texts: Why did David wish to send Uriah back home?

texts:
After David committed adultery with Bathsheba, David began to contact her husband, Uriah.

2 Samuel Chapter 11 Verse 6 [New Living Translation]
6 Then David sent word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” So Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah arrived, David asked him how Joab and the army were getting along and how the war was progressing. 8 Then he told Uriah, “Go on home and relax.[b]” David even sent a gift to Uriah after he had left the palace. 9 But Uriah didn’t go home. He slept that night at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard.
10 When David heard that Uriah had not gone home, he summoned him and asked, “What’s the matter? Why didn’t you go home last night after being away for so long?”
11 Uriah replied, “The Ark and the armies of Israel and Judah are living in tents,[c] and Joab and my master’s men are camping in the open fields. How could I go home to wine and dine and sleep with my wife? I swear that I would never do such a thing.”
12 “Well, stay here today,” David told him, “and tomorrow you may return to the army.” So Uriah stayed in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 Then David invited him to dinner and got him drunk. But even then he couldn’t get Uriah to go home to his wife. Again he slept at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard.

I might not know the best course of action to take after doing what David did, but I can't understand why David would choose to send Uriah back to his home. If Uriah did go back home, wouldn't he learn that his wife became pregnant? Why send him back now?


texts: What is an overview of the early Church's viewpoints on Christology at the time of the Apostolic Era?

texts: What were the beliefs of the early Church regarding the nature of Jesus during the Apostolic Era? By Apostolic Era, I mean the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors who knew them personally. Do we have sufficient historical evidence to build an overview of their Christological beliefs? For instance, did Christians during the Apostolic Era believe that Jesus was 1) uppercase God, 2) lowercase god, 3) a powerful pre-existent but created being, 4) just a human or 5) any other view that I may be overlooking? Was there a particular view that was the most prevalent/popular at the time?


texts:
As someone from a Muslim background, I have noted a major distinction between the Quran and the Bible; The Quran is seen by its adherents as the ipsissima verba of God, while (I've heard) the Bible isn't.

So my question is quite simple, but I haven't been able to google it: Are there any parts in the Bible which are seen literally, unequivocally as the words of a Christian God? I'd imagine there have to be, but on the other hand if it isn't the literal word of God you could say the Bible might have gotten so altered by people over the time that there exists a possibility that no part of the Bible is actually God's word.


texts: What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?

texts:
In 2 Tim 3:16, Paul writes

  All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
  correcting and training in righteousness (NIV)

  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
  reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (ESV)

Does this mean that all scripture (the whole Bible) is from God and of equal importance, or are there some parts of the bible which we need to take more seriously than others?

For example, are Jesus' words more important than Paul's?

I'm looking for a Protestant/Evangelical point of view, but I'm interested in others too.


texts: What evidence do we have that Blind Bartimaeus approached Jesus naked?

texts:
In Mark 10:46-52, we have the story of Blind Bartimaeus Receives His Sight

  So they called to the blind man, “Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.” 50 Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus.

I've seen some treatments of the story that claim Bartimaeus would have been so poor as to possess nothing but a mat and a cloak, so would have come to Jesus naked. Thus, extra theological meanings are drawn about coming without any works or individual merits, the scandal of free grace etc.

A google image search turns up many inspiring depictions of the event from historical paintings or woodcuts, but none hint at nakedness. But many hardly depict a desperately poor person who's thrown off anything.

What evidence do we have for this? What prominent theologians have made this claim?


texts: What soteriological doctrines are most prevalent within Protestantism throughout the world?

texts:
As we all know, there are many Protestant denominations: Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, Adventist, Congregationalist, etc.

In India, we have AG, IPC (Indian Pentecostal Church), Church of God, and other numerous independent congregations.

But as a new Pentecostal, I am curious to know which soteriological doctrine is taught/followed in the most churches around the world: Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism or something else?


texts: Who is permitted to write a canon or an akathist hymn to a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and how is it done?

texts:
I would imagine it would be a wonderful and prayerful experience to dive into the life of a Saint and compose a Church liturgical hymn for him/her.  Who is permitted to engage in such activities?  When I read about Saints, it's most often monks that I see composing hymns, but are lay people outside of the clerical orders of the Church also permitted to compose hymns?

Also, how does a hymn become accepted by the Church once it's been written, and is there a review process?

Essentially, who writes canons and akathists and what process do they go through before becoming accepted as Orthodox Church hymns fit for reciting/chanting in the liturgical services?


texts: How do Lutherns and Reformers explain when God's Preceptive Will goes against His Decretive Will?

texts:
Is there any insight to understand how God Himself doesn't wish any to fall away (His preceptive will) and the fact that His decretive will states that some will?

Further, Zachariah and Romans speak to how God loved Jacob and hated Esau.  This was nothing more than a matter of God's choice according to the bible.  So, how does this decretive will get rationalized with the desire God has for none to fall away?

This may need some clean up to reach it's final form and maybe someone has better examples to use.


texts:
"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Romans 4:8; KJV)

The word impute means roughly "to put into" or "to give". We are saved because of Jesus' imputed righteousness.

What does this verse mean? Does God make us sinful in His eyes by giving us sin?


texts: What was the difference between Ratramnus's view of the Eucharist and that of Calvin?

texts:
In the First Eucharistic Controversy (ninth century), Paschasius Radbertus wrote a monograph arguing that the elements in communion were nothing less than the physical flesh and blood of Jesus.  He was widely opposed, and another theologian, Ratramnus, replied.  Everett Ferguson (Church History, I, 18.IV.D) summarizes his view:

  Ratramnus opposed the realistic interpretation of the bread and wine, saying that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are present in a figure, not literally.  The spiritual presence of the body of Christ is a mystery, available only to faith.

This sounds very much like the "spiritual presence" view of the Lord's supper, advocated by John Calvin and widely held today in Reformed theology.

Based on the writings of these two theologians, what are the major similarities and differences regarding their views on the nature of the elements in the Eucharist?


texts: Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered scripture? Does it have the same authority as the Bible? If not, what is its place in the church? Is it considered heresy to preach or believe something that is in contradiction with the Catechism?


texts: Was there ever a version of the Apostles creed that had the words "Holy Christian Church" in it?

texts:
I was looking up a reference for another question on this site and stumbled across something Martin Luther wrote which struck me as odd:

In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian Church."
Commentary on Galatians - Martin Luther

I had always heard even Protestants said (begrudgingly and with great explanation of their meaning) "holy catholic Church" with a little c catholic (even in the Big-C Catholic translation).
Was the Apostles Creed something that the Reformers tried to reform or did this have some older source?


texts: From a Catholic perspective, why did Jesus address Martha in Luke 10:41 by repeating her name?

texts:
Luke 10:41 presents Jesus as calling Martha by name twice : “Martha, Martha, the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things". In today's usage of the language, we repeat a person's name when (a) he/she is absent on the spot, (b) when we are 'chasing' him/her with the urge to stop, and (c) when we want to wake up him/her from sleep, etc. But we see that Martha was standing face-to-face to Jesus when he repeated her name. I feel that the repetition of Martha's name by Jesus does have a significance.

Are there any authentic interpretations available on the topic, from the perspective of the Catholic Church?


texts: Why is it not enough for Jesus to be human to be the perfect sacrifice, why must he be God?

texts:
Regardless of whether Jesus is God or not, why do some stridently hold to, 'Jesus can only cover sin by His own death as God'?
Until Jesus' perfect sacrifice/offering, the law required an animal to remedy the debt of sin each person/Israelite had before God. An animal was killed, blood was spilt to cover the sinner's guilt so they be 'cleansed' and made right with God again.

Your lamb must be an unblemished year-old male, and you may take it from the sheep or the goats. Ex 12:5

Paul explains a lot about Christ's sacrifice being sufficient to cover all sin - by him faithful believers are made free from the debt of sin - past present and future. Naturally, all mankind is covered by this sacrifice except the few that may fall outside for some reason or their own choosing.

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified Heb 10:14

But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb 9:26

we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, through His flesh 10:19-20

He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the source of eternal salvation for all those who obey Him Heb 5:8

Jesus is holy and without sin why would this human only sacrifice not be enough?
EDIT:
I thought it would be assumed that Jesus is holy and sinless because his Father is God (as scripture provides). Thus he has no inherited sin, and is not a just a 'good' man. Clearly any man apart from Jesus would not suffice.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Unconditional Election?

texts: Calvin, among his other points includes the point that we are Unconditionally Elected and chosen by God alone and nothing we can do can help or hurt this fact. What is the Biblical basis for this?


texts:
Are there 12 apostles? Are there 70 apostles?

When I was growing up and learning about Jesus, I found that he had 12 apostles. I was looking at a page about Mark the Evangelist recently and it says that he was one of 70 disciples. On that same page about the about 70 disciples there is a picture titled "Icon of the Seventy Apostles.".

Are there 12 or 70? Are the 12 somehow separate from the 70 or are they part of the same group?

Is there anything in the Bible I can read that deals with this?


texts: How do Cessationists interpret John 14:8-14, especially verses 11 and 12?

texts:
John 14:8-14 (NIV):

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

My understanding of verse 11 is that Jesus is pointing to the works he has done that give evidence that the Father is in him, which without a doubt include the signs and wonders he had been performing during his ministry. Then in verse 12 he says "whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these".
How do Cessationists interpret this passage, especially verses 11 and 12?

Edit: Luke 7:20-23 (NIV) gives explicit examples of the works Jesus did:

20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”


texts: Has the Catholic Church made a list of events in the life of Jesus which took place in fulfillment of prophecies of the Old Testament?

texts:
There appears to be a number of events in the life of Jesus which took place in order to fulfill one prophecy or other of the Old Testament, but are not specifically quoted as such by the evangelists.  For instance, the Gospels of Matthew (27:60), Mark (15:46 ) and Luke (23:53) narrate that  the Body of Jesus, after his crucifixion was laid in a tomb 'hewn in the rock'. One is able to comprehend the narrative after reading   Isaiah 53:9 (RSVCE):"And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death..."

I would like to quote the above as an example of events which the evangelists did not explicitly state to have happened in fulfillment of  prophecies of OT. My question, therefore, is: has the Catholic Church made a list of events in the life of the Lord  which took place in fulfillment of prophecies of the OT and which in fact, were not mentioned as such by the evangelists  ?


texts:
Jesus talks about the coming of the Kingdom of God in Luke 17:20-37. This passage raises four related questions for me:

Is this talking about the Rapture?
Where is "a dead body", that Jesus mentions at the end?
Who are the vultures? Those taken?
Is this talking about a world wide event? That one group is asleep and the other is awake would appear to imply this involves multiple time zones.

Here is the full text from Luke 17:20-37 (with my emphasis) (there is a similar story in Matthew 24:36-40):

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.  People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
“Where, Lord?” they asked.
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”


texts: Referencing the gospel accounts of Christ's actions and teachings, how does He clearly define a Christian?


texts:
"Sedevacantism" is the belief that the See of Rome is currently vacant; that is, there is no current Pope.  There are not very many people who believe it, but they do seem to be pretty vocal on the Internet. One thing that I don't understand about it is: What do they think will or should happen in the future in order to resolve the situation? (Of course, the non-sedevacantist majority don't think there's a situation to be resolved at all.) The bulk of what I've read consists of their detailed complaints about recent Popes, along with some wrangling about election procedures and the like; but I haven't seen much that's about the future.

I understand that some of these groups have tried to elect their own Popes. Do they think that the global Church will/should come around to their position? Is there any kind of plan for how this might happen? Or are they content to remain as an elite minority while everybody else is condemned?

I ask partly because I have a sense that there is an eschatological dimension. The contemporary movement reminds me of the late mediaeval apocalyptic theory of an usurping pseudo-papal antichrist and his battle with the true Pope, this being one of the signs of the end of history. (See for example Bernard McGinn, Apocalypticism and Church Reform 1100-1500, in vol. 2 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 2000.) I have seen sedevacantists talking about the so-called Prophecy of the Popes, which has quite an end-of-the-world flavour.


texts:
Is there a Biblical precedent for the Petrine privilege?

The Petrine privilege per the Code of Canon Law being

  Code of Canon Law Can.  1142 For a just cause, the Roman
  Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized
  persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the
  request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is
  unwilling.


texts: Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-posessed people?

texts: Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-possessed people? Or I am missing something?


texts: How do those who believe or ascribe to Hypostatic Union interpret Philippians 2:7?

texts:
When we read in Philippians 2:4-7

  4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the
  interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours
  in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not
  count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself,
  by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (ESV)

what does it mean that Jesus "emptied himself" in light of the Hypostatic Union?  Does he mean God "puts aside" his divine attributes when he takes the form of Jesus?

As the Chalcedonian Creed states, his two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Fully divine and fully human. So, in this context (and I guess in the grand scheme of things), what does the emptying of himself mean, entail, and cause?  I would like answers from being who subscribe to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.


texts: How do Leslie Weatherhead's views on the will of God compare to contemporary Baptist thought?

texts:
I am reading Leslie Weatherhead's collection of sermons on 'The Will of God' from a book of the same title (ISBN: 9 780687 074822 published by Abingdon Press).

He looks at God's will in three ways -

God's intentional will which he sees as God's ideal purpose,
God's circumstantial will which he sees as God's will in the circumstances which evil has set up, and
God's ultimate will which he sees as God's final purpose to bring about his original will overcoming evil completely.

I would really like to know how Weatherhead's views on the will of God compare to contemporary Baptist thought on the same subject - specifically the views of mainstream British Baptists who are part of the Baptist Union of Great Britain. Are Weatherhead's and British Baptists' views compatible?  Are they at odds in certain aspects, and if so which? Are they very different?


texts: Mormonism view on God as a physical being

texts:
According to the BBC website on religions.  Its states the following about the doctrine held by Mormonism about the physical body of God:

Mormons believe that:
God is an exalted, perfected man.
God has a physical body.

An explantation of Mormon beliefs about God.
I really struggle with this concept and way of thinking about God.  I am seeking clarity on the subject as to why Mormons believe such a doctrine.
Thank you.


texts:
Who are the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8 (NIV)

  Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000, from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi 12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.

and Revelation 14:1-5 (NIV)

  Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

I have trouble with Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that the 144,000 are 'spiritual Israel,' and that they are the same as the 24 elders introduced to us at Revelation chapter 4, and referred to again at 7:11, and 14:3, and also throughout Revelation chapter 5. This is because logically, if the 144,000 were the same as the 24 elders, then they would be singing to themselves in Revelation 14:1-3 (NIV):

  Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.

I believe there is an "Israel of God" as mentioned in Galatians 6:16 (NIV):

  Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

Although I have trouble believing that it means the same thing as what Jehovah's Witnesses call "spiritual Israel." My reasons for this are beyond the scope of this particular question. (It involves John 10, regarding sheep and a sheepfold.)

I have trouble believing that "every tribe of the sons of Israel" at Revelation 7:4 is symbolic due to the specific naming of them at Revelation 7:5-8. And I find it hard to believe Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation that Israel has been rejected, because of Romans chapter 11, verses 1 and 2. And also because of how the rest of Romans chapter 11 describes Israel's disobedience leading to God showing them mercy, after "the full number of people of the nations has come in."

Because I have trouble believing these things, it is incredibly difficult to believe that some of Jehovah's Witnesses are part of the 144,000, for the reasons they believe they are.

So this is why I ask, "Who are the 144,000?"


texts: Mark 10:29-30 vs Matthew 19:28-29: when will we receive our reward?

texts:
Why is there a difference between Mark 10:29-30 and Matthew 19:28-29?

  Matthew 19:28-29 (NIV)
   Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

  Mark 10:29-30 (NIV)
  “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

Matthew seems to have Jesus talking about Heaven/the Kingdom of Heaven but Mark seems to have Jesus promising great rewards "now"? Which would make sense if you love your Church family as much as your genetic one but 'lands'??? What with the hey?! One of them must be misleading because they can't both be correct accounts of Jesus's words!


texts:
Was the rite of "brother-making" exclusive to two individuals, or could a man make more than one other man his brother? Is there any part of the rite that requires you to be nonunited previously?

Adelphopoiesis, or Ordo ad Fratres Faciendum as it may have been known in the Western Church, was used to unite two men as brothers in spirit. Some sources that I have read have described this rite as a method of establishing familial bonds where they did not previously exist, for the legal purpose of extending an inheritance to a close friend for example, much like adoption, but an adoption of a sibling instead of a child.

The customs apparently differed in different areas and locations. But generally the rite existed wherever sworn kinship was practised, and may have also been practiced as a pact between soldiers or "brothers-of-arms".

Modern interpretations have tried to illustrate the rite as a union of homosexual couples, but there are cases where individuals were both heterosexually married and united to a brother. There are also many arguments that distinguish the rite from marriage, even though the ceremony has many aspects that are similar to a marriage ceremony.

My question is: Can you have more than just one brother by this rite?

Related: What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage?


texts: Is the resolution not to sin again a must for absolution?

texts: A Catholic is supposed to resolve not to sin again and also to express his/her resolution at the time of confession in order to seek absolution from sins already committed by him/her. I wish to know if there is anything in the scriptures which makes the resolution a pre-requirement for seeking absolution from sins .


texts: What core, common beliefs are held by all (or most) Christians?

texts:
Are there any core beliefs that all Christian traditions agree on? Are there any that most (>90% of) Christian traditions agree on?

If a list can be made for either, are there any caveats?


texts: Was the darkness that came during Jesus's death a solar eclipse?

texts:
Matthew 27:45 - From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.

I know a solar eclipse is only a few minutes, but it seems like it would match the description.

I want more info on this event specifically.  I know there is another question that is more general about phenomena (in my opinion, this is not a duplicate) but I am specifically asking about a solar eclipse during Jesus's death, and the details specifically about this.

The other question does have an answer that mentions the darkening during Jesus's Death, but I want to know specifically if the solar eclipse is Possible or not Possible.


texts: What is the significance of Judas's name?

texts:
The Old Testament has a question hanging over it: "Who will inherit the promises to Abraham?". Isaac is chosen over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and (though in one sense all the sons of Jacob inherit) Judah is chosen over his brothers. Likewise Perez over Zerah and so on through the line of David.

There is a parallel theme of a 'remnant' surviving God's judgement on disobedient Israel, and the survival of Judah when Ephraim is destroyed is part of that theme. Though Judah is eventually sent into exile, it is the remnant of Judah that returns and Judah's line that ultimately leads to Jesus (though not through a human father).

In that light, what is the significance that the one disciple who betrays Jesus is named Judas (the Greek for Judah)? Is the intention to highlight that the old cycle of rebellion, judgement, 'repentance' and relenting has finally come to an end?


texts: How is excommunication handled during the interregnum?

texts:
Not that I'm plotting anything heinous, but can one be excommunicated or have excommunication lifted during the interregnum?

I think, but I'm not positive, that some offenses that carry excommunication can only be lifted by the Pope.  So, in the absence of a Holy Father, who can lift excommunication or does someone just have to wait for a new Pope, even on the verge of death?

On the flip side, it would seem to be an offense against charity to deliver Latae Sententiae excommunication without a possibility of repentance.


texts: What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath?

texts:
Most of the Christians I know do whatever they like on Sunday: working at home, paid employment etc.

Is there any specific information in the New Testament that suggest what Christians should or should not do?

Are we supposed to obey the Ten Commandments? What does that mean for Christians?

The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5 NIV) tells us to:

  12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God
  has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
  14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you
  shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your
  manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your
  animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and
  maidservant may rest, as you do.


texts: Which denominations apart from Quakerism, if any other, were influenced by the teachings of German Protestant mystic Jakob Böhme?


texts: According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry a non-virgin?

texts:
According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry someone who is not a virgin?

For the purpose of this question, lets exclude dealing with the following scenarios:

the special cases of somebody not being a virgin due to the death of their spouse.
the practical difficulty of being able to figure out if somebody is a virgin. (See Hymenorrhaphy)
the practical difficulties of meeting people who avoid premartial sex in this modern age.

I'd like to hear answers that present a Biblical basis for whether or not the act itself is a sin rather than anything from modern cultural perspective.


texts: What is the origin of the interpretation of the Song of Solomon as a picture for Christ and the Church?

texts:
For today's average Christian, it is commonplace to read Song of Solomon as a prophetic picture of Christ, as the Bridegroom, and the Church, as the Bride.
But where did this view have its beginning? Who was the first early writer to interpret the book Song of Solomon as a prophetic picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and not only between God the Father and Israel?
I've heard that Origen wrote something on that matter, but I couldn't find any reliable source.
Edit
I've checked out Ann Matter's The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity and R. A. Norris's The Song of Songs: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators and found that Gregory of Elvira and John Cassian were maybe the first ones to systematize this view to the whole book of Songs, while earlier writters had this insight into one verse or another.
But I had a hard time finding a further reference to their writings.

Related question: What is the basis for the idea that the Song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church?


texts: Are there any Catholic directives (rubrics) from the 17th to 19th century about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration?

texts: Are there any Catholic directives (some kind of manual or rubrics) from the 17th to 19th century about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration?


texts: What was the first Spiritual Gifts Inventory book published or who was the first to use the method?

texts:
Today there is a plethora of books using questionnaires or similar tools in order to identify what spiritual gifts a person might have. I am wondering who was the first using this methodology and/or what book was the first to be published using this approach.

(I am looking for the first book, not the "best" book or the "first good" book, nor am I currently wishing for answers about the benefits or drawbacks of the approach.)


texts: What is the "Kingdom of God" supposed to be?

texts:
everlasting blissful happiness and peace on earth
heaven after death / afterlife
a metaphorical way to describe that righteousness would be made on earth by the power of the holy spirit, and that Jesus' parables give a sample and foreshadow of what the real Kingdom of God on earth will be like; in order to achieve the Kingdom of God, one must obey his commandments as well as continue the covenants given to Israel before Jesus.


texts: What does spikenard have to do with St Joseph?

texts:
The coat of arms of Pope Francis includes references to Jesus (the sun with cross, nails, and IHS), Mary (the star) and Joseph (the cluster of flowers).

The association of the flowers with St Joseph is described in the press release, linked above:

  Nella tradizione iconografica ispanica, infatti, San Giuseppe è raffigurato con un ramo di nardo in mano.

  In the Hispanic iconographic tradition, in fact, St Joseph is depicted with a branch of spikenard in his hand.

I know about the use of (spike)nard in the anointing of Jesus in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12, where it is done by Mary of Bethany, who might be the same as Mary Magdalane (and who is therefore usually depicted with an alabaster jar of nard). I was not aware that Joseph had anything to do with the plant. (At other times, he is shown with a flowering staff, which does not seem to be quite the same thing as just holding the flowers themselves. If the flowering staff story from the Golden Legend turns out to be relevant, that's fine, but I would like to hear about spikenard in particular, not just flowers in general.)

How did spikenard become linked with St Joseph?


texts: Ignatius of Antioch: Christophoros or Theophorus?

texts:
I have recently being reading into some history of early Christians. I came across a reference to Ignatius of Antioch in the book "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation" by Elaine Pagels:

  The first person we know who aggressively called himself "a Christian" to distinguish himself from Jews was the Syrian convert Ignatius of Antioch. Converted to Paul's message perhaps around 80 or 90 CE, twenty years after "the great apostle" first preached in his home city, Ignatius so zealously took this message to heart that he took Paul as the model for his own life. Calling himself Christophoros, "Christ bearer", this strong-minded believer travelled through Asia Minor about fifteen years after John [of Patmos] had been there and like John, wrote letters to seven churches near the coast, including three to groups of Jesus's followers in Ephesus, Smyrna and Philadelphia - the same cities that John had addressed. —p65, Penguin Books Edition, 2013

My own name is the Anglicised version of Christophoros, so I found this interesting. I was name this way by my devoted Christian parents, and they explained to me from a young age why they chose this name, "Christ bearer". I had previously been vaguely aware of a Saint Christopher and had assumed he was the origin of my name.

However, doing further reading into Ignatius, I found his wikipedia article which states that he named himself Theophorus "God Bearer".

Elaine Pagels is Professor of Religion at Princeton University and her books are extremely well referenced throughout in true scholarly fashion, but there is no reference for this particular piece of information. Wikipedia also does not back up its claim with a reference.

I suppose this could be a translation artifact but I find this unlikely as I feel early Christians in any language would have had a clear distinction between Christ the Son and God the Father.

Which of these was the assumed name of Ignatius? Or are both correct?

(I've just ordered a copy of Ignatius' letters, which I believe are the only real source of information about him, so the answer may well lie within, but it will take a few days to arrive, especially at this time of year!)


texts: Given a Catholic understanding of Hell and individual judgment, do Catholics believe that all Protestants will go to Hell?

texts:
I'm interested in a Catholic answer only; I want to know what the Catholic church teaches about this matter.

I know that the Catholic Church says that only God is the judge, and that we are the ones who will choose God based on our love we have for him.

Many Protestants, even very good ones, appear to have committed what Catholics believe to be mortal sins: for example using contraception, or cohabiting before marriage.

In addition, Protestants do not generally believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but Jesus said,

  Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

(John 6:53, New American Bible Revised Edition)

With this understood, how is such a person treated at the individual judgment (i.e., at the moment of death), having apparently died in a state of mortal sin? I know God forgives and look at the intentions, but I question whether someone who lives in mortal sin will retain the ability to recognize God in Heaven.

Does Catholic doctrine teach that at the individual judgment, at the moment of death, Protestants will all choose Hell for lack of the ability to choose to love the true God—or perhaps for some similar reason?


texts: According to LDS, what principles of the gospel were corrupted in the Great Apostasy

texts:
In the LDS.org article on Apostasy, the Great Apostasy is described in the following terms:

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances.

Leaving aside the second part of the equation dealing with Church organization and priesthood ordinances, how exactly do Latter Day Saints believe the principles of the gospel were corrupted?
By way of background: I've had a couple of conversations with LDS (current or former missionaries) over the last year or so, where they have sought to emphasize the broad agreement with essential beliefs with other Christians. I find it hard to reconcile this with the LDS doctrine about the Great Apostasy and am trying to understand what they really meant. Is a de-emphasis of fundamental soteriological differences recommended as part of engaging with other traditions, or is the view on the "Great Apostasy" that is not that significant with regard to an understanding of the fundamentals of soteriological doctrine?


texts: What scientific evidence is there for a global flood?

texts:
An atheist has asked me for scientific evidence of a global flood.

He's claimed "ZERO EVIDENCE of a global flood".

I'm not well-read on that.

What scientific evidence is there consistent with Noah's flood?


texts:
I come from the assumption that God can read our minds.  That we can pray silently and that God will hear our prayers.

However, can Satan hear our prayers as well?  Can he hear our other thoughts?

I ask because if Satan can hear our thoughts, then he may learn ways to tempt us by listening to our prayers to God.

A very related question is, can he give us thoughts of evil?  Whether or not he can read our minds, can he implant ideas into our minds?


texts: According to Evangelical Presbyterians, do ghosts exist?

texts:
They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

  Luke 24:37 (NIV)

This incident shows that the disciples were afraid of an apparition.They thought that they saw a ghost.

A ghost is 'the spirit of a dead person, especially one that is believed to appear to the living in bodily form or to haunt specific locations (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition).

What does Evangelical Presbyterians believe about ghosts?


texts: What happens to a human after he dies according to Catholicism?

texts: What happens to a human after he dies according to the Catholicism? A good answer should reference official church sources.


texts: What are the current guidelines for Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood use in medical treatment?

texts:
There have been a lot of new methodologies developed in medicine that isolates specific fractions of blood for use in specific needs of individuals. Whole blood is rarely transfused anymore.

My understanding is that a wide variety of fractions of blood are now being accepted as medical therapy by Jehovah's Witnesses. Is a Minor Blood Fraction a Small Amount of Blood?

What exactly is the official position of JWs now as regards use of blood and blood products for patients?


texts: What doctrinal value does the Catholic Church place on "Cantate Domino"?

texts:
If I understand correctly, Cantate Domino is a papal bull by Pope Eugene IV which is in some way affiliated with the Council of Florence.

I have heard it claimed that the writing of Cantate Domino was an instance of papal infallibility, but if I understand correctly, there are very few instances in which it is widely agreed that a pope spoke ex cathedra, and Cantate Domino is not one of them.

That being said, the Council of Florence is an ecumenical council. My understanding is that some but not all aspects of ecumenical councils are infallible. Was the writing of Cantate Domino an instance of the infallibility of ecumenical councils? What is the precise relationship between Cantate Domino and the Council of Florence?

If not, is Cantate Domino nevertheless a product of the (infallible) Sacred Magisterium? Or is it merely a product of the (fallible but authoritative) Ordinary Magisterium?


texts: Satan being allowed in the new Paradise on Earth

texts:
I recall reading a scripture from the Bible with two JW's that said in the new Paradise Satan would be allowed. I questioned that with them and they smiled and said "yes".
Can you tell me in what book and verse of the Bible it says this?


texts: Why is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception treated differently?

texts:
I know that the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a seemingly immoveable feast.  Unlike the other holy days the obligation is not transferred when it falls on a Saturday or a Monday (so you have to go to Mass two days in a row, and daily communicants whip out their tiny violins to play a festive round of Stabat Mater).

But this year, the Immaculate Conception is on a Sunday, and the readings and everything are transferred to Monday but there is no addition obligation to attend Mass. So, my question is, what is so much more superlative about having the requirement to attend Mass abrogated every few years on one day for one feast and why is the Immaculate Conception more important than other Marian Feasts or All Saints Day (or Corpus Christi or Ascension Thursday, which are always transferred to Sundays in my diocese)?

Is it only acceptable to celebrate a Christ/Trinity oriented feast day on a Sunday (Like Divine Mercy Sunday, Trinity Sunday or Christ the King of the Universe)?


texts: If Christianity speaks out against the use of "magic" does this mean "magic" is literally real?

texts:
If the bible opposes the practice of magic does this mean its claims of "magic" are literally real (as opposed to metaphorically)?

If so, is there scientific proof of the existence of "magic"? Is there an explanation of what "magic" is in the first place?


texts:
In general, and as it applies to The Trinity, what do we mean by person.

Assuming that we say a person is "a rational being" or "an individual substance" of some sort, what attributes or qualities must the substance or being possess? Will? Intellect? Consciousness? Etc.

And when applied to the three persons of God, how do we reconcile the complexities of personhood with divine simplicity? Do we even mean the same "thing" in both the intra- and extra- God and contexts?


texts: Are there any Reformed theologians who support the practice of mindfulness (inner body awareness)?

texts: As Eastern and Western religions begin to exchange lifestyles and practices, more and more Christians are participating in mindful meditation practices such as Zazen. When I refer to "mindfulness", I mean inner body awareness. This means you are both aware of your mental and physical state, therefor you are living and rooted in the present moment. Christian psych clinics are beginning to wonder if mindful meditation should be incorporated into their practices. My question is, can mindful meditation and living be consistent with biblical teachings? Are there any reformed theologians who support this view, and how do they defend it?


texts: What characteristics does the Great Tribulation have in JW eschatology?

texts:
I had asked this question regarding LDS eschatology and thought that I ask the same one from Jehovah's Witnesses point of view. I can see however that there's this other question where the answer touches on some of the points, so I want to take my question on a slightly different route.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrinal opinion on why Great
Tribulation is called "Great Tribulation", i.e. what makes it a
Great Tribulation? Are the reasons spiritual, economical, or
something else?
Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any official beliefs on how long the
Great Tribulation is expected to last?


texts: How did God's morality not change between OT and NT times?

texts:
I really have a problem at times explaining to the unbelievers the fact that God wants all people to be saved. The problem is the difference between the morality seen in the OT and the morality seen in the NT.

In the OT God easily commanded a human to kill 3000 other humans (Exodus 32:27), seemed to be fine to go along with a prophet in his way of proving his genuineness by burning alive 102 other humans, many of which were in fact innocent (2 Kings 1:9-15), and helped some other humans in the way of killing other human beings by stoning them (Joshua 10:11).

In the NT, however, we see that He forbids humans to perform such acts against other humans (Luke 9:52-56, Matthew 5:39, 44).

The unbelievers firstly question such a drastic change in His teachings, thus, doubting either about His unchangeable nature or the credibility of Christian faith proclaiming that He is unchangeable, and, secondly, they express a kind of fear ("What if God commands you to kill, will you do that?").

How does Christianity deal with such questions?

Can anyone, please, provide an overview here? (Answers on behalf of only one tradition are also welcome)


texts:
In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term "begat" is preferred, where this term does not imply creation.

In such a tradition, Christ became incarnate. Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being created? Why or why not?


texts: What is the position of the United Methodist Church on creationism and evolution

texts:
Reverend Paul Kottke, of the United Methodist Church, has preached that Christian faith and science, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, are not incompatible. This seems to be in accord with the views of other denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, but what is the official position of the United Methodist Church.

Wikipedia ranks the United Methodist Church as the third largest Christian denomination in the United States, and the largest denomination within the wider Methodist movement, worldwide.


texts: What is the storyline order of the Bible?

texts:
I purposefully asked, "what is the storyline order of the Bible", because I don't want to know the order that the books were written in (which is chronological, I'm pretty sure.)

What I want to see is a list of the books of the Bible in order from the beginning of the Bible's story to the end. The first part of the story is obviously Genesis, and the end of the story is probably Revelation. Books that overlap stories, such as the Gospels, I think should be put on the same line. Like this:

Genesis

Etc.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, John,

Etc,

Revelation.

Thank you. The best answer would have a short overview of each book, such as,

"Genesis: an account of Creation to the death of Joseph."


texts: What method can we consistently use to identify the literal verses from the non literal?

texts:
Is there any consistent method by which theologians can disambiguate literal bible verses from non literal verses? Taking a plain reading of the following verses it appears that yahweh is plainly telling us he is willing and able to deceive and delude.  If we accept that yahweh is a maximally great being then we must accept that there is no greater deceiver than himself, meaning yahweh is a greater deceiver than satan otherwise He is not maximally great.  Yet yahweh claims he does not lie AND openly admits to deluding, we have to reconcile his deception claim with his not lying claim.  We need a better methodology than cherry picking favourite verses and dismissing others on a whim.

What methodology produces a consistent and coherent means of identifying non literal scriptures?  (i have quoted verses and outlined a problem to solve in the hope of receiving facts and citations)

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

1 Kings 22:22
"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'

1 Kings 22:23
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you

Jeremiah 20:7
O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone mocks me.

Jeremiah 4:10
Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, 'You will have peace'; whereas a sword touches the throat."


texts:
We all know that Pope Benedict XVI authorized the a more broad usage the Mass according to the usage of the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal in his Motu Proprio On the use of the Roman liturgy prior  to the reform of 1970 of July 7, 2007.

There is a little known fact that Pope Blessed Paul VI on March 7, 1965 authorized a new publication of the Roman Missal. Some call this the actual Missal of Vatican II. This particular edition in some ways allows for and makes several changes to previous editions of the Mass of Pope Pius V. In essence, this edition is the Trdentine Mass with several alterations as can be seen here.

A copy of this "Vatican II Missal" as approved for the use in the United States of America can be found here and here.

My question is simply: Are there any priests or religious communities that use this missal with the approval of Rome?


texts: Can you only have a sacramental marriage?

texts:
I have tried to find an official ruling from the Catholic Church on this matter, but haven't had any luck and have only come across others asking the same question. This question is from the angle of an Australian and therefore Australian law and marriage law.

Is it possible to have a sacramental marriage only? And not be married in the eyes of the country's law?

This question is relevant on multiple fronts: not wanting to get 'legally' married because neither of you want to combine financial assets, not wanting to get 'legally' married because you disagree with the country's marriage laws, etc.

Another aspect would be, could you get sacramentally married if you are already seen in the eyes of the country's law as de-factos? Or do you need to get civilly married regardless of your de-facto status?


texts: On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol?

texts:
From my understanding the bible is quite clear that Christians should not get drunk. However some denominations seem to go a step further and say that Christians shouldn't drink at all. From what I can work out the Old Testament Law doesn't prohibit drinking, and I can't find a record in the NT banning it.

How do any of these denominations support their belief that Christians shouldn't drink at all?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will?

The bible says that God is omniscient, he knows about you even before you were born, he knew that Adam would sin. That made me think about the question, Do I really have free-will?.
If God already knows that I will go to hell how is it possible that I could choose the way of heaven?

There is an example that quite matches this question. A person offers to you a coin, but this peron knows the future, he knows whether if you are going to accept or not, when you have finally made your choice, how could you had the free will if he already knew if you were going to accept it or not?


texts: Identifying a source for this C S Lewis quote (reflecting St Augustine and St Paul)

texts:
There is a C. S. Lewis quote from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that resembles a famous quote by St Augustine.

Here is St. Augustine:

  The very thing which is now called the Christian religion was with the
  ancients, and it was with the ancients, and it was with the human race
  from its beginning to the time when Christ appeared in the flesh: From
  then on the true religion, which already existed, began to be called
  the Christian

That quote comes from St. Augustine’s Retractations I.1.2.3.

There is scriptural support for Augustine’s assertion. St Paul in his mission to the Greeks famously instructed the Athenians (in Acts 17.23) declaring, “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: “To the unknown god.” Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.”

I very clearly recall encountering a meme some time ago citing C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe which captured the above sentiment perfectly.

C. S. Lewis wrote something to the effect of (trying to recall in my own words):

  “You worship another deity but it is the Christian God in disguise.”

Or:

  “We worship the same God, just a different name.”

My question for all of you: Is any one familiar enough with C. S. Lewis’ material (fiction or even non-fiction) to find an actual reference to this quote by C. S. Lewis that I am trying to describe?

I’ve spent hours combing through Google search terms trying to find this quote / meme by C.S.Lewis. No dice.


texts:
"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? " (Matthew 12:25-26).

Today, there are many "men of God" who perform miracles, including healing. (Healing here means those that have been scientifically and physically proven). Where I come from, women are more fond of these and often demand outright healings and miracles, and they do get what they want from these people who sometimes say and do things that seem questionable from a biblical respective.. Children are also healed of leprosy, blindness, name it.

Others also call themselves as spiritualists (not from God) who also interpret dreams and heal people. Please I know that these are not much heard of in the west although they may exist in different forms.

Question is, how do we apply the quotation above today as these "men of God" healers often cite it to buttress their claims?


texts: In the Lord's Prayer, to what does "daily bread" refer?

texts:
I am taught that in the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) all petitions concern matters of our souls upon which we should meditate, except the fourth, "Give us today our daily bread" which petitions for an earthly concern, namely, and literally, bread. In Luther's Small Catechism, it states:

  The Fourth Petition.

  Give us this day our daily bread...

  What is meant by daily bread?--Answer.

  Everything that belongs to the support and wants of the body, such as
  meat, drink, clothing, shoes, house, homestead, field, cattle, money,
  goods, a pious spouse, pious children, pious servants, pious and
  faithful magistrates, good government, good weather, peace, health,
  discipline, honor, good friends, faithful neighbors, and the like.

But in John 6:31-35:

  31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written:
  ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

  32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has
  given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the
  true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that
  comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

  34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

  35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me
  will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be
  thirsty..

And in Matthew 4:4:

  Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone,
  but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

And since John 1:1 says:

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

And since the Passover bread is symbolic of Jesus Christ as well, on what basis am I to believe that the bread in the Lord's Prayer is food (etc.), and not Jesus Himself?


texts: What is the origin of the Catholic Pope in the Bible?

texts: It is well known that the most important position in the Catholic church is the pope, but how did this position arise? I know that Peter was told by Jesus that he was "The rock upon which He will build His church", but the Scriptures seem to lack the specific commandment for the duties of the pope, or even the existence of the papacy or the Vatican. I am unable to find scripture referring to a pope-like figure or the papacy.


texts:
Again, this is one I've never heard of.  Inspired by Peter Turner's comment.

  If you had a plane full of people's consent to be baptized if they
  miraculously survived the flight but they died anyway then water
  baptism wouldn't be necessary, it would be baptism by desire.

I'd never heard of "baptism by desire".  What is it, who believes in it, and how does it relate to "traditional" baptism as far as legitimacy/effectiveness goes?  (Is it considered inferior or equivalent to traditional baptism?)  I assume that "by desire" means that no ordained minister/priest/pastor is involved, hence the question of legitimacy/effectiveness.


texts: Are there any examples of Jesus praying publicly?

texts:
As a follow up to this question:

Is it ok to pray in public?

There are many examples where Jesus prays privately and he will intentionally separate himself from his disciples, but are there examples where he actually prays out loud (not including the Lord's prayer where he is not actually praying but teaching the disciples how to pray)?


texts:
(I hesitated over asking this here or on EL&U, but I suspect that the language is christianese, so I'm opting for here).

I've been attempting to 'translate' A.N.Groves' amazing letter to J.N.Darby (very worth reading) into more 'modern' English (as a prelude to getting it translated into French), and am stuck on two phrases (both on page 5) which look like they mean something, but I'm not sure what:

  and at the same time you conciliated their heavenly affections, by
  allowing all that really was of the Lord

  they, therefore, appealed from you to your common Head, both in
  behalf of themselves and their systems


texts: Who shall not taste of death? Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27

texts:
Matthew 16:28 says:

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

Mark 9:1 says:

  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of GOD come with power.

Luke 9:27 says:

  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of GOD.

These three verses have the same meaning, but I don't know who shall not taste of death. What is meaning of these verses? Is anyone still alive from above mentioned persons or is this mention people's spiritual life or disciple of Jesus?


texts: Why do Catholics consider praying to Buddha to be idolatry and praying to Mary is not?

texts:
Mary and Buddha are both human and lived on earth (Mary 20BC and (Buddha 563 BCE). But why is it praying to Mary's statue called veneration and praying to Buddha an idolatry?

Why Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to venerate the statue of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.

Did apostles and early 33AD Christians pray to early prophets like Moses, Elijah? Just like the Catholics did to statues of Mary and apostles today?


texts:
Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless. Plead the case of the widow. (NIV)

What does those three things mean?
An how do you do such things?

I would surely appreciate an explanation...


texts: How many laws from Old Testament are still valid in New Testament?

texts:
I don't know this question is within the scope or not.

Its straightforward. How many of the Laws in OT can be transported to NT and usable?

These are some of the OT laws which are no longer useful in NT:

Animal Sacrifice
Circumcision
Unclean animals

But these are still valid in NT:

Do not worship idol
Do not Murder
Do not commit Adultery

Some of my confusion list:

Sabbath
Tithe
Passover

Is it possible to make a clear cut list?

Is this topic too vast to answer?


texts: Reiterating John 3:16, as in its whole meaning…

texts:
God says in John 3:16, “For God so loved the WORLD.”  Why does God love the world so much? Or the induvial people in it? I find is vaccinating that God loves his people so much. Later in, it says, “That he gave his only son” In this part God sacrificed his only son for his people in the worse way possible death on the cross. So, God not only loves the “World” so much, but he sent his son to save it. After we ruin it by eating of the tree of Good & Evil… But not only did He just sacrifice himself He took the burden of every sin in all existent! After all that, it says, “Whomever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life” Does this mean we only have to believe in Jesus Christ/God to go to heaven? Also, after all we have done to God, He still loves us and even lets us go to heaven.  Like man God is so loving and full of grace it’s remarkable.
-Thank you for your time and please help answer the questions I asked or give a comment. God Bless.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ DOES have blood in his incorruptible body?

texts: It seems some Christians deny that the Lord Jesus Christ presently possesses blood in his incorruptible body, citing Luke 24:39 as a basis for such a belief. That being said, what is the biblical basis for the belief that he does presently possess blood in his incorruptible body?


texts:
I would like to present a summary of the Muslim point of view about Christ and in return I ask for the same: Who was Muhammad according to Christians? It's not about who is right or wrong. I just want to know the general point of view.

According to Muslims:

  Jesus was born to Mary as a result of virginal conception.  To the reaction of people who thought that she had committed a sin, Jesus told them he was a messenger of God and his mother was chaste. He was given scriptures, the 'Injil', and also the powers to heal the blind, deaf, and dumb. He did not die from crucifixion, rather he was raised up to heaven.

What do Christians think about Mohammad and of how the Qur'an come into being?


texts: Church/denomination with highest young adult attendance?

texts:
Which denominations (churches) have the highest attendance of young adults (say ~16 to ~32) as a percentage of the congregation?

If statistics aren't available, then in your experience, what are some churches with high young adult attendance?

Note: any insight from any country would help, but I'm mainly interested in the "next generation's" adoption of Christianity in the U.S. and Western Europe. This is for research.


texts: How do non-Sabbatarians interpret passages in Acts that show that the Gentiles attended synagogues on Sabbath?

texts:
Acts 13:42-48 (ESV)

42 As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. 43 And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.
44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Acts 15:19-21 (ESV)

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Acts 16:11-14 (ESV)

11 So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.

Acts 17:1-4 (ESV)

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.

Acts 18:4 (ESV)

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

I've seen these passages cited many times by Sabbatarians to argue that the Gentiles kept the Sabbath at the time of the apostles and, by induction, that Christian Gentiles in general are to keep the Sabbath. Of course, non-Sabbatarians do not arrive at the same conclusion, so they must interpret these passages differently. How do they interpret them?


texts: Why did Jesus refuse to accommodate the Pharisees insistence on washing hands before eating bread?

texts:
In the New Testament we find various rules of accommodating others in the spirit of love and peace. For example:

  To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. (1 Corinthians 9:20, NIV)

I understand this to mean that to those who considered themselves still under obligation to observe some ceremonies of the law, though they had begun to believe the Gospel, Paul became like them under the same obligations.

However, when the Pharisees pointed out that the disciples did not wash there hands before eating Jesus did not accommodate them at all, but used the opportunity to show that he was in direct opposition to traditional Rabbinism.

  "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" (Matthew 15:2, NIV)

The question is: Why was it so important to Jesus NOT to accommodate the seeming neutral rule about washing hands before eating bread? What was the harm in accommodating the Pharisees?


texts: Who pays for Protestant seminary education for aspiring ministers?

texts:
Not a tough question, just something I never knew or understood about Protestantism.  I'm a Catholic, and in my diocese post-baccalaureate seminary education is subsidized by collections taken.  It's one of the largest places we put our money.  I've heard that if you don't make it to the priesthood in seminary that you've got to pay back the expense of your education, but if you do, then it's all paid for (which makes sense because priestly vows more or less prohibit other means of paying it back).

But for Protestants, this doesn't seem to be the case and I'd like to know how an average pastor manages to pay off his or her debt.  I was surprised when a friend of mine told me that his pastor was fresh out of college, with just a bachelors degree, but it would seem to make a bit more sense to preach your way through graduate school, if you need to go to it at all since tuition has been crazy expensive for the last couple of decades.

If "Protestant" is too broad for this question, I can limit it to protestants similar to non-Evangelical Lutherans.


texts: Is man's ability to reason properly a gift by the Holy Spirit?

texts: Is there any Christian denomination that views man's ability to reason properly as a gift by the Holy Spirit?


texts: What priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Melchizedek and Noah hold in LDS/Mormon teaching?

texts:
In the summary of Noah on the lds.org site, it states that Noah was ordained to the priesthood at the age of 10 by Methuselah, his grandfather.  Furthermore, in D & C 107:53, it indicates that the entire line of Adam from Seth to Methuselah were all high priests.

I understand that there are two priesthoods acknowledged by the LDS Church--the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Aaronic Priesthood originated with Aaron during the Exodus.  Melchizedek was a contemporary of Abraham, who lived a few hundred years after the flood.

Methuselah lived before the flood and apparently died the year of the flood, while Noah lived on both sides of the flood, of course, as did 7 other members of his family.

So, what specific priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Noah hold that would have to predate the other two priesthoods by at least four centuries?


texts: Who was the first to describe Methodists as the "People of the Extreme Center"?

texts: I've heard Methodists describe themselves as the "People of the Extreme Center". It gets used to mean that Methodists take the center road on a lot of issues. But I would like to know where the expression started and what it meant originally.


texts: Did the teachings of Buddha influence Jesus?

texts:
I have heard that Buddha preceded Christ by approximately 500 years and that it may have been possible for the teachings of Buddha to have reached the ears of the young Christ and inspired his revelation. The parallels in their lives, teachings, and even metaphors are uncanny.

Further reading that supports the claim:

"Living Buddha Living Christ" - Thich Nat Han
"Was Jesus a Buddhist?" - this document flows in a way to support the Idea of Jesus knowing about Buddhism.
The movie The man from Earth. Scene script: (man-from-earth-jesus-is-cro-magnum-man)

That said, I'm looking for definitive points of similarity or disagreement between the two.  If direct historical lineage can be proved, or fundamentally definitive points of departure could be pointed out to disprove the link, that would help any answers.


texts: How can one have eternal life by the death of Jesus or by Jesus teachings?

texts:
Before the death of Jesus, Jesus was teaching the birth of eternal life(birth of the Spirit) which steps are not completely describe by the four gospel (Matthew, mark, Luke, and john). On several note he ask them to believe in him and his teachings.  Now what was he teaching in terms of procedure so that one can follow and learn, secondly are people granted eternal live by his teaching or by his death on the cross? This is my question. I believed he was killed because of what he thought which contradict their believes and as a result he was killed for his teachings. This teaching is what will save man from sin or second death, and not the death of Jesus which only came as a consequence of his teachings.
The Buddha also went in his time about teaching enlightenment (birth of the Spirit) but what he taught is not found in most book except the word "he went about teaching them) but later on we learn he was teaching them a meditation technique for seekers of truth/enlightenment but these technique is only known to few masters and devotees.
Now could Jesus be teaching similar knowledge? On a certain occasion Jesus told Nicodemus how to receive eternal life, which he said Nicodemus must be born of the Spirit, and not believing that he Jesus will die and rise again. But how to be born of the Spirit the bible didn't say in the four gospel after he spoke with Nicodemus. He told the Samaritan women that he will give her the living water(Teach her the birth of the  Spirit) and she will taste nor more(die no more) again the bible didn't let us know how or if Jesus gave the woman the living water. He told a certain rich man to renounce his earthly desire and follow him. On these note he was given the teachings of eternal life. Now why does the church say by just confession that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave and repentance (Church ideal of burn) man will be save? Is that what Jesus taught the people about eternal life before he died?


texts: Is it necessary to be a Christian to be saved?

texts:
Is it necessary to have a Christian faith to be saved and not go to hell?

Is it possible for a Muslim to go to heaven?

Or do the bible specifically say that they are all going to hell (Muslims, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Non-Believers)?

My question is based on our current teachings (after Christ).


texts: Why did the KKK "light" aka burn crosses?

texts:
So, the KKK claimed itself to be a "Christian" organization, originally based on a lot of anti-Catholic and obviously anti-Black sentiment.  Famously, one of their intimidation techniques was to burn a cross, making others aware of their presence.

This surprises me - that any organization that claimed the name of Christ, no matter how bogus the claim - would do what appears to me to be sacrilege to its most potent symbol.  I have heard the claim that the KKK was 'lighting' the cross, not burning it, but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Is there any evidentiary / primary source material that corroborates this explanation, and more importantly, provides some form of theological or biblical justification for the practice?


texts:
It was claimed that the recent tradition in Judaism to give a name to babies while doing circumcision, is documented already in the New Testament. Is it true?

I'm looking for the source / reference.


texts: If baptism washes away original sin, why do women still get periods and pain?

texts: Catholic doctrine states that baptism washes away sin including original sin. Well, periods and pains related to child birth are the punishment for original sin, at least for women. Why are we still being punished for a sin that is washed away?


texts: Since God provided for the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament, why do we need Jesus?

texts:
I thought of this when I was researching this question.

Leviticus 4 goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven.  However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven.

Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the Day of Atonement did provide forgiveness of sins:

  Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)Emphasis added
  because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.

Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore? for more information.)

So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice?

Edit:
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this.  I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.


texts: How is the resurrected Jesus related to the Trinity?

texts:
The Doctrine of the Trinity is affirmed by the Catholic Church and more in general by the large majority of Christian denominations, Orthodox, "mainline" Protestant etc., with some relevant exceptions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Biblical  Unitarians, Christadelphians, etc.)
How is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, related to the Trinity? Is he the same as God-the-Son? Does God-the-Son somehow "incorporate" the humanity of Jesus?


texts: Methodism was born out of the revivals of John Wesley and George Whitfield who were both Anglicans in America. Whether or not they maintained a relationship with the Church of England, it seems like they could have easily established churches of the Evangelical Free Church model if they were going for a version of evangelical Anglicanism with a congregationalist polity. Why a new denomination?


texts: How is the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (promoted through CHARIS) connected with the Sacrament of Baptism?

texts:
Catholic charismatic renewal has received continuing papal support since Pope Paul VI in the 1970s.  On June 6, 2019, The CHARIS ("Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service") was officially inaugurated with Pope Francis's support.
"Baptism in the Holy Spirit" seems central to CHARIS as we see from several quotes from the CHARIS Statutes (OCR'ed version here) (emphasis mine):

From the Preamble:

One of the characteristics of CCR is the wide variety of expressions and ministries that form a unity in diversity. The various expressions and realities in CCR may be at different stages of
development with differing emphases, nevertheless they share in the same fundamental
experience of 'baptism in the Holy Spirit'; and espouse the same general goals. In some places
CCR organises itself like an ecclesial movement but the very nature of CCR means it is
different from other ecclesial movements. ...

From Article 1 (Name and Purpose)

§ 1. Catholic Charismatic Renewal International Service, also known as CHARIS, is
the international service organism for all expressions of Catholic Charismatic Renewal
(or CCR), a current of grace whose appearance in the Catholic Church in 1967 came as a
fruit of the Second Vatican Council. Common to all expressions of Catholic Charismatic
Renewal is the experience of the fruits of Pentecost through an outpouring of spiritual
gifts called baptism in the Holy Spirit, involving a personal encounter with Jesus Christ
as Saviour, an openness to the Word of God, to exercising the charisms and to
evangelisation in faithful service of the Church. CHARIS promotes and strengthens
communion among all Charismatic realities, fostering a sense of the worldwide family of
Catholic Charismatic Renewal

From Article 3 (General Objectives)

a) To help deepen and promote the grace of baptism in the Holy Spirit throughout the Church;
c) To encourage the spiritual deepening and holiness of people who live the experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit;

Two days later, in an address to a conference related to CHARIS, Pope Francis said:

...
What does the Pope expect from you? I expect this movement:

to share baptism in the Holy Spirit with everyone in the Church. It is the grace you have received. Share it! Don’t keep it to yourselves!

...

My question: What is the relationship between "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (promoted through CHARIS) and the traditional Catholic sacrament of baptism?
Several points that I hope the answer will address (not all of them required):

What is the scriptural / doctrinal basis of this baptism?  Any links with Summa Theologica?
Has the church issued an official theological interpretation of "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to guide CHARIS implementation?  Any relevant paragraphs in the Catechism?
What is the essence of this "baptism in the Holy Spirit": is it a sacrament?  a sacramental?  an anointing?  a blessing?
Are all baptized Catholic encouraged to receive it?
How is this baptism in the Holy Spirit administered?
How is it related to Pentecostal understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Once baptized in the Holy Spirit do Catholics expect receiving "speaking in tongue" gift as is usual in the Pentecostal denomination?
etc.

I am asking for clarification primarily from the Catholic Church Magisterium, or secondarily from a bishop or from a theologian belonging to an institution associated with the Catholic church.


texts: What are the core beliefs of Presbyterianism? How does it differ and compare to other denominations of reformed Protestantism?

texts:
I have never thought of myself as being overtly religious ever in my life (in high school). I have never gone to church, but what I am now realizing is that I have been raised (more or less) as a Presbyterian. I come from a long line of Scottish heritage. All of my family has been religious and my great grandfather was a Pastor. Would it be stupid to say that I am a Presbyterian who has been raised away from the larger bodies of organized religion since Presbyterianism is mainly an organizational doctrine?

I have recently met some (I believe) Reformed Baptists that call themselves Reformed Charismatic. They are very entranced with John Piper, who I have read is not reformed, so how does that work? I really want to use this as an opportunity to actually embrace religion. My understanding of Christianity is very barebones but I know more than the average person in our hyper-secular world today. What I need is a longer explanation so if you know anything that would help, please link it, but a reader's digest version is greatly appreciated.

The main things I think I need to know are (1) what are the main beliefs of Presbyterianism, and what do I need to know to pass myself as one until I get further into it, (2) what is a good way to comprehend Biblical fundamentalism from a Presbyterian view, (3) what is the difference between other forms of Protestantism and Calvinism (especially the Reformed Charismatic denomination)?


texts: What verses focus on the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus being pierced on the cross?

texts: What are the specific versus that support the prophesy of Jesus' side being pierced on the cross?


texts: In a Venn diagram of the scriptures of Islam, Catholicism, and Judaism, what would be, roughly, the percentages of each portion? I am wondering how much they overlap.


texts: What's the main logical basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God?

texts: What's the main logical or doctrinal basis that is put forth by those Christians who don't believe in the existence of God? I mean, in the Bible Jesus spoke of God the Father many times, so how do they logically explain their belief that God doesn't exist?


texts: Can ministers of other denominations marry people in a Catholic church?

texts: Can ministers from other Christian denominations, for example a United Church Reverend, perform the marriage sacrament in a Catholic Church?


texts: Was there evil / darkness before god created everything?

texts:
When god created everything, the light was shining on darkness and the "darkness" never mastered it. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was also there when god created everything.  The serpent acted against the will of God and which is supposed to be a lesser creation than the humans as envisaged by God.

How come God allowed a serpent cheat humans which God created in His own image and likeness?

Could there be a force against the will of God?


texts: How do egalitarians understand male headship?

texts:
From Ephesians 5 in a complementarian lens, it is understood to be a reflection of how men and women ought to work together in marriage for God's glory - though I am aware that egalitarians and complementarians have opposing views in this matter i.e. complementarians believe roles are complementary, while egalitarians believe roles are equal.
How do egalitarians understand or dismantle the concept of male headship in Ephesians 5?

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the
Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head
of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the
church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their
husbands in everything. Ephesians 5 (NIV)


texts: Do Catholics subscribe to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine that many evangelical Christians believe in?

texts: Many evangelical Christians say that once a person has accepted Jesus as their Savior and repented of their sins they have formed a bond between their soul and the Lord that is unbreakable. Do Catholics believe that this is true? I have heard that confession of sins to a Priest is common in Catholicism, and wondered how a Catholic would respond to a once saved always saved  Christian.


texts: In light of Catholic Teaching, what is the Catholic explanation of "But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults." [Ps 19:12]

texts:
From my understanding of Catholic Teaching on sin, a person commits sin when they choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something [gravely] contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man.

In light of this, what then is the Catholic explanation of Ps 19:12 (RSVCE)

  But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults.

where the Psalmist seems to imply that one can sin without knowing it?

Note: This is from the Responsorial Psalm, Sunday, September 27, 2015, Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year B

  Yet who can detect failings? Cleanse me from my unknown faults!


texts: Why did Jesus have to leave for the Holy Spirit to come?

texts:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Why did Jesus have to go in order for the Holy Spirit to come?
Also does this mean the Holy Spirit was not present before Jesus went away?


texts: What does it mean for the Spirit to only speak of what he hears?

texts:
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:12-13, NIV)

Am I correct that the Spirit of Truth is referring to the Holy Spirit?

If so, what does it mean for the Spirit to speak only of what he hears?

Trinitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is God, and God does whatever he wills to do. So how do they interpret these verses?


texts: What is the position of Catholic theology on human rights in transhumanism?

texts: What is the opinion of Catholic theology on transhumanism, especially on the possibility to create autonomous artificial intelligence that would be granted the same or similar rights as humans?


texts: How could Jacob wrestle with God if no one can see God and live?

texts:
Is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something. It seems strange to think one can "wrestle" with God.

Genesis 32:30 (NIV):

  30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

Exodus 33:18-20 (NIV):

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
  19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”


texts: What part did the Psalms play in Jewish worship?

texts: What part did the Psalms play in Jewish worship, especially at about the time of John the Baptist and Jesus as in Luke 11:1?


texts: Are there any well-known Christian nihilists?

texts:
I have been studying Nietzsche, and I find his ideas thought-provoking. Doing a wider search of the literature on the subject of nihilism, I note that very nearly all of the content that espouses nihilism is irreligious, and all of the religious sources attempt to refute nihilism.

There must be some dissenters in this regard -- it's a big world, and there are many forms of nihilism. Ecclesiastes, for instance, sure sounds nihilist.

  “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
  says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!
  Everything is meaningless.”

Usually, I hear this explained away (e.g. -- "Yes, meaningless without God!"), and that may be the correct response, but surely there must be someone with an interpretation of Ecclesiastes that takes Solomon's words at face value.

Are there any well-known Christian nihilists whose literature I can examine? Where can I find discussions on this topic that do not take an anti-nihilist view?

Just to clarify, I am not asking someone to explain whether or why Christianity and nihilism are (in)compatible. I'm trying to get a sense of what's out there on pro-nihilism Christianity.


texts:
What are origins and when did the tradition of the Yule Candles come into existence as a Christian tradition?
I stumble upon this Christmas Candle idea as a tradition. Can anyone help find more information on it?
When did this become a Christian tradition?

The Yule Log


texts:
According to trinitarian theology, Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God. It is said that Jesus, being 100% God, died. Therefore, God died.

I know that 1/3 of God did not die, because that would be tritheism.

So I've considered two other positions:

100% of the living God stopped living. He died and three days later He rose again.
God did not die in the regular human sense. Just as He is "eternally begotten", He is also "eternally dead".

Neither of these positions make any sense to me, so perhaps there is a third option. Could somebody please explain how God's death should be understood?


texts: Origins of the historical shift towards Believers baptism in the Protestant movement?

texts:
Much of modern protestantism believes that only believers should be baptized, as believing adults (or at least consenting young people). The primary example being obviously Baptists.

This is a marked shift from the early reformers, the two which I am most familiar with being Luther and Calvin. Both of whom did infant / pedo  baptisms. ( As well as many modern protestant movements stemming from these reformers)

When historically did this idea begin to gain traction among protestant believers? Who were the originators and where/how did it spread?

What I would like in an answer: A brief (or not so brief) Historical overview of how/when/where this idea originated, gained traction, and eventually spread.

What I hope to avoid.

"The practice of believers baptism is biblical!". Yeah I agree but that really is a different question.

"The church has been baptizing infants since the "x"th century!". Sure I acknowledge that but I'm not asking about that.

Certainly some explanation of why the originators came to the conclusions they did might be necessary in an answer, but I'm not looking for impassioned arguments for or against types of baptism. I'm pretty well versed in those arguments and have my own opinions.


texts: What is the biblical basis to either consider tattoos acceptable or not?

texts:
I do not remember exactly where but I think the OT says somewhere that doing things like tattoos to your body is not good and, to God, is morally objectionable. Is this true? I do know that some denominations strictly forbid it, however, I have never heard much reasoning other than tattoos are commonly associated with criminals and the like. I have often heard the old phrase 'The body is the temple of the Lord' but I am not sure if that is even in the Bible and do not know its context.

If this argument cannot be made Biblically then why the objection among some Christians?


texts:
Are there any Trinitarian Protestant denominations that deny the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father?  By "denomination" in this context I am excluding any sects, Unitarians, or Oneness groups.

"Eternal generation of the Son" excludes any form of Arianism based on this usage, and is the historical view expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. As I am anticipating the answer "no," an example of a good answer would be, "This group is an example and their position is this."


texts: According to Mormons, how did the unclean spirits sin by "not keeping the first estate"?

texts:
The top-rated answer to this question refers to the Mormon thought on pre-existence as it says:

  All men and women lived with God as his spirit children before coming
  to the earth as mortal beings.

and

  Unclean spirits are those spirit children of God who kept not their
  first estate, which refers to the life before earth life.

According to the LDS faith, our spirits existed in heaven (referred to as the first estate) before we were born here on earth.

Since all humans have, according to LDS faith, left the first estate in order to be born as humans, how did the unclean spirits sin by not keeping their first estate?


texts: What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture?

texts:
I understand the LDS Church recognizes the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments as well.

What other works are also considered Scripture?  Any Apocryphal works? Doctrines and Covenants?


texts: What is the difference between a Bible College and a Seminary?

texts: I see some Christian education institutions refer to themselves as "Bible College" and some as "Seminary" and some as "Bible College and Seminary". What is the difference between those, if any?


texts: Was David mainly upset about Uzzah's death?

texts: In I Chronicles 13, why was David upset?  Was it mainly upset about Uzzah's death because of the amount of responsibility that came with being God's anointed and being responsible for the Ark of the Covenant?