texts: Which Latin manuscripts were used by the KJV translators?

texts:
When the KJV translators set out to do their translation, they gathered all existing manuscripts and translations they could, to make sure they had everything absolutely right.

I am curious, which Latin scriptures did they use?

I am aware they had some, but not which.


texts: Who is being referred to in Isaiah 42:6?

texts:
Today's first reading, Isaiah 42:1-4.6-7, contains the line:

"...I, the Lord, have called you to serve the cause of right;
I have taken you by the hand and formed you;
I have appointed you as covenant of the people and light of the nations..."

This wording is from the Jerusalem Bible, the translation used in the missal.

Is the speaker addressing and referring to Isaiah?  Did God make a covenant with Isaiah as light of the nations?  I'd have thought Jesus is the light of the nations. Yet the line in question can't be about Jesus since He is consubstantial with the Father and was not formed.  The title of the reading is: "Here is my servant in whom my soul delights" which clearly echoes today's gospel, Matthew 3:13-17 for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord Year A.

I would be grateful for any insight into this.


texts: Can or should a consecrated Host be adored by way of a live Eucharistic televised broadcast?

texts:
I've often wondered, while watching the various televised Eucharistic celebrations on EWTN (i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Eucharistic adoration, World Youth Day events, etc.), whether or not there is any connection between the reality of Christ's Real Presence that is being recorded/broadcast live and the viewer(s) who are perceiving the live broadcast.

Lets hypothetically say that I'm flipping through TV channels and I happen to land on EWTN precisely at the moment that Fr. Mitch Pacwa is elevating the consecrated Host during the liturgy of the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I'm obligated to believe that in that situation I would be looking at a real-time image of Jesus' body, blood, soul, and divinity present on the altar. Of course there should be some sort of reverence involved, but to what extent?

I found it very interesting that during World Youth Day 2013 there were giant screens set up throughout the audience in order for everyone (3 million+) to be able to see the Eucharistic celebrations. It seems apparent to me that Catholics were able to actively participate in the WYD 2013 Eucharistic events even though they might have been a mile or two down the beach.

I'm wanting to know what the Catholic Church officially teaches about the metaphysical relationship between Christ's actual presence on the altar, and his "presence" on the receiving end of a live broadcast. Can someone who is home bound and is unable to attend Mass/adoration adore the Host as if they were truly present? To what extent are all Catholics obliged to revere the televised Host?

It is important to understand that this question is exclusively about a live broadcast feed in real time, and not about any other type of Eucharistic image.

This is specifically a Catholic question...so please no anti-Catholic "new age iconoclasm" please.


texts: What theological teachings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, and the Local Churches differ from Reformed Theology

texts:
I recently moved and have been Church hunting (but this it not a question about Church advice) and attended a "Local Church."

In this particular Church, service goes as follows:

first part:

everyone opens hymn book
people shout out numbers (corresponding to hymn #)
everyone sings the hymn together

second part:

church splits up into small groups
everyone opens up a booklet of Nee/Lee
people stand up and talk about how this week's readings effected them / their insights on the week's reading

Now, this is different to me (since I used to attend churches where a single person would preach) -- but I don't see anything unbiblical about their approach.

So what I'm curious now are:

are there any theological differences between Nee/Lee/Local church and reformed theology?

Thanks!


texts: Why did the disciples have to be silent about the supernatural event of the Transfiguration? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
The story of the Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-9 concludes with these words:

  As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, "Do
  not tell the vision to anyone  until the Son of Man has been raised
  from the dead." (Matthew 17:9)

Why did Jesus forbid his disciples to talk about the supernatural event they all experienced? Why weren't they allowed to talk about it before the resurrection? What is the significance of the silence until the resurrection?


texts: What traditions fully embrace the concept of a "local parish church"?

texts:
As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church.

I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required?


texts: John 14:2: a literal house / temple or heaven

texts:
In John, Jesus is speaking of Heaven.  However in Matthew he's talking about a physical temple.

John 14:2 NIV

  2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have
  told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

VS

Matthew 21:12-13 NIV

  12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying
  and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and
  the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to
  them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are
  making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

How do we know for sure that he's talking about Heaven in John and not a physical temple / Church?


texts:
One of the explanations when I was first coming to understand why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary was something along the lines of: Sin separates us from God. God can not be around sinners, so with Jesus' sacrifice wiping away our sin, we can be with God once more.

But if God cannot be around sin, how is it that Satan was able to go before him in the book of Job ?

  6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.


texts: What exactly does one do in the Sabbath?

texts:
"Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do."- Deuteronomy 5:12-14.

  "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."- Exodus 20:8-11.

So what exactly does "not doing work" mean? Does this mean worshipping God or alternatively, sleeping in, engaging in entertainment, hanging out with friends etc.?


texts: Is the global Christian population increasing?

texts: Is the total Christian population of the world increasing each year? Where can I find the official statistics? How about population by country? Is there any statistic that shows the increase/decrease of Christian population of all the countries in the world?


texts: Why are some of the Psalms written by authors other than David?

texts:
Why are many Psalms attributed to authors other than David?
I read through Psalms and tried to figure it out but I just can't find it.


texts: Did St. James write the Divine Liturgy of St. James?

texts:
This is related to the question titled "What is the earliest written surviving liturgy?", but different in what it is asking. I was reading on Infogalactic the following.

  The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed, but most authorities propose a fourth-century date for the known form, because the anaphora seems to have been developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the Basilean anaphoric family united with the anaphora described in The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

And the following on Catholic Encyclopedia

  That it was actually composed by St. James the Less, as first Bishop of Jerusalem, is not now believed by any one.

Did the church fathers lie?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for saying Christians are "friends of God"?

texts:
I've heard Christians say that an appropriate title for a Christian is, "friend of God." I've also heard preachers (e.g. Beth Moore) say that this is inappropriate: only certain people (Abraham and the Disciples) can be called friends of God.

What is the Biblical basis for saying modern Christians are generally "friends of God"?


texts: Is there any Scriptural support for claims about Jesus appearing to Muslims in dreams and visions?

texts:
I've heard many testimonies and claims about Muslims converting to Christianity because Jesus allegedly appeared to them in dreams and visions. For the interested reader, these are some example sources making such claims: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Is there any biblical support for this phenomenon? Can we find any parallels or prophecies about this phenomenon in Scripture?


texts: Is it possible to reconcile Owen's trilemma with salvation by faith?

texts:
John Owen's "trilemma" argument is often used as a defense for Limited Atonement, but it appears to have an underlying difficulty:

To which I may add this dilemma to our universalists: God imposed his
wrath, and Christ underwent the pains of hell, either for all the sins
of all men, or for all the sins of some men, or for some of the sins
of all men. ... If it was the first, then why are not all freed from
the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their
unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or
not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ
either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then
why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death
more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo
the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins. (The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ [modernized edition by William
H. Gross], Book I, ch III)

He argues that Christ dying for sins means that unbelief (itself being a sin) should not prevent unbelievers from being saved. But if the atonement would save even those who never believe, then that seems to imply that faith is immaterial to salvation.
Is it possible to reconcile this line of reasoning with salvation by faith?
Clarification
To summarize the problem and the question:

Owen argues that Christ dying for a person means that unbelief would not stop that person from being saved, viz, "...why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died?"

If, as Owen argues, the atonement means that unbelief doesn't disqualify someone from salvation, that seems to imply that faith makes no difference in whether one is saved.

The question then is how can faith making no difference in whether one is saved be reconciled with salvation by faith?


texts: When did Peter become the first Pope, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

texts:
Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the apostle Peter was the first Pope.  Exactly when did this occur?

I can imagine a few different options

When Jesus addressed Peter in Matthew:

  I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 NASB

At the death of Christ
At the resurrection of Christ
At the reinstatement of Peter (John 21:15-17)
At the Ascension of Jesus
At Pentecost

So, that is the question.  At what specific time did Peter become the first Pope?  (I assume that this coincides with the point at which Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven as well.)


texts:
We read at Jn 8: 31:

Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples”

That is followed by a hot debate between the Jews and Jesus on sin, ancestry etc. Towards the end, they  pick up stones to throw at him, accusing him of blasphemy (Jn 8:59) .
One wonders whether John is describing the change of attitude of the same individual Jews whom he mentions as believers at 8:31 , towards the end of the chapter. My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, does John the Evangelist mention the same individual Jews at 8: 31 and 8:59?


texts: Tower of Babel dispersion after the Table of Nations?

texts:
Genesis 11 has the story of the Tower of Babel, which is the event which caused all the nations to be dispersed into the World.

But the chapter before, Genesis 10, called the Table of Nations, describes the descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem and their clans, languages, territories and nations.

If they had already been dispersed in chapter 10, who was left to be dispersed in chapter 11?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the claim that the Father is a bodiless spirit?

texts:
I was reading another page on this site and someone used this quote "Father is invisible eternal spirit only" as a reason why God could not have a body as well as a spirit. I can't find it in any version of the bible. Meanwhile, LDS believe that God has a body.

What I want to know is, is there any evidence in any Christian scriptures that God can only be a spirit?

I want to know if there is any evidence that he can't have a body. That he could only be a spirit of some sort. If having a spirit is exclusive to having a physical form.


texts:
I was taught that Saint Peter is at the gates of heaven, and you have to pass him to get in.  Answers to a recent question suggest this is not true.

What is the biblical basis for seeing Saint Peter at the gates of heaven?


texts: Is there one guardian angel for each person?

texts:
A Roman Catholic friend of mine told me that each person has a guardian angel. He told me it is based on this verse:

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 18:10 KJV

According to Catholics and Orthodox, is there one guardian angel per person?


texts:
I was wondering if there is a name meaning God Who Hears me.

El Roi speaks of The God Who Sees me.  From Genesis 16:13 (ESV):

13 So she called the name of the LORD [El-Roi] who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."

Googling God Who Hears turned up one site that (incorrectly?) said Jehovah-Shammah (usually translated The Lord Who Is Present or The Lord Is There) meant God Who Hears me.  Their given verse was Psalm 17:6 (ESV):

6 I call upon you, for you will answer me, O God; incline your ear to me; hear [shama`] my words.

I don't know Hebrew at all, but checking Strong's online out of curiosity, [shama`] and [shammah] seem (to me) to be unrelated words.

Does anyone know of a name that meant God Who Hears me?


texts:
Does Luke 14:26* justify divorce (or at least separation)?

*[If any man come to me and hateth not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life besides: he can not be my disciple.]


texts:
Paul says Romans 6:14-15

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Does that mean that we no longer need to follow the Laws given in the Old Testament, such as

not eating pork
circumcision
grace at each meal
not to reap the entire field
Not to intermarry with gentiles
etc.

Is there a specific scripture that abolishes these laws and gives us a different set?
I assume that they refer to the Resurrection as the event that pulled us from under the law. but it seems unclear to me as to whether or not we should still obey these laws.
Can I eat bacon?


texts:
Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, wrote his own version of the Christian Gospels.[1] He called it The Gospel in Brief. In it, he mixed many beliefs of the different disciples. In doing so he claimed to have eliminated the agenda of the gospel writers. Interestingly, but to the surprise of many, he rejected most of Jesus's supernatural occurrences, since they were unnatural. Thus he denied the existence of miracles. Even more interestingly, Tolstoy felt that G-d was incomprehensible. It is not involved in human affairs. Thus on this basis, he denied Jesus's divinity, writing that all men are sons of G-d, "the infinite source of being." Thus Jesus was not G-d; he was as human as all other people.

Tolstoy was convinced that people have a religious duty, to "love thy neighbor as thyself." He felt that this was Jesus' true message since the infinite source created everything out of love. Thus people can only relate to G-d by being like G-d, in the sense of not just feeling but acting out loving-kindness.

Interestingly enough, Tolstoy's nonviolent methods influenced Mahatma Gandhi. Since he was a pacifist, he was highly critical of the Russian government's involvement in wars. Tolstoy writes, "The Gospel puts in the place of what men call 'God' a right understanding of life. Without this understanding there is no life; men only live in so far as they understand life."

For his views, he was excommunicated by the Russian-Greek Orthodox Church. His radical views can be compared to that of Spinoza's, who was also excommunicated by the rabbis.

In short, what do modern Christians think of Tolstoy's views? Is he still a heretic, or is the church open to conversation? Where does one draw the line of tolerance? Whether or not one agrees with everything Tolsory writes, can his views still be deemed very thought provoking?

[1] Thomas Jefferson also wrote his version of the gospels, but we shall not engage it here.


texts: Eastern Orthodoxy - When a liturgical hymn to a Saint is composed (such as a Troparion), how is the mode/tone for the hymn chosen?

texts:
Canons, troparia, kontakia, aposticha, stichera, etc. all have a tone/mode associated with them.  How does the author of the hymn choose which mode/tone to use?  Is it the same for all, or is it a little different for each type of hymn?

(I'm referring here specifically to hymns written to commemorate Saints.  Hymns composed for the Octoechos or for Pascha I already somewhat understand why they are written for a particular tone/mode).


texts: According to Catholicism, does Welch’s Grape Juice constitute valid matter for the consecration of the Mass?

texts:
According to Catholicism, does the usage of Welch’s Grape Juice constitute valid matter for the consecration of the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass?

Some priests who are alcoholics may obtain a dispensation to use Mustum at Mass.

The question of the validity of the use of “mustum,” or grape juice, for priests suffering from alcoholism or for some other medical reason was finally resolved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 in a letter signed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Among other things this letter stated:

  “A. The preferred solution continues to be communion ‘per intinctionem,’ or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

  “B. Nevertheless, the permission to use ‘mustum’ can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

  “C. By ‘mustum’ is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

  “D. In general, those who have received permission to use ‘mustum’ are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of ‘mustum,’ while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.” - Use of Mustum at Mass

Here is an interesting note on the subject of Welch’s Grape Juice and the Eucharist in the Methodist Church.

  The method of pasteurizing grape juice to halt the fermentation has been attributed to a British–American physician and dentist, Thomas Bramwell Welch (1825–1903) in 1869. Welch was an adherent to the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion which strongly opposed "manufacturing, buying, selling, or using intoxicating liquors" and advocated the use of unfermented grape juice instead of wine for administering the sacrament of the Eucharist, or communion, during the church service. A few years earlier, Welch had relocated to Vineland, New Jersey, a town started in 1861 by Philadelphia land developer Charles K. Landis (1833–1900) to create his own alcohol-free utopian society, a "Temperance Town" based on agriculture and progressive thinking. Landis declared that he was "about to build a city, and an agricultural and fruit-growing colony around it." The population reached 5,500 by 1865. Landis determined the potential in growing grapes and named the settlement "Vineland", and advertised to attract Italian grape growers to Vineland, offering 20 acres (81,000 m2) of land that had to be cleared and used to grow grapes. Welch had moved to the region following his sister who was one of Vineland's earliest residents and began to produce an "unfermented wine" (grape juice) from locally grown grapes that was marketed as "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine". This product became "Welch's Grape Juice" in 1893 when Welch and his son Charles E. Welch (also a practicing dentist) had decided to incorporate in 1893 as the Welch's Grape Juice Company at Westfield, New York. - History of Welch's Grape Juice

The reason I wish to bring this up is that I have come across priests using Welch’s Grape  Juice at Mass. The chalice was subsequently offered to the faithful present.

Has the Catholic Church pronounced on such a scenario as being valid or not?


texts: How does a Catholic theocracy differ from other Christian theocracies?

texts:
I'm taking a Catholic Church history class and the instructor said that life under a Catholic theocracy, like the Papal States, was different than life under a Protestant theocracy, but because most people's idea of a theocracy is a Protestant one that it seems worse than it might have been.
So, what I'm wanting to know is, are there any works or descriptions of life under a real Catholic theocracy and how that governance would have been different than a Protestant or Orthodox one?


texts: What of Augustine's ecclesiology was rejected in the Reformation?

texts:
BB Warfield is famous for saying that the Reformation was a triumph of Augustine's soteriology over his ecclesiology. For those who believe that Augustine's ecclesiology was rejected in the Magisterial Reformation (i.e. not the Radical Reformation or the Anabaptist tradition or later developments like Pentecostalism), what key characteristics of Augustine's doctrine of the church were rejected by the Reformers? That would be people like Calvin and Luther. Citations of confessional documents are welcome too - Augsburg, Helvetic, Belgic, Westminster, etc.

Reminder: this question is about ecclesiology. If you want to talk about sola fide, go here


texts: How do protestant youth group ministers reach apathetic parents of religious education students?

texts:
Another year of teaching religious ed. is starting for me next week and one thing our DRE wants to emphasize, with the new diocesan norms mandating tests, of all things, is that we need more parental involvement.

I'm Catholic, but I'd like to know what Protestants do to get the parents of their students more involved in their children's religious education. Mostly, how do you overcome barriers when your student's parents don't attend services or come to many church events.


texts: Valid Reception of Baptized Christian into Full Communion (Roman Catholic)?

texts: When a person who is validly baptized outside the Roman Catholic Church is received into Full Communion, must they recite the profession of faith themselves ("I believe and profess that...")? I was at an Easter Vigil 2 yrs ago, in which the priest simply turned it into a question, and the candidate merely had to answer "I do". My understanding of liturgical law is that this is an invalid Reception into Full Communion. Yes? No?


texts: How can one cease to exist when Jesus and many Bible verses state that hell a real place?

texts:
I have a question regarding the topic of hell. How can anyone claim that there isn't a hell when Jesus clearly states that there is? Also, the Bible speaks of fire, screaming, and other horrific descriptions. Please explain how one can cease to exist when the Bible clearly states that people go to hell.

In other words, what is the biblical basis for annihilationism?


texts: Does the Catholic Church have a contingency plan for the case that the pope and all cardinals are dead?

texts:
Most modern democratic countries have a chain of command which can be triggered in case of disastrous events and is intended to ensure the continuity of the functioning of the country.

This chain of command also relies on the fact that there is a plan to get back to normality. This usually means that the person in command has a set of elections to call (at a gouvernemental level) or people are automatically promoted to the missing positions (army, companies, ...).

How would that work with the Catholic Church?

Let's imagine a case that during papal election all the electors (cardinals) die (accident, terrorist attack, ...). Let's also imagine that all of the cardinals are present (which is likely).

Is there a plan for such situation?

I am curious about that fact because in a democratic country the solution are popular elections (which bring in new rulers, from an extensive pool of candidates, though the voices of the population), in other institutions people would be automatically promoted to the new functions promotion. In contrast, the Catholic Church  only has a handful of electors (compared to the whole Church) and cardinals are explicitly nominated by the Pope (and nobody else). The candidate for Pope is also from the ranks of the cardinals.


texts: Why do Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, while Mark and John do not?

texts: Both Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, Matthew to Abraham, and Luke to Adam.  However, neither Mark nor John contain genealogies.  What is the reason for this--both for why Matthew and Luke do contain genealogies, and for why Mark and John do not?


texts: According to Catholic Church, to what extent is faith a gift of God in terms of Romans 12: 3?

texts:
We see St. Paul telling the Romans (Romans 12:3) the following:

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

We also see Jesus telling at Mtt 13:12:

For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

While Mtt 13:12 pre-supposes some basis measure of faith which one is supposed to gain through one's efforts so that God can top it up, Romans 12:3 appears to be telling that even the basic measure of faith one has, is assigned by God.
Interestingly, the list of Seven Gifts of Holy Spirit namely,  wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord, does not include  faith.
We also see Jesus getting rejected at  Nazareth, at Mark 6:5-6:

He could not perform any miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them. And He was amazed at their  unbelief.

Should one presume that the people of Jesus'home-town had been given zero measure of faith by God(going by Romans 12:3), on account of which they rejected Jesus?
My question therefore is: According to Catholic Church, to what extent is faith a gift of God in terms of Romans 12:3?


texts: Why is the Bishop of Jerusalem still Greek?

texts:
I understand that after the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 135 AD, that Jews (not even Christian Jews) were not allowed in Jerusalem, and that Christian bishops were forced to be gentiles. The last known bishop of Jewish descent was Judas of Jerusalem (135 AD). However, seemingly the Church has ample time to rectify this situation, especially since Constantine. But to this day, the Orthodox Church has not done so. The Patriarch of Jerusalem is still Greek.

I am considering converting to the Orthodox Church, but this bothers me tremendously. The evidence suggests to me that the earliest Jewish Christians were of Jewish descent as well as devout Christians. There is even evidence that there might have been another Gospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews, or at least that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic.  How can the Orthodox Church be the Church of Holy Tradition when we could possibly be missing a huge chunk of the most earliest tradition?

I am looking for answers from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Thanks!


texts: Why was the New Testament Written in Greek?

texts: New Testament was written in Greek. But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. I think it is probably fair to assume that he and his twelve apostles spoke Hebrew. Then why would the New Testament be written in Greek? I would think at least the Gospels part would be written in Hebrew.


texts: If the Devil is the Great Deceiver, how would I know that he's not deceiving me through Christianity?

texts:
I've always been a devout Christian, but I once had a terrifying thought while reading the Bible, and I'm scared I'm going to go to Hell.

At one point I began to question why God killed so many people throughout the course of the old testament, how he killed peoples' first born children, made people give their kids as sacrifices, flooded the entire Earth and killed almost everybody and everything, sent plagues upon people, burned down their cities and often commanded genocidal wars.

God also commands that everybody fear him and worship him, lest they should burn in Hell for all eternity.

Then, it occurred to me that the Devil is almost never mentioned in the Bible. He certainly isn't credited with killing very many people. He might actually have only killed about ten people in the entire Bible, if I remember correctly. Certainly nothing compared to the millions of people that God kills.

The things the Devil really did wrong were deny God as his king and try to give Adam and Eve the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I get that, but why is God the one discouraging knowledge? How could Adam and Eve have known it was inherently wrong to disobey God without having first HAD the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why is it that God didn't want them to have that knowledge?

I remember in Sunday school they referred to the Devil as the Great Deceiver. If he truly IS THE Deceiver, then wouldn't it stand to reason that his deceptive powers would be vast? His capacity for deception would be unparalleled? Could he go so far as to pretend to be God and convince the majority of the world's Christians, and maybe even Muslims, that he IS GOD? Could he convince people to lead crusades and inquisitions? Could he have guided the hand of man to have writ the Bible (and possibly the Qur'an??) for the purpose of striking the fear of Hell into the heart of man and ensuring a future of war and death? To convince everybody that they were wretches without HIM? To make everybody feel ashamed of their thoughts and emotions? Could he have convinced people that knowledge was evil?

I guess what I'm asking, from a vulnerable position is, could God as he is described in the Bible, actually be the Devil in disguise? Why would a loving and all-knowing God be trying to convince people that they should shun and hate gay people or people of other religions? God actually commands people to kill people because they are of different religions or races at different points in the Bible.

I didn't want to end up hating God as I read the Bible, but by the end of it, I'm afraid I kind of developed a disdain for Him. Even the New Testament, with its morbid demise of Jesus Christ and its prophecies of Revelation, all just seems to be designed to terrify people and make them feel bad about themselves and make them look forward to nothing but a future of fiery apocalypse and uncertainty. It all seems to be designed to make people think they are bad people if they don't follow God's code of law. And then I look around me and I see how hateful most Christians are toward people that are different than them and I assume that the Devil's deception must be working. One day, when the Revelation comes to fruition, and some evil politician wins the Christian vote because he claims to be Christian, I'm afraid it will be the Christians that first follow him right into Hell. I'm afraid I'm already seeing this happening in society today. I'm a Christian that is afraid he has discovered a terrifying underlying message inherent in the Bible, and I hope I'm wrong. Can someone weigh in on this?


texts: Acts 6:8 - Stephen is described as "full of grace" (πλήρης χάριτος)

texts:
In Acts 6:8, according to some manuscripts the Greek text states,

  Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ. (NA28)

which is translated by the NABRE into English as,

  Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.

The Greek πλήρης χάριτος literally means "full of grace" (cp. John 1:14). In the Vulgate, St. Jerome translated that Greek phrase into Latin as plenus gratia, the equivalent of gratia plena in Luke 1:28, the only exception being plenus declined in the masculine gender referring to Stephen and plena being declined in the feminine gender referring to Mary (and the word order which is inconsequential).

That being said, it is reasoned by Catholics that the virgin Mary was sinless because she is gratia plena, "full of grace." Can it be also said of Stephen that he, like Mary, was born without original sin and that he also never sinned, since he too is described as being plenus gratia? Why or why not?


texts: Why do Catholic laity cross themselves three times before the Gospel is read?

texts:
Why does the laity (and sometimes the priest) cross themselves 3 time before the Gospel is read?

Like holding hands during the Lord's Prayer, and unlike bowing at the mention of the Incarnation during the Creed, it's not something that is called out in any of the missals or Mass cards I've ever seen in the pews, but it seems to be a pretty common practice; at least in my diocese.


texts: What do Orthodox Christians mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

texts: The Orthodox Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Orthodox understanding?


texts: What arguments would you give to teenagers who are unconcerned about eternal life?

texts:
So the kids in my catechism class aren't all that into the notion of living forever.

That's kind of depressing, but I don't think its anything we can't get around.  However, what do you tell a kid, who is just starting their life, to invest all this time and energy in learning about Christ and His Church in order to go to Heaven at some far off date when all they want to do is grow up and live out their mortal life?

Their attitude reflects what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Spe Salvi

  Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end—this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable.

But even the notion of living forever is lost on them.  They were literally surprised that the point of going to Church and begin good, having a strong faith, etc... is so that we can live again with Christ.  I called it "living forever", maybe there's a better way to explain it.  I think they thought I was crazy, but I didn't think it was necessary to say, "well, you have to die first".

Somehow the sweetness and succor of heaven is lost on the young.  So how do you help to instill in kids a desire to be with Christ forever?


texts: Which virtue did only Jesus teach and practice?

texts:
Almost all religions teach good morals and virtues to their followers. In the case of Christianity the Lord Jesus Christ is not only the center of Christianity, but also the highest perfect model that Christians should follow.
Jesus taught and practiced many virtues that we read in the New Testament, some of which can be seen in some form in other religions that preexist Christianity. However, there are some teachings that Jesus taught and practiced which do not seem to be present in any ancient religions. Therefore, my question: Is there any virtue or teaching based on the New Testament that is unique to Jesus till today?


texts: What is the biblical/logical basis for rejecting the "physical" interpretation of Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?

texts:
Is there any verse in the Bible or a logical construction disproving the "physical" position on Christ's being the Only Begotten Son?

I had a conversation with a Mormon and he told me that Lucifer was a brother of Christ. When I referred him to these verses:

  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God
  sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through
  him (1 John 4:9, KJV)

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
  whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
  (John 3:16, NKJV)

he said that when the Bible says that Christ is the Only Begotten Son, it must be understood in terms of His physical birth, however both Lucifer and Christ had been born of God spiritually even prior to Christ's physical birth.


texts: What is the difference between Protestantism vs Protestants?

texts:
According to me Protestants are the one who doesn't pray to Mary.

I also came across the Protestantism which speaks about the 95 Theses which Martin Luther started against indulgence.

I don't see any relationship with Protestants and Protestantism. Are they same? Or Protestants came from Protestantism?

Rectify me if Iam wrong.


texts: Does the Evangelical Free Church allow women elders?

texts:
I'm a member of an Evangelical Free church and one of the members of my Sunday school class made an impassioned plea for us to nominate several women to be elders.  Currently our church has no women elders and never has as far as I know.  I also am certain that the denomination does not allow women in pastoral or board of directors positions.  But the only statement I can find is from Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE):

  Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) www.ecfa.org

  Women may not serve as pastors, elders, or deacons. Men who are not ordained and women who would like to be involved in ministry may be
  granted the "Christian Ministry License."

  —"US Denominations and Their Stances on
  Women in Leadership" [PDF]

The trouble with this is that I our church does have women deacons.  I'd like to know what the official policy is and what arguments are made for the denomination's position.


texts:
As a Christian, how should I understand the book of Esther?

Meaning, what does it tell me, and what should I take from it to make me a better Christians, or even not to make me a better Christian what should I take from it?

Or maybe, as quoted from this answer?

  Anyway, Esther is in the Christian Bible because it is in the Jewish Bible. Why would the Jews include it in their Bible? Chiefly because it tells the story for one of their feasts, that of Purim. Purim is a joyous festival in which they act out the story of Esther by reading through the book of Esther.


texts: What traditions include "dearly departed" Christians as participants in communion?

texts:
I've seen some treatments of communion that encourage one to celebrate that their dearly departed relatives are coming up to an invisible railing behind the wall. This seemed to be a great sentiment but I was unclear on what Biblical or catechismal support they were using for this practice.

What Christian traditions specifically teach this sort of including the departed in communion? Is this practice something common to all Christian sects that profess a "real presence" of Christ in communion (i.e. does it have a place in the Catholic catechism, Presbyterian Common Book of Prayer, Book of Concord, etc.?) or is it isolated to a more specific doctrinal tradition? Can anyone trace the origin of this tradition?


texts: How do Christians reconcile God's omnipotence with his omniscience?

texts:
If God is truly omniscient as in "all knowing", then God knows everything including the future.  But doesn't this then remove his choice to do something other than the choices he takes in the future he knows of?  In which case he is not omnipotent?  Or conversely, if he can truly do anything because he is "all powerful", this has to make the future uncertain even to himself.

How can these two common claims about God be reconciled?

(There are definitely different ways to interpret "omniscience" and "omnipotence", and not all of them are going to be biblically relevant or logically reasonable.  I imagine that these claims represent formalized, philosophical representations of God which might not have an exact biblical basis (like I suspect the Trinity does) -- not meaning they are biblically incorrect but just not necessarily exactly correct in the way a human might understand them.  Still, I think this is a relevant question.)


texts: Did John Bunyan really dream the Pilgrim's Progress? Had he memorized all the verses?

texts:
This is the beginning of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan:

  As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a den, and laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and behold, I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back.
  I'm referring to the story Pilgrim's Progress.

I believe it was written while he was imprisoned. My question is, did he really literally dream this dream, and write it down, or was it like he had written "in a land far far away ... ?"

Secondly, Pilgrim's Progress is just filled with Bible verses everywhere (one of the things that impresses me most about the book.) If this book was written while in prison for preaching, how did he have access to a Bible in order to cite all these verses? Or did he have them all memorized?


texts:
I have been reading up on various eschatological views and I have noticed an argument that I have not been able to find a detail about. It seems to be a common assertion by the Catholic and Orthodox that the Rapture, as portrayed by the Left Behind series, is non biblical because it calls for three "comings" of Jesus.

catholic.org puts it eloquently enough,

  The problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulational view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings—one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. This three-comings view is foreign to Scripture.

Does the bible specifically limit the number of times that Jesus comes to earth? Why would it be a problem for Jesus to come again before the "Second Coming"? Where does this "only two comings" requirement come from?


texts: Who can give the sacrament of confirmation in the Catholic Church?

texts: Out of curiosity, when someone plans to recieve the Sacrament of Confirmation, do they have to recieve this Sacrament from a bishop or cardinal, or can any ordained minister give this Sacrament?


texts: According to Catholicism, in what cases is Purgatory necessary?

texts:
As I understand it, there are at least two "steps" necessary for a person to reach Heaven; I hope this description is valid from nearly all Christian viewpoints. First the person has to choose to follow Jesus, "believe". While willing to change in order to follow, there is not yet much outward evidence that he/she is a new person. Second, Christ is the one who changes the person (with the person's cooperation), and that is usually a gradual process.

Catholic doctrine accepts Purgatory as a place one may go to after death; as I understand it the primary purpose is to complete the change, so the person is ready for Heaven.

According to this answer, not only the thief on the cross but apparently many who are preparing for baptism or recently baptized when they die, have no need to spend time in purgatory.

In essence, Christ's "fishing strategy" seems to be:

Catch a fish (don't clean it first).
"Clean": sancify, make Holy, prepare for Heaven.
Harvest: Either at death or rapture, the person enters God's realm.
Purgatory: If necessary, complete the process of cleaning.
Process complete: The person is now a full citizen of Heaven.

Yet apparently for the thief on the cross and some new believers who die while awaiting or shortly after baptism, there is no need for the "cleaning" process, either on Earth or in Purgatory. Can someone explain the Roman Catholic view of this?

I hope my somewhat crude description is not offensive. I will change the language if it is a problem.


texts: Origin of the idea that "demons" and "fallen angels" are the same thing?

texts:
Background

So I'm studying angels and demons right now, attempting to put together a picture of what the Bible teaches on these topics, and I'm struggling to find anything in the Bible that suggests that "demons" are the same thing as "fallen angels"! I'll admit that it would make things much simpler to explain if we could just assume that demons are fallen angels, but I need more to go off of than just convenience. :-) So I'm thinking the origin of this popular idea must be extra-biblical?

Question

Most of the sources I've come across simply assume that demons and fallen angels are the same thing. My question is why? Where does the idea come from that demons and fallen angels are the same thing? It is prevalent enough, but I can't find a source on it.

Failed Attempts

I came across a Catholic teaching on the topic, and they simply asserted it and cited verses where demons are mentioned... but none of the verses actually said anything about fallen angels. I came across a Catholic forum that ended in someone simply asserting that demons are by definition fallen angels... but I know people who believe they are different, so it can't simply be a dictionary definition thing. I've looked all over Scripture and the closest thing I can find is that Satan is in charge of demons and Satan is in charge of fallen angels... but that doesn't tell me that they're the same.

Difficulties to Address

The difficulty I'm having in simply assuming they are the same (besides not having a good reason to assume this) is that Scripture portrays angels -- and even Satan (a fallen angel) as spiritual beings that manifest as men, radient beings, etc., as if they're somewhat similar to people, but generally invisible to us. Demons, on the other hand, are portrayed as spirits that are extremely uncomfortable with being outside of a physical creature. When Jesus cast out a group of demons, they begged and pleaded with Him to at least let them go into the pigs nearby (etc.) I get the picture that demons are like internal parasites, whereas angels -- even fallen angels, are like people who walk, talk, etc. but have some differences like being invisible, extremely powerful, etc.

A Good Answer

I would welcome sound logical arguments from Scripture, but in the absence of such arguments, any historical background on when Christians began equating these two terms would be sufficient. Just wondering where the idea comes from, as I'm assuming it wasn't just an unfounded assumption that all the prominent Bible scholars now accept without question!


texts: Did Justin Martyr and Marcion of Sinope have any contact with one another?

texts:
I'm interested to discover if there is any evidence that Justin Martyr and Marcion of Sinope had any direct or indirect contact before Marcion left the Church.

I suspect that they may have had indirect contact through writing because they were both influential and outspoken members of a relatively small educated Christian community around the same time – Marcion was 15 years older than Justin. Also, while Justin established himself in Rome, it is well known that Irenaeus of Gaul was heavily influenced by Justin's work and published his own writings only 15 years after Justin, so I suspect that Justin's work was widespread during his lifetime, perhaps early enough to be considered by Marcion.

These suspicions, however, are weakened by the fact that I do not know when Justin became widely known or when Marcion left the church. Is there any evidence that Marcion read any of Justin's works, or that the two communicated in any way, either directly or indirectly?


texts: What is the basis for the idea of 7,000 years of human history, expressed by Larkin and others?

texts:
Clarence Larkin projects a 7,000 year timeline of human history with each 1,000 years tied to a day of creation.

What is the doctrinal or biblical basis for this theory?


texts: How do Eternal Security adherents interpret Ezekiel 18:21-18 and 33:12-16?

texts:
Note: for better readability, the relevant parts of the quoted passages are in bold.
Ezekiel 18:21-28 (ESV):

21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? 24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? 26 When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. 27 Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. 28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

Ezekiel 33:12-16 (ESV):

12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. 13 Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. 14 Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live.

When I first read these passages, my immediate impression was that a righteous person could certainly lose their salvation if for whatever reason they decided to abandon the narrow path and turn to evil. To see whether other people were in the same interpretative boat as me, I decided to post this question on Hermeneutics.SE, which received a very prompt and comprehensive reply by a high rep user who essentially said "Yes, I agree". That's personally relieving, but at the same time problematic if one adheres to the doctrine of Eternal Security, because it is a direct contradiction to its postulate that salvation cannot be lost.
Question: How do Eternal Security adherents interpret Ezekiel 18:21-18 and Ezekiel 33:12-16 (quoted above)? Do they find these passages problematic or challenging?


texts: Why did Our Lady of Lourdes say "I am the Immaculate Conception" and not "I am immaculately conceived" or "I am the Mother of God"?

texts: In 1858 St. Bernadette asked for the name of the beautiful Lady who was appearing to her. The Beautiful Lady answered her "I am the Immaculate Conception." Why didn't she simply tell her she was the Mother of God? Or why didn't she say "I am immaculately conceived."


texts: According to Catholicism and Revelation are we going to be able to eat meat in Heaven or the Garden of Eden?

texts: Will be able to eat meat or will we be like Adam and Eve eating a non-meat based diet in heaven or the Garden of Eden?


texts:
The comments to this response suggest that there is such a thing as a Christian who does not believe in God. To me, that is rather contradictory, sort of like social networking without all of the people.

So...

how does it work?

What are the major authors?
Do they have a denomination?

Are there any statistics related to them? (How many, location mostly)


texts: Why do images of saints often depict them with unusual hand gestures?

texts:
Many saints are often depicted holding a book or some other object. However, I have noticed that there are quite a few that have unusual hand gestures. Why is this?
Augustine of Hippo
Index finger, middle finger, and ring finger together, other fingers spread out

Ignatius of Antioch
Ring finger and pinky against thumb

Justin Martyr
Index finger against thumb, middle finger extended
I'm going to assume that the modern vulgar meaning for this gesture was not intended.

Cyril of Jerusalem
Index and middle fingers crossed, ring finger against thumb

John Chrysostom
Ring finger against thumb, back perspective


texts: Did Mosaic covenants follow Ancient Near East Suzerain Treaties or was it the other way around?

texts:
I often heard theologians said that Mosaic covenant followed the structure of Ancient Near East (ANE) treaties that were there in Moses' time. For example, here is the view of Meredith Kline: Suzerain Treaties & The Covenant Documents the Bible.

Why do some theologians argue that the Mosaic covenant follows ANE treaties?

I'm rather inclined to think otherwise that ANE treaties were derived from Noahic covenant and Mosaic covenant followed the pattern of previous biblical covenants (Adamic, Abrahamaic, Noahic). The reason is as follows. All human in ANE region (if not the whole world) were derived from Noah (Gen. 9:19) and his sons because of the Great Flood. Right after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:1-17). After the covenant, the Scripture recounts the descendants of Noah's sons (Gen. 10). The knowledge of the covenant was passed down through them, even until Moses' time, who then wrote everything down. We also see that Laban and Jacob made a covenant. Jacob swore by YHWH., but Laban swore not by YHWH, but rather by the god of Nahor.  So, the concept of covenant lingers in both believers and unbelievers.

Hence, I would rather believe that ANE people had an understanding of a covenant (or treaty) from the covenant of Noah. Also, God who had previously made covenants with Adam, Abraham, and Noah followed the same pattern when He made another covenant with Moses.

What are some evidences against my argument?

Thank you.


texts: On what scriptural/traditional bases do some churches allow gay marriage?

texts:
I have seen some pro-gay-marriage churches lately. The thing is, I don't understand on what scriptural or traditional (to include Old Catholics and Anglicans) do they take such a stance?

I'm not for or against it. I'm just asking how they do support their position.


texts: Why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants?

texts:
I know that Roman Catholics baptize infants, because they believe that infants need to be cleansed of original sin, and that the denial of baptism at infancy by Christian parents is tantamount to the denial of God's grace for the child. So, why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants then? And how come they practice baptism by immersion on infants, as shown in this photograph?

These are related questions.


texts: What is the eugenic "indication" in Casti Connubii?

texts:
In Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Connubii, we read:

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits

Within the context of paragraph 66, the "indication" (eugenicæ indicationis) is condemned when exploited "for the killing of the innocent", e.g., abortion (cf. paragraph 63).
But in the larger context,

What is eugenic "indication"? Presumably it is related to "hereditary transmission" of genetic traits (cf. paragraph 68).
What is a lawful employment of this eugenic "indication"?


texts: What is the full meaning of Mathew 24:36-51 from a view of Methodists or Baptist

texts:
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

From a Baptist or Methodist perspective, is this Jesus talking about Revelation or his death? I have taken many time reading over this but I cannot find a good answer.
Also is it a coincidence that these verses come right after a section about the end of times?


texts: Why are the Jesuits and Society of the Sacred Heart gender specific?

texts: Why is it impossible for women to join the Jesuit order but must instead join Society of the Sacred Heart?  Is there something in the initiation ritual that would exclude women?


texts: Has T. D. Jakes clarified what he believes about the Trinity?

texts:
T. D. Jakes is a popular American pastor and speaker who was ordained within Oneness Pentecostalism, a modern modalist group which denies the Trinity.

Jakes has in recent times moved towards Trinitarian Christianity. Wikipedia records that in 2012 he affirmed the trinity, but "did not affirm the eternality of the individual persons."

Jakes has been invited to popular Protestant events such as the Hillsong Conference. His lack of clarity on whether he fully endorses the doctrine of the Trinity has concerned many people (and led them to say that his conference hosts have lacked discernment.)

Has Jakes clarified since 2012 whether or not he fully endorses and believes in the Trinity as defined in the Nicene, Athanasian, and/or Chalcedonian creeds?


texts:
I know Jesus was a Jew. Jews are circumcised and don't eat pork. Was Jesus circumcised and did he eat pork?

If so, why are these two things not primary ingredients of Christianity?
I thought, to be a good Christian you have to be like Jesus.


texts: I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events.  What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?


texts: According to the Catholic commentators, was Mary the original candidate for mother of God?

texts:
Is it possible to think that another woman before Mary had been asked by an angel to be the mother of God, but the incarnation did not happen at that time because she rejected the proposal?

In the other words, does the Catholic Church teach that Mary the first woman asked to be mother of God?


texts:
Her name is BATHsheba and she is famous for her bath on the rooftop...

Is this just some goofy English translation going on, or just a strange coincidence?


texts: On which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded?

texts:
I read that Leslie Dixon Weatherhead, an English Christian theologian, made every effort to present Mary as a very pure, sincere, immature, young maiden who simply had interpreted the Angel's Annunciation as a divine instruction to stay for three months with her cousin's husband, Zechariah, and that was when Jesus was conceived.

Then, excluding the case that Leslie was either a crazy man or an illiterate man, which doesn't seem true, on which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded?


texts:
I'm looking for a concise bullet point breakdown :)

And some things specific to Christian Process eschatology. I have lots of books and articles with lots of information but am looking for a small summary of its main ideas and the principles that characterise and distinguish it from other eschatology.

Thank you :)


texts: Did Judas Iscariot participate in the First Holy Eucharist?

texts:
At John 13:1-30 we see the narrative of the last Passover meal that Jesus partook with his disciples, in which  Judas is identified as the one who would betray him :

  .... After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” ....  So while reclining next to Jesus, he (John )  asked him, “Lord, who is it?” .  Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night

Now, the Gospel according John does not contain an explcit narration of the Institution of Holy Eucharist . Reading that with I Corinthians 11:25 which says  that the supper had been ended as Jesus took the cup calling it  the new covenant of His Blood, one is inclined to believe that Judas had left the venue even before the Eucharist was constituted.

My question therefore, is: Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot  participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper ? If it does not, why do the images of Last Supper that we have,  contain the picture of twelve Apostles ?


texts: What is an overview of classifications of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) by denominations who adhere to the tripartite division of the Law?

texts:
Many denominations believe in the tripartite division of the Old Testament Law into moral, ceremonial and civil (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4). However, it is not clear to me how each denomination classifies each one of the Law's 613 commandments, and in particular, the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11).
By asking this question, I'm looking for an answer that:

provides an overview of how different denominations that adhere to the tripartite division of the Law classify the Sabbath.
provides the biblical basis generally used to support each classification, and
explains the implications of each classification, i.e., does it matter whether the Sabbath is classified as a moral, ceremonial or civil law in terms of how Christians should live their lives today?


texts:
I was reading about henotheism and it hinted at the fact that some Christians believe that angels are intercessors.

Quite simply, do angels pray for us?  Can we ask angels for intercession?


texts:
There have been many "calculations" done by various people from various Christian denominations concerning the precise date of the end of the world, like Harold Camping and 21st of May 2011. Despite those numerous instances of people figuring out the time this event was to occur, I can't find any sources to the exact math behind such claims.

Are there any resources like that available anywhere so one could verify such math and find out the flaws of the "scientific" reasoning behind them? If those are available, have they been revealed before the predicted date was to occur?


texts: What does the Emerging church see itself as emerging from?

texts:
Despite the fact that the emergent/emerging Church is a fairly nebulous and relatively undefined concept, without a centralized organization or structure, they chose the term terms emergent/emerging to describe the movement.

What does that the Emerging church see itself as emerging from?


texts: What is home and visiting teaching in LDS tradition?

texts: What is the LDS practice of home/visiting teaching? Are they the same thing? Where did this originate, as I don't know of other sects which have the same practice... at least with those terms.


texts: How do protestants understand Jesus' statement that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man we will have no life?

texts:
Catholics teach that they literally eat the body of Jesus during communion, a belief called Transubstantiation. Protestant churches mostly do not share this belief and there is no obligation to partake in the Holy Communion every Sunday.

  Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53, NKJV)

What common interpretations do protestants have of this verse?

Here is how I understand this verse.

Given

Jesus Christ = The Word of God (John 1:14)
The Word of God = Bible (2 Timothy 3:16)
Jesus Christ = Bread of Heaven (John 6:51)

Assuming read=intake=eat, we have

Reading Bible = Reading the Word of God
Reading the Word of God = Eating Bread of Heaven
Eating Bread of Heaven = Eating Jesus Christ

Therefore

Reading Bible = Eating Jesus Christ

  But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4, NKJV)

This verse may imply that we need the Word of God every day. Therefore,

Reading Bible every day = Eating Jesus Christ every day

Is this a common understanding of "eating Jesus" by Protestant Christians?


texts: According to Catholics were Adam and Eve aware that they possessed immortal souls before Satan told Eve that she would not die?

texts:
Eve's comment to Satan in Eden seems to indicate that she and Adam believed that eating of the forbidden tree would result in absolute death.
They likely had witnessed the death of animals and would have understood what death was like.
Catholics subscribe to the belief that the physical body is all that dies and the soul continues alive. This sounds very much like what Satan told Eve: "Thou shall certainly not die" (Genesis 3:4).
Do Catholics believe that Satan lied to Eve or that he revealed to her that she had an immortal soul that until then she was unaware of?


texts: How do you know that you are reborn of Spirit?

texts:
This is by far one of the most profound questions in Christianity today. We have so many different denominations stating many different things. I know that this is a large debate, but go ahead and post your position alone.

My question revolves around assurance for "born of the spirit." How can somebody be absolutely assured that they have the Holy Spirit living inside of them?


texts: Defending your honor against a superior who accuses you falsely

texts:
Does the Bible say that an individual has an obligation to defend themselves in court (or in the court of public opinion) against an individual who you believe has some authority over you (like a wife who takes Corinthians literally, or a religious or military superior)?

Many of the saints have gone down in history for not defending themselves in big things, like St. Gerard, and in little things, like St. Therese. Moreover, Jesus says that you are blessed when accused falsely because of Him.  Are you still blessed when accused falsely and you offer up your hardship for Him?

I'd like answers from a Biblical perspective, but if there are examples from the lives of the saints or just Natural Law and common sense, I'd appreciate that too. But I'm not looking for personal pastoral advice, just help to find the information that I can use to help someone else think through things more clearly.


texts: What does the Bible tell us about how people knew right from wrong before the Law of Moses?

texts:
Before "Thou shalt not kill/steal/lie" was given through the Mosaic law, how did people know what was right from wrong? How did they know what sin was?

Clearly there are examples of people having some moral standard pre-law, like when Abimelech knew it would have been wrong to sleep with a man's wife, or Joseph saying that his brother's evil deed of selling him into slavery was turned into good by God.


texts: Are there any conflicts between how Jesus is described in the Book of Mormon vs how He is described in the Bible?

texts:
I'm interested in knowing if there are any conflicts between the Book of Mormon's Jesus and the Bible's Jesus. Are their natures different? Is what they commanded different? I'm looking for any supporting text that would reveal to me whether the the Book of Mormon does or does not speak about the same Jesus Christ that the Bible talks about.

Any denomination may answer.


texts: Does the Bible forbid a man from dressing like a woman?

texts:
Are there any verses in the Old or New Testaments that forbid a man from dressing like a woman?

My question was prompted by this news article about the Harvest Crusade event and the comments that followed.


texts: Why is the Holy Spirit often referred as "Ghost"?

texts: Why is the Holy Spirit often referred as the Holy "Ghost"? Does not the term ghost usually used in a negative connotation that relates to "scaring away"?


texts: Under what conditions can a "good" or "charitable" act actually be sin?

texts:
In spite of a prevalent cultural attitude towards sin that excuses misbehavior if a person had "good intentions", most Christian traditions do not seem to include the persons feelings in the matter when defining an action as sin or not. However the converse does not seem to be as frequently addressed. Are there Christian traditions that have specific teachings about a "good" action being still sinful under some conditions? If so, what are do these teachings consider the basis of sin and how would a worldly good dead not meet those conditions?

Lets use an example:

Where I live street beggars are common place. Just as common place is the act of fishing in ones pocket for a coin or two to leave with them. Where in any Christian traditions teaching would this be dealt with as a potential sin trap? How would these teachings define sin in such a way that even an act of deliberate charity could be considered sinful?

Note: For the purpose of this question we can rule out what the beggar chooses to do with the money. This isn't about unintended consequences of that action down the road. Likewise I would eliminate "sins of omission" from the discussion in so far as this isn't about what else I could have done with the money or what more good I could have done and didn't.


texts: Do the Dead Sea scrolls describe any prophecy which was fulfilled after they were written?

texts: Is there any manuscript among the Dead Sea scrolls, which foretold something that happened after the manuscript was written?


texts: How does Christianity view such persons who are Xianpo(s)?

texts:
I live in China, and there is a kind of person called Xianpo here. The Xianpo can talk to the dead soul, and the soul can tell the Xainpo what he saw.
One day, I told the Xianpo that I met a woman, so the Xianpo said to me the following things:
The Xianpo said:

She has neither promised nor refused to fall in love with me now.
She is my classmate.
She is a little shorter than me.
She is a outsider.
She has a good figure, an oval face, and her face is white and beautiful.
I miss her so I can't sleep at night.
She has long hair.

I met this woman recently. The Xianpo hasn't seen her, but she can describe her figure and appearance very accurately.
The Xianpo also said that some people have mental disorders because their souls have entered hell and married female souls.
How does Christianity view such Xianpo? What is the biblical basis of this phenomenon?
My respond：

Even if all Jesus encountered were evil souls, it cannot be said that all those with this ability are evil souls. It is unreasonable to say that others are evil just because of this ability.

I live in a place where I don't know what Jesus is, and I am more curious about Jesus.


texts: Do Protestants believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

texts:
Many, many times, I've seen or heard "Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers".
Technically, it's true. Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are sons of God, and by dictionary definition, people can extend this to say "brothers". (Jesus's is also God's son in the flesh as well as in the spirit, but nonetheless, the statement holds true.)
For example

One answer to what is different about Jesus in the LDS faith is that Jesus and Satan are brothers.

There is According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, what is the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer?, which boils down to "spirit brothers".

And literally hundreds more instances as seen with a simple Google search.

My surprise, I suppose, is that this is a surprise. I had thought other Christians believed the same thing, technically.
Possibly relevent scriptures:
God has sons (angels?)

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(Job 38:4–7 (KJV))

And Satan is a fallen angel... a (disowned) son of God?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (Isaiah 14:12)

And Jesus is a son of god:

I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

Does mainstream Protestantism believe that Jesus and the devil are "brothers"? If so, does the belief differ from Mormonism in any way? If not, what is the belief and how does it differ?


texts: What is the significance of verb choices in Genesis 1?

texts:
I was surprised recently when I read Genesis 1 again, and noticed how inactive God is during the creation process.  I mean that from a literary standpoint, not a literal one... bear with me. :)

Below is a summary of the creation actions described in Genesis 1:

1:1 -- God created heavens and earth

One

1:3 -- there was light

Two

1:4 -- God separated light and dark

Three

1:7 -- God made vault
1:9 -- it was so
1:11 -- it was so
1:12 -- the land produced

Four

1:15 -- it was so
1:16 -- God made two great lights
1:17 -- God set them

Five

1:20 -- God created sea creatures, and winged birds
1:22 -- God blessed them

Six

1:24 -- it was so
1:25 -- God made wild animals
1:27 -- God created mankind, he created them, he created them
1:28 -- God blessed them

I find it interesting the verb choice used here.  A few observations:

4 of the 6 creation days use passive voice to describe creation events. The phrase "It was so" occurs 4 times, in addition to the passive phrases "there was light" and "the land produced." (I know that "produced" is not technically a passive verb, but it doesn't show God's active involvement in the process here.)
The verb "create" is used only 5 times--and three of those times are in the same verse, to describe the same action (verse 1:27). The verb "make" is used an additional three times (1:7, 1:16, 1:25)
God blesses sea creatures and birds, and humans, and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. But not land-animals.

My primary question is: What is the significance of the verb "create" during the creation account?  It's only used to describe the creation of "the heavens and the earth," "sea creatures and birds," and "humans" (and it's used three times to describe humans).  I can see the creation of humans as special and distinct, and therefore worthy of special attention in the form of repeating that God created humans.  But what's so special about fish and birds?

And a secondary question is: What's the significance of the use of passive voice in the creation account?

And finally: Am I reading too much into this?  :)


texts: Was Martin Luther a Protestant or a Traditionalist Catholic?

texts: Martin Luther, a Catholic monk who rebelled against the malpractices of the Pope and hegemony of the Vatican said ''I have not left the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has left me'', believed in almost all practices and rituals of Catholicism, such as infant baptism, veneration of Virgin Mary, use of idols and crosses in prayer, transubstantiation during the Eucharist, etc. He even considered the prominent figures of the Protestant Reformation, such as Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, etc as deviants. He just challenged the infallibility of the Papacy and absolute authority of the Vatican in socio-religious affairs. Was Luther a 'Protestant' or a Traditionalist Catholic?


texts: If we're not specifically instructed to do something, can we?

texts:
My question is spawned from the Church of Christ doctrine. I go to a Church of Christ university and our chapel is fully a Capella. However I've been raised baptist and music was always a part of every service. My school has tried to teach that since we are not instructed to use instruments, we CANNOT use instruments. Although not pastors or anything, I've heard some Church of Christ disciples say that the only instrument God ever made is the human voice.

From what I've read around the internet, some say it's tradition, others say that since God hasn't told us we can then we can't (I've heard this called the "null argument").

Personally I believe God is more about "Do Nots" instead of focusing on "Dos" when it comes to how we live our lives. According to this table at Wikipedia, there are 12 important facts conveyed in the 10 commandments (no matter how you group them together). Of those 12 facts, 9 of them are "Do Nots."

Am I wrong to believe that if we're not specifically told to do something, it's allowed? I'm not trying to be overly literal, I understand there are blanket statements that do affect many things we are not specifically told not to do.


texts: How does praying the rosary becomes a spiritual sword that can slay the dragon?

texts:
Fr. Donald Calloway make the following statement:

  The rosary was forged in an age of chivalry.  It is a spiritual
  weapon, a heavenly sword, fashioned by the hands of a Divine
  Craftsman.  All swords take time and skill to make, but this heavenly
  sword required the greatest of efforts — centuries — to produce.  It
  is a weapon unlike any other.  It has the power to slay dragons
  (demons), converts sinners, and conquer hearts.  The blade of this
  sword was forged in the living Word of God, shaped by the hammer of
  divine inspiration, and entrusted to the Queen of Heaven and her
  chosen servants.
  How the Word of God Enables Us to Defeat the Devil

What I found fascinating is the phrase "It has the power to slay dragons (demons),"

Looking at all the powerful statements of the popes & saints below it somehow speaks of defeating the devil like:

Father Amorth adds:

  “During an exorcism, Satan told me, through the possessed person,
  ‘Every Hail Mary of the Rosary is a blow to the head for me; if
  Christians knew the power of the Rosary, it would be the end of me!’”

"He also said at this time,

  "Anyone who goes to Mary and prays the Rosary cannot be touched by
  Satan."(Fr. Amorth)

Words of popes and saints on the holy rosary;

  “The Rosary is a powerful weapon to put the demons to flight and to
  keep oneself from sin"–(Pope Pius XI)

  The rosary is the scourge of the devil~(Pope Adrian VI)

  “There is another related in the Chronicles of St. Dominic. Near
  Carcassonne, where St. Dominic was preaching the Rosary, there was an
  unfortunate heretic who was possessed by a multitude of devils. These
  evil spirits to their confusion were compelled at the command of our
  Lady to confess many great and consoling truths concerning devotion to
  her. They did this so clearly and forcibly that, however weak our
  devotion to our Lady may be, we cannot read this authentic story
  containing such an unwilling tribute paid by the devils to devotion to
  our Lady without shedding tears of joy.”(Saint Louis Marie de Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary)

As we can see the rosary is a weapon against the devil as attested by numerous popes & well-known saints.

As St. Padre Pio famously said,

  "The Rosary is the 'weapon' for these times."

What I'm looking for?

A solid Catholic biblical perspective, similar or related commentaries and teaching to prove the claim of Fr. Donald Calloway that praying the holy rosary is a weapon to slay the dragons(satan and his devils) making it a powerful spiritual sword.


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, does Jesus make the same claim as God, that he is the "first and the last,"?

texts:
Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

But Jesus Christ makes the same claim in Revelation:

  Revelation 1:8: I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

  Revelation 1:17-18: And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death."

  Revelation 21:5-6: And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold I am making all things new." And He said to me, "It is done I am the Alpha and Omega."

The point or the scope of my question has to do with the "eternality" of Jesus Christ. And since He is eternal according to John 1:1-3 He is also the one who will make all things new.

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how and why does Jesus make these statements, when according to their teaching he is not one being with God the Father?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don’t believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God?

My main question is this: What is the LDS view of the Trinity?
As a Catholic, I believe that the Trinity is One Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in three persons (consubstantial).
I guess my question boils down to this, do they (LDS) believe that the Trinity is One, or three separate beings?


texts: What made Luther a heretic and not a schismatic?

texts:
I know the difference between heresy and schism, but I don't know why various Protestant reformation leaders, Martin Luther in particular, wouldn't have been satisfied by merely being a schismatic group.  Were there any reformers who rebelled against papal and church authority, but didn't attempt to change any of the other doctrines of the Catholic Church?

What happened that caused Luther to go from the 95 thesis, which pales in comparison to anything a modern day Lefebrite might say about the Catholic Church, to outright rejection of the core tenants of the Catholic Faith?  Did he even reject them initially or did the Catholic Church leaders somehow coax him into heresy?


texts: What does Pentecostalism consider Prophetic Fine Art to be?

texts:
In many Pentecostal churches, they talk about prophetic art - pictures/paintings with prophetic value. And of course, the Catholic Church is full of art, but do they consider their churches art prophetic?

Is there any scripture on what is prophetic art? Does this make the artist a prophet?


texts: According to Catholicism, why was the rabbit declared as unclean for the people of Israel?

texts: At Leviticus 11:6, the Lord, while narrating the standards that define animals which are clean or unclean for consumption by the people of Israel, describes the rabbit  as follows: " The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you." . Now, Zoology does not enlist the rabbit among animals that chew the cud, through it appears to be doing so while eating its food. The Lord would have taken into account  the said appearance of rabbit (of chewing the cud) while describing it as an unclean animal. But, before making any assumption, I would like to know if there are any official teachings from the side of Catholic Church available on the topic on why the rabbit was classified as unclean.


texts: What is (or where can I find) a summary of David J Bartholomew's views on God and Chance?

texts:
I note that David J. Bartholomew has written extensively on a theological view of chance. What is a brief summary of the views he expresses on this topic in the following works or elsewhere:

God of Chance
Uncertain Belief : Is it Rational to be a Christian?
God, Chance and Purpose: Can God Have It Both Ways?

Additionally or alternatively, where can I find on-line reviews of these works?


texts: What is the argument *for* prosperity gospel?

texts:
Prosperity gospel, as I understand it, is the teaching that God wants to bless us with wealth and health. I can't really see this in the Bible. For example, Paul writes in 2 Cor 12:7-10 (ESV):

7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Or, looking at what Jesus has said:

Matt 22:10 (ESV) and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
John 15:20 (ESV) Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

What arguments (biblical or otherwise) can be used to support prosperity gospel? What does prosperity theology say about passages such as the ones I cited?


texts: What is the ecclesiastical 'hierarchy' of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

texts: I know that every cultural expression of Orthodoxy has different terms for the orders (roles) from the language of their home country, but I am interested in the English terms. What is the 'hierarchy,' in order, of the ecclesiastical offices/roles in Eastern Orthodoxy?


texts: According to Christianity, is only the Christian faith a gift from God?

texts:
At least in the Catholic Church (with which I am most familiar), it is stated that Faith is a gift from God. Point 179 in the Catechism reads:

  Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.

A related question has an accepted answer on the same lines.

Now, we know that people from other (even extinct) religions also have faith in their particular god(s). Within those religions, some have more faith than others, and there is also a group which have lost their faith, perhaps because of conversion to a different faith.

According to Christianity, is their faith also a gift from God? Why would God give to some a partial/incorrect gift and a complete/correct gift to others? What is the Catholic (and other Christian) teaching on this respect?

P.S. This question emerged in the context of a conversation with a Muslim friend. Some of them also believe that faith is a blessing from God (e.g. here). Hence the question of the many but different gifts.


texts: According to LDS (Mormon) teaching, who was the first God who began the eternal progression?

texts:
I understand that the LDS church teaches the concept of eternal progression, that "As God is, so man can become and as man is, so God once was."  So, men may attain godhood in exaltation.

By implication, God the Father was once a man Himself on another planet where there was another god and attained to godhood Himself through his life on that planet.

So, my question is, according to LDS teaching, who was the first God who began all this--the uncreated God, since all other gods, including God the Father would have been born spiritually through a spiritual union between the god of the previous planet and one of his wives.

Also, is there any worship given in the LDS Church to this first God?


texts: What does Karl Barth imply by God entrusting us with a "nobile officium"?

texts:
In Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, chapter 8, Karl Barth writes:

  It is splendid and beautiful to be assigned a duty by the God of the Gospel who is the object of evangelical theology, but it is also demanding, exalting, and finally terrifying. A nobile officium, a noble charge, is confided and entrusted to man; but this charge implies that he is expected to fulfill his ministry. He is privileged to do what is expected of him. But he also must do what he is chosen to do.

I was struck by the Latin phrase "nobile officium", which has a specific meaning in Scotland. For the Church of Scotland, at least historically, it refers to the power of the General Assembly to regulate itself (including to modify its own rules of procedure as necessary) and to act in the interests of justice when the existing law does not provide a remedy. Likewise, in the civil courts, the Court of Session is said to have a nobile officium, described by Andrew MacDouall, Lord Bankton, as follows:

  They are intitled, in some cases, to interpose, otherwise than according to  the ordinary rules or forms of law, and even contrary to the form of ordinary proceedings, when the case requires it, in order to bring out the truth, which could not otherwise be done; or to interpose in points necessary for the public good of the society; or for making justice effectual in private cases, where the ordinary forms cannot reach the end [...] This is a supereminent power, founded in their high jurisdiction. 1

I am not convinced that Barth had this meaning in mind, but I also don't know what he did mean to imply, and I don't know of any other use of the term nobile officium. Elsewhere he refers to theology as a "free science" - free from "any dependence on subordinate presuppositions" - so perhaps there is some connection with the concept of a supreme court being free to act. But I can't quite seem to make this work in my mind.

Can any Barth experts help me out?

1. From An Institute of the Laws of Scotland in Civil Rights, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, 1752), p517. Compare Viscount Stair in The Institutions of the Law of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1693), book 4, title 3; and other institutional writers.


texts: What happened to the the practice of women covering their heads?

texts:
Why don't more Christian women wear a covering? Most people today might associate the idea with the Old Testament, but references to the custom are actually found in the New Testament too:

  1 Corinthians 11:6 NIV
  If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off;
  and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved
  off, she should cover her head.

Are there any mainstream denominations that continue to promote head coverings for women? For example is this what the Amish do? When and why did this tradition stop among most orthodox Christians?


texts: Why did the Jews comment that Jesus was not yet fifty years of age?

texts:
We see at John 8 , the long debate that Jesus has with the Pharisees . We read  at verse 57 the question which the Pharisees pose to him:

Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?

One fails to understand as to why the Jews took Jesus as nearly fifty years  of age. Is it that he really appeared to be of around 50 years of age; or is it that age 50 was considered the standard age for calculation of wisdom, knowledge and maturity .  What does the Catholic Church say about the expression “not yet fifty” as used by the Jews against Jesus?


texts: How were women to serve the church according to the Apostolic Fathers?

texts: Did the Apostolic Church Fathers write about the capacity in which women were to serve in the early church, or expand the capacity in which they served the church? In other words, what were they responsible for as far as the Apostolic Church Fathers were concerned? As the church grew did their responsibilities grow as well?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for mankind being morally required to treat animals well?

texts:
In the modern day, humanity farms animals to such a degree that rampant animal suffering is present across the board. From our egg and milk industry to our meat industry conditions are appalling and animals suffer widely and consistently.

I have heard that the Bible says that humans can do whatever they like with God's creation, but also that other Christians say we have a responsibility to care for it.

Does the Bible discuss the rights of humans verses animals, and in particular does it contain any moral or ethical rules that mankind should follow? Is there biblical basis for mankind being required to treat animals well?


texts: What is the technical understanding of the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross?

texts:
In technical terms, using the Nicea creed as the basis of understand, how can you explain the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross?

This is what I understand so far:

Co-existence
Co-equal
Co-Substantial
Jesus is begotten, not made

When you say Jesus died on the cross, is this referring to Jesus the 3rd person in Trinity?  I understand that Jesus is understood as being divided into 2 parts: Human and Divine.  So did the divine part die on the cross or the human?

The idea is that original sin has to be accounted for, so does this necessitate the Divine or Human aspect to be sacrificed and die?

Depending on the answer, which aspect/nature of Jesus is said to have risen on the 3rd day?


texts:
This (famous) quote from Margaret Fell includes,

  ... and I did as the apostle saith, I ‘received the truth in the love of it’.

Does "the apostle" there imply that's a quote from the New Testament?

I tried Google -- receive "the truth in the love of it" -- and with that I only saw the phrase being used in sermons and commentaries (including John Locke).

The first few search results seem to be contemporary with Margaret Fell's quote, i.e. 17th century.

Is a phrase like that in an edition of the Bible?
Otherwise I wonder what she's quoting (apparently quoting rather than paraphrasing)?
Or is it a contemporary paraphrase of a biblical reference?


texts: According to evangelicalism, did Jesus' divine nature suffer on the cross?

texts: From the evangelical perspective, considering that Jesus has both human and divine natures in one person, did His divine nature suffer on the cross along with his human nature?