texts: What terms have been used by missionaries to Islamic countries to describe Islam?

texts:
I am hearing with increasing frequency that Islam is not a religion. Here's one citation, from the upcoming "Value Voters Summit"

  “Why would Satan use Islam? Same reason. It’s not a religion. It’s a movement to dominate the world under the guise of religion."

How have missionaries to Islamic countries (or other prominent evangelists) described or worded the "incorrectness" of Islam?  What criteria have been used, if this phrase has roots in church history, between a non-salvific religion, and "not a religion?"


texts: What did Luther consider to be novel in his theology of creation?

texts:
In Colin Gunton's The Doctrine of Creation (T&T Clark, 1997), he says:

  In view of what we have just noted [in the previous section on Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham] about the non-trinitarian treatment of creation in the Middle Ages, Luther's claim that he was the only person to have understood the first chapter of Genesis is only slightly exaggerated. The change he brings about is remarkable. (p71)

A footnote further on in the text says: "Luther is contemptuous of Augustine's mystical interpretation of the text, as well as of his and Hilary's view that God created instantaneously." There is a citation to Luther's Lectures on Genesis.

I am curious about the following:

What did Luther himself think was the major contribution of his interpretation? Was it the trinitarianism, the literal/material reading, the non-instantaneous creation, or something else?
Did he actually say that nobody else had ever understood Genesis 1 properly? (Perhaps this is an example of Lutheran hyperbole.) Did he specifically engage with the full range of patristic writings on the creation?


texts: If the Father and Son are both God, and the Son sacrificed himself to the Father, wouldn't that conclude that God sent himself inside of Mary and then sacrificed himself to himself? Now God saving us from himself is logically sound, but as for the previous sentence I have a hard time understanding the sacrifice issue. Thanks.


texts: Jesus's genealogy: 28 generations or 41 since David?

texts:
These questions keep me wondering:

Firstly, how is it possible that Matthew and Luke came up with completely different genealogies of Jesus's ancestors, if they are both following the masculine line?

And more importantly, if I'm overlooking something and both Matthew and Luke were right, how can this 13-generatons gap be justified?

Added later:

Matthew 1   | Luke 3
------------+-------
David       | David
Solomon     | Nathan
Rehoboam    | Mattatha
Abijah      | Menna
Asa         | Melea
Jehoshaphat | Eliakim
Jehoram     | Jonam
Uzziah      | Joseph
Jotham      | Judah
Ahaz        | Simeon
Hezekiah    | Levi
Manasseh    | Matthat
Amon        | Jorim
Josiah      | Eliezer
            | Joshua
            | Er
            | Elmadam
            | Cosam
            | Addi
            | Melchi
            | Neri
Jehoiachin  |            <-- According to Matthew the exile started here
Shealtiel   | Shealtiel  <-- Same names
Zerubbabel  | Zerubbabel <-- Same names
Abiud       | Rhesa
Eliakim     | Joanan
Azor        | Joda
Zadok       | Josech
Achim       | Semein
Eliud       | Mattathias
Eleazar     | Maath
Matthan     | Naggai
Jacob       | Esli
            | Nahum
            | Amos
            | Mattathias
            | Joseph
            | Jannai
            | Melchi
            | Levi
            | Matthat
            | Heli
Joseph      | Joseph
Jesus       | Jesus


texts: Famous Pre Reformation Christian Pastors (Non Catholic)

texts:
After the Splintering of the Protestant Revolt, there have been many men who are famous as Pastors and Preachers even up to the present day, the Billy Grahams the Joel Olstiens, John McArthurs, an Ellen G. White and so on.

My questions is, are there any famous Biblical Pastors before the 15th century that were not Catholic or Catholic-Orthodox priests or bishops or members of the Catholic or Catholic Orthodox Churches?  Someone who for example, did not celebrate the traditional sacrament of the Mass?


texts: When did the immutability of God become entrenched in Christian literature?

texts:
The immutability of God means God does not change, and it is considered heresy to disagree. However, this concept seems so close to the Greek's idea of perfection, and to conflict with the well-known idea that God became a Man.

When did this idea appear in the writings of the church fathers, and when did it become enshrined by the church councils? It does not seem to be in the Apostle's Creed for example.


texts: In "The Ball and the Cross" where did McIan go wrong?

texts:
In the G.K. Chesterton's The Ball and the Cross there's a point where it's obvious that Chesterton doesn't think Evan McIan's initial philosophy, if taken to its fullness, would bring about peace on Earth.

What exactly was it about his philosophy that left him open to temptation (in his dream) and how did his viewpoint change.  Furthermore, what was it about seeing the old man that made him want to stop fighting?

I ask this as a Catholic who feels compelled to smash things occasionally, but somehow feels it's not the right thing to do!


texts: Is there any denomination that fully embraces Dispensational Premillennialism?

texts: I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist?


texts: Who found whom? After Jesus FINDS Philip, why does Philip tell Nathanael "We have FOUND the One..."?

texts:
In John chapter 1, the Scriptures record that Jesus found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."  Two verses later, Phil tells Nathanael, "We have found the One Moses wrote about..."

  The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said
  to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of
  Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have
  found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus
  of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

So, who found whom?  And who is "We"?


texts: Is voluntary passibility consistent with an essentially impassible God?

texts:
The majority of Christian theologians have held that God is 'impassible' where impassibility means God's inability to be changed/affected by creatures, particularly in reference to his emotional life. This helped to distinguish the one true God from the pagan gods who could be manipulated with sacrifices or often seemed to lack control over their own power. However, many theologians today have argued for more qualified versions of impassibility in which God voluntarily, by choice, created the world in such a way as to allow it to influence his emotions and his decisions. Some theologians suggest it is incompatible to claim that an impassible God would impassibly choose to become passible, while others claim that he does so in a biblical-ly supported paradox. Does this seem logically/biblically/theologically problematic to you and if so help me flesh out potential objections. For context, much of the discussion seems to revolve around the nature of Jesus' hypostatic union.

The inability for God to truly suffer (be passible) is at the heart of virtually every Christian tradition's conception of God, since according to the IVPs Divine Impassibility: Four Views of God's Emotions and Suffering:

  Despite modern bewilderment or offense taken at the strong account of divine impassibility, historically it commanded wide ecumenical backing, being maintained by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and more. Among Protestants, it enjoyed sponsorship from figures as diverse as John Calvin, James Arminius, John Gill, and John Wesley. (21)

I need other perspectives on this topic. What are potential objections to the voluntary passibility?

An example of voluntary passibility is given by Professor Richard Bauckham (emphasis added):

  It seems increasingly obvious that the Greek philosophical inheritance in traditional theology was adopted without the necessary critical effect of the central Christian insight into the divine nature: the love of God revealed in the cross of Christ. For the Greeks, suffering implied deficiency of being, weakness, subjection, instability. But the cross shows us a God who suffers out of the fullness of his being because he is love. He does not suffer against his will, but willingly undertakes to suffer with and for those he loves. His suffering does not deflect him from his purpose, but accomplishes his purpose. His transcendence does not keep him aloof from the world, but as transcendent love appears in the depth of his self-sacrificing involvement in the world. Finally, if Christians know anything about God from the cross, it is that 'the weakness of God is stronger than men' (1 Cor. 1:25).


texts: Do Rastafarians believe in Jesus as the Way to God?

texts: Do Rastafarians believe that Jesus is the way to God in the same way that Christians believe? I find that their singing speaks a lot about God and spiritual matters.


texts: What is the Catholic explanation for temptation?

texts:
I have recently been thinking: Why am I tempted to sin at all? If a Higher Power created me and the universe, as well as a set of laws for me to follow, why am I tempted to break these laws? Did he choose to create a universe where people like me feel bombarded with temptation and desire to break the laws that this Higher Power gave us?

I want an explanation for these questions, but I'm not positive that I have found one myself that does not involve statements similar to either "the Higher Power who created us is not all-powerful" or "the Higher Power that created us chose that we should feel tempted". In the second case, it does not seem to me that this Higher Power is as kind and as loving as I believe him to be.

So according to Catholicism, why does temptation even exist in the first place?


texts:
There were several Sacred items that were buried with the Plates of Gold by the prophet Moroni:

  "Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under
  the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I
  looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and
  Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in
  which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of
  cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the
  box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with
  them." (JS–H 1:52)

Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, saw these items at Fayette, New York, in June 1829 (see Doctrine and Covenants Section 17)

  "Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you
  do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates,
  and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim,
  which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he
  talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors (Liahona) which
  were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red
  Sea." (D&C 17:1)

According to the LDS church, where are these items now?


texts: Did Pope Francis say that the Gospel is radical?

texts:
I vaguely remember a quote by Pope Francis, in the context of mercy and his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which goes something like "The teaching of the Gospel itself is quite radical", using "radical" in a good way.  The basic meaning of the  quote was somethng like, Pope Francis doesn't need to break new ground in placing a greater emphasis on God's mercy and forgiveness, because the Gospel's teaching on this is already quite earth-shattering if we just listen to it.

Can someone help me identify this quote?  I distinctly remember that the words "Gospel" and "radical" occur in the quote.

I can't seem to find it in Amoris Laetitia, but it's possible that it's from some interview he gave about it, or it's from another document authored by him.


texts:
This question is related to What is the difference between hard determinism and compatibilism, under the assumption of physicalism?, but I'm looking for the Reformed/Calvinism understanding of this topic.

From what I understand, both Compatibilism and Hard Determinism deny freewill. Although Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile freewill with determinism, it completely denies the idea that the will is free. Rather, as Arthur Schopenhauer said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

According to ReformationTheology.com:

  Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...

According to Reformed Theology, how is Compatibilism different than Hard Determinism?


texts: Do Catholics refer to all martyrs as Saints?

texts: At first I was thinking the only requirement to be canonized was to be killed for your faith. Is this accurate? How is someone deemed a Saint as opposed to a martyr in Catholicism?


texts:
I have read in numerous commentaries on John 20 that Thomas first met the resurrected Christ on Sunday, the first day of the week. Here is one illustrative example, though others I've looked at are similar in substance:

Verses 26-31 We have here an account of another appearance of Christ
to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with
them. And concerning this we may observe,I. When it was that Christ
repeated his visit to his disciples: After eight days, that day
seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the
first day of the week.
Matthew Henry's commentary on John 20 [emphasis is mine]

Here are the relevant verses from the Bible:

John 20 (NKJV)
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day
of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were
assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst,
and said to them, “Peace be with you.”  24 Now Thomas, called the
Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The
other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he
said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and
put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His
side, I will not believe.” 26 And after eight days His disciples were
again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut,
and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”

Perhaps I'm being naïve, but starting from the Lord's day, Sunday, I count "and after eight days" (Greek: "καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ") to mean the Monday of the following week, that is, eight days after the first Sunday. It seems that the commentaries I've read interpret it to mean "on the eight day", which would indeed work out to the following Sunday. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how "after eight days" can be understood in this way.
So, my question is: On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? Was it on a Sunday, a Monday, or some other day of the week?
My main interest in this question is to understand if these verses in John 20 are indeed a valid support for the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday. I don't question the practice (there are many other verses in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Revelation that support it); I am simply trying to understand whether John 20 indeed displays the first case of Christians meeting as Christians on two consecutive Sundays. I'm having a hard time seeing this in this particular chapter.


texts: What is the origin of the idea that the baby Jesus did not cry?

texts:
"...the cattle are lowing. The baby awakes. But little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes."
~ 2nd verse to Away In A Manger

Did this idea originate from historical Christian doctrine? Where did this idea come from that baby Jesus didn't cry?
I didn't realize that I had believed this my whole life until literally an hour ago when I was singing the song to my 1 yr old and thought "Wait...what?"


texts: Aquinas' understanding of love - is it desire?

texts:
St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of love is "to will the good of another" - is it same as defining love as "to desire the good of another"?

According to Aquinas, does "loving" always require "desire for the good of another"?


texts: Is Genesis 18 regarded as a Theophany of the Trinity by any denomination?

texts:
Abraham addresses the three visitors as LORD. Is there any group of Christians that understands this as a theophany of the Trinity?

  Genesis 18:1-2 NASB 1 Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth,


texts: From a Catholic perspective, what do family relationships look like in heaven?

texts:
According to Matthew 22:30, people in heaven do not marry. What do the family relationships look like there? Will our relations to parents, kids, wives and husbands disappear?

The Catholic position preferred and biblical arguments welcome.


texts: What was the "Sect of Nicolaus" and did elements of it's influence carry down to our day?

texts:
In Revelation there is mention, in two congregations, concerning the "Sect of Nicolaus".

What exactly was this sect? What did it teach? And has it's influence survived into our day?


texts: Is the bonebox called the "James Ossuary" authentic? Is it truly the bonebox of James, the brother of Jesus Christ?

texts:
An ossuary is a bone box.  The James Ossuary is allegedly the bone box of James the brother of our Lord Jesus.  On its side is written, in aramaic, "James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus".
In first century AD in Israel when someone died they were laid in a place of burial, such as a cave, and a heavy stone rolled across the entrance, just as in the case of Jesus.  Then about one or two years later the stone was rolled back: at that stage all that remained of the dead body was bones.  These bones were then collected up and placed in an "ossuary".  The largest bone in the human body is the femur, the thighbone.  So ossuaries are not especially large: in length they are just slightly longer than the thighbone.  Thousands of ossuaries from the first century AD and the first century BC have been found in Israel.
In October 2002 it was announced that the Ossuary of James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, had been found.  It is pretty important archaeologically speaking because if it is genuine then it is the first, and so far the only, direct archaeological evidence that Jesus even existed.
My question is simply: what is the evidence, for and against, that this ossuary was truly the ossuary of James, Jesus's brother?


texts: What Bible translations are accepted by Mormons?

texts:
A comment to another question that I had asked said that the LDS does not accept the NIV as a correct translation.

Based on that comment it seems that they only accept King James Version (KJV) which, according to the Wikipedia article, is also known as King James Bible or Authorized Version.

The questions I would like ask are:

Is the KJV from 1611 the only translation accepted by Mormons, or
are there other translations they accept, such as perhaps NKJV?
What Bible translations do Mormons use in countries where KJV does
not exist in local language, such as Sweden?


texts: Is there such a thing as a 'concordat' today in the Catholic church?

texts:
Background to question raised:
I have been reading old histories where as a background stage, there were various antipopes (sometimes even 3 competing popes at the same time). The complex relationships they had with civil powers, kings and influence in wars and judicial inquiries and resulting punishments is like a gigantic maze.  The role of church and state becomes very confusing and messy to say the least. At times it seems impossible to figure out who the 'good guys' were amongst all the turmoil and politics among war and collecting of taxes, tithes, etc. which the kings and Pope wrestled with one another. This lead me to having an interest in the Catholic view of church and state.

Current understanding:
Upon realizing that the Catholic church believes in a physical church I have further come to understand that it sees this physical church-state to have three functions. Kingly, Priestly and Prophetic. I was aware of the priesthood and teaching role but a 'literal' kingly role, making the Pope a kind of earthly Monarch, that is having some earthly right to power (pardon me if I'm not using the correct Catholic terms) is new to me. Upon considering this 'earthly' power it started to make sense of church history. First the church had no earthly power. Then after Constantine it obviously did start having a literal earthly power. But then as Kings naturally want to separate church and state, it seems the Pope tried to make agreements with other powers so as it maintain his power in a non warring fashion under the name of a 'concordat', or a treaty between states of literal power, so to speak. However as the idea of separation of church and state, which is the way the world seems to be going since the founding of America which had multiple church denominations trying to find a new life free of religious persecution; I cant see how any state would consider the pope to have enough literal 'kingly power' as to even consider such a thing as a 'concordat'? It would seem ridiculous to even imagine such a thing, otherwise states would need to make legal agreements with every religious leader?

Resulting immediate question:
Are there any current states that still maintain some kind of official recognition of a literal state-like power of the Pope through a concordat?


texts: Where is the italicization in the King James translation of the Bible from and what does it mean?

texts:
Take, for example, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 in the King James version:

  For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Why is the second occurrence of the word 'thing' italicised?

Here's another example, Matthew 22:41-46:

  While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

'The Son', the second occurrence of 'man', and 'questions' - why are they italicized?


texts: Is asceticism defendable under a Christian world view?

texts: This question is somewhat related to this one. What are the Protestant churches views on asceticism, what does the canon say about the tenants and is it Biblical?


texts: Is celibacy essential to the Catholic priesthood?

texts:
Question: What are the theological (not practical) reasons for Catholic priests being celibate? In other words, is celibacy (or at least perpetual continence) essential to the Catholic priesthood?

Note that I am not seeking for practical reasons like "If priests were not celibate they would have a harder time keeping a secret known trough confessions," etc. I am seeking for theological reasons (if they exist) that make celibacy fitting from the very notion of priesthood or something like that.


texts: What exactly did Pope Gregory the Great mean by "Universal Bishop?"

texts:
In the 6th Century, Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote this:

  "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the
  universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the
  precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself
  above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride
  equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be
  regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever
  would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know
  it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred
  the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic
  See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of
  us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed
  this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity
  of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." (Orthodoxwiki)

In the 19th Century, the Bishop(s) of Rome decreed this:

  Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman
  Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other
  Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is
  both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever
  rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to
  this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true
  obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
  but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the
  Church throughout the world...

  ...In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in
  profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock
  under one Supreme Shepherd. (Pastor Aeternus)

How does a Catholic layman reconcile these two contexts?


texts: How do you equate Christian teachings with certain worldly(non Christian) achievements/attitudes?

texts:
So there are wars/conflicts raging on all around the world, that would be compatible with Biblical teachings, 'the lost worldly people, dead in sin and unable to do anything good' etc, I would assume.

However, how would a Christian teach(or view) about (so called) peaceful countries, for example, I am watching the Commonwealth games, I see fit and healthy looking athletes how seem humble, gracious, kind, etc.  I see hundreds(or thousands) in the crowd who all seem a peaceful, enthusiastic, applauding, mature audience. I see a system of authority and, I assume, morality, yet I would take a guess that maybe 3% maximum went to church or claimed to believe in God.

This is the same for many countries/events we see, so how do we equate this with, 'if you don't believe you will go to hell etc'. Especially with the Calvinistic theory that basically says that man can do no good(or very little) and is dead in sin, so how do we relate to the peaceful, educated, apparently moral people/crowds we see.

We see mankind build cities, create amazing scientific theories and devices that cure diseases, see all kinds of creative amazing things yet most of these people would not claim to believe in God.

Now I am not having a go, but how does this work...?


texts: Why would Zachariah doubt Angel Gabriel?

texts:
My point is:
Were they used to seeing false angels such that he'd doubt one even in the place of the incense?

As a priest, he'd probably know a lot of Jewish history and the numerous appearances of Angels from God


texts:
Why did God create the great flood to wipe the entire human race including unborn children and babies that are probably innocent, and also other species that are innocent?

He can re-create the whole universe and fix his errors of the first creation in just 6 days instead of drowning all creations in 40 days of rain. Why not just make a fresh start.


texts: Why does God say we shouldn't eat Crab & Pork but Jesus says that doesn't really matter

texts:
Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork.

Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster.

Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat.

Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we can eat these things but we shouldn't?


texts: Did Jesus forgot that he was asked by his disciples where he was going?

texts:
In John 13:36, Peter asks Jesus where he is going:

  Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered
  him, “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow
  afterward.”

And in John 14:5, Thomas also asked Jesus where he is going:

  Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how
  can we know the way?”

But later in John 16:5-6, Jesus said that no one asked him where he is going!

  But now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are
  you going?’Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these
  things.

Did Jesus forgot that he was indeed asked?


texts: Is there a difference between "co-redeemer" and "co-redemptrix"?

texts: Did Pope Francis throw cold water on any hope for a 5th Marian dogma or is there a fundamental difference between "co-redeemer" and "co-redemptrix" that leaves the door slightly ajar?


texts:
Throughout a person's life they might experience some incredible highs in their relationship with Christ. They might receive answers to prayers and/or a bounty of unexpected blessings. A person might also at times find themselves very unsure and seemingly lost in a dark wilderness. But what about on a daily basis? A person may look in the mirror in the morning after spending a wonderful morning alone in prayer with the Heavenly Father only to look in that same mirror in the evening and realize they had avoided seeking God, praising God and sharing His love.

What does the Scripture say about this? Are there any biblical characters who struggle with this?


texts: What were the common exonyms of the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches leading up to and after the Great Schism (1054)?

texts:
A common misconception I encounter among people interested in the history of Christianity is that the term "Catholic" refers solely to the Roman Catholic church and likewise "Orthodox" only to the Eastern Orthodox church (indeed, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church).

While these terms can serve as shorthands for those churches today in many contexts excluding formal ones, I don't know much of their history in this current use. One would think people who lived in the centuries leading to the Great Schism of 1054 wouldn't have used such positive terms of each other: to describe the other side of the ongoing disputes as catholic or orthodox would seem to undermine one's own side in the deepening controversy.

What terms did the Roman and Greek sides of the church use of each other, in the centuries leading to the Schism and immediately after it, until the "Catholic" and "Orthodox" terms became commonly associated with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, respectively?


texts: Why is Elijah missing from Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone"?

texts:
Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" starts with:

  MOST OF THE WORLD'S GREAT SOULS have been lonely. Loneliness seems to be one price the saint must pay for his saintliness.

He then goes on to discuss Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Lot, Moses, Christ.

In particular, he states:

  The pain of loneliness arises from the constitution of our nature. God made us for each other. The desire for human companionship is completely natural and right. The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate world. His Godgiven instincts cry out for companionship with others of his kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his absorption in the love of Christ; and because within his circle of friends there are so few who share his inner experiences he is forced to walk alone. The unsatisfied longings of the prophets for human understanding caused them to cry out in their complaint, and even our Lord Himself suffered in the same way.

Now, if we are to discuss loneliness, it's hard to miss Elijah in 1 Kings 17:

  1 Kings 17: 2 And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying,
  3 Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.
  4 And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.
  5 So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.
  6 And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.
  7 And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.

The guy drank from a brook and was fed by ravens for who knows how long!

Question

Why is Elijah not mentioned in Tozer's essay? Was Elijah not considered a Saint a that time? Did Elijah not walk alone enough? Is there some other reason that sets Elijah's life out from the other examples Tozer cites?


texts: Does Christianity definitively state that the God can never do wrong?  If so, where is this stated?


texts:
So here are the reasons I've come up with why we are commanded not to curse or swear.

Some curse words have vulgar and awful meanings.
Culturally it is seen as unprofessional, unintelligent and impolite.

On the issue that some curse words have vulgar and awful meanings. I fully understand why these shouldn't be used. But most swear words do not have awful meanings.

As for it being a cultural issue, I agree, you do seem less professional and intelligent. But that all depends on who you are around and how serious of a word it is. For example, using the word Heck as an adult rather than Hell in some settings can be seen a childish, unprofessional and unintelligent. Also, most adults don't find it impolite to swear when something serious has just happened.

Also, why is it not ok to say a swear word, but is ok to say a replacement word that means the same exact thing and is used in the same exact situations. Just like the word crap and the the "s" word.

I've been researching what swear words actually are and why society even created them and I found that the reason society has swear words is a way to convey lots of emotion. For example, the seldom times I hear my dad swear, I know he means business and what he is swearing about is serious. Also, when I was younger and in school, whenever the class was rowdy and the teacher couldn't get our attention, they would swear and the whole class would immediately be quiet.

I understand that overuse of a swear word is wrong because then it defeats the purpose of being used to convey emotions. But when the alternative to swearing is raising your voice, I see swearing as useful.

I'm not referring to taking the Lords name in vain or to words that have dirty meanings. I'm talking about why is it bad to occasionally use a swear word that has a perfectly appropriate definition, and to use it at times when trying to convey emotion with a group of people where they don't perceive what you said as impolite.

Society created the idea of certain words being curse words. Nothing is inherently wrong with the words themselves. So when your either by yourself or your around a group of people where it is socially acceptable to use a certain curse word in a certain situation, why should you still not use it?


texts: What verified, uniquely Christian principles support scientific approach?

texts:
In several books (incl. those written by atheists) there is the statement that Christianity gave a boost to science in the West. Allegedly, there are statements in the Christian teaching that promote scientific approach.

What are these statements in Christian literature (specific to Christianity, i. e. not appearing in other religions)?

I only have anecdotal (unconfirmed) evidence.

Example 1: One of the Christian thinkers (Thomas Acquinas?) stated that

God created the nature,
the nature works in an ordered way (i. e. is not chaotic), and
God does not micromanage most of the time (i. e. when he does, it's a miracle; at all other times nature works without divine intervention).

In other words: Gods creates a self-regulating system (like an ocean) once, then it works on its own in an ordered way.

From these statements it follows that it is possible to understand how nature works by finding out the laws that govern them (empirically finding out the nature of the order from step 2).

Example 2: Allegedly, one of the Russian priests once said that Christian teaching does not contradict the theory of evolution. The statement that God created the universe in seven days can be understood as a metaphor (like many parts of the Christian literature). These are not calendar days, but may last for billions of years.

I want to find publicly accessible, verifiable parts of the Christian teaching that support the scientific approach. I am not interested in cases where Christians made scientific discoveries or advanced the science in other ways. Rather, I want to know what parts of Christian literature formed their thinking and allowed to make those discoveries.

Ideally, these statements are peculiar to Christianity (i. e. are not part of Judaism) and do not appear in other religions. I want to find out whether or not the fact that science succeeded most in Christian countries can be attributed to the Christian doctrine (hence if some statement appears in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it does not help validate the thesis).

Update 1 (2018-06-15): I will accept an answer that confirms or refutes the statement in example 1 above. That's a good starting point.


texts: When did the concept of "wine is grape juice" originate?

texts:
A discussion in chat today has lead me to this question.  Most of us should be familiar with the debate about whether Jesus drank alcoholic wine, or some other form of wine, or simple grape juice.

My question isn't about settling that debate, however.  My question is essentially asking when did the debate begin?  What is the history of "Jesus only drank grape juice" interpretation?


texts: Has the Catholic Church ever declared any group that identified itself Christian as not Christian?

texts:
In her history, has the Catholic Church ever declared any group that identified itself Christian as not Christian?

The answer should start with the most recent declarations if any exist.


texts: During Assyria’s conquest of Israel, what side did Judah take?

texts: Relations between Israel and Judah were fluid. They were sometimes allies and sometimes adversaries. During Assyria’s long campaign against Israel culminating in the siege of Samaria and subsequent mass deportation, did Judah side with Israel, with Assyria, remain neutral, or oscillate between these positions as things got worse for Israel?


texts: Are there analogues to the Mormon/LDS high school seminary in other Christian denominations?

texts: The LDS church has a high school seminary system where high school students intensively learn the teachings of the LDS church.  This is a week-daily 1/2hr - 1 hour class taken before normal school hours and then the kids go to their highschool.  Do such systems exist for those in other Christian denominations?


texts: On what do Catholics base their doctrine of the eternal virginity of Mary?

texts:
I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she neither had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man) either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus.

What Biblical evidence does the Catholic Church cite in support of this doctrine? Is there any other non-Biblical evidence for this?


texts: What is the view of Islam within the Catholic Church?

texts:
Ever since Islam arose what has been the view of Islam within the Catholic Church?

The desired answer will include papal and Church magisterium and pronouncements, the view of saints, and while not required, perhaps views of a few prestigious Catholic writers.

The detailed answer will also have a mention on Muhammad the founder, and the Qur'an.

Please note the answer is not the one that will have ALL the pronouncements ever made, but the one that is a succinct summary. For example if Pope A & B say the same thing, summarize and state what the say in common and make a footnote saying all who said the same thing.


texts: Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Protestant interpretation)

texts:
Something I hear a lot is "Jesus has to be God because it took an infinite sacrifice to appease the infinite anger of an infinite God", or something like that.

My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine.

If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination.

If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he is not a real human.

According to Protestant trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?


texts: How can Protestants authoritatively declare something wrong or heretical under Sola Scriptura?

texts:
Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc.

So upon what basis can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)?

And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness.

I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible.

Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible.

Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way.

None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny.

Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which doesn't rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?


texts: Who are "Communicators" according to Pope Francis?

texts:
In Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis wrote, quoting his 2016 World Day of Peace Address that:

Communicators also have a responsibility for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of information and communication are so widespread. Their duty is first and foremost to serve the truth, and not particular interests.
Fratelli Tutti 114

By "Communicators" is he talking about journalists?  The media in general or is it broader to mean communication platforms such as Facebook and Twitter?  I was reading through Fratelli Tutti and that word "Communicators" struck me as odd, the link back to the Holy Father's other declaration showed me he was talking about the media, but given the context of Fratelli Tutti I'm thinking he's talking about something different.
So in general, when Pope Francis uses the vague term "Communicators" which may not be so vague in Italian, who is he talking about?


texts: How do we know the events described in the bible are true?

texts:
Many Christians will quote passages from the bible as proof or evidence when needed. However, given that it is a story written, translated, interpreted, re-written, re-translated and re-interpreted by humans over tens of generations and adapted for many of the monotheistic religions such as Christianity, how can we be sure that it still accurately represents the original material, even if it were written by a monotheistic god?

A commenter has made a good point about there being very old manuscripts presumably containing similar information to modern interpretranslated bibles, though this raises more questions for me:

Are those very old manuscripts written in God's handwriting?
Is there anyone alive who knows the language they were written in, and hasn't needed to try and interpret what they say by cross-referencing various documents of a similar age to find patterns and derive meanings, essentially using a bit of detective work and some educated guesses?


texts: What steps has the Catholic Church taken as a whole to address a shortage of priests?

texts: It seems like the first instinct of the news media when it comes to the Church's response to a shortage of priests is to end the rule enforcing celibacy.   But that is not what the Church has been doing.  So, what has she done (as a whole) to address the fact that an aging population of priests is not being replaced at the rate that the Church is growing?


texts:
I know it sounds like a silly or weird question, but I'm serious.

  Genesis 24:2

  One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh.

  Genesis 47:29

  As the time of his death drew near, Jacob called for his son Joseph and said to him, “Please do me this favor. Put your hand under my thigh and swear that you will treat me with unfailing love by honoring this last request: Do not bury me in Egypt.

  Leviticus 7:33

  The right thigh must always be given to the priest who offers the blood and the fat of the peace offering.

  Revelation 19:16

  On his robe at his thigh was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all >lords.

Why is the thigh important?


texts: Given some of the comments in this question, I feel compelled to ask: "Does Mormonism constitute a present-day example of a mystery religion?" I'm interested in both insider and outsider perspectives.


texts: Did God change from a wrathful God to a loving God between Old Testament and New Testament?

texts:
This question is mainly to the evangelical Christians and Bible believing Christians, who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love.
The Old Testament is filled with accounts that describe how God poured out His wrath on people, including His chosen people, the Israelites. However, when we read the New Testament particularly the life, teachings and message of the Lord Jesus Christ we don't see the outpouring of God's wrath on people. Instead, we read about God's grace, mercy, and love. How do we square these two seemingly opposite manifestations of God's nature?


texts: Do churches host distinctive, special services on Christmas, Christmas eve, and Easter?

texts:
I have read before that some (nominal) Christians only attend worship services on Christmas and Easter. Are there anything special about those two holidays that compel them to attend church during Christmas and Easter? What do the churches do exactly that might convince people to attend church on only those days?

I know that stores hold big sales on those days, which may attract people to go shopping and buy merchandise.


texts: In light of Mark 10, how can Christians in good conscience purchase luxury items?

texts:
In Mark 10:25, Jesus states...

  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25 NIV)

After hearing his Disciples ask in light of this who could possibly be saved

  Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27 NIV)

My question is, how can any Christian in good conscience purchase any luxurious good or service that doesn't benefit anyone else besides themselves?

Flat screens, cars, riding lawn mowers, all these things are luxuries for daily living, but let's face it, wouldn't God rather have us take that money and buy a pallet of food for the local food pantry?


texts: Jesus got angry in the temple - should we do that too?

texts:
I think we know the story.

  Matthew 21:12

  And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold
  and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
  moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves

Can we emulate this as Christians? I mean, can we get as angry as this? I can say Jesus was fighting on behalf of God. If we do the same, are we also justified?


texts: How were the prophecies of the prophet Isaiah first published or disseminated?

texts:
I asked this on History StackExchange but I think it may get better answers here. My question:

  I read the Old Testament but I don't understand how a prophet such as Isaiah would have first put forth his prophesies. Did he speak to a crowd, while someone took down his words? Or did he write little pamphlets which were copied and disseminated in print form? Did he nail his writings to the door of a church, or mail them to a person of authority? [...] Perhaps Isaiah knew that his words would be read after his death, but how many people were exposed to them during his life, and through what media?

One commenter on History StackExchange pointed out that Wikipedia's "Book of Isaiah" article contains the speculation that parts of Isaiah were actually "sermons" delivered at the court of Josiah a century later. However, the article admits to the existence of a historical "Isaiah ben Amoz", who is supposed to have written at least the first 39 chapters of Book of Isaiah, and the article doesn't address the question of how he published his verses.

I did some more research and found that Isaiah was "court prophet to King Hezekiah". That sheds a little light, but I'm still curious.

Update: I changed the title to refer to only Isaiah. However, I don't think this covers all the objections I've received for this question.

Update 2: @Nathaniel suggests that I should specify whose opinion I am asking for. Let's say liberals. But in fact, I don't even know how Isaiah is depicted in historical fiction. Is he portrayed as a radical professor? A street preacher? A strung-out courtier? A family man? Perhaps I could have asked "What are some popular fictionalized depictions of Isaiah, and how do they deviate from known history?". I don't know if that would be a better framing of my question. Maybe I should just go back to reading the Bible.


texts: Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution?

texts:
The Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution states (under the heading "Differing views"):

  Critics, however, argue that the theory of penal substitution is solely a later development, only forming part of orthodox Christian thought during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th-century, being advocated by Martin Luther and Calvin.

Under the heading "Anselm, the Reformers, and John Wesley," it goes into more detail on Luther's position:

  Broadly speaking, Martin Luther followed Anselm, thus remaining mainly in the "Latin" model identified by Gustaf Aulén. He held, however, that Christ's atoning work encompassed both his active and passive obedience to the law;: as the perfectly innocent God-man, he fulfilled the law perfectly during his life AND he, in his death on the cross, bore the eternal punishment that all men deserved for their breaking the law. Unlike Anselm, Luther thus combines both satisfaction and punishment.

(This is not the entire segment on Luther's views.)

However, footnote 10, on the earlier statement including Luther among those advocating penal substitution, reads:

  Gustaf Aulén, a critic of penal substitution theory, disputed in his 1931 book Christus Victor that Luther accepted penal substitution. 'Under Aulen's assessment, Martin Luther revitalized the Christus Victor paradigm. According to Aulen, however, beginning with Melanchthon himself, Luther's reappropriation of the classic theme was quickly lost within later Protestant circles as more objective, "Latin," theories were allowed to displace it.' (Paul R. Eddy and James Beilby, 'The Atonement: An Introduction', in P. R. Eddy and J. Beilby [eds], The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views [Downers Grove: IVP, 2006], p. 13)

Recognizing that there is some dissension on this point, my question is: Did Luther teach penal substitution?

Whatever other sources an answer may use, please provide direct quotations from Luther's own works to support the answer.


texts: (Jehovah's Witnesses view) Jesus statement about Great Tribulation and the situation due to which "no flesh will be saved"

texts:
This question is about Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of Jesus words in Matthew 24:21-22:

  for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred
  since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In
  fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but
  on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short.

My question is particularly about the part "unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved".

It looks to me like Jesus was saying that the situation would be such that no flesh or life would survive, unless those days are cut short. Like as if he is referring to some severe threat to all life on earth. Unless I am misunderstanding the word "saved".

I checked the articles I found about the Great Tribulation at jw.org (such as this article titled "What Is the Great Tribulation?" and this article) but did not find an explanation as to why "no flesh would be saved".

Questions:

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have an opinion on whether this passage
refers to a situation in which all life on earth is threatened? (Or
does the word "saved" here refer to no humans somehow being "worthy"
to be saved?)
If if refers to a situation in which the survival of all life is
threatened, what is the cause of this threat? For example is it
because of some action by mankind such as World War 3 or something
like that?


texts: Is it correct to say Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts (Matthew, Mark and Luke as comprehensive one & John being the other) of Jesus Christ's lifetime?

texts:
Since the Synoptic problem indicates that the Synoptic gospels form a comprehensive view that gives a holistic perspective, therefore, bible readers can Not use the argument that the 3 gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.
I emphasize can Not because if we consider all the following Hypothesis and models associated with the Synoptic gospels then we have to take into account that:
-one of the gospels was a source for the other two gospels
Or
-two of the gospels was a source for one of the gospels
Or
-one of the gospels and some other Q source(s) were a the sources for the other 2 gospels
and so on and so forth..............
Two-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model]
Four-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q model with M and L]
Mark-Q Theory with Proto-Luke
Proto-Matthew (and Proto-Luke)
Proto-Mark (MkH)
Markan Hypothesis (MkH)
Proto-Secret Mark
Koester Hypothesis
Deutero-Mark (dMk)
Three-Source Hypothesis [Mark-Q-Matthew model]3SH
Farrer Hypothesis [Mark-Matthew model]
Griesbach (or Two-Gospel) Hypothesis [Matthew-Luke model]
Proto-Matthew
Traditional Augustinian Hypothesis [Matthew-Mark model]
Proto-Luke
Proto-Matthew (pMt)
Proto-Gospel Theory (UrG)
LTH: The Logia Translation Hypothesis
Multiple Proto-Gospel Theories
Mark-Luke model
Luke-Matthew model
Luke-Mark model
Luke-Q model
Therefore, Christian apologists can No longer use the argument that Matthew, Mark and Luke are 3 separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime.
However, would it still be correct to state that?
a)Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are a comprehensive view that correspond to 1 eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime
b)and Gospel of John is the other eyewitness account of Jesus Christ's lifetime
Therefore, would it be correct to say that the Bible has 2 eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ's lifetime?


texts: Why isn’t the soul (ψυχή) considered to be a “person” (ὑπόστασις)?

texts:
From my understanding, the unity of spirit, soul, and body is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, or “person.” But, what argument is there against the soul itself (apart from the body) being a ὑπόστασις? It seems the soul possesses reason. It exists by itself. So, why is it not considered to be a ὑπόστασις? Or, if it is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, where and by whom is such an argument affirmed? I am particularly interested in an answer in accordance with Catholic beliefs.

NOTE: To clarify, I am using «ὑπόστασις» as an equivalent to the Greek πρόσωπον and Latin persona as understood in Trinitarian creeds and theology.


texts: Who is the Name's Day Saint of St. John de Brébeuf?

texts:
Can anyone tell me who is the name's day saint of St. John de Brébeuf? The name's day saint of someone is similar to a patron saint, but is not exactly the same. I have try to find a source that makes note of this but have come up empty handed so far.

St. Jean de Brébeuf was born on March 25, 1593 and was martyred on March 16, 1649 by the Iroquois Indians.

  A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday.

  The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe; Protestant churches practice less veneration of saints. In many countries, however, name-day celebrations no longer have connection to explicitly Christian traditions.

  The celebration of name days has been a tradition in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries since the Middle Ages, and has also continued in some measure in countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, whose Protestant established church retains certain Catholic traditions. The name days originate in the list of holidays celebrated in commemoration of saints and martyrs of the church. For example, the name Karl or Carl is celebrated in Sweden on January 28, the anniversary of the death of Charlemagne (Charles magnus, i.e., "the great"). The church promoted celebration of name days (or rather saints' feast days) over birthdays. - Name day (Wikipedia)


texts: Why does the KJV capitilise 'Devil' in Revelation but not in Luke?

texts:
Throughout Luke 4, 'devil' is lowercase. For example:

  And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil.

But in Revelation 12:9 it's a capital D:

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

How did they decide whether or not to capitilise it?


texts: Which biblical verse was used against Galileo by the Church to punish him for his blasphemy. and which biblical doctrine was erroneously interpreted by Galileo for such a punitive action by the Church?


texts: Can an act of martydom include the taking of another's life?

texts: In Islam it seems that "martyrs" can be defined to include those who intentionally take life.  Specifically, those who die killing, or during battle with, enemies of the faith.  Does Catholicism or any Christian denomination define martyrdom or sainthood in a way that can include those who take another's life?  Has anyone been declared a martyr or saint by any Christian denomination for taking another's life?


texts: What is the Biblical basis against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace?

texts:
The question of what the Biblical basis is in favor of Irresistible Grace has been asked here.  However, the question regarding the Biblical argument against it does not seem to have been addressed yet.  So, that's the question.

What is the Biblical basis or argument against the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace--that is, the doctrine that God's grace to the elect prior to their conversion is irresistible.  The elect person can't help but be drawn into salvation and a relationship with God.


texts:
How is the idea of the ritual purity implemented in the Catholic Church? We know that in the Old Testament priests needed to be ritually pure in order to perform rituals. How is this idea implemented and performed in the Catholic Church through history up till today? What criteria does one need to satisfy to be ritually pure?

I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.


texts:
Genesis 3:8-9    (NLT)

   8 When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking about in the garden. So they hid from the Lord God among the trees. 9 Then the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

[Emphasis mine.]

Is this generally understood to be a theophany? The Wikipedia article mentions that Catholics believe that this is a theophany, but doesn't say anything about Protestant denominations.

Also, a very related question (that doesn't deserve its own question) is: does this mean that Jesus had a human body before He was born?


texts: Do Baptists consider immersion baptisms of adults performed to be valid if performed by other denominations?

texts:
Baptists are often distinguished by their belief in "believer's baptism" (i.e. that an adult must believe the tenets of faith in order to be baptized) and rejecting infant baptism (a.k.a. paedobaptism). This is often accompanied by a rejection of baptism not performed by full immersion. If an adult became Baptist and was previously baptized as an infant by having water poured on them (as is typically done in other large denominations like Catholicism and Lutheranism), then they would consider that to be invalid and would require them to be baptized again.

But say that a person were baptized within another denomination (such as Catholicism or Lutheranism) as an adult and by full immersion. They then became Baptist. Would Baptists consider this adult to be validly baptized, despite it not being performed in a Baptist church?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have a list of Good Books?

texts:
The Church maintained an index of banned books for a long time, until it got to be a "must read for Satanists" list.  Has the Church (or affiliated bodies) ever maintained a list of good books.

Here's what I know so far:

I know of the Catholic Library Association's book award (but that's just one Children's book per year)
there's the imprimatur and nihil obstat, but I don't think they keep a categorized list and I don't think it generally includes fiction.
The USCCB does movie ratings, but not book reviews as far as I know.
Focus on the Family does book reviews, but it's not Catholic.


texts:
The picture below depicts one way to go around the rosary beads when praying the Holy Rosary.

If a child were to ask, as they typical do, as to why Catholics when praying the Holy Rosary customarily go around the rosary beads one way rather than the other - if that's what they do, how would one answer? Is there a customary way to go around rosary beads? If yes, what is the reason for that order?

A question in the "same series" as: Is there a particular order in lighting candles on an advent wreath?


texts: How should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if there is no logical answer?

texts:
Lets say a Christian is in a position where he must make a hard decision (assume it has to either be a yes or no by a deadline) and each one has negatives consequences (more negatives than positives). How should a Christian pick one option over another?

Both options can and will affect the future of himself and others, but it is impossible to tell which one will impact the least or which one is a better decision, only time will tell.

Based on Christian teaching, if Jesus specifically was talking to that person, how would he advise, or what are some things he would tell the person to keep in mind?

I am sorry it is not specific but I can't put details to it. So if it helps, the main part of the question is how should a Christian put a decision in God's hands if he really doesn't see a logical answer but has to pick one? (I am also assuming the person was put into making that decision by God?... since he would rather not be in such a situation...)


texts: Why does the NIV have 16 verses missing from the Bible?

texts:
Why does the NIV have 16 missing verses from the Bible?

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14

Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46.
Mark 11:26.
Mark 15:28

Luke 17:36.

John 5:4

Acts 8:37.
Acts 15:34.
Acts 24:7.
Acts 28:29

Romans 16:24.

1John 5:7

I read from the KJV & I did a side by side to see if what I was told is true. Well, it is. I just want to know why?


texts: Can a Catholic have communion if they married outside of the Catholic Church?

texts:
My husband and I were married by a Protestant pastor, not a Catholic Priest. I have returned to the Catholic Church a couple of decades later. Can I participate in communion, or does my husband have to agree to marry me a second time in the Catholic Church?

If it matters, my husband was raised in a non-denominational Christian Church, and I was raised Catholic, but attended non-denominational Church after college.


texts: What are some examples of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church?

texts: Currently I am doing a school project on why I believe Sacred Tradition should be used along with Scripture. What are some examples of Sacred Tradition throughout Church history. I would guess that the Rosary and the Marian Dogmas be considered tradition but would traditions like the accounts of the Apostles' deaths and the account of Mary's bird be put in the category of Sacred Tradition? What are also some other examples of Catholic Church Sacred Tradition?


texts: What did Jesus mean by "this generation will certainly not pass away.." in Matthew 24:34?

texts:
Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.".

I am a Christian, and it is my duty to seek out truth, not plainly accept what I hear or what other people say it is. So I've read this verse, and it really had me confused. Taking it by word and its plain meaning. I can read this as:

'this generation' = people He was talking to
'these things' = judgement day/end times

It's clearly obvious that 'this generation' have already passed away, his disciples/followers/people at that time are already dead by now, and the world hasn't come to an end yet. What does this verse really mean?


texts:
1 Timothy 3:8 (DRB) Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre

In case it's unclear why this is viewed as disproving notion that the Bible forbids the drinking of alcoholic wine:

By saying excess of wine is forbidden, he approves of moderate consumption: but this makes no sense with what amounts to grace juice with no alcoholic content. If excess causes drunkenness, then the wine spoken of is alcoholic.
προσεχοντας may be justly translated in this context 'addicted' or 'wont [to drink].'

Question

How do Protestants against the use of alcoholic wine explain 1 Timothy 3:8?

Thanks in advance.


texts:
When Islam was first founded there were some who considered it to be a heresy. 1

It wasn't until Mohammed was 40 years old that he claimed he was visited by the angel Gabriel and received his first revelation from God.

40 years is a long time, long enough to get around, maybe meet some Christians and learn about their doctrine, maybe even be baptized... Was Mohammed influenced by Christian ideology? Is it possible that he may have joined a Christian church before returning to Mecca and founding his own religion very similar to Christianity? Are there any theories about Mohammed once being a Christian?

 1 St. John of Damascus’s Critique of Islam


texts: Will there be sex in Heaven (the new Earth)?

texts: I have heard many people ask and now I have been considering the question myself. Will there be sex on the new Earth? What is the reasoning for either position?


texts: What is the sacramental principle at work with Anointing of the Sick?

texts:
Of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church.  I see how each of them are some form of Sacramentum, an oath between man and God.

Marriage has a marital vow
Holy orders is a vow to be a priest, deacon or bishop.
Reconciliation is a resolution to "Go and sin no more"
In Holy Communion we say, Amen to "The Body of Christ"
In Baptism we resolve to enter more into the Body of Christ
and in Confirmation we renew and confirm that resolution.

But, what is the oath in Anointing of the Sick?  To die peacefully?


texts: Can a non-orthodox layman arrive to Hesychia?

texts:
After reading about Hesychasm and the related topics such as Jesus' Prayer, Philokalia and palamism I'm stuck with a question. In Hesychasm, the main objective is to arrive to Hesychia, which is stillness or quietness.

My question is straightforward: without living as a hermit and without being orthodox, are there any chances to practice Hesychasm successfully?

If the answer is positive, how may this be?
If the answer is negative, why is it impossible?


texts: How is the Catholic belief in Purgatory supported?

texts:
There is already this question on this site: What is the Biblical support for Purgatory?

But I believe there might be more to the Catholic argument. We know that Catholics regard the Holy Tradition of the Apostles as highly as the Holy Scriptures. So there are at least two sources for reasons that Catholics believe in Purgatory.

What is the full Catholic argument for the belief in Purgatory? In other words, without restriction to the sources used, why do Catholics believe in Purgatory?


texts: Can non-Catholic Christian souls participate in Intercession?

texts:
Let us say a Catholic person has a good Protestant Christian friend who has died a year ago. The Catholic person believes in the intercession of saints and prays to them to intercede for him on many things. He also believes that his friend has already ascended to Heaven. So he prays for his friend as he had prayed with his favorite saints.

His dead friend has not undergone any formal beatification or canonization process.

From a Roman Catholic doctrine standpoint, can the Protestant Christian intercede for his Catholic friend?


texts: Which church fathers taught involuntary universal salvation?

texts: Which early church fathers (including those now considered heretics like Origen) pre 1054 taught that "all will be saved", including all of the dead without "hearing and believing"?  In other words, who taught a form of involuntary universal salvation?


texts: Eating eggs and cheese to refute heresy?

texts:
I recently finished the wonderful book 'Elder Zosima: the Hesychast of Siberia'. In it, Elder Basil becomes excessively zealous at one point and decides to fast from eggs and dairy permanently rather than eating them for two particular weeks out of the year (I think cheesefare and Bright Week). Elder Zosima tells him not to trust in his own understanding and that his zeal is "not according to knowledge" since the church has intentionally prescribed eggs and dairy-even for ascetics-on two weeks of the year for the sake of refuting heresies.
Why has the church prescribed eggs and dairy for all Orthodox during certain times of the year? Perhaps something to do with the perfect humanity of Christ?


texts: Indications that Enoch and Elijah have never gone to Abraham's bosom?

texts: In the Old Testament we can see at least two people that didn't seem to ever die: Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). The Scriptures say that the first one was taken by God, and the second one was taken to the heaven by a whirlwind. Besides this, are there any indications in the Bible that these two never went to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)?


texts: How often do Christian missionaries report occurrences of miracles while on the mission field?

texts:
From time to time I come across testimonies of missionaries reporting extraordinary anecdotes that occurred when they were on the mission field. For instance, I've heard of stories of people getting miraculously healed after getting prayed for, demonic entities showing up at night telling them they won't be able to evangelize in that country, bullets getting deflected, people manifesting as if possessed and getting delivered, etc. The following are some of the most extraordinary anecdotes from missionaries that I've come across so far:
A,
B,
C,
D
E,
F,
G,
H,
I,
J,
K,
L,
M,
N,
O,
P,
Q,
R,
S.
Question: How common is it that Christian missionaries come back from their mission trips reporting extraordinary anecdotes? How often do missionaries report supernatural experiences of any sort while on the mission field? Do any denominations or Christian organizations keep records of these extraordinary stories from their missionaries?


texts: What happens to one's sins if the priest omits the words of the Absolution?

texts:
Say a penitent, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, confesses his sins with heartfelt sorrow. Now suppose that priest omits deliberately to use the words of the formula (please see below especially the ones in bold),

The question is, according to the Church, what happens to the penitent's sins? What happens to the priest?

What is the scenario when the priest forgetfully omits them?

cf. CCC 1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:

  God, the Father of mercies,  through the death and the resurrection of
  his Son  has reconciled the world to himself  and sent the Holy Spirit
  among us  for the forgiveness of sins;  through the ministry of the
  Church  may God give you pardon and peace,  and I absolve you from
  your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy
  Spirit.[OP 46: formula of absolution.]


texts: When I am discussing the Bible and I use the Old Testament, often I am told that that portion does not apply to us because it is addressed to the Jews.  By the time I am finished with my discussion I may as well go through the Bible and cut out all the scriptures that are to the Jews.  I am told that I must read the context.  If this is true then it seems that I have very little to support many of my understandings of Scripture. I cannot even use the words of Jesus because he lived and spoke during the time of the law and not grace.   Can you help me with this.  Thanks!


texts: How would the Bible advise a Christian to cope with fear?

texts: At what part of the Bible is fear referenced, in a story? Or quote? If you know of any, an example of any quotes or stories would be ideal. It doesn't necessarily have to be about dealing with fear, it could just be a tale of overcoming fear/phobias/lack of confidence. Thanks.


texts: Did the cross permanently affect the intra-trinitarian relationship?

texts: I have heard a religious definition of death as separation from God. This makes the death of Christ--God himself--a matter of incomprehensible existential crisis. Adding to this the imputation of sin on the Son, and the wrath of the Father poured out on him, it makes me wonder if this event does not affect the relationship of the members of the trinity in some permanent way. Is there any evidence of this in scripture?


texts: Has Pope Francis indicated a position on the use of genetically modified mosquitoes for the control of Zika?

texts:
Pope Francis indicated his general position on genetic modification in a May 2015 encyclical (sections 130-136). His position was essentially that each application should be evaluated on its own merits, appropriate environmental risk assessments should be used, the environment should be respected, and that in specific cases (such as the use of GM crops) there is a significant risk that the use of GM organisms could create or exacerbate economic inequalities.

Various technologies are in development or production which are intended to use genetically modified mosquitoes to control human disease such as Zika and dengue (example). In many cases the communities where these releases would occur are primarily Catholic. Has Pope Francis at any point indicated a position specifically on the deliberate release of GM mosquitoes for the control of human diseases?


texts: How is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus interpreted?

texts:
I have always been puzzled by this in Scripture.

Can someone clarify these points:

If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?

From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.

The last point I have comes from Revelation.  We are taught that in the end everyone will live on earth.  It speaks that the pure and holy will walk past those who are un-pure and un-holy day after day to worship.

It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them.  Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.

Why would Heaven even need gates?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate communion?

texts:
Do Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate the Lord's Supper/communion?

If so what are their beliefs about the nature of the Sacrament? Do they believe in Transubstantiation or some variant of symbolism? Is participation optional or required and who decides? Is there an age limit? Are there times a member would be restricted from participation?


texts: What is Jehovah's Witnesses view on a baptized member owning machine guns?

texts:
Question on Jehovah's Witnesses view about owning guns that are not used for hunting or for protecting against wild animals.

Let's say for example someone in USA who likes to collect automatic weapons and machine guns (which can apparently be purchased in Nevada according to this article).

What is Jehovah's Witnesses viewpoint about a baptized member owning guns such as machine guns? Does that affect the members standing in the congregation?


texts: Do we know the fates of any of the implausible relics Martin Luther described?

texts:
Martin Luther described a number of extraordinary relics that his contemporaries are said to have.

  “Certain men have impudently boasted that they possess a feather from the holy angel St. Michael. The bishop of Mainz claims to have a flame from the bush of Moses. So in Compostella the banner is exhibited that Christ had in hell, and likewise the crown of thorns, the nails, etc., and also some of Mary’s milk.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.247)

My interpretation is that Luther was incredulous that anybody would believe these were genuine relics, not the least of which would be the logistical issues with preserving them well into the 16th century. (How would a flame that doesn't consume anything be kept for thousands of years without anyone recording it? How how did someone get hold of a banner that Christ had in Hell?)

Do we know the fate of any of these implausible relics? Were they destroyed by Protestants? Were they discarded by the Catholic church? Are they still venerated as authentic relics?


texts: Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking?

texts:
Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking, having certain facial and bodily features (muscular)?

Would most people follow Him if he did not look white or was heavy set? It almost seems like a trick sometimes to get certain people to believe.

Does the Bible say anything about his physical appearance and how we are to physically think of Him?

vs.

(A special on PBS about scientists who put together a large study to determine what Jesus looked most like, and it is not how he was usually pictured.)


texts: What is the biblical basis against the use or overuse of tobacco and other types of drugs?

texts:
A common position among many Christians in America is that the use of tobacco, alcohol, and other types of drugs (marijuana, etc.) is immoral and sinful.  Paul seems to indicate that, in the context of food at least, nothing should be considered forbidden:

  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart
  from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and
  teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose
  consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence
  from foods that 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 if it is received with
  thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.  (1 Timothy 4:1–5, ESV)

What, then, is the Biblical basis for why the use of tobacco and other types of drugs are considered by many to be immoral or sinful?


texts: In what manner does the LDS believe we may become like God?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?

Lorenzo Snow, a prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated:

As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.

I realize that there is a lot of deep theology bound up in that statement (some of which is detailed in this question), however none of the answers to that question really answered my fairly simple question in regards to the quote above.
In what manner may we become like God?
In all manners? Will we be omniscient, omnipotent? Since we are made in God's image, we are already in several ways "like God" (e.g. our ability to create, we have free-will, a conscience, and as the serpent tempted Eve in the garden we have become like God in our knowledge of good and evil).
Is the converse the same? (i.e. the manner in which we may become like God is the same manner that God was once like man?)
Edit:
As a clarification, I have the image of a worthy individual becoming a god and setting out on his own ("Go west young man!"). What I'm wondering is, if it the more correct understanding is that we become "one in purpose" with the Godhead?


texts: What are the effects of a Church Tax in Germany on Catholics?

texts:
How common is income tax diversion to Catholic Churches in the world? In the USA, we usually just contribute according to our means or desires, nothing is automatic and our contributions are certainly not tied to our ability to receive the sacraments.

If an individual is registered as a Catholic in Germany, 8-9% of their income tax goes to the Church. The only way they can stop paying the tax is to make an official declaration renouncing their membership. They are no longer allowed to receive the sacraments or a Catholic burial.
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/survey-one-in-three-catholics-in-germany-thinking-of-leaving-church

Seems like this information ought to be highlighted in the Taxation in Germany wiki but it is mentioned here.
Whose idea was this and how does it square with canon law?  Is there still a collection taken at Mass in Germany?  Does it drive people away from the Church by giving them a financial incentive to leave the faith or do they find it a convenient way to give?


texts: Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings?

texts:
I ask because I'm trying to understand whether the prohibition against sibling marriage is due to genetic or emotional reasons.

Suppose Bob and Alice marry, have a daughter Eve, and some years later Alice dies.

Suppose Chris and Diana marry, have a son Frank, and some years later Chris dies.

Now, suppose Bob and Diana marry -- that would make Eve and Frank stepsiblings with no shared biological heritage.

Would the Old Testament law, in this case, prohibit Eve and Frank's marriage?


texts: Did Dante's Divine Comedy describe or define Christian views on the afterlife?

texts: Dante's Divine Comedy, the 14th century epic poem describing a journey through the various levels of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven and the persons or types of persons who inhabit each level (including some of Dante's living contemporaries).  How much of Dante's description describes explicit Church doctrine as of his era, and to what extent, if any, did Dante influence Christian theology going forward?


texts: Is violence against LGBT people warranted by scripture?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals?

This week marks the 13th anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's torture and murder, a crime which appears to be motivated by disgust for who he was as a homosexual.

Many Christians read the Bible to prohibit homosexual acts. Does the scripture advocate or justify violence against people who commit sexual sins?


texts: Is there a standard version of the Bible?

texts: Is there a standard version of the Bible, compared to which, all other versions would be considered either translations or paraphrases? If yes, when was the standardization done? And how common is it to study that Bible? And is it accepted across different denominations of Christianity?


texts: Historicity of which Biblical characters is recognized by Archaeology/History?

texts:
I know that Historicity of certain Old testament Kings is recognized.

However some like Jonah or Job aren't know to fields of Archaeology or History.

What information, evidence do we have and for what figures? (The list can include both known and unknown or debated figures)


texts: What are some criticisms of "Spirit-filled" church soteriology?

texts:
I know that according to the teachings of some church groups that originated in the early 20th century, a person must receive 'Holy Spirit baptism', necessarily evidenced by the manifestation of the 'gift of tongues', to participate in certain church activities.

Can one present an overview of criticisms, specifically with regard to soteriology, of church groups that hold to this doctrine?

A fantastic answer would include specific references to the authors or organizations that have published criticisms.


texts:
Christians commonly celebrate Good Friday as the day that Jesus was crucified, and Easter Sunday as the day that Jesus rose from the tomb. Most relevant verses in scripture say that Jesus would be in the tomb for three days. (See Matthew 26:61; Mark 8:31; John 2:19.) However, one verse states that Jesus would also be in the tomb for three nights:

  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the
  belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three
  nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)

How can this be? Friday to Sunday could be considered three days, but it is only two nights.

I've heard it explained before that the Jewish people would define the end of one day and the start of the next as sundown, or about the 12th hour. This is why the Sabbath would always start on Friday at sundown. Jesus was buried just before sundown, or just before the Sabbath began (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). This can explain the three days, but as the other commenter pointed out, it still does not explain the three nights.


texts: What is the biblical support that the Catholic Church is the custodian of truth?

texts: The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the "biblically supported" doctrine that the church is the custodian of truth. What is the scriptural support for the Catholic church's claim that they are the custodians of truth? What does it mean to be the custodian of truth. Does this mean that they believe in modern revelation and receive direction from God?


texts: What is the biblical basis for both tithing and offering in the New Covenant, instead of just offering?

texts:
Based on the following passages, it's my understanding that The New Testament clearly supports offering:
2 Corinthians 9 (NIV):

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:
“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
their righteousness endures forever.”
10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

Acts 2:44-47 (NIV):

44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:32-35 (NIV):

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Acts 24:17 (NIV):

17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.

However, many denominations claim that Christians are expected to give both tithes and offerings, not just offerings (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4).

Question: What is the biblical basis for claims that Christians are expected to give both tithes and offerings in the New Covenant, instead of just offering?


texts: Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church dislike the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?

texts:
In studying the Orthodox doctrines I have noticed that there is controversy about the nature of the Spirit and that the word 'filioque' is tossed around.

What I am wondering is, what is the underlying concept whereby Catholic and Protestant ideas about the Trinity conflict with Eastern Orthodox?  What is the real issue that keeps Orthodox on their own with respect to the Spirit proceeding from the Father only and not from the Son?


texts: How do proponents of sola fide explain Titus 1:16?

texts:
Evangelicals believe that faith alone establishes your salvation.  How do they resolve Titus 1:16?

  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

While I understand that evangelicals don't directly recommend doing abominable, disobedient and reprobating good work - they also generally don't believe that you can lose your salvation, which this passage seems to imply.


texts: How do Creationist Christians respond to the evidence for Evolution?

texts:
This is a question for people who believe in the creation.

One point considered a serious proof of evolution is the scientific method of carbon dating. As per this method, humans haven't existed from the beginning of the creation of the earth (as per age of discovered human skeletons). However many other species like Apes and have existed before human beings and a species whose skeleton looks partly ape and partly human has been discovered, which existed before humans as well. Humans began to appear around the same time this species seemed to go extinct. Isn't this a proof for evolution? Or at least a proof that creationism does not exist? (Since Humans and animals were created within a span of 7 days according to the bible.)

In what ways do creationist Christians generally handle these claims?


texts: What prominent Christian thinkers (if any) held to polygenism and if so how did these thinkers view original sin?

texts:
Have any influential or well known (be it in scholastics or in media) Christian thinkers express views that the first 'couple' was 'couples' (polygenism) and if so, how did they reconcile this assertion with the doctrine of original sin?

Note, this question is not assuming nor asking for answers concerning the validity of Darwinism nor the validity of polygenism. It is only asking for examples of specifically influential Christian thinkers who held to polygenism and their consequential view of what was meant by the doctrine of original sin, which is traditionally reserved in cause to a monogenistic view (which asserts the first sin entered through a single 'couple of parents').


texts: How is a Christian supposed to fear God when "there is no fear in love" (1 John 4:18)?

texts:
In both the Old and New Testaments, we are commanded to "fear the Lord".

Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.  Deuteronomy 10:20 ESV
Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.  1 Peter 2:17 ESV

However, in the first epistle of John, we are told that there is no fear in love, and that love drives out fear.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.  1 John 4:18 ESV

So, in what sense are we to fear God, and in what sense are we not to fear God?


texts: Is there an online or downloadable "copyable" bible?

texts:
What I mean is a site or file that is designed to be copied on the computer. I.e, no headers, no footnotes, all chapters of a book on one page, preferably with options like verse-per-line and different versions (esv, kjv, etc.).

If this doesn't exist, someone should definitely make it. I frequently copy large portions, sometimes entire books, of the bible for study projects.

The best I've found is biblestudytools.com, which is almost perfect except I can't get rid of headers and there's only 1 chapter per page.


texts:
Luther added the German word "allein" (alone) to Romans 3:28 despite the fact that it is not in the Greek texts. Why did Luther add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28?

  So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des
  Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.


texts: I grew up reading the Holy Bible which portrays God as a loving Father, full of compassion and goodwill for mankind. However, after reading the Book of Enoch, I am perplexed at the way heaven and God are portrayed. I was filled with fear and I kept asking myself is this the God Christ reflected while on Earth. My question is that is the Book of Enoch canonical?


texts: Did the apostle James the Greater travel to Spain and was he martyred in Jerusalem?

texts:
There are some legends that say that the apostle James the Greater (brother of John) traveled to the actual territory of Spain where he spread the Word. Also there are some accounts that place his final days in Jerusalem where he was martyred.

Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle James?


texts: Does Pope Francis write the books ascribed to him, or are they ghostwritten?

texts: A number of books have been published with Pope Francis as the author, such as The Joy of the Gospel: Evangelii Gaudium in 2013 and Praise Be To You – Laudato Si'; On Care for Our Common Home in 2015. Are these books actually written by the man himself, or are they ghostwritten by others?


texts: Can Christianity be objectively defined?

texts:
Orthodox Christianity is considered to be what comes from the Old and New Testament but many denominations/religions call themselves Christians without adhering strictly to the Bible as we know it today. I am specifically thinking of Mormons and by some perspectives, Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure there are countless others as well.

Is there a definition of "Christianity" or for a "Christian" for which one can objectively compare and contrast against to determine if a belief or a person is "Christian"?

For example, (please don't argue for/against any of the points in this paragraph, it is mean purely as an illustration) one may say Roman Catholicism is Christian because they believe Jesus is God. Mormons believe Jesus was just a normal guy that became a god. Islam believes that Jesus was just a uniquely pious guy. Atheists believe that Jesus was just a guy.

I think most people would agree that Catholics are Christian and Atheists aren't. So then the question is this: Where is the line between "Christian" and "non-Christian"? Is it even possible to define one in an objective sense?