texts: How does a person determine whether they are a "false Christian" or "inconsistent Christian"?

texts:
Many Protestants believe once saved, always saved. Christians who accept Jesus get saved. They also continue sinning and no one is perfect. My question is to those who hold this position.
I have heard many times people say that continued sinning is also evidence that someone is not a Christian. One can find quite a few Bible verses along these lines:

1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
2 Peter 2: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

How does one know, therefore, whether they have "really" become saved? Are all Christians saved? What is the statement really being made here? Many people have prayed to God in Jesus' name at one point in their life, and accepted Jesus' free gift of salvation. Then they went on in their lives and sometimes they made mistakes or they sinned. Many people later had doubt, they went back and forth about what they believe. Is someone who never has any serious doubts the one who can be sure they are a Christian?
Because going by sins, there doesn't seem to be any way to tell. One who kills others can be a "true Christian" while one who has lust in his heart for a woman can be an "unsaved sinner", even though both prayed to God to forgive their sins in the name of Jesus at some point in their lives.
I think passages like this make it clear that trying to determine one's Christian status from sinning is dubious:

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

So my question is -- what is really being claimed and can you give some consistent framework for people to operate in and determine if they are actually saved or not?


texts: Genesis 3:22 inconsistent with singularity of god

texts:
Genesis 3:22 says:

Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

I am a Hindu and I really don't know if this verse has been erroneously translated. Don't you think this verse conveys that there is more than one one god, particularly the phrase "like one of us", which goes against the concept of singularity of god in Abrahmic religions?


texts:
At what age and how do young Catholics know or be notified that they have committed a mortal sin or a venial sin? Basically, do they tell the priest at Confession that they have committed a mortal sin or venial sin, or does the priest tell the Catholic what type of sin the person has committed and what the consequences will be?

The "how" is asking for the process by which the young Catholic will be notified of the sin


texts: Does the JEDP Theory propose that the Scriptures are not inerrant/inspired?


texts: How old was Timothy when he became a Christian?

texts:
Some people think he was a child or a teenager, others believe he was a young man when he converted to Christianity.

Is there any Biblical evidence to support any of these assumptions?


texts:
I'm not familiar with Sung Matins, and was wondering if it's a form of mass, or something outside of mass.
They're doing 30 minutes of carrols between the Sung Matins and Solemn High Mass, and is still celebrating in the Usus Antiquior (pre-concilliar use) of the Roman Rite.


texts: According to Catholicism, how was Mary born without original sin?

texts: I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm.  From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.


texts: In LDS church, what is the difference between formal probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication

texts:
Looking at this question about tithes it seems that a member in the LDS church can in some cases (not related to paying tithes, though) be placed on formal probation, disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

What are the differences, as far as practical consequences to the individual, between these three forms of punishment?


texts: Does the Bible give any rules for music?

texts: Does the Bible provide any rules or even any indication about what kind or style of music is appropriate, both for worship and in general?


texts:
Revelation 20:1-3 states

  "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."

1 Peter 5:8 states:

  "8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."

Without bashing amillennialism, what is a typical amillennial response to this seeming contradiction? If Satan is bound outside of this earth during the millennium, which is now, why should we be watchful of him as Peter warns?


texts: How to pronounce references in the Bible?

texts:
If you see a reference to (2 Mc 7:1, 20-31) tomorrow's Old Testament reading  how are you supposed to pronounce that?  And what if it spans two different chapters?

In Catechism class, sometimes I need to ask kids to look stuff up referenced like that and I don't know how to succinctly say it to them.  Other times they need to say the reference while reading something in the textbook and they always skip it because they don't know how to say it.

What I want is a pronunciation guide to go with the style guide for referencing bible passages that the publishers of the Faith life Series would expect me to teach the kids, so we can read their books.


texts:
According to the Catholic Church, what is the best form of civil government?

I am looking for references to Church documents.


texts: Was Jesus obligated to answer the High Priest that he was the son of God?

texts:
In Matthew chapter 26 Caiaphas when questioning Jesus adjured him to declare whether or not he was the son of God.

Mat 26:63 and 64  KJV

  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

According to Merriam Webster Adjure is defined as:

  ADJU'RE, v.t. [L. adjuro, to sweat solemnly, or compel one to swear; from ad and juro, to swear.]

1. To charge, bind or command on oath, or under the penalty of a curse.

2. To charge earnestly and solemnly, on pain of God's wrath.

    1. ***I adjure thee by the living God. Mat 26.***

3. To conjure; to charge, urge or summon with solemnity.

The original Greek word translated adjure was:

ἐξορκίζω exorkizo (ex-or-kid'-zo) v.1. to exact an oath, i.e. conjure

    [from ἐκ ek (ek) (or  ex  ex) prep. And ὁρκίζω horkizo (hor-kid'-zo) v.]

        KJV: adjure


texts:
Since I am almost certain someone will come in and think the title of this question needs editing, I'm going to request that you leave it as it stands.

The full/expanded question:

I have seen shells used in Lutheran imagery in relation to infant baptism.    What is the Scriptural basis for this practice of using a shell?  If knowledgeable -- additionally, what is the historical basis for Lutherans to do this in their denominational history?

I realize there other Catholic spinoff denominations may use the same imagery, but for the scope of this question I'm only asking about the Lutherans.


texts: Why would God create a world in which there are so many ways to sin and thus be condemned?

texts: There's no doubt humans are responsible for their sins, but what they do is still dependent on the basic rules of the universe. So why would God let i.e. drugs to be possible in the first place? I mean he could just order the world in the way that no drugs could be made and thus saving many many souls. I don't say that God should eliminate every temptation, but there's so much of it?? Just wanted to make sure I'm underestood properly. The question is not why God wouldn't do anything about wars and diseases, but why God created the universe in which so MANY MANY MANY bad things can happen to us, sinners?


texts: Why did only 4 people write about the Life of Jesus Christ?

texts:
Judas died and was replaced by Matthias. There were at least eleven intimate disciples of Jesus Christ who could write the genuine life of Christ. But we have only 4 books which record the life of Christ. Moreover, only Matthew and John are of the 12 disciples of Jesus.

Is there any historical reason why the other disciples did not write the Life of Christ?

Are there any other less authentic books which record the Life of Christ?


texts: If God is one then why is belief in God insufficient?

texts:
The title is a bit misleading since it's limited in characters so I'll try my best to explain:

Christianity teaches (at least many forms do) that one must attain salvation through acceptance of Christ. Furthermore, there is only 1 God - Christ and God are one in the same.

If God is one, then why do some teach that Jews for instance, who presumably believe in the same God as Christians, cannot be saved by merely believing in this God?

Doesn't the precondition that one must specifically accept one "form" (I apologize if I am misusing terminology) of God suggest that God is not in fact singular?

To put it the other way around, if God is one, then purely by a logical tautology, why isn't accepting any or all of his forms sufficient for salvation?


texts: What are all the things that can contain the Holy Spirit?

texts:
Based on biblical text, what are all the different kinds of "things" that can be filled/indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

The first and most obvious answer is a person, but also apparently a marriage:

  Malachi 2:14-15 ESV But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?

This got me thinking: what else can have the Spirit of God in them? A country? An animal? An inanimate object?

A good answer can provide a couple non-obvious things or a comprehensive list of all things. Please note that this is not a "list/shopping question" because I'm asking the answers to be sourced from a closed set of data→the bible.


texts: When was the word "trinity" first applied to God in Christianity?

texts:
The word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible.

When, in early Christian writings and creeds, was the word "trinity" first used in reference to God?

After that first (known) occurrence, what are some of the other key earliest uses of the word "trinity" in reference to God in Christian writings and creeds?

(Please do not respond with general defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a doctrinal history question specifically about the earliest uses of the word "trinity" in relation to God.)


texts: Calvinism vs Independent Fundamental Baptist

texts:
I would like to know how does Calvinism differ from Independent Fundamental Baptist teachings. If someone can point main differences in a form of points (f.e. 1st point, 2nd point and so on for Calvinism, and then the same for Baptists). I would also like to know their Definition of Faith and exegesis. I would very much appreciate if you could be specific and thorough in your answers. Thank you.

I know that it could be found on internet, but it is very hard to find the right examples (maybe organizations is a better word; or churches), so I plead for your help.


texts: Did Jesus know from the outset that He was the Son of God or did Mary tell Him?

texts:
A Catholic friend of mine asked me this question, and I mentioned this passage:

41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. 42 When Jesus was twelve years old, they attended the festival as usual. 43 After the celebration was over, they started home to Nazareth, but Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents didn’t miss him at first, 44 because they assumed he was among the other travelers. But when he didn’t show up that evening, they started looking for him among their relatives and friends.
45 When they couldn’t find him, they went back to Jerusalem to search for him there. 46 Three days later they finally discovered him in the Temple, sitting among the religious teachers, listening to them and asking questions. 47 All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
48 His parents didn’t know what to think. “Son,” his mother said to him, “why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been frantic, searching for you everywhere.”
49 “But why did you need to search?” he asked. “Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they didn’t understand what he meant.
51 Then he returned to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. And his mother stored all these things in her heart.
52 Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people.
~Luke 2:41–52 (NLT)

So, Jesus certainly knew His identity by 12 years old. However, being God, He could've known this as a baby, and I've heard this opinion expressed by various people. However, I'm wondering: is there a Catholic tradition that answers the question in the title? Do Catholics say Jesus grew up knowing He was the Son of God, or do they say Mary told Him?


texts: How do "Sola Fide" adherents reconcile with the three aspects of faith?

texts:
Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation.

The first is the doctrine of Sola Fide, meaning "by faith alone". This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, wholly through faith in Christ.

The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the "faith" for salvation "by faith alone". The doctrine has three steps:

notitia One must know the basic information (or "content") such as Christ's death and resurrection.
assensus One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that.
fiducia One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save.

It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (James 2:19), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation.

Where I struggle is that fiducia puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice.

Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'.

When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern.

To come at the problem more directly, this notion of fiducia makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas "Sola Fide" asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?


texts: How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power and authority?

texts:
How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?
The Crusades, from Wikipedia

The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.


texts: How do different eschatological views interpret Isaiah 65:17-25?

texts:
In Isaiah 65, God talks about the new heavens and the new earth. I was wondering how people with different eschatological views interpret this. After thinking about this for a while, I have thought of a few different possible interpretations.

From a premillennial perspective, it could to refer to the literal new earth, where God's people will live after the final judgement. This is supported by the use of the words "new heavens and new earth", and the fact that there will be no weeping or crying (v.19) and that lambs and wolves will eat together (v.25). But the text also says that death and sin will still exist (v.20) which contradicts this view.
It could also refer to the millennial reign of Christ, where death and sin still exist. But from a premillennial perspective, this period of time is never referred to as the "new heavens and new earth", is it?
From a preterist perspective, it could refer to the current time we are living in, where death and sin exist. But then, most of the passage must be viewed as extremely figurative. For example the verse about the lamb and the wolf, or verse 17 which says that the former thing shall not be remembered.
Finally, from a postmillennial point of view, it could refer to the time of Christ's reign, the age that began in the first century and will continue until his final coming. During this period of time, the earth will undergo a gradual change while his kingdom is expanding throughout the world. The text might then refer to the last days of this age, still several years from now. But is then verse 17 true, will really all former things be forgotten? And what about the lamb and the wolf, will the expansion of the kingdom also affect the behaviour of all animals?

Have I rightly described each of these views? What other views are there?

--

This is my first post in this forum, please tell me if there is something wrong with my question and what I should remember in future posts!


texts: Does the Bible contain a definitive explanation of morality? Or does it leave room for interpretation on the matter of what is moral and what is immoral?  Perhaps it depends on the tradition?


texts: Was Paul's Relationship with Jewish Leadership Close Enough to Act as Their Agent?

texts:
After reading this question on judaism.SE I wanted to pose a version of it here.  (You know, it's facinating to see how Judaism views us....)

Paul's letter to the Hebrews could be described (and frankly is described by modern Jews) as marketing Christianity to the Jewish converts, helping them overcome a lifetime of indoctrination in Judaism.  Whether or not he was stretching the truth (which marketers are wont to do) is not part of this question.  Please remember that I am a Christian and believe Paul was truly converted to Christ.  My question is, is there non-Jewish documentary evidence that Paul's relationship with Jewish leadership was deep enough that they might send him to commit religious espionage?  He was certainly aggressive enough.  Frankly, I don't even know where to start to answer the question myself.

P.S., I'm not challenging Paul's devotion to Christ.  I am curious to know if his relationship with Jewish leadership was such that they might have indeed sent him on a (* cough *) mission that played a part in his conversion (reading the question on J.SE will help).  Or are Jewish legends surrounding Paul simply reverse-marketing with no historical corroboration? and therefore an attempt to discredit Paul ("oh, Paul, yeah.  We sent him on a mission to revolutionize Christianity so people would more easily see it for the heresy that it is.  We're a bit disappointed that he ended up joining them....")

(If this question is so broad that it needs to be closed, I'll understand.  I simply don't have enough background myself to express the question in a more precise manner.)


texts: Is there any holy language for Christians according to words of Jesus Christ and the apostles?

texts:
The Jews have Hebrew. Muslims have Arabic. Hindus have Sanskrit.

For Christians, is there any holy language? Is there any holy language for Christians according to words of Jesus Christ and the apostles (from New Testament)?


texts: How much time elapsed between Jesus's betrayal by Judas and His crucifixion?

texts: How many days and hours separate the moment of betrayal of Jesus by Judas to the beginning of the crucifixion?


texts: How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press?

texts:
During a Catholic Mass, there are a great amount of readings and prayers and scripture extracts/arrangements. There are different reading and set of prayers for almost every day of the year. This applies to both the Novus Ordo and the older, Tridentine Mass, as well as to various liturgies that existed before that too.

I've noticed that a lot of parts gets read by the priest from liturgical books (I think the most important one is called a Missal) during the mass.

This has got me wondering, how did the church function liturgically for the first 1600 years before the printing press? As I understand it, books were insanely and prohibitively expensive to produce back in the day. I seriously doubt that your average parish in the countryside of the British Isles could afford a handwritten missal. But that leads me to wonder, how did the average parish cope?

Readings from the bible and set prayers from the missal are absolutely essential to the liturgy. There is way too much there for a priest to memorise it all, so what did they do if they had to say mass but didn't have access to a bible or missal for the readings and prayers?

Or maybe I'm underestimating the Church and in actual fact your average countryside parish did have access to all the liturgical books, in which case my question is instead, how did they afford it?


texts:
In 1 Corinthians 1:11 Paul says:

  11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members
  of Chloe’s household, that there is rivalry among you.

Who is Chloe here?

I'm looking to expand my understanding from a historical/traditional perspective. So any extra Biblical source is acceptable.


texts: In Luke 5 did Levi become an apostle almost straight away?

texts: In Luke 5 we have the conversion of Levi. It appears that he became an apostle almost straight away. Is that what is happening here?


texts: Why was no one able to recognize Jesus as Messiah using prophesy, yet we believe end times prophesy will be easier to clarify?

texts:
Unless I am missing something, it seems that absolutely no one (with the exception, in part, of the wise-men) was able to identify Jesus as the Messiah at His first coming, using the prophesy they were given to identify Him.

All the accounts I read, including Jesus' recognition by Simeon and Anna down through the Apostles indicate that these people were only able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah either after a personal introduction by Jesus, or by revelation of the Holy Spirit to them.

I know that all the prophesies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus perfectly and those prophesies were used and still are used to validate His identity, but my question/concern is this--

If the best Bible/Torah scholars of all time were not able to correctly interpret the OT prophesies well enough to recognize that the Messiah had come and was in their midst, and the Bible is inspired by God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, why do we think our best interpretation of the end time prophesies will be as cut-and-dry as we have made them out to be?

To be honest, one can hardly blame the people of Jesus' time for being confused. According to what they saw as clear cut prophesy they were expecting someone called "Immanuel" (not Yeshua), They were expecting the Messiah to come as a King and establish a government that would deliver them from their enemies, and they were expecting Elijah to return before the Messiah appeared. I can see how anyone would be confused considering John The Baptist, Himself denied openly that he was Elijah.


texts: Does Catholic Church condemn cruelty to animals?

texts: The Government  administrtion in my country, India, has of late been positively intervening against cruely to animals including stray dogs and domesticated cattle . I would like to know whether the Catholic Church in its teachings condemn cruelty to animals .


texts: What is omitted from the current Western, Catholic Psalter?

texts: I know that there are at least two Pslams omitted from the current Breviary, and I know that some pieces of others are missing (Psalm 136, for example, is missing the verse about dashing baby's skulls against rocks). I can't seem to find a reference to which Psalms and which verses are omitted.


texts: How did the Crusades affect the King's power?

texts: How did the Crusades affect the King's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?


texts: Are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the Anglican communion?

texts:
I understand that the Anglican Church is trinitarian in belief. However, are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the communion?

Any information both historical and present-day would be helpful for my studies.


texts: How do Wesleyan theologians define omnibenevolence?

texts:
The term omnibenevolance is not used in my quarter of Protestantism, and after reading the Wikipedia article it is entirely unclear to me what the term means and how it relates to the God of Christianity. I quote:

  The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

After stating that the term is basically meaningless, it goes on to note that the attribute is considered by some to be a "an essential foundation in traditional Christianity", then calls out a specific group as depending on this attribute for their other ideas about God's character.

  Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute.

My question is two-fold.

First, is this claim about it being a primary-attribute true or those quotes a poor representation of 'traditional' Christianity?
Secondly, how is this attribute defined in light of the common usage of the word being so ambiguous?

Answers may be specific to the Wesleyan tradition or delineated as belonging to any other tradition that holds this as an important attribute.


texts: What are the principal differences between the Southern Baptist and American Baptist denominations in the US?


texts: How to understand the paradox of 1John 5:3 and Mathew 5:29

texts:
What is the harmonious view that reconciles these seemingly contradictory verses?

  1John 5:3  In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And
  his commands are not burdensome.

  Mathew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body
  than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

1 John 5:3 teaches us that if we love God we have to obey his commandments and goes on to say that his commands are not burdensome. However Mathew 5:29 seems to be a burdensome commandment.

Edit: Specifically what is the Catholic view on this.


texts: Purpose of giving up a prisoner on the Passover

texts: Why did they give over a prisoner during the Passover? What was the reason for that


texts: Is LDS baptism considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
Mormons use a Trinitarian formula when baptizing [cf. D&C 20:73]. Yet I've heard that the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid.

When, what, and from whom was the authoritative response to the question of the validity of baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What was the reasoning behind the response?


texts:
Seems like a good one to touch on.

I'm sure there could have been room in there somewhere if he wanted it. Why not?


texts: How Can I Appropriately Live Life Accordingly to God's Will?

texts: I have been struggling for the past five years. My civil rights were violated about three to four times and all being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am currently unemployed. I have had no luck in trying to get my portfolio of fantasy novels published either. It is still a professional hobby of mine where I have not earned any money. I am looking for an agent and publisher to no avail. Is this all part of God's will for my life? How do I know if I am living a life according to God's will?


texts: What is the biblical basis for singing in church?

texts:
I know music is a form of worship that is expressed several times throughout the Bible, but how did singing gain such a pivotal role in church services? What biblical basis is there for congregational participation in music? Is there any, or is does the practice originate from traditional spirituals and hymn sings?

I have no complaints against music, but it strikes me that it is not necessarily everyone's forte when it comes to artistic expression and I've been wondering if there are other practices which might be suitable substitutes for those of us who don't have the same aptitude for song (besides the art of lip-syncing of course :). I'm pretty good at that by now).

EDIT: Great answers. Thanks, folks. This has my mind going and I've posted a follow up here for those interested: Is song a critical component of worship or something that we've just borrowed from example?


texts: Multiple wives and concubines | male and female "original" intent

texts:
Matthew 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

  1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and
  went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large
  crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

  3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
  for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

  4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator
  ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man
  will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the
  two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one
  flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

When Jesus said “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female" I believe he was referring to Genesis 5:2.

  Genesis 5:2

  2 He (God) created them male and female and blessed them. And he named
  them “Mankind” when they were created.

In regards to the unity of one man and one woman, how did the Pharisees as well as others listening to Jesus (Matthew 19:2-3) interoperate what Jesus meant (Matthew 19:4-6) when they would have also known that Abraham and King David had multiple wives and/or concubines?

NOTE: I don't want this to be about how Christians view polygamy today but rather how did those listening think/feel/interperate (through 1st century "eyes") what Jesus was now saying compared to the "views/actions" of their forefathers. Prior to Jesus referencing Genesis 5 and clarifying that the unity of male and female was orignially intended for one man and one woman, did those practicing Judaism and those following Jesus recognize a difference in what was once practiced and what is now being said; or did everyone already know the original intent of male and female, specifically in terms of how Jesus stated it to be in Matthew 19?


texts: What Bible principles and scriptures apply to a situation where self-defense results in the death of the attacker?

texts:
Related but not answered:
When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense?

Context:
South Africa has a rather high rate of crime, far, far, far higher than America, Canada, or Europe. Please leave these references in as they are important for where I am coming from with this question.

If a Christian believes in self defense and kills an unbeliever who is breaking the law by committing a crime and about to rape or kill themselves or a family member or friend, is the burden of that person going to hell on the Christian?

Should the Christian have at least tried to present the gospel to the person - as ridiculous as that sounds?

Should the Christian let the unbeliever kill or rape their family or children (read the news in South Africa ) knowing that their family is born again and will be face to face with Jesus when they die? What about God's plans for their family's lives? What about God's plan for that unbelieving criminal's life?

I understand that we as Christians are responsible TO people, and not FOR people, but I don't know how that applies in this area please.


texts: Are there Christian traditions/literatures regarding fear of God and Heaven in the afterlife?

texts:
It seems to me that contemplating encountering God (as understood by most Christians), and one's life in Heaven, in the afterlife, could, in some cases, give rise to significant fear.

One might be, after all, in the direct presence of the creator of the universe, the sole almighty being, and one who knows every single thing about you; there is no apt analogue like that in earthly experience and just the unfathomable magnitude of that might be terrifying to consider.  (And yes, even given the explicit belief that God is good).

Likewise, the thought of oneself in Heaven (leaving aside considerations of a New Earth), could be, if not exactly fearful, at very least difficult to consider given the, again, boundless degree of difference from our mortal life. The thought that our mortal life and all that went with it is irretrievably over might trouble us.  Concerns about how human relationships (arguably the central aspect of human life), such as marriages and camaraderie, would work in Heaven might give us at least concerns--and in some cases deep sadness.  There is the notion of identity, which in life is an amalgam of profession, family, interests, values, character, foibles, quirks, history, age, health, traumas, and other factors, and which, in Heaven, might be significantly altered, since many of the important factors will be obviated.  And, of course, all physical considerations may be massively altered in a spiritual realm. Taken as a whole, and given that the saved are inevitably headed for just this place, these considerations might generate trepidation in addition to the "meeting God" fear.

To put it shortly:  it's a very different being in a very different place--and that might be scary.

So, how, if at all, has Christianity, through authors, notable church leaders, or other key figures, addressed these types of concerns in the primary traditions, such as Catholicism or mainline Protestantism?

[Terminology associated with this gist, if it exists, would also be helpful.  And note:  I am not at all looking for SE user reassurance or Bible guarantees that the afterlife will not be frightful; I am looking for whether this theme has been addressed in the main traditions or not, and, if so, where and how.]


texts:
Lots of Christian Rock songs have a curious metaphor about "Lifting Your Name".  Is this a direct reference to the words of St. Paul, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend (Phil 2:10)?

If so, is it said in reference to the previous line, that Jesus died on the cross and because of that God exalted him?  I'm thinking since exalted = "lift" and the next line mentions Jesus's Holy Name, so put 'em together and you have a nice exhortation for all believers.

Furthermore, is "Lifting Your Name" a prayer of blessing to God?


texts: Are Satan and Lucifer the same entity/being?

texts: I’m highly confused about this. Whenever I search up something about the princes of hell or just satanism in general (out of curiosity), they always say something like Satan, ___ , Lucifer, ____ as if referring to Lucifer and Satan as two different beings yet whenever I search this up, no actual answer is shown. It isn’t just Lucifer. It’s the same with Beelzebub. After a lot of research, it always indicated as Beelzebub as being an entire different entity, one of the princes of hell, the Lord of Flies and whatnot yet...whenever I come across Satans names/nicknames, Beelzebub along with Lucifer is always there. I don’t understand. Does this just differ from variations of Christianity/satanism or....?


texts: What is the significance of "seventy times seven"?

texts: Twice in the bible, God makes reference to "seventy times seven" (or "seventy-seven times"). Once in Genesis 4:24 (dealing with Cain's punishment for his murder of Abel), and the other in Matthew 18:22 (in an answer to Peter's question of how many times he should forgive a brother or sister that sins against him). Is there any significance to this phrase, and if so, what?


texts: What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married?

texts: I have heard people say over the years that it is likely that the Apostle Paul had been married at some point, perhaps prior to his conversion.  However, there doesn't seem to be any biblical evidence to this end.  What, then, is the evidence in support of this position?


texts:
I am considering the possibility that Luke 3 is in fact the genealogy of Joseph and not Mary. Here is why...

Luke mentions the circumcision and the naming of both Jesus and John on the 8th day in Luke 1:59 and Luke 2:21, which would have us think that there is a strong tradition when it comes to naming children and that it is going to be named after names already in the family.
(Luke 1:59-61) "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.  {60} And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.  {61} And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name."
We know that some of the children of Joseph and Mary were these, (Matthew 13:55) "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Now let's look at the names in the genealogy in Luke 3.
(Luke 3:23-31) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, {24} Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, {25} Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, {26} Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, {27} Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, {28} Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, {29} Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, {30} Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, {31} Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,"

Now in this genealogy we have Joseph named multiple times and Jose, Simeon and Juda which are all names of Jesus's brothers. When we compare this to the Genealogy in Matt which shares no names with Jesus relatives, it is clear to me that Luke 3 is more likely the genealogy of Joseph. It also mentions in Luke 3 that Jesus was as supposed the son of Joseph, but then goes on to say Joseph was the son of Heli, which appears that the genealogy is about Joseph.


texts: Which Lent should someone Baptized in an Eastern Roman Catholic rite follow?

texts:
Issue

Lent is treated slightly differently across the Catholic Rites.

In the Melkite Rite, the Great Lent begins on the Vespers of Clean Monday, which is the Monday after Ash Wednesday (Feb 19th this year), and ends on the Friday after the 5th Sunday of Lent.  This is precisely 40 days, counts Sundays and has stricter a stricter abstinence obligation than the Latin Rite form of Lent. Namely, that abstinence be practiced on all days of Lent except for Palm Sunday and the Feast of the Annunciation.

In the Roman Catholic Rite, lent begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday.  This includes Sundays only as far as our conscience dictates.

Question

If someone is baptized, given first communion, and confirmed as a Melkite Catholic, but has otherwise grown up in the Western Rite, does Melkite doctrine state that there can be a choice in which Lent a believer chooses to follow?


texts: Did Martin Luther believe in guardian angels?

texts:
In some traditions, the concept of "guardian angels" is often looked upon with suspicion.  While there might be agreement that angels (generally speaking) protect people (generally speaking), the idea that each individual has an assigned guardian angel for life is met with skepticism. Such an approach is found in Calvin, for example:

  The words of Christ do not mean that a single angel is continually occupied with this or the other person; and such an idea is inconsistent with the whole doctrine of Scripture, which declares that the angels encamp around (Psalm 34:7) the godly, and that not one angel only, but many, have been commissioned to guard every one of the faithful. (commentary on Matthew 18:10)

However, in contrast to Calvin and other later reformers, Martin Luther often had a closer affinity to the beliefs of Catholicism (which does accept the idea of guardian angels).  Thus I'm curious – did Martin Luther believe in guardian angels?

Naturally we'll want to limit this to his post-1517 writings.  But given the amount of evolution in his views on many subjects, great answers will include sources from different periods in his life, not just a single piece of evidence.


texts: What is the difference between a covenant and a contract?

texts: Specifically as used by the Reformed theological tradition, what is meant by the term "covenant"? How is this different than other forms of agreements under assorted names in English like contract, agreement, pact, pledge, etc. How should the term be understood when used as an adjective,  such as in "covenant theology"?


texts: Has the notion of "legitimacy" been abandoned in the Catholic Church?

texts:
This isn't a question about pastoral advice, but it is being asked on behalf of a friend who is worried that her children will become illegitimate if her marriage is annulled and all I can find to help her is the Code of Canon Law and the Catholic Encyclopedia, which seem to suggest that the kids would be illegitimate if both she and her husband were found to be invalid ministers of the sacrament. Although, as Andrew pointed out to me in the comments, this is more of a red herring as the Code of Canon law is modern and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not.  I only mention it here because this is as far as I got - and substantiates the rumors that I have heard about illegitimacy.

However, this is not about whether they'd be illegitimate, it's about what is the disadvantage of being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church?  That is to say, what is the burden of illegitimacy today?


texts: How does C.S Lewis come to the conclusion that Jesus is God?

texts:
NO REASON TO CLOSE THIS QUESTION
The reason why this question is not opinion based, is because I am asking how C.S Lewis himself arrived to the conclusion of his dilemma. Because as it reads from this excerpt, his conclusion is arbitrary. Now, that's not to say that his decision truly is arbitrary, maybe there is something to be said about his decision from citations from his other works. But the question remains the same, I am asking it to be point outed how C.S Lewis himself came to this conclusion, there is no matter of opinion involved.
Now to the question itself:
Reading Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, Lewis tries to go point by point from merely observing reality and our nature to arriving at the Christian God, so cutting to the chase -- he basically says that by observing ourselves we come to conclude that we are under an inescapable Moral Law of good and evil. He eventually goes on to say that this is evidence of a higher power, and eventually God, and evidently that this is a God that takes sides and espouses good, and so he narrows it down to Judaism, Christianity and Islam which are centered around a God that espouses moral laws of good and evil. This is where I start to really disagree with him, he narrows it down to say that it is Christianity to be chosen but he doesn't address why Judaism and Islam fitting his standards were unfitting candidates.
In any case, he goes on to say the following:

I am trying here to
prevent anyone saying the really fool-ish  thing  that  people  often
say  about  Him:  ‘I’m  ready  to  accept  Jesus  as  a  great  moral
teacher,  but  I  don’t  accept  His  claim  to  be  God.’  That  is
the  one  thing  we  must  not  say.  A  man who was merely a man and
said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic—on  a  level  with  the  man  who  says
he  is  a  poached  egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You
must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or
else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you
can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet
and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human  teacher.  He  has  not  left
that  open  to  us.  He  did  not  intend to.
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are
talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic,
or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, how-ever  strange  or
terrifying  or  unlikely  it  may  seem,  I  have  to  accept the view
that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in
human form.

C.S Lewis then goes on to his next point explaining the basics of Christian doctrine and theology, treating the matter established -- yet he has not. He gives us a dilemma, that Jesus is either a lunatic, truly God, or something worse, then says "how-ever strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God" then treats it as a closed cased, but hold on, why do we come to say that he is God simply like that if he could also be a lunatic or something worse? He made this huge leap in his argument without giving any valid reasons, yet he simultaneously acknowledges that it is strange, terrifying, and unlikely.
So why does C.S Lewis conclude that Jesus is God?


texts:
I have a question on Participatio Actuosa. This is a term that makes a lot of people confused.
Anyway, in the EF of the Roman rite the Priest says the words of the Consecration in silence. He is the only one who can hear him saying the words. In the OF the Priest says the words so that we all (unless you are deaf) can hear him. There seems to be a new teaching here. If you hear the words than you are participating more. Nowadays you should hear almost everything the Priest says. I don't know why this is.
Is it more Participatio Actuosa if the congregation hears the words of the Consecration?


texts: Why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day?

texts:
The Douay Rheims bible states this for Matthew 6:11 :

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

Why, therefore, do Catholic persons not celebrate the mass every day ?


texts: Why were the golden plates necessary if Joseph Smith received his translation of the Book of Mormon by viewing a stone in his hat?

texts:
Firsthand accounts say that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to receive the translation for the Book of Mormon (emphasis mine):

Joseph Smith put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.
— David Whitmer, "An Address to All Believers in Christ" (1887), 12; Quinn (1998, p. 172).

The LDS website on the translation of the Book of Mormon corroborates this account of Joseph Smith looking into his hat at the stone, and states that the gold plates containing the original "reformed Egyptian" version of the text were sometimes nearby, but covered.

Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.”

These accounts make it clear that Joseph Smith was not looking at the golden plates when he was translating the Book of Mormon, and they were covered by cloth so that they were not visible to anyone. My understanding is that sometimes the golden plates were not even in the room when he translated them. It seems strange that after all the difficulty he went through to get them, the golden plates were ultimately unused during the actual translation process.
Given that multiple sources say that Joseph Smith derived at least a major portion of his translation of the Book of Morman by looking at the stone in his hat "hour after hour", why were the golden plates necessary in the first place?


texts: How do Jehovah Witnesses come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a force?

texts:
If it has been long recognized that three primary attributes of personality are mind, emotion and will. In my mind tho following verses indicate the Holy Spirit fulfills these basic attributes:

Corinthians 2:10 states it searches all things.
1 Corinthians 2:11 says it knows the thoughts of God
Romans 8:27 says God knows the mind of the spirit.

Yet somehow Johavahs Witnesses come to a rather different conclusion. Their Watch Tower publications consistently refers to him as an abstract force. How do they justify this belief, specifically in light of the above Scriptures and definition?


texts: Do Christians who view homosexuality as a sin believe that homosexuals can be freed from their sinful condition by the power of God?

texts:
It should be common sense knowledge that many Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin. The following already asked questions should be more than enough to prove the point:

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?
What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?
What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?

That said, I'm not sure if I've ever heard Christians who claim that homosexuality is a sin also claim that homosexuals can be freed from their (claimed) sinful condition. Logic tells me that they should expect this to be the case, in light of passages such as:
Romans 8:12-17 (ESV):

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Galatians 5:16-24 (ESV):

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If homosexuality is a sinful desire of the flesh, as many Christians believe, does this mean that homosexuality, as any other sin, can be reversed by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, as the passages above seem to indicate? Is this the standard view among Christians who condemn homosexuality as a sin?
An alternative way of phrasing the question: Can God heal homosexuality (according to those who view homosexuality as a sin)?


texts:
Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"?

The following Bible verses have "monogenes" in it:

Verse              KJV                NET
John 1:14      only begotten     the one and only
John 1:18      only begotten     only one
John 3:16      only begotten     one and only
John 3:18      only begotten     one and only
1 John 4:9     only begotten     one and only
Luke 7:12      only              only
Luke 8:42      only one          only
Luke 9:38      only child        only child
Hebrews 11:17  only begotten     only son

With only one exception, the King James Version translates it to specify that the only is a child. However, modern translations, such as the New English Translation, use "one and only" most of the time. How was this word understood by the Church Fathers?


texts:
I was just reading Mark 15:17-20 (ESV) (emphasis mine):

  And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on him.  And they began to salute him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And they were striking his head with a reed and spitting on him and kneeling down in homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak
  and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

Is this why purple is the color of Lent?


texts: Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis in World War 2?

texts: Simple question. I was just wondering how the Catholic church positioned itself politically at the time of world war 2. Did it align with the Allies, Axis, or neither? Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis, if so which side?


texts: What are the main similarities and differences between the Genesis and other major ancient flood accounts?

texts:
Have any of you read the Atrahasis Epic? It's the Babylonian/Akkadian version of the Great Flood. I found it had striking similarities with the Flood Account in Genesis!! (Read it if you have not already... it's also funny – or petty – because the gods wrought on the flood because the humans are loud and disrupt their sleep). Not only is there the obvious great flood, but the hero (Noah & Atrahasis) of the story and their families are told to build an ark and collect two animals of each kind. And both Atrahasis and Noah offer a sacrifice once the flood recedes.

Now I know that there are other ancient Flood Stories out there as well, i.e. Enuma Elish and the 11th Tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. I'm compiling a list of their similarities, but do any of you know the Atrahasis, Genesis, and Gilgamesh stories well enough to know their differences? My aim is to have a venn diagram of these three flood stories to teach a class, but I'm not so familiar with Gilgamesh's Flood version. Or it seems to me that there would already be a venn diagram comparing/contrasting these three flood stories online, but I have not had such luck locating one. Can you help me out with that?

I think once I can see all their traits on one chart, I can began to see the divine (and different) purpose that the Genesis flood serves that the others do not.

Thanks


texts: Who, how many are the authors of the book of Genesis?

texts:
How credible are its authors?

The rest of the Bible is mostly a book of History many events of which can be checked out with other sources, while the doctrinal parts are often the work of a well defined prophet/saint, but, how credible are the authors of Genesis? Could it be just a collection of ideas and beliefs with little or no authority at all?


texts: When did sin and evil in the universe first appear?

texts:
According to Catholicism and Protestantism (I am not aware of any division over this) When did evil in the universe first appear and what was the originating cause of it?

Note: I mean the immediate cause not the predetermined purpose that God had in allowing its appearance. Aside from any possible sense of a cause in God's sovereignty, when was the immediate and original appearance of evil in the universe?


texts: Sources for baptismal exorcism of infants?

texts:
Are there any Christian texts before 600 CE which discuss the exorcism of infants or suggest that due to ancestral sin or for similar reasons infants are under the power of evil spirits?

In ancient church orders and other works on baptism in early centuries, exorcism of evil spirits seems like a key part of the baptismal ritual. I'm curious how this might have been understood in the case of infants.

I'm most interested in the earliest or the most thorough such explanations.

Additional info on baptism and exorcism:

Per DJClayworth's request, the following are some examples of the centrality of exorcism to baptism in the patristic era, all from a quick Google book search of Kelly, H. A. (2004). The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama. Wipf and Stock Publishers. That said, my knowledge of this topic isn't specifically from Kelly.

In the Canons of Hippolytus, those being baptized are instructed to remove their jewelry and loose their hair in order to prevent alien spirits from descending with them into the water of the second birth. (p. 136)
At the turn of the third century, there was a whole program of exorcisms preceding baptism (p. 106)
On p. 141, Kelly does a good job of describing the thoroughness of the repeated exorcisms in the baptismal procedure.
Chrysostom's description of the unbaptized as lacking the seal of Christ's protection from demons on pages 142f may be the beginning of an answer to my question.

For a work available online discussing exorcisms and baptism in this era, see eg. Adam Szabados (2010). Post-New Testament Early Christian Views of Baptismal Anointing.


texts: How many hells did Swedenborg say there were?

texts:
In G.K. Chesteron's essay "The Red Angel," found in the collection Tremendous Trifles, he remarks:

  One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg.

What is Chesterton referring to here? How many hells did Swedenborg think there were?


texts: Do the acts of the flesh reveal false Christians?

texts:
Galatians 5:

  19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and
  debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy,
  fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy;
  drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that
  those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

  16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance,
  kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
  Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ
  Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

In my experience, most (if not all) Christians do (or confess they do) the acts of flesh. Some say they are imperfect, they fight with this and so. But according to these verses  they don't walk by the Spirit, so they don't enjoy the fruit of self-control, they didn't crucify the flesh and therefore: they don't belong to Christ!

Is there some other valid point of view possible?


texts: HOW does the existence of the Universe make those who do not worship God to be "without excuse"?

texts:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20, ESV)

The Apostle Paul here says that those who ignore God, who fail to worship him or give him thanks are without excuse because the Universe shows there is a Creator God with certain attributes, namely, that he is eternal and has a divine nature.
My question is, in what way(s) does the existence of the Universe plainly demonstrate the existence and nature of God?  Preferably, in your answer say what "eternal power" means, and show how the Universe demonstrates the eternal power of God?
My question seeks answers mainly from a Trinitarian perspective.  (If you answer from other perspectives please indicate this in your answer.  Thanks.)


texts:
I for myself consider myself an agnostic. Because i simply dont know, but i dont reject. My girlfriend on the other hand is a firm believer and we both watched The life of Pi yesterday.

Maybe because my girlfriend would wish it for me, altough she does in no way pressure me, i really consider faith and would like to believe. BUT i dont want to lie to myself and want to really believe to believe like she does, unshakeable.
But because i grew up in a very non christian or religios house i struggle to "disregard" logic to believe. I simply would like the comfort of god, the thought of seeing all my loved ones in heaven after death etc. Having someone to thank for evrything good. But logic always denies this for me.

-

In the movie two storys are told. The story of the tiger, the fantastic beautiful story, and the grey realistic story with just people, and in the end he askes the other guy which he would prefer and like more. And says that it is like that with god.

But i feel and interpretations i read about the movie also say things like.

  The logical, gray and uncharming reality which is depicted as being bland and destroying every sense of magic in the world. And the godly, faithful and beatiful reality which is ultimately possibly self-deception

But does it have to be like that? Does one have to practice self-deception and discard all logic to believe. Or is there a side where the logical reality and the beatiful faith can coexist.

I really struggle here and cannot find a way out. And maybe I am way to indoctrinated with logic, and realism and science to simply JUST BELIEVE but i would like to try to give my life more meaning than to simply die and thats it.

So my question is:

Does someone who has believed in reason, logic and pure science his whole life need to discard this in order to believe or is there a way for both to coexist and give meaning to a (maybe way too) critical thinking mind.


texts: Gregory of Nazianzus - First Oration - Translation of καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ

texts:
At the very beginning (§1) of his first oration entitled, "On the Holy Pascha and on His Reluctance/Delay," Gregory writes,

  Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα, καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ...

Browne/Swallow translate καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ as "my beginning has good auspices." Is this an accurate translation? It seems to me that it should be translated as "and the auspicious beginning," taking δεξιὰ as an adjective in FemNomSing modifying ἡ ἀρχὴ.

Is resurrection day (Easter Sunday) known in Catholic or Orthodox liturgy as "the auspicious beginning"?

Source text available here.


texts: What is "New Creation" according to Protestants?

texts:
2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV)

  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old
  has passed away; behold, the new has come.

It is undeniable that no one can live a perfect sinless life like Jesus. When we receive Jesus(i.e. born again), what exactly happens spiritually and physically? Our body remains the same, we are still struggling with sin(though it has reduced to some extend). What is the essence of New Creation? Is it a 'change of heart'? or 'change of character'? or 'rebirth of spirit'? How can we identify or know that something has changed? To what degree of 'change' is counted as a new creation? What is being created new here? It may be difficult to explain but attempts must have been made.

How have Mainstream Protestant denominations/theologians explained what is "New Creation"?


texts: Can Anselm's reasoning for the Incarnation be adapted to the Resurrection?

texts:
In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm provides an argument primarily in natural theology (as I understand it, anyway) for the proposition that the divine nature assumed a human nature for itself, without confusion of natures (modulo the Chalcedonian credo, then). The argument goes something like:

Humanity should redeem itself.
Only God can redeem humanity.
Should-implies-can (roughly; you could also say, "If something to be done is right/good, then there is a way to do it").
Therefore God could in some way exist also in human form.

I personally like and accept this line of reasoning, owing greatly to my preconversion acceptance of (3). In fact, my conversion came about in part because of the above reasoning.
Now I say "in part," in part(!) because I thought there was a way to adapt Anselm's argument to the question of the Resurrection. First, sometimes John 3:16 is translated such that it says "shall not perish" instead of "will not perish." I don't know the original Greek words there, so this is a gap in my reasoning, but the idea is that the Bible is saying there that there are circumstances in which we can say that someone should be resurrected. (The Bible also talks about a "right to be the children of God": John 1:12.)
Secondly, then, let us suppose (this is a hypothetical, but we who believe would discharge the antecedent re: Jesus Christ) that there was someone who was very good, perfect in fact. If this perfect person died, would we be able to say that this person should be resurrected? That it would be right and good for this person to come back from the dead? Then via (3) from Anselm's argument, we would get, "Therefore, it is possible for this perfect being to be resurrected."
And if it was possible, and appeared to be actual, why would we think it was untrue that it had turned out to be actual?
Or is Anselm's kind of reasoning too flawed in general? He was, after all, as far as I know, the one who came up with the first ontological argument. But I am attracted to that argument, too, so I don't know...


texts: What is an overview of arguments for and against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? Was Jesus' resurrection a historical fact? What do scholars and historians have to say about all this? Is there consensus among the majority of scholars or is this still a controversial topic?


texts: Is prayer effectively second-guessing God?

texts:
If one were to accept that God has a plan and that His will is to be honored, isn't hoping to sway God's plan for the future disrespectful?

-- Update --

A lot of these answers are across the board, so here's an example to help refine the question:

  Someone's wife is gravely ill and in the hospital, and her church's
  parishioners say they will "keep her in their prayers".

It's safe to assume that they will pray for God to reverse his direction regarding her health and make her better, and it's also fair to say they're not asking him to show them the way to do it themselves.

Just making a request for him to rethink the matter, it seems. Where does that fall?


texts: Did the Bull, Unam Sanctam, authorize/promote Christian aggression by the "temporal sword"?

texts:
Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Papal bull entitled, Unam Sanctam. In it, he speaks of two swords: the spiritual sword (gladius spiritualis) and the temporal sword (gladius temporalis).

  We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in
  its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal.

  In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur.

Did this Papal bull authorize Christian aggression by the sword (i.e., offensive military action), or does it simply implore Christians to defend themselves against the aggression of others? Or, none of the above?

And, is this Papal bull still in force today?


texts: What does it mean that Satan is "god of this world"?

texts:
In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul refers to Satan as "god of this world".  What does it mean that Satan is god of this world?

  2 Corinthians 4:4 ESV
  4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
  unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
  glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses is Jehovah God omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?

texts:
In talking to Jehovah's Witnesses I found it difficult to discover what they believed on these three attributes:
Omnipotent - God cannot be thwarted by the Devil, sin, sinners, or the world but is all-powerful in all things.
Omniscient - God knows all things about all things, past, present and future, all the time.  Nothing escapes his knowledge, including our thoughts & motives.
Omnipresent - God is in all places, at all times, in the fullness of his being.  It is not just a bit of God everywhere, but all of God is everywhere all the time.
So he does not need angels or anyone else to inform him of anything anywhere at any time.
What is the Jehovah's Witness belief on these matters?


texts: How do Roman Catholics interpret 1 Timothy 4:3

texts:
In it's context in the NRSVCE (including section title):

False Asceticism
4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer. (1 Timothy 4:1-5 NRSVCE, emphasis added)

This passage appears to list forbidding marriage and demanding abstinence from foods as examples of 'teachings of demons'.
It seems that to enter the priesthood in the Latin rite either a promise (for diocesan priests) or a vow (for religious priests) of celibacy is required.  The best argument I've seen so far on this issue, argues that this isn't a 'requirement' but only something entered into voluntarily. But on the surface, this argument seems somewhat at odds with language used in some of the sections of the ordination ceremony of the Latin rite subdiaconate:

You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign. (Source, emphasis added)*

Even if the initial decision was voluntary, the process seems to admit no possibility for a later change.  A priest (in the Latin rite) is certainly forbidden from resiling from an earlier intention to remain celibate and to instead pursue marriage.
In regard to 'demanding abstinence from foods', I note that there has been a change since Vatican II, but we still have:

On Ash Wednesday and all of the Fridays of Lent, Catholics over the age of 14 are required to abstain from meat and from foods made with meat. (Source, emphasis added)

Now that doesn't sound particularly voluntary does it?
So what is the Catholic understanding of this verse and why isn't it referring to their practices in these areas?

edit: *I accept Matt Gutting's assurance that the order of the sub-diaconate has been dissolved and the particular text quoted is now only of historical interest and not necessarily a corresponding match to the instructions currently given to modern candidates for the Catholic priesthood. While I'm not sure that this has a significant effect on the underlying issue my question stems from (I'm not aware of a substantial change in the character of, or the requirements for the priesthood post-Vatican II), I'm certainly willing to update this reference to current intructions (or the recommended promissory/avowed responses) if someone is kind enough to provide the text for them.


texts: What is the decree that Pope Gregory IX issued in 1231?

texts:
I came across this in an article about the inquisition:

  In 1231, Pope Gregory IX published a decree which called for life imprisonment with salutary penance for the heretic who had confessed and repented and capital punishment for those who persisted. The secular authorities were to carry out the execution.
  The Inquisition - The Galileo Project

I've searched in a number of places and the closest I've gotten is Parens scientiarum, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article on Pope Gregory IX, but the short description on Wikipedia doesn't sound like the same thing and I cannot find the text of this incipit. Searching for the text of the above quote shows that many people are copying from a single source, but I cannot find that either.

It may be incorrect information. Pope Gregory had other bulls (assuming this referenced "decree" is a bull). It might be Ille humani generis of 1232 or Licet ad capiendos of 1233, but I cannot find anything on those either.

I want to read the text of this "decree". So that is my question: What is this "decree" and where can I read its original text (in English)?


texts: Eucharist as a definition of the Church in any early universal councils before the 1054 split?

texts: Was it stated in any one of the universal councils before the schism in 1054 that the One Universal Church is defined by Eucharist? I mean a statement that if the Eucharist is not practiced in a certain Christian group than this group is not a part of the Church.


texts: Is reference to "God" as a rock unique to Judeo-Christian usage?

texts:
Throughout the Old Testament God is likened to a “Rock” and within the New Testament the Rock that Moses struck is identified as Christ.

For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? (2 Samuel 22:32)
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Was such a metaphor for God as a “rock” unique to Israel, or was that a widespread view of Divinity?


texts: What is the difference between "infallible" and "inerrant"?

texts:
As with many others I know, I believe in both the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.

But what is the difference between these two important terms?

If something has no errors (inerrant), then must it not also be free from fabrications (infallible)? And isn't the inverse statement also true?

I asked about the Biblical basis for inerrancy previously.


texts: Why keep baptismal fonts full in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
In our (Presbyterian) church, we have a stone baptismal font in which we fill with water whenever we need to baptize somebody. At other times, it's empty, more for reasons of plumbing than doctrine - apparently there's some chance it could be damaged if kept full, due to its age and design. Our minister mentioned that in the Catholic Church, this would be considered wrong, as the font is meant to be kept full at all times, with the water traditionally being replaced each year at Easter.

What is the reason for this custom of keeping the baptismal fonts full? Is it a strict requirement or just a common practice? And as a practical matter, how is the water kept clean if it has to last all year?


texts: Who is Jesus referring to when he is speaking to the daughters of Jerusalem?

texts:
In the passage of Luke where Jesus is carrying the Cross, he turns and addresses the weeping women witnessing his Passion:

  “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for
  yourselves and for your children.."

Then he prophesies about a certain group of people:

  ...for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are
  the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never
  nursed.’

  At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to
  the hills, ‘Cover us!’ (Luke 23:29-30)

Who are these people He is describing that are saying this horrible things?

The New American Standard footnote says that Jesus is generically saying that his disciples are called to carry the Cross, but I think that is a little vague.

I'm just wondering if there are any interpretations of the Church Fathers, or any contemporary scholars that lean upon historical Christianity.


texts: What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels?

texts:
There a number of biblical passages (such as 1 Corinthians 4:9) that are worded as such indicating angels were created separately from and and are different from humans.

  For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. (1 Corinthians 4:9, NIV)

From time to time I hear someone talking about their deceased love-one being an angel in heaven. I see this in works of fiction on TV and the like too.

Is there anything in the Bible that suggests humans can become angels?


texts: What is the argument against the imposition of clerical celibacy as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church requires its priests to practice celibacy.  This has not always been the case, though.  In fact, it was not instituted until the 11th century.

Protestant churches have no requirement of celibacy.  So, what is the reason for this? Specifically why do Protestant churches, which began well after the practice had been instituted in the Catholic Church, do not require this of their pastors?


texts: I'm looking for an obscure version of John 4:32

texts:
Many years ago, I read, heard, or saw the latter half of John 4:32 as follows:

  "I have meat you/ye know not of,"

but now, I can't find it written that way anywhere.

On BibleGateway, the end of the verse (the part in question, in other words), in most versions, looks basically like this (the KJV):

  I have meat to eat that ye know not of.

Some versions/translations say "food," and some of them end differently, but what I'm looking for is one that doesn't say, "to eat that" after "meat/food." That's what I haven't been able to find.

I remember being so touched by the brevity of the shorter, more direct version. So, I'm sure I'm not mistaken that I heard it the way I think I did because I wouldn't have carried the impression I have all this time if I hadn't.

So, there are three possibilities regarding the shorter version:

I simply heard a preacher say it that way one day in the past (and there's nothing more to be done),
There really is a Bible translation out there somewhere with it written this way (and hopefully someone on here can help me find it), or
I saw it on one of some hundred different Bible movies on television (and, again, hopefully someone on here can help me find that movie).

Thank you for your help.


texts: What is the meaning in the Bible for the "Branch"?

texts: In the Bible in Zechariah 3:8-10, 6:12-13, Isaiah 4:2-3 mention the Branch. What are they talking about?


texts: Has there ever been an Eastern Catholic Pope (Post-Schism)?

texts:
Every Pope that I've heard of has been from the Latin rite/the Roman Catholic Church. Is it possible for the Pope to be a bishop from an Eastern Catholic church instead? For example I reckon it'd be really cool to have a Pope from the Syro-Malabar Church or the Ethiopian or Eritrean Churches, or the Byzantine Melkite Church.

I'm wondering if this has happened at any time historically and if not, why not? Is there anything preventing an Eastern Catholic bishop from being elected Pope?

If an Eastern bishop were to be elected Pope, could they celebrate their native liturgical rite regularly in Vatican City? Or would they be forced into using the Roman Rite most of the time? My understanding is that this is possible because the Pope is considered omniritual: he can celebrate whatever liturgy he wants and is not tied down to the Latin Rite.

As a historical footnote, I'll point out that before the great schism there was a period of church history where the Popes were all imported from Byzantine Greece, Byzantine Syria, and Byzantine Sicily. However this was before the great schism and so is not as remarkable as it seems at first glance because Eastern and Western Christianity were united at the time. See here: Byzantine Papacy


texts: What is the difference between the first and second resurrection in the book of Revelation?

texts:
I want to understand What is the meaning of first resurrection and
second resurrection.

Revelation 20:5 KJV

  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Revelation 2:11 KJV

  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Revelation 20:12-13 KJV

  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

How is the first resurrection different from the second one?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic stance on levitation?

texts:
There are many stories of certain saints levitating or even flying. Many include reports of some particular saint seen hovering a few feet above the ground as they were deep in prayer.

Does the Roman Catholic Church have an official position on this? Are some saints officially recognized as 'levitators' or are the stories dismissed?


texts: Why does God choose the tiniest paintbrush to do his detailed work?

texts:
When Christ went to Golgotha to be crucified, on his way there he chose Simon of Serene, a humble man, and a complete stranger, to carry His cross.

Before that God chose Mary and Joseph to be Son of Man's earthly parents who were just simple people. So why did God choose simple people like them?

Similarly, He chose St. Bro. Andre of Canada to do His impossible work. St. Bro. Andre was a little educated man. Had no wealth or money. He was a doorman. How could he do such huge task? He asked himself a thousand times probably. But he did it.

My question is why does God choose the tiniest paintbrush to do his detailed work?

There are many rich people who are honest and have human elements and attributes. Wouldn't they have done the same task in a more authoritative way?


texts: Changes in Rome since Trent versus the Evangelicals

texts: I am aware that there have been two wide spread movements to bring the Evangelical and Roman Catholic Churches closer together (ECT and ECT2).  My question is this: What has changed in Roman Catholic doctrine since the Council of Trent when the split was fully made and the evangelical movement anathematized by Rome?  Have all of the changes that have encouraged these movements been from the side of the Evangelicals?


texts: Are Origen's and Calvin's views on God compatible?

texts:
The Father, or first person, is ... the only one who is autotheos, God in the fullest sense, whereas the Son is his dunamis or power and the Spirit a dependent being (SEP > Origen)

The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten ... (Calvin's Institutes 1.13.25 @ ccel.org)

Are the two views compatible or incompatible?


texts: Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies

texts:
One of the charges that is consistently leveled against Biblical reliability is that the Bible is "full of contradictions".  This is certainly not a new charge, and the field of Apologetics, with its disciplined approach to defending God's word surely has a defined, commonly accepted approach to dealing with alleged discrepancies.

What is that approach?  In other words, what are the common "rules" (or less stringently, "guidelines") that are taught and followed in classic apologetics?

To be very clear, I am not asking "is the Bible reliable?".  I'm not asking "are the rules used true, correct, or sound"?  I am well aware that skeptics, atheists, and Christians that believe the Bible could contain contradictions will likely disagree with the rules and techniques applied by apologetics.  I'm not asking if the rules are true, I'm simply asking what they are, so that we have a record of the techniques used on the site.

My hope is that these rules can be referenced later, for questions about such contradictions, to provide a framework for addressing the apparent contradiction questions using the classic apologetic approach.


texts:
Genesis 1:24-27 states that humans were created after the other animals, and the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

  1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
  1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
  1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

While Genesis 2:18-22 states that man was created first, then the animals and only then the woman from the man's rib.

  2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
  2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
  2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
  2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
  2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Which one is the correct order of events?


texts: What do Catholic Deacons do that a Priest would never do?

texts: In the Latin rite of the Catholic Church we have permanent Deacons. What do they do that a Priest would never do? I know they cannot say Mass and hear Confessions. There must be a good reason why we have men who are ordained but not allowed to say Mass or hear Confessions. Why do we even have Deacons?


texts: If God cannot tempt anyone, what is the meaning of the following scriptures?

texts:
In light of James 1:13, I would like to know the meaning of the remaining scriptures quoted below.

James 1:13

  Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

1 Kings 22:21-23

  Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'"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.' "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."…

2 Thessalonians 2:11

  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie

Judges 9:23

  God stirred up animosity between Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem so that they acted treacherously against Abimelek.

1 Samuel 16:14

  Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.


texts: What rules does the Catholic Church have for venerating crosses/crucifixes on Good Friday?

texts:
Each year on the Good Friday service at my parish we venerate the cross, but I really wish it were a crucifix, and I've wondered why we don't have one for that purpose.  I've been trying to find one to just drop off at the church with a note saying "this is better, keep it", but before I do, I would like to know if the  Catholic Church has any restrictions as to what kind of a cross can be venerated during the Good Friday service?

Does the cross have to be a certain size, of a certain material, or are we even allowed to venerate a cross sans-Corpus?


texts:
Are there any individuals who are claiming to be the pope that are not Pope Francis?

I came across the Wikipedia link on the  Palmarian Catholic Church and they claim to have their own Pope. And it is not Pope Francis!

Their present leader is Gregory XVIII.

  Claim to the papacy

  Following the death of Paul VI in 1978, Domínguez claimed that he had been mystically crowned pope by Jesus Christ in a vision. This reported vision took place in Santa Fe de Bogotá in Colombia, on the 6th of August 1978. He took the papal name Gregory XVII, and appointed his own cardinals. By these actions, the "Carmelites of the Holy Face" evolved into the Palmarian Catholic Church. Some Catholics previously associated with the Carmelites left the group as a result.

  The popes of the Palmarian Church do not claim to be the titular bishop of Rome. Rather, they claim that Christ transferred the position of Patriarch of the West and Supreme Pontiff to the new episcopal see of El Palmar de Troya. This is a departure from traditional Catholic doctrine, which identifies the papacy with the bishop of Rome. Catholic teaching also holds that personal revelations are not binding on the Church as a whole.

  In his capacity as pope, Domínguez called the Catholic Church a false church and declared Pope John Paul II excommunicated. Gregory XVII canonized Franco, Escrivá, and Columbus; and declared Paul VI a martyr or saint with Palmarian Catholic faith. - Palmarian Catholic Church

My question is quite simple:

What other individuals or groups, if any, claim to have a Catholic pope in lieu of the the Sovereign Pontiff who resides at the Vatican and who is presently known as Pope Francis?


texts: What is the significance of Jesus' spitting on the ground in the book of John?

texts:
Why does Jesus spit on the ground and make clay to anoint the blind man's eyes?  What does this represent?  Is the need to wash the anointing off significant?

John 9:6-7 NIV

  After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the
  saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the
  Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed,
  and came home seeing.


texts: Why did "Lift Every Voice and Sing" become the "Black National Anthem"?

texts:
Attending an African American church service recently, I was introduced to the hymn Lift Every Voice and Sing.  One of my colleagues said this was the "Black National Anthem," uniquely Christian and a great solace in the fight for civil rights.

What is it that caused this song to be so closely identified with the Civil Rights Movement, and is its theology unique to a particular brand of Christianity?

Along these lines, is there a scriptural basis for this hymn?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the 'quality of life' in hell is not the same for everyone?

texts: What is the Biblical basis for believing that an existence in hell will be appreciably different in quality for each individual - i.e quality or grades of hell? Do proponents of this idea get support from Jesus meting out a lesser punishment for the ignorant slave?


texts: I have learnt that some of the Jews linked to the early Jewish council stoned St. Stephen to death and Paul as a witness. But I have a bit of confusion that who ordered the decree of Stephan's death.


texts: To the Protestant, what is the benefit of putting a cross inside the church?

texts:
From the internet I found that : [a cross is the principal symbol of the Christian religion]

I've searched in the internet, all I can find is a question about "why Catholic cross has statue ?" or "why there is a difference between Catholic VS Protestant cross ?".

And the questions like that are not the one I'm asking here.

My questions are :
1. What is the benefit of putting a cross symbol inside the church?
2. How did putting a cross inside a church begin and who ordered it?

Thank you.

edit :
the question number-2 has the answer from the possible duplicate link here How did the cross come to be a symbol for Christianity? which is :

  In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical
  system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration
  by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and
  symbols

So.... loooong time ago, in order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans (cross symbol in this case) were received into the churches.

But the link there still has no answer for the question number-1 :)


texts: Literal or legend: how do Catholics treat non-Biblical miracles?

texts:
I am aware that I lack expertise on this topic sorry if the question is badly worded.

There are a lot of reported miracles of the saints in Catholicism reported hundreds of years after Jesus' life, some of which are of-a-form like stigmata and some of which are very unusual like St. Denis having his head chopped off and then walking six miles preaching a sermon.

I would like to know how literally Catholic believers and the Catholic church believe these events to be? Are each of them considered a fact? Or are they thought of more as local stories/heroes or stories of moral instruction or even just there to indicate that a particular person was strong in their faith? Is it considered heresy to suggest that these events are not literally true?