrines, which Mormons are discouraged from sharing with outsiders or prospective converts until they are ready to receive and understand them. Until that time, they teach them "milk" doctrines" to help them grow and establish their budding faith.

I haven't been able to find a precise list or codification of what constitutes "milk doctrines" as opposed to "meat doctrines." Most of what I've found has been from anti-Mormon teachers and sources, which I won't trust as true until hearing the actual Mormons' side of things.

  The Prophet Joseph Smith observed, "If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it [will] be a hard matter to get right." When a proper foundation has been laid, the truth can then flow more freely. The apostle Peter is said to have explained to Clement of Rome: "The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order, and there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so all in their order; and if these things be delivered in their order, they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason" (ldsliving.com) .

Is there a codified list of what's a "milk doctrine" and what's a "meat doctrine?" Or is it up to the discretion of the individual Mormon to determine what an outsider or prospective convert can or can't "bear?"


texts: Are there members in people's ancestry who claim to have seen Jesus, or witnessed His acts?

texts:
Historians/writers were able to get written accounts of Jesus's life and acts from the eyewitness accounts of people who had seen Him during His lifetime. It occurred to me that I have not seen or heard claims from people in this lifetime (or a few previous) stating that their ancestors met or saw Him, whether based on story passed down or diary/journal documentation.

I know there's got to be an obvious reason, but I'm stumped on why not?


texts: According to premillennialism, are the nations in the New Earth still procreating?

texts:
This question mainly deals with Revelation 21:24–27, but it is probably helpful to read from Rev 20 to the end also.

Revelation 21 (KJV)

  24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of
  it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into
  it.  25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there
  shall be no night there.  26 And they shall bring the glory and honour
  of the nations into it.  27 And there shall in no wise enter into it
  any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or
  maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I understand that these nations of the new earth are not procreating, however, there are supposedly people who are evil that are being kept out of the holy city at this time.  Where are they coming from if no one is having babies?

You would think, that at this time all the people that are found in the Lamb's book of Life have eternal bodies, and the others are in the lake of fire.  Somehow these evil people in question should be in the lake of fire instead of being kept out of the gates of the holy city of the new earth, one would think.  The mere problem that sin is still with us in the new earth seems, well, weird.

A good answer will be from the premillennial perspective, pre- or post-tribulation shouldn't matter.


texts: How did the man with leprosy come into the city?

texts:
Anyone with leprosy should stay outside the city until he is clean.

  Leviticus 13:46  He is to live by himself in a home outside the encampment.

With reference with below verses, we see Jesus travelling through Galilee preaching and driving out demons.

  Mark 1:38-39  Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”
  So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and
  driving out demons.

Suddenly, man with leprosy came to Jesus for healing.

  Mark 1:40  A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

How did the man with leprosy get into city? He was not supposed to come into the city, right?

I assume many people was following Jesus to see his miracles but if so how did his person with leprosy come to Jesus through all these people? Or Jesus outside the city?


texts: What do Christians do on a Fasting day besides worshipping?

texts: While Christians fast, do they only focus on worshipping God (such as bible reading and praying)? If they involve in any other activity besides worshipping God, would fasting be inefficient? What did the people from the bible do on Fasting days?


texts: If an Eastern Rite Catholic marries in the Western rite, does he/she need to formally change rites?

texts:
All the Eastern rites of the church are in communion with the Pope, else they would be a variant of Orthodox Christianity.  However, say there was an Eastern Rite man marrying a Western Rite woman.  If they were to have a ceremony in the Eastern Rite, then a Western Rite priest could not preside, and the woman would have to change Rites.  This is a fact I know from my Priest who asked a Canon lawyer familiar with the Melkite and Western Canon's.

Is the reverse true?  That is, if the couple wants to marry in the Western Rite, will the Eastern Rite man have to formally change rites to the Western rite?


texts: Why in the Book of Exodus did God let the people travel for exactly 40 years?

texts:
What is the symbolic idea behind this number?

Also, what might be His intention behind the travel?


texts: The land of bread and honey or just a diversion?

texts:
Was God holding back on the Israelites when it came to the promised land?

For example, they were promised fertile land, creating lots of food, bread and honey, beautiful landscape, a place of their own....etc.

However, we see lands like in Austria and I scratch my head when the Isrealites were wandering in circles for 40 years in a desert, just to eventually reach another slightly better desert.

Other lands were 1000X's the promise of the Promised Land - why didn't God bring them to those places?

(and then what does that mean for the people who were already living in paradise? and if people are still fighting over the Holy Land what will they get when they own it? Will it transform?)


texts: What is the general Baptist stance on pacifism?

texts:
In short: Are Baptists generally for or against going to war?

It seems Baptists have a general freedom in their personal beliefs. Is there a general consensus on going to war or avoiding it?


texts: ESV verse removed? Where are the explanations found?

texts:
I was wondering where I can find the actual simple online reasons for the removal of the "accepted" verses in the KJV, in the ESV bible version listed on this site, because I have not found them so far, Thanks.

https://www.scionofzion.com/esv_exposed.htm


texts: Where did Jesus stay during his 3.5 year ministry?

texts:
The Bible says all people went to their home but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives and came back to the temple early in the morning.

  but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.  (John 8:1–2, NIV)

On another occasion Jesus said:

  Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matthew 8:20, NASB)

What was his dwelling like? Where did He stay during his ministry?


texts: God destroyed the world with a flood, destroyed all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, gruesome sacrifices, laws for stoning people, Jericho, requesting the sacrifice of Abraham's son, the sacrifice of God's own son Jesus'. Jesus seems so different to me because instead of making life or taking life he gave his own, he preached forgiveness and grace and seemed to defy the laws made in Leviticus. I'm a christian but I am having a hard time understanding this, especially if one believes the Trinity doctrine.


texts: The Catholic Perspective concerning the Four Horsemen

texts:
Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Does the Catholic Church have an official interpretation of these verses?  And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by the Catholic Church?


texts: Do Mormons practice "soaking," and is it an officially sanctioned activity?

texts:
I recently became aware of the concept of soaking, as an "alternative" to sexual intercourse, which is allegedly practiced by certain Mormons, as a moral way to express one's premarital desire for sexual activity without "really" having sex.

My questions are:

Is this really practiced by Mormons?
Why is "motionless sex" somehow seen as more moral than the full thing?
Is this sanctioned by the Mormon church, or anyone else in a presumed position of authority?
And if so, on what grounds is this permissible while "real" sex is not?


texts: Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility?

texts:
In John 7:53-8:11 we have the account of 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery'

  53 Then they all went home, 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).

  "The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53."

And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage.

Read this article for more full explanation for and against.

My question is if this is a later addition then what implications does this have? Does is invalidate biblical infallibility? Does it change any moral or religious applications to this passage?


texts: What defined a "clean" animal prior to the flood when mankind did not eat meat?

texts:
In Genesis 7, God tells Noah to take with him 7 pairs of clean animals in contrast to only one pair of all other animals.  Additionally, 7 pairs of birds were to be taken as well.

  Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.  Genesis 7:2-3

However, prior to the flood, it seems that mankind was not allowed to eat meat, as God specifically allows for it after the flood.  Furthermore, the distinction between clean animals and unclean animals for consumption was not revealed until the time of Moses.

  Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.  Genesis 9:3

I guess it is possible that people did, in fact, eat meat prior to the flood, but did so against God's decree.  However, not many of them were following God's decrees.

So, is there any indication of what a clean animal would have been right before the flood that distinguished them from other animals?


texts: What biblical and historical support is there for the practice of child communion?

texts: About seven years ago my wife and I (who are childless) left our old church and set out to find the best church we could in the area.  We ended up in a church that practices paedocommunion (child communion).  They do not practice this because they believe that the children are saved, but because they believe that the children are members of God's Covenant People because they have been baptized, as most Presbyterians do.  They often point to the Passover feast as the similar Old Testament 'sacrament' where the children ate with the whole family.  What other evidence, both biblical and historical, supports this practice?


texts: Was Jesus' resurrected body the same as his glorified body that he now has in heaven?

texts: Most people understand that the Scriptures teach that the body in which Jesus was crucified was the same body that came out of the grave.  But regarding the body in which He now dwells, was that changed or transformed in His ascension into heaven? If so, how do we know from scripture?


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, are humans the only beings that can be tempted?

texts:
If Jesus got tempted for 40 days does it mean Satan can tempt God? Are humans the only ones that are tempted because of flesh or even in spirit there is still temptation, or are angels and saints also tempted? My understanding is that Satan and his associates were once good angels before going against God.

I'd like this answered according to Roman Catholic doctrine, please.


texts: Why isn't Lent observed across all traditions?

texts:
I had always (apparently in error) assumed that the observace of Lent was a Catholic practice, but according to Wikipedia, Lent is:

  observed by Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, as well as some Baptists and Mennonites.

While the practice seems to bridge traditions, I also know of Christians who don't practice it at all. What gives? If it is actually as universal as the Wikipedia description makes out, what would be the reason for not observing Lent?


texts: Is church attendance and/or participation in Communion a requirement for Roman Catholics?

texts: Is church attendance and/or participation in Communion (i.e., Lord's Supper, Eucharist, Mass) considered a requirement for Roman Catholics?


texts: What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma?

texts:
This answer confused me. I tried wading through the sources, but then I decided I'd just ask here. According to Catholic dogma:

Was Peter ever in Rome? I'm sure the answer is yes, but I'd like to see sources.
Was Peter a "bishop"? If so, what does that mean in Peter's case?
Was there a shift during the first two centuries in the structure of the church government at Rome, from a "college of presbyters" to a monarchical bishop? If so, how did that shift come about?
Did Peter die in Rome?

To be clear on what kinds of sources I'm looking for, here's what I expect to see for each bullet point:

An appeal to the infallible sacred magisterium, or an indication that the answer hasn't been infallibly/dogmatically given to the church.
If it hasn't been dogmatically defined, then an appeal to the ordinary magisterium.
If the ordinary magisterium is unclear or inconclusive on a certain point, I'd like that fact to be spelled out in the answer. If that's the case, I'd like an overview of Catholic approaches to the issue.


texts: In the Angelus, which is theologically correct, "conceived of" or "conceived by"?

texts:
In the Angelus, which is a short practice of devotion in honour of the Incarnation repeated three times each day, morning, noon, and evening, at the sound of the bell [cf. Angelus | New Advent], I have seen two renderings of the first response:

  V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary;
  R. And she conceived of the Holy Spirit. - Cf. Angelus - http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Cotidiana/Angelus.html

And

  The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
  And she conceived by
  [the power of] the Holy Spirit. - Cf. Dictionary: ANGELUS - Catholic
  Culture.

Which of these renderings is correct according to Catholic theology?

Related question: Why is the Holy Spirit never spoken of as the Father of Jesus? [Because of my understanding of "conceived of"]


texts: Does believing Christ died make you saved?

texts:
When people say that they believe Christ died and rose again, does that mean they are saved?
An example... an Anglican would say that he/she believes Christ Died for our sins, and rose again, is he/she saved?


texts: What exactly did Jesus mean when He said "I am coming soon" and similar phrases?

texts:
From Jesus:

  Luke 17:37 (NLT)

   37 “Where will this happen, Lord?” the disciples asked.
     Jesus replied, “Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.”

  Matthew 24:28 (NLT)

  28 Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.

  Revelation 3:11 (NLT)

  11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown.

  Revelation 22:7 (NLT)

   7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed are those who obey the words of prophecy written in this book.”

  Revelation 22:12 (NLT)

   12 “Look, I am coming soon, bringing my reward with me to repay all people according to their deeds.

  Revelation 22:20 (NLT)

   20 He who is the faithful witness to all these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!”
     Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

From others:

  Philippians 4:5 (NLT)

  5 Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do. Remember, the Lord is coming soon.

  1 Peter 4:7 (NLT)

   7 The end of the world is coming soon. Therefore, be earnest and disciplined in your prayers.

[Emphasis all mine.]

Well, looking at the calendar, I see it's at least 1,800 years after these scriptures were written. Clearly, this is not "soon" in any modern sense of the word. Thus, I'm asking:

What does "soon" mean in these verses?


texts: Where did Baptists get their name and what do they believe?

texts:
Where and when did the Baptists get their name and what do they believe that sets them apart from the rest of Protestant denominations?

I realize there are different divisions among Baptists as well, so let's keep this limited to the issues that were relevant when the term Baptist first became used and that generally cover most Baptist denominations today but still specific enough to uniquely identify what makes Baptists different from the members of other denominations Protestant denominations.


texts:
I am a new Christian who just started reading the Bible and just read the first few books in one sitting, and I have a lot of questions.  Before I ask them all, I would like to ask just one question, but I will ask it in several ways, so that people understand me. I am a teenager.

Was the covenant with Adam suspended or replaced by the covenant with Noah?
What was basis for salvation under Adam?

Was the covenant with Noah likewise suspended or replaced by the covenant with Abraham?
What was basis for salvation under Noah?

Was the covenant with Abraham likewise suspended or replaced by the covenant with Israel?
What was basis for salvation under Abraham and Israel?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Postmillennialism?

texts:
Related:

  What are the differences between the different millenialisms?
  What is the biblical basis for Historical Premillennialism?
  What is the biblical basis for Dispensational Premillennialism?

Since my previous two questions on Premillennialism were nicely answered, it's time for the next one:

Postmillennialism is a view of the end times that basically says that things will get better and better, more and more (to eventually almost if not all) are converted, and the church expands. This period (which we are in now) is the millennium, and after it is over (i.e, after the world is almost completely awesomeified), Christ will return. (postmils: correct me if I err in my description).

What is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages?

It seems the strongest arguments are in favor of Premillennialism, as there are several passages about the tribulations that will happen to Christians, and I'm not aware of any "Fear not, the world's gonna get awesome!" verses, so what's the reasoning behind Postmillennialism?

If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.


texts: To what extent do Mormons believe that miraculous healing happens in our days?

texts:
Gospel accounts about Jesus' life make it seem like he miraculously healed large amounts of people during the time he was here on earth. For example, Matthew 4:23,24 (KJV) says this:

  And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and
  preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of
  sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

  And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all
  sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and
  those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick,
  and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Reading above passage it seems like Jesus' miracles provided a form of advertising about him, since verse 24 speaks of his "fame" that led people with all kinds of illnesses to be brought to him.

There are at least some Christian denominations that believe that God also heals people during our times, but if this was actually the case, we probably wouldn't have such an overburdened health care system.

I mean no doubt most people would probably rather announce having faith in Jesus than pay expensive fees for medical treatment. Even though above passage actually makes it look like Jesus also healed people who were not really worshipers of God, such as those that were "possessed with devils".

Anyway, since we don't see any Christian denominations reducing the backlogs in our hospitals nowadays, I wanted to ask about the extent to which different denominations believe in miraculous physical healing happening in our time.

For example, I saw that the seventh Article of Faith published at lds.org says:

  We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
  healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

(emphasis added)

Do Mormons believe that people are physically healed in our times or that this refers to spiritual healing, or to something that is expected to happen in the future?


texts: Is having a moment of silence for someone anti-Christian?

texts:
In our school, in one of my periods, one of my teachers told us the important things late Steve Jobs has done for the world and encouraged us to have a moment of silence for him for about 10 seconds. When I got home and told Dad about it, he said that it was a good thing. However when I told my Mom, she flipped out and said that it was anti-Christian and basically in the line of idol worshiping and told me to ask for forgiveness.
I do not get it. How is having a moment of silence for someone a bad thing? IS it a bad thing?

P.S. our family is Puritanish.


texts:
The book of Revelation describes Jesus as "slain before the foundations of the earth":

  All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:8, NIV)

What does this mean? The "angel of the Lord" who appeared to Moses is Jesus, as I understand the following verses:

  Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13–14, NIV)

In addition, Numbers 29:13 indicates that Jesus didn't have a human body before the foundation of the earth:

  God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 29:13, NIV)

What does it mean for Christ to have been slain before the creation of the world?


texts: Why does the Catholic Church prefer burials over cremation?

texts:
In a copy of Order of Christian Funerals that my deacon owns, it says this regarding burial and cremation:

413 Although cremation is now permitted by the Church, it does not enjoy the same value as burial of the body. The Church clearly prefers and urges that the body of the deceased be present for the funeral rites, since the presence of the human body better expresses the values which the Church affirms in those rites.
414 The Church's teaching in regard to the human body as well as the Church's preference for burial of the body should be a regular part of catechesis on all levels and pastors should make particular efforts to preserve this important teaching.

Unfortunately, it doesn't go into detail about why the Catholic Church prefers burial over cremation.
What is the reasoning for this? What values that the Church affirms are better expressed through burial, but not cremation?


texts: What are modern full-time Catholic proselyting missions like?

texts:
In reference to this question: What are full-time protestant proselyting missions like?

What are full-time Catholic proselyting missions like in contrast or comparison to LDS missions?


texts: Is there a theological distinction between being a "sinner" and being"wicked?"

texts: Does either scripture or historical theology make a distinction between being a sinner (which all humans are) and being wicked or evil?


texts: Who wrote the book of Genesis? (Overview)

texts: I've heard reference in other questions on this site that seem to indicate a belief that Genesis was written by "the same man."  What do we actually know about wrote Genesis (whether a single, or multiple authors)?


texts: Does traditional Calvinistic monergism include limited synergism in the doctrine of justification?

texts:
I found an article Regeneration precedes faith by R.C. Sproul that could imply there is no synergism at all in justification. In other words no part of the human will involved in believing? It is potentially confusing in that it puts regeneration before faith. (I can only only assume he actually believes regenerations as: calling, faith, justification and new birth so that he is actually only referring the the effectual call as preceding faith which no Calvinist would find confusing. But he seems to confuse the issue by arguing against 'faith, rebirth, justification' which as far as I know nobody has ever presented in that order from a Calvinist position.)

On the other hand, as opposed to potential confusion of Sproul's statement (which might actually intend the same as this more traditional classical Calvinist) John Owen could imply that justification is synergistic. (Actually, I know Owen puts the 'initial' work of regeneration before faith, justification and sanctification, but by identifying the human 'will' as a 'cause' of salvation according to all 'Protestant divines' he seems to be sending a message with a slightly different spin from the Sproul's terminology.)

  Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification.  (John Owen's Works Vol 5, Justification by Faith, Chapter three – “The use of faith in Justification”. p108)

So what's going on here? How much synergism (cooperation between God and man) is involved in the 'monergism' (the work of God without human cooperation) of classical Calvinists' in the doctrine of justification?


texts: Is it true that Martin Luther used some bad language in his own writings?

texts: Is it true that Martin Luther cursed a lot and even used some bad language in his own writings?


texts:
Many Catholic Churches offer Mass every day, sometimes more than once per day. Which other churches do this?
(I'm particularly wondering about the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East)


texts:
Lamech said to his wives,
   “Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
    wives of Lamech, hear my words.
   I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for injuring me.
   If Cain is avenged seven times,
    then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
  (Genesis 4:23-24, NIV)

What is the significance of Lamech's boast? What role does it play in the Genesis narrative?


texts: Does the Pope Francis' moto proprio Spiritus Domini mean that pastors cannot limit servers to only boys?

texts:
So it looks like a orders of lector and acolyte, which aren't that well understood in the church to begin with, are opened up to all lay people without respect to sex following the Pope's moto proprio.
It would seem that this would have no bearing on children being servers, as they're not permanently assigned, but is there something implicit in the wording that would make it seem that this is the case?
Currently, in the USA, it's just a matter of a priest sticking his neck out and explicitly disallowing girls from being servers or a more conservative parish implicitly doing it through tradition.
Does this mean that a Catholic parish would expect to have more lady MC's serving and coordinating the servers?

I mean this question in regards to a parish where the pastor's prerogative is that of denying volunteer girl altar servers and has the support of the ordinary of the diocese and the congregation.  I am also interested in how this might affect Tradition Latin Mass, but maybe it's a moot point?


texts: What is Adam, if he isn't literally the first human?

texts:
For the sake of argument, let's say our most recent common ancestor lived in Africa 10,000s of years ago, humans originally evolved from apes and migrated out of Africa, and the entire creation narrative (including the existence of Adam and our descent from him) is allegorical.

Then what is Paul referring to in Romans 5?

  12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

"Adam" is the source of sin and death -- but where do sin and death actually come from, if not literally from our common ancestor?


texts: What does the parable of the Fig Tree mean?

texts:
Luke 13:6-9 (NIV)
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in
his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find
any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three
years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and
haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and
I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year,
fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

Could someone explain what the parable means?


texts: What is the biblical basis for concluding that 'all moral works' done without grace are sinful?

texts:
Jonathan Edwards, a renowned Christian thinker and past president of Princeton University said:

  So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin (Vol. 3), Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280)

It may seem that saying 'a man can't do good' means a man could do neutral things, but further reading of Edwards makes it clear he does not think so. By 'no good' he actually means sin, or actions springing from a sinful nature.

Luther says even works from grace (let alone apart from grace) has not just 'human weakness' and 'defect' in them but 'sin in them'. Therefore, according to Luther even all the saints' works are sins in the sense that there is some evil deserving of eternal wrath in them (brackets mine):

  Now, if there is such a thing as a good work without sin... God forbid! ... Why then do they [papists] condemn my article...But if they [papists] say here, as they always do, “Yes, but this impurity is not sin but rather an imperfection, or weakness, or defect,” my reply is that it is indeed a defect and a weakness, but if that is not sin I am prepared to say that murder and adultery are not sins either but only defects and weaknesses. (Works of Martin Luther, Vol 32.83)

The 'Thirty Nine Articles of Religion' of the Church of England is more explicit. This article is rejected by the Roman Catholic church as heresy. More simply put I am looking for the biblical justification of this article:

  XIII. Of Works before Justification. WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

As opposed to a Catholic view of grace, what is the Protestant biblical basis for those concluding that 'all works' without grace have no real good in them? In other words, all works by unbelievers are more or less sinful, according to many in the Protestant Reformation.

See also the reverse question, here.


texts: Is Jeremiah 10:2-5 referring to a Christmas Tree?

texts:
"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the
  heathen, and be not dismayed by the signs in heaven; For the heathen
  are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one
  cutteth the tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of a
  worksman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and gold; they fasten
  it with nails and hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the
  palmtree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot
  go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it
  in them to do good." (Jeremiah 10:2-5; KJV)

Can anyone answer this with scripture? (Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.) Why do we celebrate Christmas with a tree? Or at all for that matter?


texts: Can someone be saved if they willingly live in sin?

texts:
For example, if somebody says, "Since God forgives sins, why not live a sinful life? Then when I'm dying in my bed, I'll just ask him to forgive me for my sins."
How should I respond to that person? Does God really save such people?
Some people might think this question is too general, but I am just asking what the Bible says, which would make it universal.


texts: Is the al-Hallaj of the Yazidi religion Jesus?

texts: I am a follower of Christ and am going to be a missionary. I am studying the culture and religion of the Yazidi (also spelled Yezidi) and I don't understand al-Hallaj. According to the Yazidi, is al-Hallaj Jesus or is he like Jesus?


texts: Many Catholic churches in the U.S. consider Trunk-or-Treat as a "Christ-centered, safe, family celebration". With expectations that volunteer workers' costumes & stations allude to biblical stories or saints, Are Catholic Trunk-or-Treat parties considered Halloween or All-Saint's-Day parties?


texts:
Exodus 20:9–11 (ESV)
  Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is
  a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you,
  or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female
  servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
  is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed
  the Sabbath day and made it holy.

What is an overview of Protestant views on the Sabbath?

(Caveat: I'm not interested in the Seventh Day Adventist position.)


texts: Do Roman Catholics believe Saints are omnipresent?

texts:
I understand that officially speaking when Catholics pray to saints, they are not supposed to really pray TO that saint, but rather are asking that saint to pray for them as you would ask any living friend to pray for you.

The Bible does indeed say we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, but How is a particular saint supposed to hear me asking them to pray for me while John in England is asking the same thing. Are saints supposed to be omnipresent, or are you just rolling the dice that they are paying attention to you at that moment? Is there any official doctrine explaining this? Are all the saints watching all the believers all the time, or what? Are they in many but not all places?
Bonus question, if a none-catholic christian asks them to pray for them do they hear that?


texts: Did Jesus consider OT events to be literal history?

texts: Did Jesus consider the historic references in the OT to be literal in the sense that people and events where historical as recorded or did he view them as symbolic/figurative or did he pick and choose? Can we construct what his view must have been on the literal historicity of the OT based on his own usage of it?


texts: What is the biblical basis in the Old Testament for the belief that the Messiah must be God?

texts:
Christians believe that Jesus, the Messiah, is God. My question is: What is the biblical basis in the messianic prophecies and other passages in the Old Testament for the belief that the Messiah must be God?

I have read this: "Why does the Messiah have to be God?"
But I'm looking for the biblical basis in the OT of the belief that Jesus must be God.


texts: Do the angels in Ezekiel 1:10 represent the 4 aspects of creation according to evangelicals?

texts:
Ezekiel 1:10 tells of the heavenly creatures with the faces of humans, eagles, lions, and oxen:

  As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man,
  and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face
  of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.  -
  Ezekiel 1:10

In John MacArthur's introduction summary of the book of Ezekiel he explains them as angels "representing aspects of creation over which God rules"
as quoted here:  http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-introductions/MSB26/ezekiel

My question is, if they do, what 4 aspects of creation do the faces represent?


texts: Why does the Litany of Saint Joseph call him "terror of demons"?

texts:
A litany for Joseph, the husband of Mary, was approved by Pope St Pius X in 1909 (*). Most of the invocations are straightforward to understand, referring to his life (eg. "husband of the Mother of God", Dei Genetrice sponse), virtues ("most faithful", fidelissime), and traditional associations/patronage ("model of artisans", exemplar opificium). There is one bit which is surprising to me -

Hope of the sick, pray for us. Patron of the dying, pray for us. Terror of demons, pray for us. Protector of the Holy Church, pray for us.
Spes aegrotantium, ora pro nobis. Patrone morientium, ora pro nobis. Terror daemonum, ora pro nobis. Protector sanctae Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis.

I was not aware that St Joseph had anything in particular to do with demons. I can see the part about the sick and dying as an extension of his general image as a protector, especially in relation to the family. Is the demon reference the same sort of thing? Or is there a specific reason - perhaps a traditional story of some kind - why Joseph is called the terror of demons?
* Urbis et orbis: adprobantur litaniae in honorem S. Joseph sponsi B. Mariae V., eisque adnectitur indulgentia. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 March 1909. In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1(6):290-292, 1909. OCR'd version with some errors.


texts: How do Christians who think animals have only existed for <7,000 years on Earth reconcile their views with Pleistocene saber-toothed tigers?

texts:
Saber-toothed tiger (smilodon) fossils are regularly dated to the Pleistocene (such as here), which would put them before animals existed according to many Christians (at the earliest, ~12,000 years ago).
How do Christians who reject animals existing >7,000 years ago reconcile their views with the Pleistocene-existing saber-toothed tigers, according to scientific sources?


texts: Is Eastern orthodox christian is also called Jacobite?

texts: Is there any relation between Eastern Orthodox Christian and Jacobites? Are they both different?


texts: Has Catholic Church always taught that our corporeal nature necessary for humans to experience affection? (Catholic)

texts:
Has Catholic Church always taught that our corporeal nature is a necessary requirement for us to experience affection? or is the thought mainly coming from St. Thomas Aquinas?

Thank you,


texts: Assumption of Mary (Salvific issue) Catholic

texts:
Problem description
A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary:

A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church
A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary

Questions

Are these arguments correct?
Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics?
If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic?

The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.


texts: Why did Joseph and Mary take one day's time to realize that Jesus had been left behind at the Temple?

texts:
We read in   Luke 2: 43-46, the incident relating to the visit of child Jesus and his parents to the Temple  and his `getting lost' at Jerusalem:

  After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.  Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends.  When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him.

The distance they would have to cover from Jerusalem to Nazareth was 65 miles and it would take them days together to complete the journey. Some traditions say (sorry, I am not able to quote any reference) that in those days, men and women took separate routes because of which each of the parents was unable to communicate with the other,  the presence of children with either of them. One is, however, unable to know why it took one day for Jesus'parents to realize that he  had been left behind.
My question therefore,  is: who does the Catholic Church explain the time of one day that Jesus' parents  took to conclude that boy Jesus had been left behind at the Temple in Jerusalem.


texts: Do Pentecostals include the Old Testament in their Bible? Or do they only follow the New Testament?

texts: I have a church near my home, and it's called the New Testament church. So, just wondering if their Bible doesn't have the Old Testament.


texts: Do Calvinists believe that God does not love the world, but only the elect?

texts:
I seem to remember hearing somewhere that at least some Calvinists believe that, contrary to what seems to be a literal reading of John 3:16 and other verses, that God, in fact, does not love the world, but only the elect.

So, is there a certain group of Calvinists (denominations) that hold to this belief?  If so, which ones?  Also, what is the explanation for verses like John 3:16 that seem to indicate that God loves not only those who come to Him, but also those who reject them.

  “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever
  believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
  ESV

  And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one
  thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will
  have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”  Disheartened by the
  saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.  Mark
  10:21-22 -> The rich young ruler who doesn't seem to have been one of
  the elect.

  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness,
  but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but
  that all should reach repentance.  2 Peter 3:9 ESV

  And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
  Luke 23:34 ESV Jesus asks for the forgiveness of the ones that were rejecting
  Him and crucifying Him.


texts: How did John Calvin reconcile killing followers of opposing religious views with the New Testament?

texts:
I was reading about persecutions by Christians and was wondering if the persecutors justified their violence with passages of the bible and how they reconciled that with the teachings of Jesus.

In particular, on this website I read about Calvin: "So entirely was he in favour of persecuting measures, that he wrote a treatise in defence of them, maintaining the lawfulness of putting heretics to death."

I'm not asking about the general view of Calvin regarding capital punishment or his philosophical, civil or criminal law thoughts on it but specifically I was wondering how he reconciled supporting killing of people with other religious views with the teachings of Jesus or the New Testament. Would Jesus, according to Calvin, have supported the killing of heretics?


texts: Why is there a modern misconception about Christianity and Science?

texts:
Those of us who care to look into history even the slightest can see that both devout Christian laymen and Christian leaders have been make scientific strides for almost two millennia. Some examples will be sited below. In spite of these facts, I often hear claims from secularists along the lines of "Christians may donate to [insert medical cause here], but an atheist is the one who finds the cure to [insert modern medical issue here]." And, similarly, but not the same: "Medieval Christians are responsible for a lack of scientific advancement in that era."

So, if people like Gregor Mendel (https://www.google.com/#q=Gregor+Mendel) and Georges Lemaitre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) were doing scientific work, why is there this huge misconception that Christianity was against and/or is currently against Scientific discovery? Specifically, my question is, which recent (last 300 years or so) writings can be attributed to creating and perpetuating this divide in spite of historical evidence which supports that devoted Christians did important scientific work in their day, and how have they been so convincing for the general public (on both sides) in spite of all of this readily-available historical evidence?

Note: Perhaps the second part of my question is more opinion-based, but I am interested in some speculation as to why these writings would have such a powerful effect, whether from S.E. users or from another source.


texts: What are the earlier references to Mary?

texts:
What are the earlier references, besides the bible, to Mary, be it as a devotion or just as someone that pleased God?
Could someone quote some of those references? If there are references besides the Catholic ones, I'd appreciate it.


texts:
Many comedians nowadays rely on the use of profanity to enhance their comedy. This is also present in movies and television (although limited).

I know the bible says not to let "unwholesome talk" come out of our mouths, but does it say anything of listening to it? More specifically, for the purpose of entertainment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm faithful, but I just don't see why we should let others' unwholesome talk get in the way of our own entertainment.


texts: Did the apostles believe that God is unique, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, immutable, "simple", spirit, and personal?

texts:
I am pretty sure the Jewish Bible (OT) gives these characteristics to God.

Examples.

1) God is unique: Is 45:18

2) God is infinite and omnipotent: Ps 135:5-6

3) God is eternal: Is 40:28

4) God is beyond measurement, He is not limited to space:
1 Kgs 8:27

6) God is immutable, He does not change...ever: Ps 102:26:28

7) God is utterly simple, pure spirit: Ex 20:4 (a negative statement showing that He cannot be represented)

8) God is personal: Jer 31:3

Well and good.

I also know that the apostles were various types of Jewish, who Jesus called. So. Did the apostles still hold to the "attributes of God"?  They didn't stop believing that God had all those attribs, did they?


texts: How did the people know that John the Baptist was a prophet?

texts: What reasons gave the people to believe that John The Baptist actually was a prophet and wasn't a hoax? Was it simply the Holy Spirit calling on souls or was there some other kind of proof?


texts: Which Jesus' movie is shown in this image?

texts: In many music videos in my language, there is a specific movie that clips are taken out of. I have looked in many places but I cannot pinpoint the specific movie. Here are a couple of images from the movie.


texts: How to go about learning about Christianity for someone from a non-Christian background?

texts:
Christianity has a huge influence on our culture and references to it come up in many literary and philosophical texts. Not to mention I really enjoy a lot of the stories like David and Golaith, Adam and Eve, Abraham and his Son for their philosophical merits.
I grew up in a non-Christian home and didn't have any real exposure to Christianity. Also I am an atheist so I am not really looking for literature "preaches but explains to me about the history and teaching of the religion.

What texts can you recommend for someone starting out to learn about Christianity from an academic perspective? Also there are many bibles out there can you give me flavor of the "core" bibles and what they focus on and the style and context in which they are written? Thanks in advance.


texts: Are Catholic priests expert in exorcism?

texts:
I watched the entire series of The Exorcist movie and I enjoyed it. However, I am curious if this movie is representing the reality about demons and how they are driven out by Catholic priests.

Are all Catholic priests trained to perform exorcism?
Do they cast out demons very often?
Is there any guidelines for casting out the demons or evil spirits?


texts: If Noah's Flood was a historical global flood then how is the evidence that Egypt was founded before the Flood explained?

texts:
The common consensus is that Noah's flood occurred around the 2200-2300 BCE. If this is so, then how could Egypt have been founded by Narmer in 3100 BCE? Is Mizraim the founder of Egypt? Or is Mizraim simply a descendant of Noah who inhabited alongside the earlier peoples?

This question is directed at people who believe that Noah's Flood was a historical global event, including Young Earth Creationists.


texts: Why didn't God forgive Saul when he asked for it?

texts:
In 1 Samuel 15:24-25 (NIV):

  24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s
  command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave
  in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so
  that I may worship the Lord.”

Saul seems to have recognized his sin and repent/ask for forgiveness. However, he wasn't forgiven which can be seen in some verses later when the LORD rejected him and "the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel." (v. 35)

Does the concept of repentance/ask for forgiveness only work in New Testament time?


texts: Premillennialist view of 1 Thessalonians 4:16

texts:
I've read books on Premillennialism (including Left Behind) and heard many people preach on the topic but I've never heard an explanation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17:

  16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

That is, I have heard of those who are alive suddenly being Raptured but no mention of the dead going first. That is, in this verse it appears to consist of two separate events: first those who are dead, and then the living.

For that matter, the Rapture is often depicted as a silent affair but here there is a "loud command" and a "trumpet call".

Has any prominent premillennialist discussed this issue?

(On Wikipedia's Rapture page this verse is mentioned but the explanation of the "dead rising first" is not discussed.)


texts: What does the Bible say about a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding?

texts:
I believe this came about as a Jewish tradition. Why is this done and what does it symbolize?

Is a father walking his daughter down the aisle at her wedding a biblical tradition? What is the father's biblical role in the wedding specifically?

Does the father have a role in the wedding if this is the daughter's second marriage, after a biblical divorce in her first marriage?


texts: Was Jesus a poor man, in economic sense?

texts: I saw a video of Cesar Vidal and he said, that probably, Jesus was a middle-high class in economic sense, during the period of life before public ministry. I need historical references.


texts:
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. John 2:7-9

My Question: Do Catholics regard the wine at The Wedding at Cana as "holy" wine or "normal" wine?

Emphasis: Do they have a special reverence for this wine, similar to how they have a reverence for relics?


texts: How did attitues to the deutero-canonical books in the Western Churches change during the second millenium?

texts: What was the pre-Reformation understanding and how did that change during and after the Reformation Era for Protestants and for Catholics? What is the current position?


texts: What is an overview of the schools of thought regarding the soteriological status of alien life forms?

texts:
What is an overview of the various opinions on whether alien life forms are saved and can go to heaven?

I would accept the idea that this has not been substantially discussed as an answer if that is the case. However I have found that there is some opinion on this within the Jehovah's witness community and there is evidence that the Pope would baptise aliens suggesting that the Catholic church must have some view on the matter.


texts: According to Trinitarians, are the Jews correct at John 5:18 in claiming Jesus is "making Himself equal with God"?

texts:
John 5:18 says

"Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only
was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own
Father, making Himself equal with God."

Biblical Unitarians typically interpret this passage as the Jews being incorrect in claiming Jesus was making Himself equal with God, as a theme in John is people not understanding what Jesus is saying or who He is (this is made clearer at John 8).
Do Trinitarians agree that at this point in John's Gospel the Jews had adequate grounds to make the claim that Jesus was making Himself equal with God?


texts: Before the fall of Adam, did anything die?

texts: This seems like a simple question, but I cannot find a clear answer. The book of Genesis (1:29,30), implies that Adam just ate "plants and herbs". So I think it is safe to assume animals were not eaten? Now if animals did die, my question would be "why"?


texts: If Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, how can we say they sinned (according to Roman Catholicism)?

texts:
When God made Adam and Eve he said they could eat anything except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It sounds like that tree grants the knowledge, so before they ate they didn't know good from bad.

But I was taught by Roman Catholics that they sinned. Doesn't sin require intention? If a young child takes something that is not his, we don't say he sinned, right?  Because he didn't know better. Or is that wrong and we do say he sinned?

Yes they disobeyed God but why should they know that's bad?  I want to understand why they (and everybody after them) were punished for this.  According to Roman Catholicism: if they did know that what they were doing was bad, how did they know, or if they didn't know, then what makes it a sin?


texts: Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (that offers the lamb as a sacriffice)?

texts:
Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)?
John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19
And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".


texts: What work of Augustine is Aquinas Citing Here?

texts:
In Summa Theologica I q. 1 a. 10 ("Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?") ad 1, Aquinas writes:

  Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded
  on one - the literal - from which alone can any argument be drawn, and
  not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says [Epis. 48].
  Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this,
  since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual
  sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its
  literal sense.

What writing of Augustine is referred to by [Epis. 48] here?

There is a Letter 48 from Augustine, but the content seems disconnected from the reference here.


texts: Why are there so many interpretations with the Bible?

texts:
I would like to ask, WHY must there be so many interpretations of scripture? there are so many interpretations of certain verses, denominations and such, and this can be confusing for people (especially those who are baby Christians).

Now, about what Paul said about convictions, even though Paul says that believers has personal convictions and to be convinced in his own mind, however it’s like many times when a believer has a conviction on something, it’s like they will shove their convictions down other believers throats and act as if that THEY have the truth and the other person is not a true believer or going to hell or something.

Even though this is not God’s fault, but why must he allow all of this division in the Believing community like this?

Edit: In fact, when it comes to any beliefs in the believing community (not just convictions), they would act like that they have the truth and that others are wrong or not true believers or going to hell!


texts: How do people become the sheep that Jesus speaks of in John 10?

texts:
In my daily Bible study, I've been working through the book of John, and have come to the point where Jesus makes several references to the sheep of His sheepfold. Today's passage, below, which marks 'citizenship' in Jesus' sheepfold as a prerequisite for belief in Him, made me wonder:
"Does the Bible describe the means by which we may become sheep at any point?"
Coming from a Calvinist standpoint, my assumption (lacking evidence to the contrary) is that this 'citizenship' in Jesus' sheepfold is a natural outworking of election/predestination. However, my knowledge is limited, and I'd appreciate other perspectives.

  22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

Assuming I haven't missed the answer as I read through the book, and the other Gospel accounts, I'd be especially interested in answers from denominations or believers who hold an Arminian view of salvation.

As you answer, please be distinct in differentiating means from markers, i.e. if you believe that, "My sheep hear my voice," is a mark of those who are His sheep, please indicate this (either implicitly or explicitly), and the same for if you believe that people become sheep by hearing Jesus' voice.

Thank you for taking the time to answer and/or comment.

ADDED FOR CLARIFICATION:
Thanks for the comments, and the answers, everybody. To address the commenters, the question is indeed regarding one of the parts of the 'order of salvation'. To be saved, we must believe in the sense that Jesus speaks of here (among other things). From my understanding of this passage and this concept, we will not believe if we are not of Jesus' sheepfold, so therefore, being in His sheepfold is necessary for this 'stage' of salvation, so to speak.
I would assert that this is because we are elected, and so we don't choose to be in Jesus' sheepfold, and cannot do anything to get into His sheepfold. However, a theological view that opposes the doctrine of election would, I assume, require some means of getting into His sheepfold.
What I want to know is whether there is any means described in the Bible by which one may do such a thing?

I've also added emphasis to the parts of the original question that concern this issue to give a little contextual clarification to what I was trying to say. Apologies for the confusion.


texts: What was the role of Christianity in establishing Monogamous societies?

texts:
I was wondering about the question of 'How has the society become to be monogamous?' when I saw on Wikipedia (Polygamy) that Christianity seems to be the only religion that says clearly that we should be monogamous.

I saw this quote of Matthew 19:5: 'and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,"' which seems to explicitly tell us that we should be monogamous

My questions are:

How preponderant was this little sentence in establishing our current vision of a modern, non-polygamous society?
Is this quote the one thing that made human societies be polygamous, or is this too broad or complex a question to be answered here?

Note that (I quote Wikipedia): 'In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee reported that polygamy violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)'


texts:
Inspired by this question, if we choose to allow a doctor to heal us, how far is too far?

In Lev 17:13-14:

  13 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any
  animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it
  with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That
  is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of
  any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone
  who eats it must be cut off.”

Some groups have gone far enough to say that they won't take blood transfusions or even transplants. Does the preservation of life supersede this verse?

And, although a bit Sci-Fi, does the above verse conflict with the idea of artificial blood?

I think it's fine, but I've been wrong about stuff before.


texts: Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43

texts:
Is there a problem with the punctuation, as we see that Jesus did not go to paradise that day?

Could Jesus' words be punctuated as:

  I tell you the truth this day - with me thou shalt be in Paradise.