texts: What is the Biblical basis that God "cannot" act against his nature?

texts:
I understand the traditional theology of omnipotence to be that God can do anything He wills, and that his omnipotence is thereby limited to His nature.  In other words, saying that God can do anything does not imply that He can lie or sin.   For example:

  God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections. – Thiessen

The best proof texts for this seem to be Hebrews 6:18 and 2 Timothy 2:13.
However, based on a debate with a friend, I asked this question on Biblical Hermeneutics SE, and got an answer that surprised me:

According to the answer, Hebrews 6:18 does not necessarily mean that God cannot lie - only that He won't.

So this leads me to a question: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that God's omnipotence means that he cannot act against his nature?  Would it perhaps be more correct to say that he will not act against his nature?


texts: Was the temple built in 46 years or was it 46 years old during Jesus' time?

texts:
I stumbled on this verse again and would like some clarification:

  Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? John 2:20 (KJV)

Was the temple 46 years old at that time?
Was the temple built in 46 years?

If it's the second option, how could it be true that the temple took so long to build? Were they short of labour, money, etc.?


texts: Did the Father and Holy Spirit become man?

texts:
According to Trinitarian theology, the second person of the triune god became man. The second person of the triune god is also fully god, and since there is only one god, the second person of the triune god is the only god.

The first person of the triune god is also fully god. Since there is only one god, he is also the only god.

The third person of the triune god is also fully god. Since there is only one god, he is also the only god.

Since the only god became man, and the triune god cannot be divided, according to Trinitarian theology, did the first and third persons of the triune god also become man?


texts:
Why did Onesimus feel an obligation to return to be a slave? This seems rather counter-intuitive to me.

From the perspective of Faith, I can't see the difference between human master and human slave.
From the perspective of Secular, Onesimus managed to escape the existing system.
From the perspective of Morality, Onesimus broke an unjust law of humankind.

Thus, what was Onesimus's reason for returning to be a slave?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

texts:
The expression "hate the sin, love the sinner" gets thrown about in both Christian and non-Christian circles, but it does not seem to be a bible verse.

What Biblical concepts support this popular cliche? And what supports it being applied to men and not just God? Some say "that's the way that Jesus lived". Are there examples of Jesus' conduct that demonstrate this one way or another?


texts:
What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist?

For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church, after the liturgy the priest must consume (I mean eat) all remainders of the Body and the Blood of Christ. And is not permitted to leave even some the smallest parts of consecrated bread and wine, or lose some of them or to let fall on the floor some of them.

As I understand, many Protestants do not believe that the wine is real blood and the bread is the real Body of Christ. So, how do Protestant pastors treat such remainders?


texts: How were the old saints justified under the law? (Catholic and Protestant views)

texts:
How were the old saints like Moses and the prophets justified under the law? Were they justified by keeping the law? What is an overview of Catholic and Protestant views on this? Explain with Biblical references.

This question concerns the technical aspect of salvation that is justification or being right with God. The ability of Mosaic law to give life, and the ability of old saints to obey the law.


texts: As I understand from OT kings of Judea, there was always a biological paternal line between the kingship and David. However if Jesus was the son of God and not of Joseph, how was he descended from David? Furthermore why are there two different accounts of who Joseph's father was?


texts:
In 1957, Pope Pius XII gave permission to St. James Vicariate for Hebrew Speaking Catholics in Israel to celebrate the traditional Tridentine Latin Mass of Pope Pius V in some part in Hebrew.

In Catholicism, the Hebrew and Aramaic languages have always been considered sacred languages from time immemorial.

Can anyone point out to me what parts of the Mass were said in Hebrew and what parts of the Mass were said in Latin? Was Hebrew used in the Canon of the Mass?


texts:
In Reformed Theology what mechanisms and practices does God provide a believer to help fight temptation?
Common answers are grace, prayer, Holy Spirit, and possibly others.  But how does God make grace work and what is our part in the fight?  Is there more than exerting our will mightily and when we fail we pick ourselves up, say sorry to God, and try again later at another fight?
To help clarify the question, consider how a Reformed believer should respond when a Pentecostal friend confronts him/her of years of showing no progress over fighting a particular temptation (like anger, procrastination, laziness, etc.)  The Pentecostal friend can say that grace obviously doesn't work and blame the Reformed believer for:

NOT doing tongue prayer for the Holy Spirit to intercede and fight forces in the unseen realm, or
NOT imitating Jesus's casting out the demon who tempts the believer in the first place, or
NOT fasting, which is key to break free from strongholds,
NOT converting to Pentecostalism so you receive 2nd baptism (filling in the Holy Spirit) so you receive power to fight temptation

How should a Reformed believer respond to the above?


texts: I'm pretty sure that people legally need to have fire alarms in every building. But what about Amish? Are they exempt from that law or do they follow it?


texts:
Does Nehemiah Gordon self-identify as a Christian? Does he believe that Yeshua is the Christ ?

I heard that his conversion story exists on the internet but I am unable to find it. If someone can help me find it that would be great.


texts:
Often people talk about the devil offering one all these material things if one should worship him.
People even believe that they can become rich and famous if they sell their soul, Why is this!?
The devil even tempted Christ with the wealth of all the nations.

Why can the devil do this? Why does he have all this "wealth" to offer?


texts: Must all Mormons marry and have children?

texts: Mormonism believes "that God’s [first] commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth [Gen. 1:28] remains in force". Does this mean all Mormons must marry and have children? Or can some be perpetual virgins? What about infertile or childless marriages?


texts: When did the Orthodox and Catholic Churches distinguish the manner in which the Sign of the Cross was to be made?

texts:
From a comment on What is the role of “Sign of the cross” gesture in Catholicism?, it was noted that Catholics make the Sign of the Cross by starting at the top, going to the left and then right, while Orthodox go from right to left (after starting at the top).

What is the origin and reason for this distinction?  I'm also wondering if this distinction is universal in each church or if it differs to some degree inside each branch.


texts: What does "son of thy handmaid" means in Psalm 86:16 and Wisdom 9:5?

texts:
King Solomon and King David identified themselves both as servant although King and more so, both of them said they are the "son of thy handmaid".

Are the mothers of King Solomon and King David a handmaid?

Both of the passages does not imply King David and King Solomon referred to their biological mother when they uttered to God saying "son of thy handmaid".

Or this passage is related to Jesus also a King
but came in the form of a servant and became the "son of thy handmaid". This time St. Luke gospel reveals what the "son of thy handmaid" means. The Blessed Virgin Mary gave a title to herself and it doesn't came from angel revelations but from Her own words, staing Her role as the Mother of all the elect not just Jesus Christ.

  Mary said,  Behold,  "I am the handmaid of the Lord. .." (Luke 1:38)

Is King David and King Solomon prophesying the future role of Mary's name as a powerful intercessor and mediatrix of graces before the Throne of God?


texts: How do the Catholic and LDS views of what a prophet is differ?

texts: Answers can address either denomination or both. My most recent understanding on the subject was that a prophet loses awareness (a trance) and then receives the word or message of God. However, I don't know if these are the criteria per se, or if they are part of an overarching theme. (My follow-up question will be, what do we call people like King David or the sons of Korach - but please don't answer that here.)


texts: Do any independent sources exist mentioning Jesus' miracles performed and the people He performed them on?

texts:
I'm aware that there are credible historical texts that reference Jesus and His general path, independent of the Bible.

However, I'm curious to know, do any of those specifically describe the miracles performed by Jesus?

Are there any independent established sources that mention the miracles performed and the people He performed them on?


texts: Were the children of an annulled marriage planned by God?

texts:
In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an
  annulment and less commonly a decree of nullity, is a judgement on the
  part of an ecclesiastical tribunal determining that a marriage was
  invalidly contracted, or less commonly, a judgement determining that
  sacred ordination was invalidly conferred.

If the Catholic Church is saying that the marriage has never been intended by God, does this also mean that the children who were born out of this marriage were never been meant to be born? If not, what is the Catholic Church's understanding/teaching about the children to be born this way?  What is their legal and spiritual status?


texts: Do Mainline Presbyterians oppose Satisfaction Theory? Is this why "In Christ Alone" was rejected for their Hymnal?

texts:
Satisfaction Theory is a theory of atonement that, in a nutshell, says that God's justice demands a certain amount of punishment for sin.  In that, God's "wrath" is often used as a metaphor for that need.

Recently, the PCUSA declined to add the hymn "In Christ Alone" in their new hymnal.  That the hymn is exceedingly popular is not in doubt.  The Baptist Hymnal, for example, included it, and even the PCUSA acknowledges that it is one they wanted to include. The hymn itself is replete with many deep theological statements, but this line is called out as being the reason for rejection.

The controversy stems from the following lyrics:

  “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisified.

which is a clear indication of satisfaction theory.

The article (linked above) says:

  The PCUSA's hymn committee had a problem with God being portrayed in the song as wrathful, and asked the writers for permission to change the problem stanza to, “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.” The author's refused, explaining that they had written the song to present the “whole gospel,” and in their view changing the line would compromise the message.

That said, I don't actually know if Mainline Presbyterians are opposed to satisfaction theory. If they are (say, preferring substitutionary atonement or the Christus Victor model), then I guess this statement makes sense.  But, if there is no such opposition, then I don't understand how one could, as the article explains oppose the concept of "God's wrath".

My question then, is this -

What does the Mainline Presbyterian Church (and specifically the more liberal PCUSA) hold in regards to Satisfaction Theory specifically?  Is this a case of PC "we don't like the idea of God being angry" or is it an actual truck with Satisfaction Theory itself?


texts: Christian view of why there are so many similarities between Quran and Bible?

texts:
Quran has a huge number of stories that originally came in Bible. To Muslims, this is almost a miracle that God revealed the same stories to prophet without the prophet knowing about it because he was illiterate (he could not read nor write). What is Christian view of where these stories come from?

Some of the stories the Quran taken from the Bible are:

Creation of Earth in Seven days (Bible). God created Earth in 7 days (Quran)
We are children of Adam and Eve (Bible). We are children of Adam and Eve (Quran)
Noah flood happened (Bible). Yes Noah flood happened (Bible)
Flood was global (Bible). Indeed it was global (Quran)
Noah ark set on a mountain (Bible). Noah ark set on a moutain (Quran)

There are many, many other stories some of which many are alteration from the Bible version like crucifixion of the Christ. Quran says Jesus Christ was raised up to heaven before his crucifixion.

What is the Christian view on all this? How did the prophet, Muhammad, know about this if it was not revealed by God.


texts: What is the biblical basis for praying to the Holy Spirit?

texts: There is a question about praying to Jesus already, but I noticed there is no question about praying to the Holy Spirit. What is the biblical basis for praying to the third person of the trinity?


texts: Did Ellen G White say Israel will never become a nation

texts:
I have been searching high and low for an accredited source that says Ellen G White  said Israel will never become a nation.  Not surprisingly, such a prophetic word would not be easy to find.

I need this information for an assignment I've been given.  It has nothing to do with right or wrong, or "truth", but is simply a genuine request for help with my research.

Any insights/references would be most helpful.  Thank you.


texts: What is the biblical basis for spiritual encounters leading to instant deliverance from addictions?

texts:
I pattern that I discovered after watching many testimonies is that occasionally people report powerful spiritual encounters that have set them instantly free from behavioral addictions, substance addictions, compulsive behaviors, etc. The following are illustrative examples of this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Are there any scriptural parallels to this? Can we find records in Scripture of individuals who had notable spiritual encounters that led them to quit addictions instantly and without struggling?


texts: What does it mean to hate your life and keep it for eternity?

texts:
John 12:25

  Anyone who loves their life, will lose it while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

What is Jesus actually saying? Why would I, hating my now life, want to keep it for eternity?

Can you simply explain just what it is Jesus is saying to those of us who love him?


texts: Is Holy Absolution necessary in the Lutheran Church?

texts: I know that Lutherans, as the Roman Catholics, practice private absolution. However is that how sins are forgiven in the Lutheran Church? Or is it just a reassurance, so to say, of the forgiveness of sins?


texts:
...The accusations stem from two Italian left-wing Ultramontanists...
...But now that Pope Francis has opened up new spaces, liberals, too, have to learn how to be critically obedient without giving in to the neo-Ultramontanist silencing of those who are disobedient...

Read Wikipedia and Catholic Encyclopedia. But none of them made much sense to me.

Can anyone explain it simply - What is Ultramontanism &
Neo-ultramontanism?

The term is derived from Latin - Ultra Montes which means Beyond
The Mountains. What is it its relation with these concepts?


texts: How old is the Old Testament and, like the New Testament, are there multiple versions (i.e. - according to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John)?


texts: Is apostleship continuing on into the current age?

texts: I was watching a video on youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLh8xnf_Qx0 That I didn't have an answer for. He gives the argument that Matthias became the 12th apostle by the casting of Lots. And then he says that Barnabas and Paul were referred to also by the words apostles. So he argues that apostleship continues on into the current age. What is the contest to this?


texts: A paradox that arises from Christian duty as "ambassador"

texts:
Consider the question "Is the Sabbath made for man or man for the Sabbath?" A rhetorical question, because Jesus said that it was the Sabbath that was made for man. But this is not a question directly about the Sabbath; that was just an analogy. Rather, here's a question on "Christian compassion".

Consider this logical exercise, with premises which might be wrong, but it's just a thought experiment:

No sinner ever repents apart from knowing the love of God.
The love of God is often conveyed, mostly, through the kindness of invidual human Christians. (2 Corinthians 5:20 speaks of this. God begs the sinner through Christians.)
Since a sinner, most of the time, is living without the love of God, he or she understandably holds to a "non-Christian way of thinking".
Non-Christian ways of thinking inevitably lead to non-Christian modes of behaviour or speech. This might involve the publishing of a book, such as those of the renowned biologist Richard Dawkins.
These non-Christian modes of behaviour, such as the books published by Dawkins, inevitably offend many Christians.
By (1) and (2), the only possibility, in this or a parallel universe for a sinner to repent, is that God begs the sinner to repent through a Christian person.
From (5). But offended people don't beg those whom they feel offended them; rather they chastise them.
Therefore, (6) and (7) lead to a contradiction.
It's actually worse than (8), because usually the more in need of God's love the sinner is, the more likely he/she is to perform (5) in a more offensive way.

Question: How does one resolve this paradox?

Here's my take, but I'd like to hear other views: To me the late David Wilkerson epitomizes best what the solution to this paradox is. In "The Cross and The Switchblade", he wrote of his words to Nicky Cruz “You could kill me Nicky. You could cut me in a thousand pieces and lay them out on the street. But every piece would cry out, Jesus loves you. And..............you’ll never be able to run from that.” And the empirical evidence showed that David Wilkerson was right.

Are there other ways to resolve this paradox that don't involve such drastic exercises of compassion from Christians?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for saying that wives can divorce their physically abusive husbands?

texts:
Some Christians teach that it is acceptable to divorce a physically abusive spouse. Some would even say that someone in that situation should do so. What is the Biblical basis for this?

Society would generally say that the sane response would be to divorce an abusive spouse. I'm trying to find scriptural support for this, but the only related verses I can find say "Do not divorce" or "If you divorce and remarry, it's adultery."


texts: Is the concept of theurgy used in bible or any Christian scripture?

texts:
Is the concept of theurgy, with the definition below, used in bible or any Christian scripture?

the art or technique of compelling or persuading a god or beneficent
or supernatural power to do or refrain from doing something

Any help is really appreciated.


texts: Is it true that no post-apostolic theologians before St. Augustine believed in Eternal Security / Assurance of Salvation?

texts:
According to Wikipedia in it's entry of 'perseverance of the saints', eternal security has its roots in Church Father St. Augustine of Hippo. Considering that Augustine lived centuries after the Apostolic Age, and the variety of theologians that have predated him (from Origen to Athanasius the Great, Polycarp to Ignatius of Antioch), were the Early Church Fathers really so uniform in thought concerning salvation?

I find it especially hard to believe because of the fractured and polemical nature of early Christianity, as it was full of controversy and wavering opinions surrounding essential doctrines (ie. Christology).


texts:
How do Reformed Protestants interpret Matthew 18:18?

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. - Matthew 18:18

I am seeking answers from Christians under the Reformed Protestant denomination (e.g. Presbyterian, Calvinists) which upholds onto the 5 solas of the Reformation (sola fide, sola christus, sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola deo gloria)


texts: What is the "head-band" Judith gives to Anna in the Protoevangelium of James?

texts:
In the second paragraph of the Protoevangelium of James, Anna is mourning her barrenness when her maid-servant approaches her and offers her a "head-band:"

  I shall bewail my widowhood; I shall bewail my childlessness. And the great day of the Lord was at hand; and Judith her maid-servant said: How long do you humiliate your soul? Behold, the great day of the Lord is at hand, and it is unlawful for you to mourn. But take this head-band, which the woman that made it gave to me; for it is not proper that I should wear it, because I am a maid-servant, and it has a royal appearance.

In response to this strange action, Anna gives an even more confusing response:

  And Anna said: Depart from me; for I have not done such things, and the Lord has brought me very low. I fear that some wicked person has given it to you, and you have come to make me a sharer in your sin. And Judith said: Why should I curse you, seeing that the Lord has shut your womb, so as not to give you fruit in Israel?

Can someone explain to me what all of this means? What is the "head-band" they are talking about? What is its significance? Who is the woman that gave it to Judith, and why does the creator matter? What sin would Anna be participating in by accepting the head-band? Why would she want it in the first place? What are things that Anna is denying she has done ("Depart from me; for I have not done such things")?

Quick Google searches don't seem to explain this passage. Thank you for the help!


texts: Scriptural reference to explain what the word "gospel" means?

texts: Would someone explain what the word gospel means and give a biblical reference which contains the word?


texts:
How do you know that a person is in heaven?
I just read the very thoughtful answers/comments to a question about praying to someone outside the trinity and have a follow up question.  Most of the comments assume that you are asking a person who is in heaven to intercede for you. In spite of any evidences we see while people are living, only God knows the heart of man when it comes to someones motivations, beliefs, faith-in-action.


texts: Where did Martin Luther say that he placed "his Christ higher than any dogma or council"?

texts: In which of his writings did Luther say something like "I am not trying to be arrogant here, but I place my Christ higher than any dogma or council"?


texts: What bible courses do men take in seminary before becoming an ordained priest?

texts: What bible courses do men take to before becoming an ordained priest? A college course book from a Catholic seminary only list one semester in bible theology.


texts: What did God mean when He said 'lest they live forever'?

texts:
I was talking to a Jehovah's witness who did not believe in the immortality of soul and he pointed out a scripture to me.

  Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold ... lest he put forth his
  hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

If the soul is already immortal what was God afraid of? Did he mean to say:

  Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and his
  soul shall stick to his body forever.

How do Protestants explain this?


texts: What scriptural arguments for the Trinity were used in the First Council of Nicea?


texts: How do churches (specifically WELS) proselytize while barring all forms of fellowship?

texts:
So my question is about churches (or more specifically the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) which bar all forms of fellowship (to include prayer) unless all points of doctrine are agreed upon.  For example, two Lutherans, one from WELS and one from LCMS, have very similar doctrines.  The LCMS Lutheran believes in limited fellowship, but will pray with non LCMS Lutherans.  The WELS Lutheran will not pray with the LCMS Lutheran however.

This makes me wonder: How is it possible to help someone grow in the faith when you cannot even pray with a person until you agree on all points of doctrine?  How can they even learn all points of expected doctrine without having a community they are in fellowship with?

Do they make an exception when someone is growing in the faith?  Do they not bring people to worship services until they're ready to be baptised - and agree to believe all points of doctrine?  (So do they discourage parishioners from bringing friends to church?)


texts: Does the Bible indicate whether Solomon is in heaven?

texts:
Solomon was possibly one of the most blessed Old Testament figures—God gave him wisdom, wealth, honor beyond anyone in his time. Solomon also wrote Proverbs & Ecclesiastes, and possibly the Song of Solomon—three of the books of the Bible.

However, he also had 700 wives + 300 concubines (who, according to the Bible, turned his heart away).

Question: is Solomon in heaven?


texts: Origin of the saying: Ex Deo Nascimur, In Christo Morimur

texts:
Ex Deo Nascimur,
  In Christo Morimur,
  Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus

  From God we are born,
  In Christ we die,
  (and) in (/per) the Holy Spirit we are reborn (revived)

This is an old saying that I think is attributed to the Rosicrucians.  I'm trying to back track it further as it clearly predates them by at least a millennia.

Any ideas on the origins?


texts: Are there any denominations that do not require pastors to be college educated?

texts:
I am curious if there are any denominations that do not believe in college education for church leaders such as pastors, missionaries, etc. There are many churches that do. I am asking because I do not agree with college education. I strongly believe in God-given talents and that the Holy Ghost teaches.  I know I am called, but I do not like college education.  It's too arm-chair education.  I prefer action. In another words, hands-on. That way I can apply to be the pastor of a church.

Educating yourself to be wise is foolish, as said in the scripture (Romans 1:22-23), but lately, many denominations require college education.


texts: How to contemplate without the urge to have to comprehend

texts: What makes people feel they have to figure it all out? How can someone strengthen their spirituality through contemplation while avoiding a desire to try to understand everything?


texts:
Catholicism teaches ministerial priesthood (source).

Is there a concept of Ministerial Priesthood existing in Protestantism?

I'm referring to the hierarchy as well as to those who perform the sacraments. As for the scope of Protestants, I am asking those who adhere to the 5 Solae.


texts: Not Tithing Is Stealing? (Baptist perspective)

texts:
I'm told that not tithing is stealing from God. I agree we should tithe, but I don't feel I'm stealing if I don't tithe.

I'm really having a hard time with this.

I'm looking for a biblical answer to this.

My faith is based on the Bible, and I'm asking as a Baptist.


texts: What is the role of a permanent lector at a Traditional Latin Mass?

texts: Our parish started Latin Masses a few months ago and I'm finally getting in the hang of it, but one thing I noticed is that the priest reads everything (except for a few things that the servers recite) but with Pope Francis' new moto proprio and a friend of mine who has recently been ordained a deacon choosing the lector ministry.  What I don't know, is if this is a traditional role in the Church, what would a lector do prior to Vatican II?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what was the point of all the plagues?

texts:
Did God really have to do all those plagues in order to get Moses' people free? Did each plague have a particular purpose? I heard about a documentary or hypothesis that only first or first few plagues were intended and then the remaining plagues, except the last one, just occurred naturally.

Even if we grant that all but the last plague were purposeful or natural, what was the point of killing innocent children, particularly the Pharaoh's son? Why not kill the Pharaoh and then have the son or regent rule and then have the next ruler of Egypt set Moses' people free? Why not send a bunch of angels to threaten the Pharaoh into releasing the Israelites or into offering fair wages?

I doubt this is relevant to the problem of evil as God specifically intervenes in human affairs in Egypt. Why all the violence though? It seems to make sense that an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good being who would intervene in human affairs would want to do so with little bloodshed unless there's a specific lesson that the being wants to impart on the Egyptians or Israelites or something of the sort. Maybe the Israelites wouldn't have appreciated God's efforts as much if it was that simple?

Also, I seem to recall from high school something about wanting to convert the Egyptians.

What does the Catholic Church say about this?


texts: Does the seal of confession apply even when the sin is intended and there is no desire to repent?

texts:
Forgive me if this is too basic, I am no theologian, and I was puzzled by a scene from a popular TV series about a crime-busting priest. In it, the villain goes into the confessional and informs the priest of a crime he is planning to commit in order to silence the priest. The priest asks if he intends/wants to repent, the other says absolutely not, but "you can't tell anyone!?"

From my long-forgotten religious education, I would suggest that simply telling a priest you intend to sin would not constitute confession, and therefore the "seal of the confessional" simply would not apply. Of course, for dramatic purposes, the priest kept silent, but I doubt if he was bound to do so.

Welcome any more informed opinions.

Edit I have expanded the question, as, pace @Geremia, my question is not whether absolution is granted, as I believe silence would still be enjoined on the priest, but whether simply informing a priest that, eg, you are firmly determined to murder your spouse and have no "firm purpose of amendment" - would, in fact, constitute confession.


texts: Can a woman cut her hair and not cover her head?

texts:
NIV 1 Corinthians 11:6 - For if a woman does not cover her head, she might
  as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to
  have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her
  head.

With reference to the context of this verse,

Can a woman cut her hair (not shave her head) and not cover her head?

As she has two options, to cut her hair or shave her head. In verses, or is used as below:

  her hair cut off or her head shaved

She can opt any one of them(her hair cut off or head shaved), right?


texts:
I am referring to 'Elders' in the sense of 1 Timothy 5:17 (NIV) :

  17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

As opposed to 'Respect your Elders'. Is there an age-requirement?


texts: The Epitome of the Formula of Concord- Free will in Lutheranism

texts:
On "Free Will" The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, on negative (rejected) doctrines, first paragraph states:

The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as
also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must
so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man
does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is
coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder,
theft, and the like.

Does that mean Lutherans affirm free will? As I understanding it they reject free will in "divine" things, but affirm it in earthly things.
How is that consistent with Luther's own "On the Bondage of the Will", where he speaks about "necessity of consequence", or how things must come to past since God foreknows them.


texts: Are Jehovah's Witnesses Protestants, or are their own separate category?


texts: Was Eastern-Orthodox liturgical music influenced by Islam?

texts: If you ever went to an Eastern-Orthodox service, well... their music sounds like Islam to me. It's very different from Western Christian music that is typically accompanied by an organ (even known that instrument was developed in the old Byzantine Empire, it was never used in byzantine liturgy because they forbid it, for some reason...)


texts: In the following Scriptures joy fills Heaven when a sinner repents, conversely is there great sorrow when an unsaved rejects salvation?

texts:
Matthew 23:37  KJV

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not!

Luke 15:7, 15:10,15:24, and 15:32

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
10  Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
24  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
32  It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.


texts: Is it just Christian Ministers who are Watchmen, or are we all...Ezekiel 3

texts:
In Ezekiel 3, the prophet is made a watchman to Israel. A similar passage is also found in Ezekiel 33.
e.g.  “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me...."

Some commentaries apply the watchman idea to Christian Ministers.
Is it a stretch to say that all Christians, not just ministers, are watchmen from this passage in Ezekiel 3 or 33?


texts:
Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is conceived without inheriting the original sin. They believe that Mary was never a sinner (source).

Are Catholics allowed to call Mary 'perfect' by virtue of her Immaculate Conception?

Note that by perfection, sinlessness is meant.


texts: How do you obtain spiritual gifts? (Overview)

texts: The Bible says we should covet earnestly the best spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:31). How do various denominations recommend obtaining spiritual gifts?


texts: Can a Mormon wife be unsealed from her husband, and what is required for it?

texts:
I have a question about the LDS Church sealing ordinances mentioned in this article, specifically the ordinance referred to in the first paragraph:

  While on earth, we can make sacred covenants (promises) with God in
  the holy temple through priesthood authority. Among these covenants is
  the opportunity for husbands and wives to be sealed (married for
  eternity) and their children to be sealed to them.

The question is about a situation where a woman and her daughter were sealed to her first husband (who was also the father of the daughter). While the daughter is still a preteen, the husband dies in a car accident. The woman later marries someone else.

After a couple of years in her new marriage she feels happier than in the first marriage because her first husband tended to be abusive. While her daughter is still in the early teens, she no longer wants to be sealed to the first husband and contemplates the possibility of becoming unsealed from him.

Questions

Is there a way for her to be unsealed from the first husband after he has already died?
Does unsealing from the first husband require a sealing to the second husband, or can these be done separately?
The daughter wants to be with her mother, so can she also become sealed to whomever the mother is sealed to?


texts: If God is omnipresent, is he also in hell?

texts: Using the 'separation from God' concept of hell - how can God be in all places yet still place a soul into a chasm of separation.


texts: How does Catholic Church reconcile the time of and the manner in which Jesus' resurrection was disclosed to Apostles?

texts:
We read in Mk 16:1-8, the the Angel's  instruction to the  women who visited the tomb of Jesus on the day of his Resurrection, and its  outcome:

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him...... As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.  But he said to them  .... . go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you. So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

We read a somewhat different account of what the women did on returning from the tomb, in Lk 24:9-10:

Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.   Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.

There is an apparent contradiction in the time of and the manner in which the news of Jesus' resurrection was disclosed to the Apostles, going by the account given by Mark vis-a-vis that given by Luke. My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church reconcile the apparent contradiction  in the time of and the manner in which the news of Jesus' resurrection was disclosed to the Apostles?


texts: Do angels possess 1) a body, soul and spirit, 2) a soul and spirit or 3) just a spirit?

texts:
My personal understanding is that plants have a body, animals have both a body and a soul, and mankind has a body, a soul and a spirit.  However, angels, as I understand, do not have a body that is physical.  Jesus seems to have indicated this after His bodily resurrection.

  See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.  Luke 24:39 ESV

Are angels, then, classified as spirits, having no flesh and bones?  If so, are they spirits with souls or just spirits?

I would like an answer from the perspective of those who hold to the tripartite nature of mankind (body, soul and spirit).  I do not know if positions differ between the traditions of Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  If they do, I am specifically interested in what Protestants believe on this issue and and in what ways this is distinct.


texts: Why do we only pray for things that are possible to happen?

texts:
Why don't we pray for something that is impossible for natural phenomenon to happen. Like for example when a guy has a POLIO and his feet got amputated why don't we pray that his feet grows again instead we just pray the he survive? Why don't we pray that our love ones come back from the dead? Why we only pray about things that we know that would happen naturally or at least things that we know that are possible. If a person got shot in the head for example, why don't we pray to God that the bullet will just come out instantly and heal his head and be ok right that instant, instead we pray that he gets well soon.

We are praying to a great God. He makes impossible possible.

Is it because we know things that are not natural will not happen even if we pray?


texts: Is there a theological lesson (modern or traditional) in who carved the tablets for each set of the Ten Commandments?

texts:
With regard to the actual stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (not the writing on them), in the first case it clearly describes the tablets of being made by Yahweh, whereas in the second case they are carved by Moses.

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction." (Exodus 24:12)
Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets which were written on both sides; they were written on one side and the other. The tablets were God's work, and the writing was God's writing engraved on the tablets. (Exodus 32:15)

Compared to:

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered." (Exodus 34:1)
So he cut out two stone tablets like the former ones, and Moses rose up early in the morning and went up to Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand. (Exodus 34:4)

The fact that this detail is explicitly written down suggests that it may have some theological significance, as opposed to being just a recording of a historical fact.
What theological lesson have Christian theologians and Bible expositors drawn from this detail about the two sets of tablets of the Ten Commandments?


texts: How does the Tree of Life fit in Evolutionary Creationism

texts:
I understand how the creation narrative in Genesis can be interpreted to fit within an Evolutionary Creation perspective. In such a paradigm God used Evolution to beautifully create the biodiversity that we see in nature as well as create sufficiently intelligent beings (us humans) to enter into a growing relationship of responsibility and trust with. I can see how the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can represent both humanities willful disobedience to God’s revealed will (Sin) as well as an image of humanity choosing to determine morality for ourselves, and in the process alienating ourselves from God and suffering spiritual death as the result. Yet, in Genesis 3:22-24 God seems to be afraid of Adam and Eve reaching out and eating of the Tree of Life because they would live forever.
So my questions are as follows:

What does the Tree of Life represent in the Evolutionary Creationist interpretation of Genesis 3?

Why would God be afraid of Adam becoming immortal? Is God not able to prevent such an event?

Physical immortality seems to run counter to natural selection and the cycling of resources and space that is required for evolution to work. If the Tree of Life is what it seems (an antidote to physical death) was it part of God’s plan for Humanity to never suffer physical death? If so why create with a method that requires physical death to begin with?

If the Tree of Life is the antidote to the death that Adam suffered after sinning and that death is Spiritual death then why would God be afraid of him partaking of such a tree? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus is/does for us?

Thank you for your insight. This question is one of the only ones keeping me from feeling that my Biblical faith is compatible with the truth of evolutionary biology.

*cross-posted in Biologos Forum


texts: Do any church fathers interpret Luke 18:17 as teaching the necessity of infant baptism?

texts:
Luke 18:15-17 (DRB) And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.

I'm aware of course that this most likely means:

  Not only must you allow them to partake in the Kingdom of God, but unless you become innocent and simple like these infants, you yourselves cannot enter the Kingdom.

Question

However, has Luke 18:17 ever been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church as a direct teaching of infant baptism (i.e. the impossibility of the inheritance of heaven for the unbaptized)?

That is, interpreted it as having the meaning:

  Let the infants come to Me: the Kingdom of God is for them also [and they, too, are in need of it as sons of Adam]. Indeed, unless a child is born again in baptism, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God [i.e. a potential tragedy to be avoided by the above teaching].

Thanks in advance.


texts: Why is the miracle of raising the dead often noted as being done privately?

texts:
Elijah takes the widow's son upstairs and later returns the son to the widow downstairs so its assumed she wasn't with him during the miracle.

Peter closes the door of the room as well.

Elisha is also alone with the child.

I recognize there are some cases where the raising was public - particularly when Jesus was involved.  However, I still feel as if there must be a theme and meaning here I'm missing.


texts: Martin Luther: "Therefore it is not a Christian Church either"?

texts:
Martin Luther, The Large Catechism, The Apostles' Creed, Article III, paragraphs 43-45:

  43] For where He does not cause it to be preached and made alive in
  the heart, so that it is understood, it is lost, as was the case under
  the Papacy, where faith was entirely put under the bench, and no one
  recognized Christ as his Lord or the Holy Ghost as his Sanctifier,
  that is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that He
  has acquired this treasure for us, without our works and merit, and
  made us acceptable to the Father. What, then, was lacking? 44] This,
  that the Holy Ghost was not there to reveal it and cause it to be
  preached; but men and evil spirits were there, who taught us to obtain
  grace and be saved by our works. 45] Therefore it is not a
  Christian Church either; for where Christ is not preached, there is
  no Holy Ghost who creates, calls, and gathers the Christian Church,
  without which no one can come to Christ the Lord. 46] Let this suffice
  concerning the sum of this article. But because the parts which are
  here enumerated are not quite clear to the simple, we shall run over
  them also.

It seems that Dr. Martin Luther is denying here the fact of the Church's existence among the Roman Catholic Church of his time. I've learned here that while claiming that there were a lot of non-Christians in the Roman Catholic Church of his time, he still didn't consider all the clerics of the Roman Catholic Church as surely not the Church, however, these words that I just read in his Large Catechism (see the quotation above) seem to say the opposite. Can anyone, please, clarify this?


texts: Will we experience heaven (or hell) with our consciousness?

texts: In Christianity, is heaven something we will comprehend with the consciousness we have now? Will we be the same consciousness, brain and memories of this world, or is it just the energy of our soul going back to its source – nothing that we will actually experience in terms of earthly experience?


texts: Being flogged in the synagogues before the second coming?

texts:
Matthew 10:17 speaks thus:

“Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues.”

The context is Jesus’ commission to his disciples to go and proclaim the message. He tells them to stand fast even unto death and they will be saved, and those who do right by them will get their reward. Jesus claims that the Son of Man will come before they have even finished going around all the towns in the area.

Luke 21:12 seems to be similar. But here is where it gets strange for me. The same kind of context, but here the Son of Man is coming on the clouds of glory! There are signs and wonders and this is the second coming.

Here’s what’s strange to me. The one in Matthew is obviously talking about the situation at the time, when Christians were a small sect and Jews had power over them. But Luke is talking about something that seems to be at least 2000 years later. And there’s no way Christians are being beaten by Jews in synagogues. So how can it ever come true? What is it referring to, put all together? If the two accounts are of the same thing and Jesus would be coming in the Second Coming before the guys even finished going around all the towns then I guess it was expected the world would end in the lifetime of the listeners?


texts: Since YHWH and the Bible acknowledge other gods, does that mean that they literally exist?

texts:
Exodus 20:3 (NIV) reads, "You shall have no other gods before Me."

According to the Tanakh (Old Testament), YHWH / Yahweh / (God) is an individual divine being, and the only God.

Some sections of the Scriptures seem to state that He is the universe’s only (truly existing) God; however, others portray him as a supreme god among other gods (that actually exist).

Deuteronomy 4:35, “YHWH is God; there is none else beside him.”

Isaiah 44:6–8, it says, “Thus says YHWH…: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God… Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

Thus, Yahweh is the only God that exists.

But in Exodus 15:11, after the Israelites escape slavery in Egypt, they sing, “Who is like you, O YHWH, among the gods [Elohim]?”

Deuteronomy 6:14: "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you"

In Deuteronomy 10:17, it says, “For YHWH your God is the God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and terrible, who does not regard people or take bribes.”

In Psalm 95:3, it says, “YHWH is a great God, and a great king above all gods.”

And in Exodus 12:12, it says, “On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and smite every firstborn, both man and beast, and I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am YHWH.”

What are we to make of this, then? Are there lesser/other gods? Do the words used for god, perhaps, have other implied contextual meanings in some passages?


texts: Are there any Eastern-Orthodox theologians who question the historicity of, for example, Moses and Joshua?

texts: Some of the early church fathers seem to condone allegorical interpretations of certain part of scripture (for example Gregory of Nyssa concerning God's killing of the firstborn in Egypt). Are there any orthodox theologians today who propagate an exclusively allegorical interpretation of major parts of the Old Testament narrative?


texts:
Do all Christian Churches/Denominations have a common set of readings they read throughout the year and repeat on a 2-3 year cycle?

If not, how do pastors in churches without a common set of readings decide what they're going to talk about in any given week?


texts: Are there one or two covenants in Exodus? Clarifying the role of the first set of laws compared to the second set

texts:
Im a little confused by some commentaries as to how they describe the laws given to Moses.

We see a first set of commands listed in Exodus 20:1-17 and 20:22-23:33. These are then agreed upon by Israel in a ceremony of sorts in 24:3–8
In response to incident of the Golden Cow and the breaking of the first set of tablets, we see two things in chapter 34. 1. a replacement set of tablets and 2. some new regulations in 34:10-27, verse 10 and verse 27 naming these a covenant.

So the question is are there two separate covenants? Perhaps the second set "wraps" the first set? Or perhaps the second set amends the first?


texts: Has the Church historically considered biblical texts concerning slavery to be transcultural or finite?

texts:
How have the Bible's passages concerning slavery been interpreted and applied throughout Christian history, especially passages such as Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2?

Have Christians historically applied these passages to employer/employee relations as many commentators have suggested, or is this an inappropriate cultural parallel?

Note that I am not asking, "Does the Bible condone slavery?" You may of course share your opinion on this question when giving your response (I understand that this question is somewhat implicit), but I am specifically interested in how the Christian Church has historically interpreted and applied these passages.


texts: Is there any Denomination which think that the "serpent" at the beginning of his existence in Eden is not a bad being?

texts:
This question raised after my other question here

Genesis 3:15

  I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
  offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall
  bruise his heel.

To me (as a non-Christian) the bold sentence in the verse above leads to a conclusion that there is no enmity (yet) between this being and Adam&Eve before the event in Genesis 3.

In other words, at the first existence of this being in Eden, he is not a bad being (yet) where Adam&Eve need not to be cautious of this being.

Since that is just a non-Christian personal opinion, that's why I would like to know if there is any Christian Church Denomination which think the same.

After I do some "deeper digging" in the internet, I found the below quotation from this site

Quote-1

  Archbishop Ussher, the great 17th-century Bible scholar, placed
  Satan’s fall on the tenth day of the first year, which is the Day of
  Atonement

Reading it directly (without reading the original Ussher's book), it seems Ussher has the same thinking with me which is before Genesis 3 event, the first existence of this being in Eden (together with Adam and Eve) is not in a fallen state.

So I search more, and found James Ussher "The Annals of the World" and below is his text

Quote-2

  The Devil envied God's honour and man's obedience. He tempted the
  woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the
  old serpent

To me, the bold sentence is not easy because Ussher use a word "devil" where this word already implied in a negative sense, an evil being. This leads me to two option :

A. because he is A Devil, an evil being, a fallen state being (in the beginning of his first existence in Eden) that's why he envied God's honour and man's obedience

B. because (later on after his first existence in Eden) he envied God's honour and man's obedience , that's why he is called a devil, an evil being.

To me, it seems Quote-1 choose the point-B.
In B, the "fit" paraphrased of Quote-2 is become like this

Quote-3

  The being envied God's honour and man's obedience. He tempted the woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the
  old serpent and called a devil.

I still can not decide what Usher's meant in his sentences in Quote-2.
Anyway, my original question is still apply :).


texts: What formal methods and criteria could be used to evaluate the message of the bible?

texts:
My agnostic friend has asked for "formal evidence" of the Bible.

How can one scientifically evaluate statements written over 2,000 years ago?

Besides the historical evaluation of events, how to evaluate the validity of the message and the soundness of its premises?
Are there any formal methods to evaluate the contents and message of the bible, from a scientific or logical perspective?


texts: Please do not take offence at my question but for the life of me I cannot pin point where I read or heard the statement that the Roman Empire came up with the idea of Trinity to stop fighting between different Christian factions on the nature of God. Is this true? If not, when and how was the idea of Trinity introduced?


texts: Does the Anglican Use have the capacity and resources to celebrate daily mass and if so, are there any Ordinariate communities which do?

texts:
In the Roman rite we have the Tridentine liturgy (Extraordinary form) and the Novus Ordo liturgy (Ordinary form). Both of these liturgies have unique liturgical calendars, and unique cycles of scripture readings and liturgical prayers (aka "Propers") that cover every day of the year. The Tridentine Liturgy completes a cycle every year, while the Novus Ordo takes 3 years to complete a single cycle.

The important point is that it is possible for a priest to say mass on any day of the week on any day of the year using either of these liturgies and there will be associated prayers and readings specially selected for that particular day.

My question is, does the Anglican Ordinariate also have it's own exhaustive liturgical calendar, with set readings and prayers for every day of the year? Such that an Anglican Ordinariate Community could celebrate mass in the Anglican Use on any day of the week on any day of the year and still have their own unique set of readings and prayers for that particular day of the week?

And a follow up question, if the Anglican Use does have it's own cycle of prayers and readings, are there any Anglican Ordinariate communities who do indeed celebrate mass every day of the week, every day of the year according to this cycle of readings?


texts: How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism?

texts:
The terms orthodox and catholic have immense significance to those that seek to make exclusive truth claims about their particular Christian Tradition. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox trace their descent from (prior to schism) one catholic and orthodox Church. As a result, it would seem to be virtually impossible to concede the exclusive use of one of these terms to "the other side".

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the terms catholic or Catholic generally, but particularly in regard to describing Roman Catholicism?

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:

What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?
At what point did the Roman see start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?
At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?


texts: Reference for this "New is in the Old Concealed" quote that is attributed to Augustine?

texts:
I've seen the quote, "The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed" (such as a question here or the second answer here) or a variation, "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed" (such as in this answer) and I have typically seen this attributed to Augustine, though I haven't found its source.  I have only found these two related but non-identical statements of St. Augustine from "On the Spirit and the Letter."

  "This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament" (from chapter 27)

and

  This is the righteousness of God, which was veiled in the Old Testament, and is revealed in the New (from chapter 18)

I actually originally heard this from a Chuck Missler presentation without attribution. And at this Ligioner ministries article, and many others, it is attributed to Augustine.

Where does this quote come from?


texts: Does God have a sense of humor? Does he laugh?

texts:
I've always heard "God must have a sense of humor because he created X".  Usually X is "the platypus" or "me".

Also, it should be evident that Jesus, being human, had a sense of humor.  It's part of the human experience.

But, is there anywhere in the Bible where humor on the part of God is actually recorded?  Furthermore, is there any doctrinal stance supported by extra-biblical (yet inspired) text that indicates God's sense of humor?

I'm interested in both humor from Jesus (as I don't know of any) as well as humor from the heavens (either God while Jesus was here on Earth or anything before or after that point).


texts: Did the Catholic Church proscribe private ownership and reading of scripture?

texts:
I have heard that the Catholic Church did not permit private ownership of scripture nor any attempts to read and understand it so that the only copies were the ones possessed by the Church and the only exegesis of the text was done by the Catholic clergy. Private ownership and interpretation then was a Protestant innovation. Is that accurate information? Or have I been misinformed?

If that is correct, when if ever did the Catholic Church official begin permitting private ownership and interpretation of the scriptures?

I suppose one could add translation by anyone other than the Catholic clergy to this question as well.


texts: How do Young Earth Creationists account for radiometrical dates of more than 7000 years?

texts:
How do Young Earth Creationists account for all the things which have been radiometrically dated to more than 7000 years ago?
For example, the oldest carbon-14-dated seed that has grown into a viable plant was Silene stenophylla (narrow-leafed campion), an Arctic flower native to Siberia, which was dated to be from about ~32,000 years ago. (See reference.) That would put them before plants existed for Young Earth Creationists (at the earliest, ~12,000 years ago).


texts: Are there any Protestant beliefs which have their roots in Mormon doctrines?

texts:
Protestants often associate Mormonism with outlandish1 doctrines like innumerable Gods, people living on the sun, or special underwear that you can't take off2.  But I am curious what lies at the "other end of the spectrum"; are there any Mormon doctrines which have been so embraced by Protestants as to shape their beliefs?

That is, are there any common Protestant beliefs which have their origin in Mormon teachings?

The reason I ask is:

Like it or not, modern Protestant thinking is influenced by our culture
Mormonism is a significant part of our culture
I am curious if "A+B=C", so to speak; has Mormonism had any significant impact on the shaping of Protestant thinking?

[1] My use of the word 'outlandish' here is not meant to be inflammatory.  Such ideas are commonly viewed by Protestants as 'outlandish' (foreign, strange, etc.); I realize they may not seem outlandish to Mormons, and I realize that many Protestant doctrines would seem outlandish to non-Protestants.

[2] Please note that these are my words, based on things I've heard Protestants say - not the words of modern Mormon theologians.


texts: Has ever a lunatic locked up in a insane asylum/psych ward converted to Christianity after having their soundness of mind miraculously restored?

texts:
Are there any published testimonies of individuals that were sent to lunatic asylums or psychiatric wards as "lost causes" due to severe mental illness, that eventually converted to Christianity after having their soundness of mind miraculously restored?
Or in simpler terms: has ever a lunatic in an insane asylum/psych ward had an unexpected spontaneous recovery that led to their conversion to Christianity?


texts: What are the different views regarding the order of events for end-times prophecy?

texts:
As an example for this question, Jack Chick has put together some stories on the end times, which are a compilation of prophecies in Daniel, Revelation, the gospels, and some other books. However, his Biblical references seem to skip around a bit (for example, from Rev. 19:1 to Zechariah 13:8 to Rev. 16:16).

What are the different viewpoints for the ordering of events for end-times prophecies?  Do all the viewpoints skip around the Bible like this?


texts: Why are there different divisions of the Ten Commandments?

texts:
The Ten Commandments is often shown as a nice list with ten short statements, whereas in the Bible it exists as a long block of text in Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. For reference:

  Exodus 20:2-17 (HCSB)

  2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery.

  3 Do not have other gods besides Me.

  4 Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me, 6 but showing faithful love to a thousand [generations] of those who love Me and keep My commands.

  7 Do not misuse the name of the LORD your God, because the LORD will punish anyone who misuses His name.

  8 Remember to dedicate the Sabbath day: 9 You are to labor six days and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates. 11 For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.

  12 Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

  13 Do not murder.

  14 Do not commit adultery.

  15 Do not steal.

  16 Do not give false testimony against your neighbor.

  17 Do not covet your neighbor's house. Do not covet your neighbor's wife, his male or female slave, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

If I were given the above text without paragraphs nor verse markers (which are a later addition), I'd have trouble spotting how it should be divided to exactly ten commandments. This might be a reason that there are multiple "competing" divisions.

The different divisions that I know of are (adapted from a better table on Wikipedia):

                                                            A   B   C
I am the Lord your God                                     pre   1   1
You shall have no other gods before me                       1   1   1
You shall not make for yourself an idol                      2   2   1
Do not take the name of the Lord in vain                     3   3   2
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy                        4   4   3
Honor your father and mother                                 5   5   4
You shall not murder                                         6   6   5
You shall not commit adultery                                7   7   6
You shall not steal                                          8   8   7
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor       9   9   8
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife                    10  10   9
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor  10  10  10

For fun, see if you know which is used by whom! The answer is below, mouse-over to see it:

   A: Anglican, Reformed (pre = preface)
 B: Orthodox; Jewish (Talmudic)
 C: Catholic, Lutheran
 As far as I know, almost all other denominations use A or B.

What are the reasonings for these different divisions? Especially since the first division didn't stick, I'm quite sure the differences can't be arbitrary.


texts: What is the specific meaning of "die" in Genesis 2?

texts:
Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV):

  16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

KJV says:

  for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It seems clear that Adam and Eve did not die on the day they ate from the tree. And even without the word "day" there, it seems they didn't die "when" they ate from the tree, either, but many many years later.

What gives?


texts: In the parable of the ten minas, why does the king kill his enemies?

texts:
The Parable of the Ten Minas

  Luke 19:27 (NIV) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Now, this is spoken in the 3rd person (of the "man of noble birth"); however, it still seems the intent of the parable is to order open carnage against those who don't follow the Abrahamic faith (see :9 & :10, that lead into this parable).

Interpretation?


texts: In light of the many changes in regulations, what is the purpose of the Roman Catholic altar and is it neccessary for a valid Mass?

texts:
The following has been compiled from several CSE questions (and comments); here, here, and here as well as Wikipedia and an article from Slate magazine.
At the second council of Nicaea 787, Catholic authorities passed a law stating that every church should have a relic at its altar.  Failure to obey resulted in excommunication.  The consecration of an altar was accomplished when the altar had within it or under it the 1st degree relics of two different saints, one of which was required to have been martyred.
A first degree relic is the bone, hair, blood, or tears of a saint.  Some believe this tradition of relic veneration began with the collection of ashes following the death of Polycarp, who was burned at the stake in 156 AD.
Up until Vatican II a priest could only celebrate the Mass on a properly consecrated altar.  Following the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960's (in 1969 to be precise) the church officially laid to rest the 787 ruling at Nicaea by no longer requiring Catholic churches to posses a holy remnant at their altars.
Altars within churches must be of stone and there are many regulations regarding their construction and use.  Movable altars are allowable (hence the birth of the portable altar stone) and an altar used outside of a Catholic Church need not be of stone but of any "suitable" material.
1983 Canon law regarding altars and relics is, in part, as follows:

Canon 1236 §1. According to the traditional practice of the Church,
the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone, and indeed of a single
natural stone. Nevertheless, another worthy and solid material can
also be used in the judgment of the conference of bishops. The
supports or base, however, can be made of any material.  §2. A movable
altar can be constructed of any solid material suitable for liturgical
use.

Canon 1237 §2. The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

In "The Order of Dedication of a Church and an Altar " it is written:

The tradition of the Roman Liturgy of placing relics of Martyrs or of other Saints under the altar is fittingly to be retained. Nevertheless, the following should be noted:
a) Relics for deposition should be of such a size that they can be recognized as parts of human bodies. Hence, enclosing excessively small relics of one or several Saints is to be avoided.
b) The greatest care must be taken to determine whether relics intended for deposition are authentic. It is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity deposited under it.
c) A reliquary must not be placed on the altar or in the table of the altar but under the table of the altar, in a manner suitable to the design of the altar.

Given that

altars consecrated by relics were not required for the celebration of the Mass for 700 years and then were required for 1100 years and now are not required again

there are regulations in place regarding the use of relics as pertaining to altars (which are no longer required for their consecration)

portable altars were not always commonly used but now a suitable table (with or without a relic) may be used always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

What exactly is the purpose of the altar in a Roman Catholic Mass?  Is it necessary or is it just a table?  If it's just a table, does that mean the cloth, corporal, cross, and candles are the necessary parts?


texts: Where was Jesus during the period from His death to resurruction?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Did Jesus spend time in Hell between the crucifixion and resurrection?

Jesus died and was raised from death on the third day.

Where did Jesus go during the period from His death to resurrection? Was He was with God or still on Earth?

What is the significance of three days?

Some believe that He was in purgatory. However, He died for our sins because He was sinless - in that case, this belief (regarding purgatory) is questionable.

Is there a biblical answer, or one within the realm of Christian faith?


texts: Do we have to tithe? Why does God need us to tithe? What are the results of NOT tithing?


texts: What in New Testament invalidates God’s commandments from the Old Testament?

texts: Where in the New Testament  (if at all) does it say that Christians do not have to abide God’s commandments from the Old Testament?


texts: I know that Jesus died for my sins, and I know that we pray in Jesus' name, but should we ask Jesus or God the Father?


texts: Do people of different denominations think that the others are going to go to hell for holding false views?

texts:
Obviously, there are people who are on both sides of this issue, within and without the various denominations, and some denominations which might be more exclusive than others. But when it comes down to it, the fact that two there are two different denominations under the same heading of "Christianity" suggests that—at some point—there was some serious conflict. My question is two-fold:

Whether some people of a particular denomination belief that those of other denominations will go to hell, why some people don't agree, and why there is a split there.
Whether the split between denominations always occurs because of a differing opinion on some interpretation of the Bible, or could have occurred simply because of a power struggle. For example, I view the split of Protestantism from Catholicism as one of viewpoint difference (sola scriptura/sola fide) as opposed to a desire for power by some group of people. On the other hand, I see other denominations as having formed because of a desire for separation and recognition, as well as status/power. I won't name any particular denominations, but I can use the outside (non-Christian) example of Scientology as such a case.

Any information on this would be great. Thanks!


texts: According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, if Jesus Christ is not God why is He presented as the agent of creation?

texts:
John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) NOTHING came into being that has come into being." Also Colossians 1:16-17, "For by Him all things were created, in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and for Him."

Verse 17, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." I would also include Hebrews 1:10 spoken by God the Father, "And, Thou, Lord in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands."

The verses quoted are all encompassing and "ALL" things came into being by Him/Jesus Christ, and apart or without Him "NOTHING" came into being. So what are these "other" things that "a god" (NWT of John 1:1) the Jehovah Witnesses are referring to at Colossians 1:16? Why is the word "other" added to the verse?


texts:
I've heard that there were two points of Catholic doctrine in Aquinas' Summa Theologica that were later successfully defended to the contrary.  One, I think is the Immaculate Conception of Mary (although I don't know where that is in the Summa) and I'm not sure what the other one is.

Excluding things that might not exactly measure up to modern science. What are the points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law?


texts: Why does the LDS church believe that alcohol was forbidden, despite being common in the Bible?

texts:
The Word of Wisdom prohibits members of the LDS church from drinking alcohol, but alcohol is quite common in both the Tanach (Jewish bible) and the New Testament.  Why does the LDS church believe that alcohol was acceptable to those in Biblical times, but not now? In other words, what is the reason that alcohol use was a major part of religious life in biblical times, but forbidden now to LDS church members?

(I am not a Christian, much less a Mormon, so I apologize if I have made any mistaken assumptions in my question)


texts: Does Cain still have descendants on the earth?

texts:
According to Genesis 5:

  3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in
  his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam
  lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam
  lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

  6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[b] of Enosh. 7
  After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had
  other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912
  years, and then he died.

If we continue reading, we see that we are descendants of Seth as his genealogy leads to the birth of Noah. God destroyed other families and spared only the house of Noah (8 people), from whom the earth was repopulated.

Adam->Seth-> ... ->Methuselah->Lamech->Noah->(Noah's Sons)-> .... ->Us

  Genesis 7:23- Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped
  out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground
  and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those
  with him in the ark

Cain's descendants and Seth's siblings' descendants were therefore wiped out.


texts: Is there any relationship between Aquinas teaching on the analogical knowledge of God and Christ teaching in parables?

texts: Is there any relationship between Aquinas teaching on the analogical knowledge of God and Christ teaching in parables (ie. via analogies)?


texts: How does one reconcile the principle of justice with the doctrine of original sin?

texts:
How does one reconcile the idea in modern democracy that every person will be judged purely based on their own actions, with the doctrine of the belief in the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of Man?
This is especially relevant with respect to people who lived before the advent of Christianity, where there are no external factors such as the belief in a sacrifical crucifixion to "restore the balance", so to speak (unless a kind of retroactive effect of this on these people is believed in, violating causality).
It is clear that the two principles are logically incompatible with each other, as evidenced by the dogma of total depravity telling us, even in its highly softened Roman Catholic form, that man cannot "be justified before God by his own works, …without the grace of God through Jesus Christ".
On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arguably the foundational document of modern democracy, in Article 11, states that

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

If it is in fact the case that they cannot be reconciled within the same logically consistent system, in what ways and domains is the subsequent doublethink applied?


texts: Why do Latino Christians treat their patron saint's day more importantly than their birthday? Would a fifteen-year-old girl's Quinceañera be as important as a birthday or more important than a birthday, with similar value to a patron saint's day or the day on which they would be confirmed in the church?


texts: Which Orthodox Churches Accept the Baptism of Heretics?

texts:
Primary Question:

Orthodoxy is divided on whether to baptize converts who were baptized by heretics under the Trinitarian formula. Some groups baptize them; some groups only require chrismation. Which groups accept the baptism of heretics and only require chrismation?

Secondary Question (not necessary for the answer):

From my understanding, the split can be divided on Old Calendar, anti-Ecumenical vs. New Calendar, pro-Ecumenical grounds. Churches adhering to the New Calendar will accept heretical converts via chrismation, but not baptism; churches adhering to the Old Calendar will accept heretical converts via baptism (and then chrismation).

Is this an incorrect way to categorize the question --- I would be very interested in examples of either Old Calendarists/anti-Ecumenists who accept heretical converts via chrismation and of New Calendarists/pro-Ecumenists who accept heretical converts via baptism. EDIT -- I was informed today that there is a monastary under the authority of Constantinople (New Calendar/pro-Ecumenical) in my area that baptizes heretical converts (in opposition to those who they are under the authority of). While I found it interesting, I would prefer examples of churches, not monasteries, for purposes of this secondary question.


texts:
Why is in not common practice that Biblical translators also translate the names of characters?
I have found that translating Biblical names into English has added layers of depth to the stories.
Here are a few examples of my above claim:
Genesis 3:20 - KJV

"And Human (Adam) called his wife's name Source of Life (Eve); because she was the mother of all living."

Genesis 17:5 - KJV

"Neither shall thy name any more be called Exalted Father (Abram), but thy name shall be Father of Nations (Abraham); for a father of many nations have I made thee."

Genesis 32:28 - KJV

"And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Heel-grabber (Jacob), but He Who Contends With God (Israel): for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."

John 3:28 - KJV

"Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Anointed One (Christ), but that I am sent before him."

Matthew 16:18 - KJV

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock (Peter), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Which reads even better when paired with Matthew 7:24-25

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."


texts:
What's the biggest time gap between authorship of two books of the Bible?

Honestly, I don't even know the order in which the books of the Bible were written, but I am quite interested in what the longest period of time that elapsed between two authorship of two books of the Scriptures.


texts: How do denominations that ordain women at the same time justify not ordaining homosexuals?

texts:
There are many verses in the New Testament that outline the role of women in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:34: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

And 1 Peter 3.
These verses seem crystal clear, yet many denominations, if not most, now allow women to participate equally in all areas of church government including leadership.  Some of those same denominations use the Bible to justify not allowing homosexuals to participate equally in all areas of church government.
The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:26–27).
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10).
Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

So, my question is, how can those churches follow some scriptures and not others? How do they explain it?


texts: Was Origen and/or certain teachings considered a heretic and/or heretical?

texts:
What was clear enough has become muddled for reasons unknown about Origen.  We can speculate the resurgence of the idea of universal salvation is one reason for Origen's rise.

  In the seventeenth century, the English Cambridge Platonist Henry More (1614 – 1687) was a devoted Origenist[240] and, although he did reject the notion of universal salvation,[240] he accepted most of Origen's other teachings.
  -wiki-

  A few of his views were unorthodox, to the point that later generations debated whether he was a saint or a heretic. ...  For instance, Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also considered the Trinity a ranking, not an equality, and believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God. These claims were key to his being declared a heretic by various councils in the centuries after his death.
  -source-

So, what does the earlier church (pre 1054) believe about Origen?


texts: How is the doctrine of the Trinity substantiated?

texts:
I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of Trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true! It is about how those, that believe the doctrine to be true, are arguing that it is true. Thus this is not a question of opinion.
This question is also not about what "of the same nature, but different personas" actually means.
That question was asked by me at What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas?
However, if you feel that answering, what it means, is required for answering how it is argued for, I am happy for clarification.

In an answer it was said that Jesus never says he is God or 'God the Son' as part of a Trinity (reformatted):

He has a God - the same (creator) God as all humans.

John 5:44 -- the one and only God
2 Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Rom 15:6, Rom 1:7 -- the God of our Lord Jesus
1 Pet 1:3 Heb 1:8-9 -- God anointed Jesus
Rev: 1:1, 1:6, 3:12 -- even ascended, Jesus still has the same God of him and of us

Jesus often refers to his Father and God in an equivalent manner:

"You have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world." (John 16:27)
I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. (John 20:17)
a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (John 8:40)

This got me thinking: What is the logical argumentation for the doctrine of Trinity?
It does not seem to be directly stated in the bible as a doctrine, although it seems - in a way - kind of obvious to me when reading, e.g. the gospel of John in one go. However, "seems obvious" is hardly a good argument.


texts: Why must God reach the fullness of Glory (reformed theology)?

texts:
Reformed theology stresses that God created the universe for one purpose: to glorify him fully. And to reach the fullness of Glory, God must demonstrate all that would glorify him. This means that to demonstrate things like wrath and grace, there must first be misery. It's a very tidy theodicy, except it leaves me wondering why God cares about the fullness of Glory so much. The theology makes God out to be self-obsessed, and that he must prove (to whom exactly?) that he's perfect at everything. Humanity is a means to an end.

The purpose of creation being for God's glory is a given, but I guess the question is why? Why is creation about that? Why must God show his full Glory, and is there even anyone to fully appreciate it in the first place?

I want to be sure that answers focus on reformed theological positions and preferably quote known theologians and any accompanying scriptures.

Question inspired by this answer.


texts: What does "he finds his truth" mean in Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate?

texts:
While I was reading Caritas in Veritate, an encyclical letter by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, I found this fragment:

  Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32).

What does it mean to find one's truth? To what truth was Pope Benedict XVI alluding in that fragment?


texts: Does a list of people mentioned in the bible who got saved exist?

texts:
I am studying about being saved. According to scripture :

  Ephesians 2 : 8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and
  that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

I want to study about the list of people mentioned in the bible who got saved. Explicitly I am looking for the one's who were like against God/Away from God and then got saved. Best example is, Apostle Paul. Are there any other in old and new testaments who were away from God and then saved?


texts: What kind of baptism is essential to salvation, and what does 'essential' mean in this context? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
I'm a protestant and I've often heard statements to the effect that "Catholics believe that salvation is impossible without baptism", but I've also encountered the terms "Baptism of blood" and "Baptism of desire" that are not specifically 'washing' with water but nonetheless may be regarded as 'baptism'. I've also read that in Catholic thought, God Himself is not 'bound' by His sacraments, which I assume means He may choose to bestow salvation if He so wills, regardless of baptism.

What are the precise nuances of the terms 'baptism' and 'essential' (or 'necesary') in Catholic understanding in this context?

edit

To clarify, by tagging the question catholicism, I'm indicating that I'm interested in learning about current mainstream Catholic thought. That of course includes any implications of recent councils such as Vatican II.


texts: What happens to those saved during the millennial reign that die? (Premillennialist perspective)

texts: From what I understand of premillenial eschatology, during the millennial reign, people who survived the tribulation will have their longevity returned like before the flood, but they will still die. What happens to those that die, but are saved? Jesus is already on earth with the saints, the people saved before the tribulation; but what about those saved after? Would they just get their glorified bodies immediately?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Total Depravity?

texts: Calvin, among his other points starts with the point that we are totally depraved and sinful from birth. What is the Biblical basis for this point?


texts: What does childbearing have to do with the salvation of a woman?

texts:
Verse concerning saved:

  12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. -- 1 Timothy 2

Related verse:

  16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -- Genesis 3

Question: Verse 14 clearly addresses Eve eating the apple. Since Salvation is through what Christ accomplished on the cross alone -- what does childbearing have to do with 'she shall be saved in childbearing' ?


texts:
According to the morality of the Catholic Church are there any organs that are not permitted to be offered in organ transplants?
Wikipedia has a very large list of organs that are commonly used in organ transplants.

Chest
Heart (deceased-donor only)
Lung (deceased-donor and living-related lung transplantation)
Heart/Lung (deceased-donor and domino transplant)
Abdomen
Kidney (deceased-donor and living-donor)
Liver (deceased-donor and living-donor)
Intestine (deceased-donor and living-donor)
Stomach (deceased-donor only)
Testis (deceased-donor and living-donor)
Tissues, cells and fluids
Hand (deceased-donor only), see the first recipient Clint Hallam
Cornea (deceased-donor only) see the ophthalmologist Eduard Zirm
Skin, including face replant (autograft) and face transplant (extremely rare)
Islets of Langerhans (pancreas islet cells) (deceased-donor and living-donor)
Bone marrow/Adult stem cell (living-donor and autograft)
Blood transfusion/Blood Parts Transfusion (living-donor and autograft)
Blood Vessels (autograft and deceased-donor)
Heart Valve (deceased-donor, living-donor and xenograft [porcine/bovine])
Bone (deceased-donor and living-donor)

Has the Catholic Church ever pronounced anything on the subject as to what organs are or are not permitted to be used in human organ transplants?


texts: What does the Parable of the Vineyard Workers mean?

texts:
Does the Parable of the Vineyard Workers (in Matthew 20) mean that those who die exactly on judgement day will be the first to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Does this mean that when people die they effectively sleep unconsciously until day of judgement? So that the order will be those who die on Judgement day first, followed in order backwards to the beginning of creation?


texts:
I am a Catholic that was married in the Episcopal Church 25 years ago.
My wife and I have had a civil dissolution 8 years ago.
Does the Catholic church consider my marriage valid, and requires an annulment, or was
it never valid in the first place?


texts: According to LDS teaching could Adam and Eve have children before the fall?

texts:
2 Nephi 2:23 states

  And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Often, it is said that Adam and Eve could not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says would, not could.

Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they could have children?


texts: Troubled people showing interest in reading the Bible: how to explain to them that faith is a lifestyle and not an "ATM"?

texts:
I get that often. I meet a lot of people who have some sort of troubles in their life and they show interest in reading the Bible to heal themselves.

However, the majority of these people just approach the Bible in the same way they approach an "ATM" machine, and they think that "if God exists" they should just "ask for a matter" and "God should provide in a button press".

How to explain to those friends that:

Faith is a lifestyle; it requires a one on one relationship with God
Faith is by giving your life to God and trust His way of guiding you even though you cannot always understand how God thinks, and His ways.
Faith is not only by asking, but also by giving to others and not being selfish
God WILL provide at the right time, the right moment IF what they are asking for is actually what God thinks is beneficial for them.

How to help people to get out of the materialistic ways of approaching something pure and divine like the Bible and understand there will be easy and hard days through faith?

Update:

Even though I do not agree on all (more details at the end of the update) that was mentioned in the accepted answer, but the solution David Stratton gave which is:

  All we can do with those who have been taught the modern gospel is to take them to Scripture and tell them the truth.

Is in my opinion the correct way to do it. Show the scripture then explain it in a spiritual way so that they stop thinking with a materialistic brain.

What were the points in his answer that i had some comments about?

I do believe God is love "God is love, come to Him and He will fix your broken marriage, drug problem, financial woes, etc.) " If you build a relationship with him and give him your life and all the steps you make. The Bible says:

  "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."
  God is happiness, religion should not be only a feeling of guilt that we are sinners who deserve hell. of course we are sinners, but that is why Jesus died on the cross to forgive all our sins, and thus we may live and be happy and prosper:

  "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. "

So God does want us to enjoy and help others enjoy life BUT we need a one on one relationship; i.e, every step that we do we must tell him "I put it between your hands and you decide what should happen"