texts: Isn't CS Lewis's idea that time is still successive in Heaven frustrating?

texts:
C.S. Lewis:

  If that [to travel hopefully is better than to arrive] were true, and
  known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be
  nothing to hope for.

Am I missing something here? To paraphrase his own words in rejection to the idea that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, if it were known that there was nothing to arrive at how could you travel hopefully?
If time continues, we would never reach a complete 'end' but our experiences would ever be evolving and changing. And if there were no time that would be inhuman.


texts: Is the emotion of sexual passion a result of the fallen state? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
I found very good information on this site where the author logically and according to the Catholic teaching explains certain parts of sexual behavior. I agree and practice what is written, just in case if someone wonders if it's even possible. But I don't want to discuss whether the site or the author is correct on the subject so please avoid any comments on the authenticity of the site.

There is a statement:

  Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and
  so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual
  arousal.

What is the source of this knowledge or where does the author bases this information from?


texts: Was Jesus was sent to speak to the Jews only?

texts:
Matthew 15:24 KJV

  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
  house of Israel.

I understand that he was talking specifically to a lady who was begging (successfully) for her daughter.  However, is Jesus trying to say that his message is only for the Jews to hear?  Does this conflict with Romans 10:12?

Romans 10:12 KJV

  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
  Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.


texts: Where does this Martin Luther quote come from?

texts:
"Sin is essentially a departure from God." -Martin Luther

Which work does this quote come from?


texts:
I want to know who is "I" in Isaiah 44:6 in a view point of Trinity;

  The LORD is Israel’s king and defender. He is the LORD of Armies. This is what the LORD says: I am the first and the last, and there is no God except me.

I am tempted to think "I" is the Godhead of Trinity. But I am not sure the Godhead of "One Essence" of Trinity is the right concept to be able to speak like this. It seems to me that this act of speaking is more appropriate to a Person of Trinity. But then he says "no god besides me" and so I am confused.

Thanks in advance!


texts: Variances in the sacrament of confession

texts:
What are the different viewpoints between Anglicans, Orthodox churches and the Roman Church over the sacrament of Confession.

Of course Roman Catholics must confess mortal sins to priest to be absolved of the sin.  How would an Anglican view forgiveness in this sense?  Is the generic liturgical absolution in an Anglican eucharist ceremony the equivalent?

Similarly, how do the Orthodox churches address this sacrament?

The answer should show the differences or distinctions.


texts: Why does only one person "teach" during a church meeting?

texts:
Consider these scriptures:

  "And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but
  be filled by the Spirit: speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and
  spiritual songs, singing and making music from your heart to the Lord,
  giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of
  our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of
  Christ." Ephesians 5:18-21

  "Let the message about the Messiah dwell richly among you, teaching
  and admonishing one another in all wisdom, and singing psalms, hymns,
  and spiritual songs, with gratitude in your hearts to God." Colossians
  3:16

  "What then is the conclusion, brothers? Whenever you come together,
  each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, another language, or
  an interpretation. All things must be done for edification." 1
  Corinthians 14:26

  "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that everyone may learn and
  everyone may be encouraged." 1 Corinthians 14:31

Why is it that only one person teaches during the meeting of the saints (the church meeting)? Isn't this contrary to what scripture is teaching? If it is not contrary to scripture, is there any evidence in the New Testament for having a "single teacher" in the church meeting?

I can't seem to find any evidence for this church practice in Scripture, so I'm wondering if this is a church tradition that is perhaps against the teachings of Scripture.

What I understand from the above passages (even read in context), is that everyone in the church has a responsibility to exercise the gifts that have been imparted to them by the Holy Spirit. If we are not participating in the active leadership of this meeting (by teaching, prophesying, and singing, for example), then we aren't we being passive and not fulfilling the call of the church?


texts: Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following?

texts: Does Christianity have any other book beside Bible which narrate stories of the Jesus and Moses and is considered auspicious or sacred? Are there any other such books other than Bible which kind of augments/completes the Bible? In Islam there is the Quran (Bible) and then hadith books which narrates stories of the prophets.


texts: What does "communion of saints" mean in the Apostle's Creed?

texts:
The original text can be found on wikipedia.

Near the end of the creed, there is this phrase:

  I believe in... the communion of saints...

What does this exactly mean? I understand that communion means a 'sharing in common', but I'm not entirely sure of the meaning and implications of this statement.

Note:

The Apostle's Creed is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church, and is accepted by many other denominations. I expect to hear the perspectives of all churches where the creed is accepted.


texts: What is the history and explanation as to why the "diaconate" was MIA in the Western Church over a certain period of time?

texts:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church implies that over a certain time in the period in the Western Church, there weren't any deacons.

  CCC 1571 Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church
  has restored the diaconate "as a proper and permanent rank of the
  hierarchy," while the Churches of the East had always maintained it.

What is the history and explanation behind this?

The good answer will also correct any wrong assumptions.


texts: What reasons do those who reject the JEPD view of Scripture provide?

texts:
The documentary hypothesis, or JEPD view of Scripture, states that the Pentatuech was potentially compiled from four different sources: the Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomical. It is widely denied a priori by many Christians.

What reasoning do those who reject the JEPD point to (scholarly or theological)?


texts:
What is spiritual warfare? And how is it different from malefic ("black") magic?

One Evangelical Christian sums it up with, Prayer should not be spellcasting. God is not your djinni.


texts:
According to Catholic teaching and theology, can man ever see God as he really is?

Has anyone man ever seen God in the past? Who was it?

Will man be able to see God as he really is in the future?

What will enable man to do that?


texts: What is considered to be free choice in the context of "choosing to go to hell"?

texts:
Let me preface this by stating that I received a Christian education and have seen the idea that individuals choose to go to hell (rather than God sending them there), mostly from a vaguely evangelical context. This statement bothers me for various reasons, I won't go into, but it strikes me as rather vague for the following reason.

Suppose person X hears about Christianity, but for some reason, does not accept it. There are various reasons for why this might happen (it's not convincing enough, for instance), but one that strikes me as particularly "problematic" (and not just so from my perspective as an atheist) is one where X hears about Christianity from some very poor representatives of the religion (e.g. Christians who have decimated the people of X's religion of ethnicity). As a result, because of X's poor experiences, he refuses to convert even when he is told about Christianity. (There's some reference to this sort of scenario in some accounts of the conquest of Latin America.)

Does this count as a scenario where X chooses to go to hell, as per the formulations of people who believe in this account of where people end up in the afterlife? More broadly, what is meant by "choice" in this context of choosing to believe in God?


texts: Why did Rome and Constantinople split in 1054 AD?

texts:
The Great Schism represents the break between the Eastern and Western churches. I know that a primary bone of contention that the East had with the West was Rome's insistence on Papal Supremacy. My understanding is that for a millennium there had been an understanding that Rome would be first among equals, and clearly this somehow fell apart.

I'd like to know

what was the proximate cause of the mutual anathema,
why they each anathematized the other (one would assume that one side could have denounced the other, but mutual allegations seem odd), and
why a simple governance question couldn't be resolved politically.

And, finally, for bonus points :) I understand that the Pope recently (like in the 1990s) has reconciled with the Orthodox.  Is this true, and how did it come about?

Note: There is already a question about filioque so feel free to gloss over any details about that in particular.  Per cwallenpoole, it is a fairly contentious thing.

Put another way, Can't we all just get along?


texts: Why was there a 'governor' at the Wedding in Cana?

texts:
The miracle of the Wedding at Cana is described in John 2.

There are specific references to a 'governor'/'ruler' of the feast in John 2:7-10.

What role did a 'governor' at a wedding perform at this time?

What historical records exist in terms of source references for this?

The Bible Gateway website has several commentaries, but only one (Matthew Henry's) notes:

  Some think that this governor of the feast was only the chief guest,
  that sat at the upper end of the table; but, if so, surely our Lord
  Jesus should have had that place, for he was, upon all accounts, the
  principal guest; but it seems another had the uppermost room, probably
  one that loved it (Matt. 23:6), and chose it, Luke 14:7. And Christ,
  according to his own rule, sat down in the lowest room; but, though he
  was not treated as the Master of the feast, he kindly approved himself
  a friend to the feast, and, if not its founder, yet its best
  benefactor. Others think that this governor was the inspector and
  monitor of the feast: the same with Plutarch’s symposiarcha, whose
  office it was to see that each had enough, and none did exceed, and
  that there were no indecencies or disorders. Note, Feasts have need of
  governors, because too many, when they are at feasts, have not the
  government of themselves. Some think that this governor was the
  chaplain, some priest or Levite that craved a blessing and gave
  thanks, and Christ would have the cup brought to him, that he might
  bless it, and bless God for it; for the extraordinary tokens of
  Christ’s presence and power were not to supersede, or jostle out, the
  ordinary rules and methods of piety and devotion.

As I understand it, a symposiarch was a 'toastmaster' or 'master of ceremonies' in the Greek classical tradition - but this was a Jewish wedding.

None of the dictionaries or commentaries I've found have been able to cite sources (apart from the reference to Plutarch) - can anyone point me to more rigorous commentaries or explanations, please?


texts: Is Mary, "Mother of God," the mother of the Son or of the whole Trinity?

texts:
I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind.

This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title "Mother of God"?


texts: How did Isidore of Seville become the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, Isidore of Seville (not to be confused with Isidore the Laborer) is the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers.

Unfortunately, the current revision doesn't describe how a 7th Century man became the patron of a 20th Century invention and its related profession. It does mention the existence of the Order of Saint Isidore of Seville, founded January 1, 2000, but it's unclear on if they pushed for this patronage or if it was others.

How did Isidore of Seville gain the distinction of being the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers?


texts: Does God require us to have faith because Adam and Eve sinned?

texts:
I remember when I first sought God, I felt like I was going out into the dark. I simply followed people at the church without really believing, but willing myself to believe. In other words, I didn't have faith, but I was obedient. Now I can see God a little more clearly than before, and I have more faith.

I was wondering if anybody has tried to connect God's demands of faith from Abraham (and us)  to the fall. Given that faith requires an obedient, seeking heart, it almost seems like this is a way to remedy the fall of humankind, and to restore our obedience to God.


texts: What is the LDS (Mormon) view of the necessity of Jesus death and resurrection?

texts:
I heard recently in a sermon that the LDS church views Jesus' death and resurrection as almost a "blemish" on Christianity - that it was an unfortunate event, and not at all the way God planned for things to go.

According to this statement, this is the reason there are no crosses in LDS churches, at the Temple in SLC, etc.

This SLC Tribune article seems to indicate the same.

My question, therefore, has two parts:

Is the article / claim of the sermon correct, and
What is the "official" doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the death and resurrection of Christ?


texts: What is the basis for the claim that Ezekiel 44 is about Mary the Mother of Jesus?

texts:
Upon being referred to the statements of Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologia, I read this:

  It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"

It seems to me that the context of this passage is about the temple that Ezekiel is to have built than any idea about the future. Indeed, the vision takes Ezekiel to other gates and other parts of the temple. I cannot find any New Testament writer (or subject) who alludes to this text.

Why would someone conclude that this passage is about Mary, the Mother of Jesus?


texts: I've seen many testimonies and case studies lauding the benefits of transcendental meditation. It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice. As a dedicated Christian my only concern is that partaking in this practice would violate teachings of my faith. Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?


texts: According to Jehovah’s Witnesses how many people will live on the earth?

texts:
According to JW teaching all the dead will be resurrected to earth except the 144k that get heavenly life. There will be a judgement of all these at the end of the millennium.

Estimates by scientists are that perhaps 108 billion people have lived since human life began. If nearly that many are judged righteous will there be enough space on earth for them? Wikipedia states that there are 123 billion acres on earth's surface, including 37 billion acres of dry land.

So either there will be a crowded earth, more dry land will become available or a majority of the resurrected will be judged unrighteous. What do JWs, or others with similar views, expect will be the case?


texts: If God set the maximum age to 120, then how could Jacob be 130 years old?

texts:
At the time of Noah, God said:

  Genesis 6:3 NIV
  Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans
  forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and
  twenty years.”

Now, later on, we have the account of Jacob and his sons. When Jacob moves to Joseph in Egypt, the pharaoh of asks him of his age, to which he replies:

  Genesis 47:9 NIV
  And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred
  and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not
  equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers.”

Is there any explanation for this? I guess that either you can interpret this as Jacob referring to something else then his true physical age (e.g. "the years of my pilgrimage" having some kind of special meaning), or he might have miscalculated, or God's rule of the maximum age of man might not apply to all, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and other distinguished men of God.


texts: How accurate is the movie Prince of Egypt? A few questions about Moses

texts:
I just watched the movie The Prince of Egypt (1998), and had a bunch of questions about Moses.

Did Moses know he was an Israelite before he killed the Egyptian? When did he know he was an Israelite?

  And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. Exo 2:11

When did Moses know his sister Miriam was actually his sister? Was Miriam the sister who watched him float down the Nile and who talked to Pharaoh's daughter?

  And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him. Exo 2:4

Did the Israelites know that Moses would be the one called to lead them out of Egypt?

Are there scriptures that give an answer? Maybe these questions don't have a scriptural answer, and that's all right. I can take a scriptural blank for an answer. Anything you know that is in the scriptures I'd appreciate a ton!

I read Exodus 1 - 2 . It helped me know why the Israelite children were killed, along with other answers to some other questions I had. This answer helped me know Moses' age at diffrent points. It has been way interesting to find out the details of the story.


texts: How did the early church respond to the accusation that Christianity forbid ‘all uses of images’ even if only ‘representing the Divine Being’?

texts:
Origen, in Contra Celsus, Book VII, responds to an attack from Celsus: that Christians are just like Jews in rejecting all forms of images without exception.

In this rebuttal by Origen, we clearly see that Greek philosophers, specifically Celsus, did not think of idols as 'actual Gods' made of wood, for stone, but as just representations of them only, dedicated to them, in order to facilitate worship. The Greek worship of the gods did not terminate on the physical object or icon, but through them passed into the actual god never resting on the mere medium or icon.

The Greek view of images as facilitating higher worship is ridiculed by Origen:

  For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.

Celsus in turn ridicules Christians because they “despise without exception all images” and so do not even have any form of God to facilitate their worship. He further argues that this is contradictory the Christian claim that man was made in the mage of God, therefore God can be represented by physical images and Christians have no excuse not to have images.

The question is how did Origen respond to this claim that Christian despised all images without exception just like Jews? Did origin admit such was the case and argue why, or did he think there were actually some images used in the Church to facilitate worship, like Mary or the Cross and that Celsus was simply unaware of them?


texts:
How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44:

  41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, 42
  saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things
  that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For
  the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade
  around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear
  you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they
  will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know
  the time of your visitation.”

Why would Jesus weep for non-elect people if He Himself willfully passed over them when He elected people unto salvation before the foundation of the world?


texts: Does Jesus’ purification after death apply to all or just to him?

texts:
In the 20th chapter of John verse 17 Jesus forbad Mary Magdalene touching him, stating that he had not yet ascended to the Father:

  John 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Then in verse 27 he challenges Thomas to touch his wounds, indicating that he had at that time ascended to the Father.

  John 20:27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

The stark difference in touching Jesus would indicate that Jesus had undergone some type of purification after verse 17 but prior to verse 27.

Is there any Protestant Denomination; which purposes that that purification process is necessary for all believers, or is it generally accepted that only Jesus required this purification?


texts: How many times Jesus was montioned in both of Holy Bible and Holy Quran?

texts:
Is there someone here give me the number of citations of Jesus in the original version of the Holy Bible ? I say to you in the Holy Quran He is mentioned 32 times and we have a Surah called Merry which means Meriam in Arabic language  Mother of Jesus ? Is there the same in the Holy Bible ?

Note: Am afraid that the number of citations of Jesus in Holy Quran is greater than its citation in the Holy Bible

Edit I have edited the question without changing its meaning such that I want exactly the number of citation in the original Holy Bible not in the corrupted version.


texts: What are the main beliefs/themes of the Prosperity Gospel and which are the current prominent groups and their pastors?

texts:
What are the main beliefs/themes of the Prosperity Gospel?

And which are the current prominent groups and their pastors?


texts: In view of Mark 9:1 why say the kingdom of God will come at Jesus' second coming?

texts:
And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” (NIV)

Jesus was in the presence of his followers when he made the statement in Mark 9:1 that there would be some alive to see the kingdom of God come. When I listen to the radio or watch TV the message I hear quite often is that Jesus will come and establish a kingdom and reign for 1,000 years. If someone could explain this contradiction I would appreciate it.

I would prefer if when someone gives an answer that it be a biblical answer and not something based on a opinion. (people with a pre-millennium view)


texts:
At Acts 20:34-35 (NRSVCE) we hear St Paul saying :

  You know for yourselves that I worked with my own hands to support myself and my companions.   In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'

That implies that Jesus Himself worked for a living , like some of his disciples who fished during the  night (Luke 5:5). My question is : Does the Catholic Church substantiate that Jesus worked to earn a living for Himself  and for  Mother Mary during and  before His public life ? What was the work He specialized in ?


texts:
The NRSV-CE omits mentioning prayer and fasting, explaining in footnote (g):

  Matthew 17:20 Other ancient authorities add verse 21, But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting

Rheims translation of Mt. 17:20, based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, says:

  But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.Hoc autem genus non ejicitur nisi per orationem et jejunium.

Why does the NRSV-CE omit mentioning prayer and fasting in Matthew 17?


texts: How does one reconcile the sinlessness of Mary with her sin offering in Luke 2:24?

texts:
In Luke 2:22-24, it is written,

  22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. (KJV)

Then, in Lev. 12:8, it is written,

  8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. (KJV)

If Mary was sinless, why did she offer a sin offering (one of the turtledoves or pigeons)? I'm looking for a Catholic perspective.


texts: Was "No prophet ever came out of Galilee" sarcastic?

texts: Were the Pharisees being sarcastic in John 7:52, when they claimed that "no prophet ever came out of Galilee"? It is written that Jonah came from Gath-hepher, in Galilee (2 Kings 14:25).


texts: According to the LDS Church, what is the purpose or result of proxy baptisms for those who have already died?

texts:
I understand that one of the main works that an LDS member is encouraged to perform is proxy baptism, that is, a baptism on behalf of their ancestors or others who have already died.  Another question asked what the basis for this practice was.

However, I'm interested to know what impact or result is thought to be achieved by the proxy baptisms.  It seems that they could be performed for 1) people who were already Mormon, 2) people who were of a similar faith, 3) people of a different faith, 4) people of no faith at all, or even 5) people who were once Mormon but who rejected the Mormon faith who had already been baptized themselves at one point in time.

So, what does the proxy baptism achieve?  If someone is left out by an oversight or who had no children, does that person simply get deprived of something because they were overlooked?  I also wonder if proxy baptisms are made for children who die prior to birth, either by abortion or miscarriage.

So, again, what is the purpose or impact on those for whom proxy baptisms are made?


texts: How do you define a Christian or a brother in Christ?

texts: How do you define a Christian? How do you define what kind of person is your brother in Christ and what kind of person is not?


texts: How do the vestments of the pontiff emeritus compare to those of a bishop emeritus?

texts:
As widely reported, Pope Benedict XVI will wear "a simple white cassock without the mozzetta" during his retirement, and will no longer use the rest of the traditional pontifical regalia, such as the Ring of the Fisherman.

I was curious about how this compares with the vestments that would typically be worn by a retired bishop - either during Mass, or in everyday life. The loss of the mozzetta apparently represents the fact that Benedict no longer has jurisdiction over the See of Rome (nor the accompanying universal jurisdiction) for example; do other bishops also cease to wear the mozzetta or pellegrina when they retire?
 What about the crozier, as the former Pope will no longer be using his corresponding papal staff (ferula), or the mitre?


texts: According to Mormons, what is the Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned in Ephesians?

texts:
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV) mentions being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise:

  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

I can't find that term anywhere else in the Bible. So what is the Holy Spirit of Promise?

It does appear several times in the Doctrine and Covenants so I welcome answers with an LDS perspective. (For example, the D&C passages are about marriage; how does that relate to the context in Ephesians where one is sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise after hearing the word of truth?)


texts: Why was the Apostle Paul seemingly not that interested in baptizing believers?

texts:
Paul does not seem to put the same importance on baptism as he does on other things:

  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17, NIV)

If Paul was so focused on the gospel as it was the means of 'eternal salvation', why put baptism in the back seat of the process? Baptism does generally seem important in Acts and other parts of scripture.

  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18, NIV)

Why does Paul not think it important to follow up on all his converts and make sure they are properly baptized as though their eternal life depended on it?


texts: According to Mormon doctrine, Elohim is God the Father. The literal translation of Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), is "Gods". How do Mormons interpret Elohim to mean, "Heavenly Father?"


texts: Are there any followers of Catharism today?

texts:
I'm interested by Catharism. Is there anywhere in Christendom where this faith has reappeared since being suppressed in the Middle Ages?

I know that today some people in France, near Spain, are called Cathars, because they are living on the territory where the Cathars lived.  But, from what I know, there are no believers in Catharism there.


texts:
In several places around the Internet I have seen it stated that the Pope does not wear a biretta.

Why not? Is it merely that there are no occasions when he would, because he is always presiding over a celebration?

Or is there another significance?


texts: What did the fathers of the early church think of Tertullian?

texts:
Today, Tertullian (c. AD 155–240) has something of a mixed reputation in many Christian circles.  He's recognized as a significant thinker and a major contributor to the doctrine of the Trinity.  But in his later years he became associated with a movement known as Montanism, and he seems to have separated himself from the church.

As a result of this and some of his teachings, he is not recognized as a saint in Catholicism, for example, and scholars have varied opinions of him.

In light of this modern disagreement, I'd like to know how those in the early church saw Tertullian.  According to their writings, what did the church fathers of the fifth century or prior think of Tertullian?


texts: How do non-trinitarians interpret Philippians 2:5-8?

texts:
Philippians 2:5-8 (NRSV):

5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8     he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

How do non-trinitarians (and those who deny the divinity of Jesus in general) interpret this passage?


texts: What is the translation methodology for the Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)?

texts:
I'm wondering about what sources were used for the NVI.  Was it translated from from ancient Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?

All I can find online is that the translators "follow[ed] the NIV tranlation [sic] principles," meaning that "the translation process sought to preserve the original language while taking into account the target language as well" (NVI version information).

I would assume that means that the NVI is in fact based on ancient manuscripts, since the NIV was, but it's unclear.


texts: In Catholicism, do the teachers more truly constitute the "church" than the hearers?

texts:
While reading Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, I found him claiming that Catholicism makes an important distinction between the teaching church (ecclesia docens) and the hearing church (ecclesia audiens):

  [Roman Catholics] make a distinction between the ecclesia docens and the ecclesia audiens, that is, between the "the Church consisting of those who rule, teach, and edify" and "the Church which is taught, governed, and receives the sacraments." In the strictest sense of the word it is not the ecclesia audiens but the ecclesia docens that constitutes the Church.  The latter shares directly in the glorious attributes of the Church, but the former is adorned with them only indirectly. (5.2.A.1; bold added)

Is this a fair characterization of Catholic ecclesiology?  Does official Catholic teaching indicate that the teaching church more truly constitutes the "Church," and more directly shares in its glorious attributes?


texts: In premillennial theology, is the last judgement before the millennium?

texts:
According to the Millenium theory, such period is followed by the end of times.
My question is:
Before this end, is there supposed to be Last Judgement? I have read that there only exists a time of happiness but no mention was given regarding if there would be a distinction between those “good”and “bad” humans.


texts: What is the difference between Tradition and Revelation according to Catholicism?

texts:
From what I think I understand, the Catholic Church believes that there is no direct revelation from heaven to lead the church, and that the scriptures alone are not enough to rely on, this is why they balance Tradition (big 'T') with scripture.

  Sacred Tradition comes from Christ. It's the full, living gift of
  Christ to the Apostles, faithfully handed down through each
  generation. It is through Tradition that the Holy Spirit makes the
  Risen Lord present among us, offering us the very same saving Word and
  Sacraments that he gave to the Apostles!

  Understanding Catholic Tradition is essential to understanding the
  Catholic Church and the Catholic Christian faith. (see Catholic Tradition)

Example of some scriptures used to support the concept of Tradition:

  "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you
  were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess
  2:15)

  "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you...." (1 Cor
  11:23)

  "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also
  received...." (1 Cor 15:3)

If I had to answer my own question I would say that revelation is received directly from God, and Tradition is passed down from one man to another:

  This is the most basic meaning of Catholic Tradition: it is the true
  Faith itself, given to the Apostles by Christ and faithfully
  transmitted to each new generation. (Catechism, 77-78)

But what is meant by, "true Faith?" (big 'F'?) or, "to have the Holy Spirit make the Risen Lord present among us?" Does this mean that Tradition is more than just words and stories passed form one generation to the next? Is it understood to carry with it a divine fullness of knowledge that makes revelation obsolete? If I had to make up my own analogy; if revelation were like wifi, is Tradition a boot-disc that get's passed down by succession? It seems to me that having the Lord present among us by the Holy Spirit through Tradition is not much different than having the Lord speak to us through the Holy Spirit by Revelation. What's the difference?


texts: How do Trinitarians explain verses where Jesus claims to have a God?

texts:
According to orthodox trinitarian doctrine, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.  Jesus is co-eqaul, eternally begotten, not made.

With that in mind, how could Jesus have a God?  For instance, how do Trinitarians explain verses such as the following verses in a way which is consistent with their doctrine?

John 20:17 (KJV)

  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my
  Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my
  Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 17:3 (KJV)

  "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true
  God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."


texts: Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?

texts:
A few nights ago, a friend and I were reading through Hebrews 3 and 4. A few verses in particular caught my attention...

  Hebrews 3:11-13 (NLT)
  11 So in my anger I took an oath,
     ‘They will never enter my place of rest.’ ”

  12 Be careful then, dear brothers and sisters. Make sure that your own hearts are not evil and unbelieving, turning you away from the living God. 13 You must warn each other every day, while it is still “today,” so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God.

  Hebrews 4:1 (NLT)
  4 God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it.

It seems to me as if these verses taken together imply that a Christian can become unsaved by falling away from following God. Now, I realize that I have to some extent taken these verses out of context, but I don't see any significant contextual change between these verses. So...is my interpretation right? If not, how is it wrong?

Answers should be Biblically-based, with straight-forward exegesis from related scriptures.


texts: How does the Catholic Church view Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

texts:
How does the Catholic Church view Penal Substitutionary Atonement (as formulated within the Reformed tradition)?

A comment on this question, states that PSA 'has been declared doctrinal heresy'. Is that accurate?

I am familliar with the development of the theory and that it is not consistent with the Satisfaction Theory of Anslem and Aquinas, but I am not aware of it ever being offically denounced. Was it? If so, when? If not, is it implicitly heretical because it contradicts a particular dogma? Or perhaps it is not heretical, but still wrong?


texts: How is 1 Corinthians 9:27 reconciled with the teaching that losing salvation is impossible?

texts:
This question is aimed at those Christians who believe that someone saved can't become "unsaved" later.

At least in 1 Corinthians 9:27 apostle Paul says he is not sure whether he will be saved or not (AFAIK there are other verses like this, and of course other places where Paul expresses his hope he will be saved). Here it is:

  27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have
  preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (NIV–1984)

Question is simple: how do those Christians interpret this?

Related:

Can a Christian walk away from their salvation?
Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?
Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]
How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation


texts: What does it mean for the soul to be "immediately" created by God?

texts:
It is a Catholic dogma (De Fide) that

human souls are immediately created by God.

In this answer, the issue arose about what exactly "immediately" means. I'm not sure a satisfactory answer was given, so I think a post dedicated to it might be helpful.
The Catechism, in point 366 states:

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents ...

The quote below, from an article by Father John A. Hardon, S.J (taken from the referred answer) might be useful, as it might indicate what "immediately" is not supposed to mean:

The Vatican Council defined against the pantheists that, “If anyone says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, emanated from the divine substance...Let him be anathemas DB 1801. Thus it is defined that however the soul originates, it is not by way of emanation from the deity.
Benedict XII in 1341 condemned the errors of certain Orientals, on the occasion of prospects for reuniting the schismatic Armenians with Rome. "A certain teacher,” wrote the pope, "again introduced the teaching that the human soul of a son is propagated from the soul of his father, as his body is from the body of his father. He taught also that angels are propagated one from another. He gave as his reason for this that, since a rational existing human soul, and an angel existing in an intellectual nature are a kind of spiritual light, they propagate other spiritual lights from themselves" DB 533. The Armenian who held this doctrine was named Mechitriz, which means “paraclete." By condemning Mechitriz, Benedict XI condemned generationism, even of a spiritual kind, since the erroneous teaching referred to both human souls and the angels.

Still, it is not clear what exactly immediately is supposed to mean. Has this term been defined elsewhere, perhaps? Is there a definitive teaching on this?


texts: What is the status of Eunuchs now in the Church and also in the world to come?

texts:
Eunuchs, who are considered to be the third gender, are also human beings. Some eunuchs are made by other human beings, particularly in the ancient times. Some people voluntarily become eunuchs as an expression of their devotion to their faith or religion. However, some people are born eunuchs from their mothers' wombs [Matt.19:12]. These are obviously created by God Himself.
What is the protestant Christianity's position on the status of Eunuchs in the church? What is the protestant Christianity theological understanding with regard to the status and pleasures Eunuchs get in Heaven if they are faithful believers in this life?


texts: How do deniers of the personal pre-incarnate existence of the Son of God interpret John 3:31-32?

texts:
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. - John 3:31-32

Here we have two distinct "he" in view:  "he" from above (heaven) and "he from below (earth), see John 8:23
The "he from the earth is represented by 3rd person singular pronoun:  Of the earth "he is" and of the earth "he speaks".
The "he from above is also represented by 3rd person singular pronoun: From heaven "he is" and what "he testifies" here (and which no man receives) is what "he has seen" and "he has heard" there (heaven above).
There are those who disbelieve that the Son of God had a personal pre-existence prior to being born of a virgin and given the name of Jesus.  The claim, as I understand it, is that prior to the birth of Jesus all reference to "him" is a reference to the Logos as the non-personal "plan of God".  See this related question as an example.
For those who deny the pre-incarnate personal existence of the Son of God:
In the very direct comparison of John 3:31-32,  How is it that 3rd person singular can refer to person-hood in "he who is from the earth"  but not person-hood in "he who is from above"?
Secondarily, How can "he from above" have seen and heard that which "he" later testifies if "he" had no person-hood prior to earthly existence?  Can a plan see, hear, and remember in order to later testify?


texts: What are the differences between Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses

texts:
What the are differences and similarities between Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics?

To what extent is the official bible accepted by the Catholic church different from the official JW translation?

Are there any differences in the most important dogmata?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Christian denominations to believe in a visible appearance of Christ Jesus when he returns?

texts:
This question is inspired by a question asked in 2013: 'Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?' Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?
Although it is my understanding that mainstream Christian denominations uphold the Athanasian Creed which declares that "Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" there are some Christian denominations who deny that Christ Jesus will return visibly, when he comes with the heavenly hosts to judge the living and the dead. Jehovah's Witnesses are one example of a denomination who deny that Christ Jesus will return visibly.
Revelation 1:7 declares that "every eye will see him" when he comes with the clouds, but some denominations think this is a euphemism for "seeing" with spiritual eyes; of being spiritually enlightened, that the clouds will obscure any literal sight.
What is the biblical basis for Christians to believe that when Christ Jesus returns he will be seen - he will be visible to all the people on earth?


texts: How does one go to Confession before receiving the Eucharist if I am not Catholic?

texts: So, I want to become a Catholic and so from what I have gathered, just go through the Eucharist. However I am pretty sure I have committed a few mortal sins and so cannot go through the Eucharist. However, it turns out you have to be a Catholic to confess, so what do I do?


texts: How to find out more about the the 12 disciples?

texts:
How can I find out more about the 12 disciples and their lives and families than is mentioned in the Scriptures?

What did they give up and who they left behind, in order to follow Christ.


texts: Were we to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever if Adam had not sinned?

texts:
I read this statement from the Catholic resource. Q. 255

A. We were not to remain in the Garden of Paradise forever even if
Adam had not sinned, but after passing through the years of our
probation or trial upon earth we were to be taken, body and soul, into
heaven without suffering death.

What is this teaching based on within the Catholic Church?
There is a similar question and the answer that coincides with this statement mentions Genesis 3:22

Then the LORD God said: See! The man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil! Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to
take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?

But I can't really see how that verse says we were not meant to stay in the paradise.


texts: Is a mass interruption a standard procedure in case of a supposed Eucharistic miracle?

texts:
I have read several stories about Eucharistic miracles and it seems the mass is always interrupted on such event. Is it a standard procedure (as for 4th June 2018) or is it up to the priest?

More broadly: what is the standard procedure in case an supposed (not confirmed yet) Eucharistic miracle happens during a mass?

The question differs from In a Eucharistic miracle, do the communicants still partake of the sacrament? as there are often many Hosts left with Christ presence not affected and the postulated duplicate is specifically about partaking of the affected Hosts.


texts: What would be a divine image of a form that is in the water below the earth?

texts:
And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am Yahweh, your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves.  There shall be for you no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth. You will not bow down to them, and you will not serve them, because I am Yahweh your God, a jealous God, punishing the guilt of the parents on the children on the third and on the fourth generations of those hating me, and showing loyal love to thousands of generations of those loving me and of those keeping my commandments. "
Exodus 20:1-6 - LEB

The famous commandment against idolatry. I've searched and I see that the commandment against picturing forms above the heavens is directed at stopping the worship of other gods, and the one against picturing forms in the earth below would be directed at stopping worshiping the death. What about the "forms that are in the water below the earth"?
At first, Leviathan came to my mind, but that sea monster was in the seas, not in the water below the earth. Do we know of any tradition, either Israelite or of one of their neighbor nations, that had inhabitants in the water below the earth?


texts: Where did the Petrine title of "First Among Equals" originate?

texts:
Contrary to the Roman Catholic assertion that Peter and his successors are the Supreme Pontiff, the Orthodox Catholic Churches assert that Peter and his successors hold the honorary title of the First Among Equals.

When was the actual title of First Among Equals used to define the Petrine bishopric?

I'm curious as to whether the Orthodox Churches began asserting this title specifically after the Schism began to take shape, or if it was something that the Latin Church decided to reject that was there from the beginning.


texts: Abraham tries to sacrifice his son. Is exploiting a human a moral behaviour?

texts:
The story of Abraham is talking about a man, who is punished by God to victimize his son, to prove his faith (Gen 22:1–19).  Abraham decides to follow his God by killing his own son. But at the last moment, God says 'Stop', and accepts an animal as sacrifice.

Blind obedience seems to be the main value, taught by this story. Do, what the authorities tell you! However, this is totally against our modern ethics: Killing a person, just to prove something, is considered evil.

Now the victimization did not actually take place in the story, but Abraham is praised for doint, what he was told. So does blindly following God justify everything?

You could say that this is just a Jewish story, from the Old Testament, but the story is repeated later, whith different roles: God is victimizing his own son, Jesus, to prove his faith in man. For the parallels, see: Mark 1:11, Romans 8:23, and John 3:16.

But how can the sacrificing of a human be considered a moral behavior? I was taught that instrumenting a person, using somebody like a thing, exploiting somebody is the root of all evil.

Do moral laws that apply to humans not apply to God (even though he created man after his own image)? Did he create moral laws for humans that he does not uphold?

The main question is, as stated in the headline: Is it moral to sacrifice your son in order to grant favor with God?


texts: Sodom and Gomorrah and God's judgement in the Christian age

texts: From my understanding of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God agrees to spare the cities even if a few righteous people live there. In the Christian age, our righteousness is imputed to us by Christ's atoning sacrifice. Does this mean that God's judgement will not come to pass as long as there a Christians living in a region?


texts: According to the YEC view, did the animals eat the forbidden fruit?

texts:
Assuming the Young Earth Creationist view that the Genesis account is literal history...

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they were condemned to death which caused every subsequent human to bear death's potential. The question is: since animals also die just like each and every one of us, did they also eat the forbidden fruit?


texts: Is the OT unveiled in the entire NT or just the Gospels?

texts:
St. Augustine Sayeth:

  the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

(paraphrased quote from the Catechism)

Just for context, I looked this up and he actually said

  Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, and in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old.

source

We believe this in Catholicism and it's apparent from the way we structure the readings at Mass, the OT reading is always subtly explaining the Gospel one.  But is that the case, is it just the Gospel (+Acts?) that is hidden in the OT.  How do the epistles and revelation work in to the "hidden in / unveiled" equation?


texts: What kind of Elijah did the Jews expect?

texts:
In Malachi 4:5 we find:

  See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

From this verse and possibly also because Elijah had been, like Enoch, resurrected into heaven without dying, the Jews clearly expected him to come before Messiah.  What sort of Elijah were they expecting?

I am specifically looking for a Jewish perspective as viewed under an Evangelical view to help understand and provide background to passages in the gospels that mention the fulfillment.

In other words how does the actual appearance of Elijah differ from what they expected?


texts: When was the title of "Mother of God" first ascribed to Mary?

texts: I understand that the phrase "Mother of God" appears in the prayer commonly referred to as the "Hail Mary" prayer.  I'm wondering, though, what the origin is of the phrase "Mother of God".  Did it first appear in the Hail Mary prayer or does it predate that?


texts: What is the difference between Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement?

texts:
I noticed that the Word of Faith movement is under a lot of fire for the "little g" god doctrine, but it appears to me that it is almost, if not exactly, the same as the deification/divinization doctrine taught by the early church fathers and still maintained as Eastern Orthodox doctrine today.

What is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification/divinization and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement?


texts: How many Christians believe there is time in Heaven?

texts:
"It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held. God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter."

That is a quote I have taken from a commentator on this very site (I would gladly cite WHO if I felt this was wanted or indeed, allowed). To me, the idea of time passing just the same in Heaven is, frankly, awful- you'd always be a traveller and never reach a complete conclusion...even if perfect happiness were yours, you'd still be going on to the next thing and then the next...). BUT, I confess, a great many (if this site is anything to go by- MOST...) Christians believe otherwise. Even (hauntingly) my hero, CS Lewis, seems to disagree with me on that score.
Do most Christians believe Time WILL continue in Heaven?

I realise (before anyone leaps there) that this question begs an OPINION. So let me rephrase the question a little bit...

In the magority of written works, sermons and opinions heard by you lovely folk, have they been supportive or against the idea of a timeless Heaven?

I suppose one must also throw into the ring, whether the Biblical account of Heaven is literal or symbolic...if literal, then (as it does refer to things like 'months' passing) we must realise there IS time.


texts: What information do we have on the real vision of Pope Leo XIII?

texts:
There are a lot of stories, like this one about the vision of Pope Leo XIII which prompted him to write the prayer to Archangel Michael. Stories of a conversation between Jesus and Satan, often being tied to Second Vatican Council etc.

However, what true historical information do we have on the vision? Are there any official documents as to the content of the vision?


texts: How long did it take to form the Biblical canon?

texts: How long did it take to collect all of the writings that eventually formed the first version of the Bible?  In other words, starting with when the first writing was created (I'll say when it was completed rather than started) to when it was first printed/published/etc., how long did it take?


texts:
Trouble began (in Genesis) when the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah (and their allies) rebelled against their overlord, Chedoloamer, who swept down on them with an avenging army, killing or capturing everyone they could get their hands on, including Abraham's nephew Lot.

Genesis 14:14: "And when Abram heard that [Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan."

How was it that Abraham's private army of 318 was more than a match for the presumably thousands that accompanied the victorious enemy king? Was it because the enemy was too heavily laden with the spoils of war?

Or was this one of God's miracle victories like Gideon against the Midianites where a few hundred men were allowed to defeat thousands?


texts: How does Pope Francis's popularity compare to Pope Benedict XVI's?

texts: I'm doing a research paper on Pope Francis, and I need to know from a Catholic's view how Pope Francis's popularity ranks over Pope Benedict XVI's. Can you help?


texts:
Wonder why altars are not prevalent in Christian churches. It seems that a stage is used where all activities during the worship service take place, but there is no set aside place for the presence of GOD, this is the reason to have an altar.
Please comment.


texts: Did the metaphor of ' cup of suffering' as used by Jesus derive from OT?

texts:
At John 18:11 (NRSVCE) we see Jesus foretelling His passion and death on the cross :

".. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?” "

Here, Jesus is using the image of cup to symbolise the suffering for a positive purpose , as against the cup of wine' referred to at Psalms 75: 8 and from which thewicked of the earth' are to drink.

I wish to know if Jesus was referring to any other writing of the Old Testament while speaking of the cup of suffering ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the possibility of such a  reference ?


texts: Which, according to Catholic Church, is the writing in Old Testament that Jesus is referring to in Jn 7:38?

texts:
We read in Jn 7: 37-38:

"On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me,  and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’”

Going back to Old Testament, we read at Isaiah 58:11:

"And the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your desire in scorched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.”

See that the verses of Isaiah make a good match for Jn 7:38, not a perfect match though, in that the words `living water' are missing from Isaiah.
My question therefore is: Which, according to the Catholic Church, is the writing in the Old Testament that Jesus is referring to in Jn 7:38?


texts: According to Catholic teaching, does sin disfigure?

texts:
According to Catholic teaching perhaps with support from scripture, does sin disfigure/deform the sinner?

And does such a disfiguration affect both body and soul? Is so, in what way?


texts: Who was Jasher, the author of a book referenced in the bible?

texts: Who was Jasher?  Are there any historical references Jasher other than Author of a book referred in the bible?


texts: What is the significance of presenting the Apostles as acting foolishly many times in the Gospels?

texts:
Multiple times in the four Gospels, the Apostles seem to act foolishly. They are around Jesus for a long time, witness miracles, and still lose faith pretty easily. Another example: Jesus says a parable, they don't understand the meaning behind it, so Jesus needs to explain as if they were children. Or they try to heal the sick or perform exorcism, and fail miserably.

I'm wondering what significance has this depiction of the Apostles.

 If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that "the group you are joining is the best", they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves.

Please include either the view of a notable Christian denomination, or at least a citation from a notable theologian.


texts:
In the Latin Catholic Church, would clerics administer the last rites if the sick person's illness is contagious and deadly?

Diseases can be deadly and can spread by water, air, and/or bodily fluids. How would the last rites be modified to allow them to be performed while keeping the clerics safe from disease?


texts: What do Protestants think about canon laws given by the Church Fathers?

texts:
In the seven ecumenical councils, and throughout early Christian history, various Church Fathers gave certain canon laws, or rules that the clergy and laity had to follow.

What do Protestants think about these canon laws? How do they treat them?
If they reject them, on what basis do they do so?


texts: Is baptizing someone without consent valid? (Roman Catholic view)

texts:
Stemming from this question Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?, the question gives the scenario of one person baptising multiple people on a plane that is going to crash. The bit that confused me was towards the end when it says:

  and that air pressure has been lost leaving [the one doing the baptising] as the only one conscious

There is a comment as well:

  consent doesn't matter to the validity of baptism

According to the Roman Catholic church, if you baptise an adult who is not a believer and has not asked to be baptised (has not given consent), is that a valid baptism?


texts: What do the paragraph markings in the Jubilee Bible 2000 translation mean?

texts:
What do the paragraph markings on the Jubilee Bible 2000 mean? Take a look at the 1st, 5th, 8th verses in 1 Peter 5 (among other examples):

Image via Bible Gateway.

Reading the translator's notes, I see that it was translated from an English version by William Tyndale and a Spanish version by Casiodoro. Maybe these signify something related to these two texts? Maybe when the paragraphs started in one of these texts?

I was not able to find anything specifically related to the paragraph markings in any of the articles in the front and back of the Bible.


texts: Does the Old Testament anywhere imply that the Law of Moses may be abrogated?

texts:
I am wondering if there are any statements in the Old Testament which either:

A) Foretell  a time when the Law of Moses will be abrogated (in the way Christ does in the NT)

or

B) States that some of the Laws within Deuteronomy were given for the 'Hardness of Heart', as Jesus claims - or some paraphrase of that idea.

Notes: I am Catholic, so I'll accept any references coming from Deuterocanonical books. The Laws I am most concerned about are the usual controversial ones which seem to our modern outlook violent or less than perfect.


texts: What did God do to the Jews in Thessalonica?

texts:
Paul is telling his Thessalonian buddies that God's wrath has come at last to the mean Jews (countrymen) nearby.

  1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 ESV For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last! But since we were torn away from you blah blah blah...

What wrath? From who? From God? The story of Paul in Thessalonica in Acts 17 doesn't show any retribution towards the persecuting Jews. What is Paul talking about?


texts: A quote from Calvin about all five points?

texts:
I have heard that John Calvin either stated, or made reference to, the necessity of holding all 5 points of Calvinism. If one is dropped, the whole system collapses. I can't find this reference.

If this in fact IS in his writings, could someone provide a reference? Where was this said, and do any modern Calvinists teach this as well? (i.e. John Piper, etc)


texts: 1 John 3:20 what does it mean "He knows everything" according to Calvinist Single Predestination?

texts:
This question as a continuation of my question here, because the question before is not "tight".

  1 John 3:20

  For God is greater than our hearts, and He knows everything.

Trying to put my point of view in Calvinist style, I have the verse sentence something like this : He knows everything before the Creation

Now the question is, before the Creation - He knows everything :

X. after He planned all things which absolutely are going to happen
absolutely from A to Z? or
Y. before He planned all things which absolutely are going to happen
from A to Z?

When I myself have X as an answer, then to be honest I can't see something wow! about "God knows everything", as to me this is more about God Omnipotent.

But the worse is that I can't see that "God knows everything", because the conclusion then "before He plan, He doesn't know yet". This leads me to disregard option X, and try to look option Y.

But option Y to me is absurd because if He knows everything which absolutely are going to happen from A to Z (He knows that He create Adam - He also knows that Adam is --for example-- in heaven) - then there is no option to make a plan, there is no option to have "If ... Then I ..." or "If I ... Then ... " rule.

And the worse is then God is not Omnipotent as He is unable to change all things which He knows absolutely are going to happen from A to Z. At the time of Creation and after it, God only follow what is "already written" ("already written" = all things which He knows absolutely are going to happen).

I ask to the Calvinist Single Predestination, because option X to me is more "fit" with Double Predestination although it leads me to conclude that "God doesn't know everything" before He plans it.

So disregarding X and Y, I would like to know first what does it mean "He knows everything" according to the Calvinist Single Predestination ?


texts: What is the biblical basis for claims that certain manifestations are not of the Holy Spirit but counterfeits (e.g. Kundalini awakening)?

texts:
Revivalist movements such as the Toronto Blessing have spurred a wave of controversy around the origin of the manifestations observed in their services. Many Christians believe that these manifestations are caused by counterfeit spirits pretending to be the Holy Spirit. In particular, Andrew Strom published an influential three-part documentary (1, 2, 3) and a book in which he argues that the observed manifestations are suspiciously similar to the symptoms reported by individuals who have undergone the so-called "Kundalini awakening".
Likewise, it's not uncommon to hear of Christians accusing other Christians, particularly Pentecostals and Charismatics, of being influenced by counterfeit spirits. See for example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
What is the biblical basis for identifying certain manifestations as counterfeits (e.g. Kundalini awakening) instead of genuine Holy Spirit manifestations?


texts: Why do people expect coherence in the bible?

texts:
Lots of questions on this site are asking how some text from the old testament fits to a contradictory one from the new testament or a passage of one book to the other.
Why do people expect to find this kind of coherence in the bible? Clearly the different text passages are written several hundred years apart, by different people with different interpretations of the exisiting scriptures in mind and with a varying set of personal beliefs and values.


texts: How do theistic evolutionists view the Fall of Man?

texts:
I haven't really decided what to think about the creation of the world. I'm very familiar with the concept of evolution, scientifically, and if I didn't believe in God I'd certainly believe in evolution.

However I'm not sure about the theological aspects of evolution. I consider the Fall of Man to be very important in Christianity. If man didn't fall, the "sinful" behavior would have actually been built into us by God (or God's mechanism). It would be difficult to explain how we're responsible for our actions, then. At least that's the way it feels to me.

Now, I'd like to know a few things from a theistic evolutionism point of view. If there are many different views, please tell all that fit with the assumption of evolution.

Was the Fall of Man a historical event?
Is the description of the Fall in Genesis 3 literal?
(*) How come we are accountable for our deeds?
(*) Where did original sin come from? (or does it not fit with theistic evolution)

(*) If you think the Fall wasn't historical

EDIT: question number 4 was added afterwards.


texts: Why is Jesus Christ only one person despite having two minds?

texts:
I think this question haven't been asked yet here. The teaching of Chalcedonian Christianity (including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches) is that Jesus Christ exists as one person with two natures: divine and human, united without mixing or confusion. Thus, in Jesus Christ there is not one will (contra Monothelism), there is no absence of the human soul (contra Apollinarianism) and there is not two persons (contra Nestorianism).

There is a new explanation just recently that is called Neo-Apollinarianism wherein it is said that Jesus had no uncreated human soul but that the divine Logos completes the human nature of Jesus Christ. In this view, the divine Logos underwent a change (divine mind became the soul) so that Jesus has one mind but still had two complete natures: divine and human (pro Chalcedon) (Source)

My question is: How to explain the doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person despite having two wills (dyothelitism) and two minds? Answers from any Chalcedonian perspective are welcome.


texts: Testimonies of the existence of Mary and Joseph

texts:
There are 30+ historical accounts of Jesus's existence. A subset of these would also seem to be evidence for the existence of Mary and Joseph.

What is the historical evidence (besides what is recorded in Holy Scriptures) of the existence of Mary and Joseph?


texts: How should I understand the emphasis on "begotten, not made" in the Nicene Creed?

texts:
I'm trying to understand the importance the repetition of "begotten" in the Nicene creed. It states (emphasis mine):

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.

I understand the purpose of this: that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is wholly divine, and not a separate entity from the Father, but I'm not fully clear on the purpose of emphasizing the difference between begetting and making after stating it once already.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the emphasis to combat early heresy that Jesus's divinity was adopted, not inherent:

But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.

Based on this, I read the emphasis merely as a way to ensure people know that Jesus is one with the Father: "we really mean the same entity, not someone or something else."
But, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity puts it thusly:

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.
Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.

I read that as a limitation of God's power: that He is incapable of creating something that is of Himself, He must beget it.
How should it be read? That it's merely a linguistic tool to emphasize Jesus is one with the Father, a limitation on God's power to create, or something else?


texts: I inherited a relic that says S. Margar. vid, has wax seal and thread intact and above seal a number and date 1949 written.  I have been told this is St. Margaret of Scotland, do you agree and what does the vid mean, thank you, Kevin


texts:
A man came to my home and said that scriptures got the name bible from a prostitution city called Byblos near Tyre. He said that Byblos means "city of bastards" and it was deceptively put on the bible by some as mockery because Mary was with child without a human husband. Here is what I found from Wikipedia

  The Phoenician city, known to the Greeks as Býblos (Βύβλος) and to the
  Romans as Byblus, was important for their import of papyrus from
  Egypt.[10] **The English word "Bible", ultimately deriving from the
  Greek words bíblos (βίβλος) and biblíon (βιβλίον), may have originated
  with the Greeks' mispronunciation of the city or its Egyptian export.

Is there any truth in this? Is there any sect of Christians who believe this? How did scripture get the name bible?


texts: Essenes' Beliefs in Comparison to Christianity

texts: Does anyone know (with sources) what the Essenes taught and believed in relation to what Christ taught? Sources are much appreciated.


texts: What does it meant that Jesus "breathed on them"?

texts:
I always tried to visualize the moment when, after Resurrection, Jesus gave Holy Spirit to Apostles:

  So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent
  Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on
  them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
  the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of
  any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23, NKJV)

Is the term 'to breath (to give Spirit)' or other to explain how can it be understood? Did Jesus just made a loud voice of a breathe faced towards Apostles? Do people of our times that live in the Spirit make that gestures? In the only moment I recall that gesture (or act of breathing so to speak) with purpose of blessing.

In Genesis we read:

  And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7, NKJV)

but this can't be really easy to imagine.

These moments when 'spiritual world' crosses with human, common gestures are so special and make me wonder.


texts: What languages were used during Mass from paleo-Christianty until the Council of Trent?

texts: I know Latin was a vulgarization in attempting to make Mass more accessible to Christians. So which were the languages used in paleo-Christian Mass? Koine Greek, classical Greek, or something else? What other languages were used, up until the Council of Trent.


texts: What symbols are unique to the various denominations?

texts:
In reading the meta discussion about what logo should be used for Christianity.SE, I got to wondering what symbols are unique to various denominations. Note: I'm not looking for symbols which are common across Christianity -- such as the Cross -- but which are more narrowly focused.

For example, the following symbols are -- as far as I know -- uniquely Catholic:

An example of a symbol which I think is denominationally unique (and I think is Episcopal) is this:

Shield http://aldiechurch.com/images/episshield.png

What other denominationally unique symbols are there?


texts: How to reconcile God telling Jeremiah to preach to people that won't listen while also saying not to cast your pearls before swine

texts:
God tells Jeremiah to preach to people that will not listen:

  Jeremiah 7:2,27 NIV - Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message...[long message]...When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer.

Later on in biblical history, Jesus, whom Christians believe to be God, tells his crowd to not waste words on people that won't listen:

  Matthew 7:6 NIV - Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

What's an overview of Christian responses to how these two things can coexist without contradiction?


texts: What common dog species were the ancient Jews familiar with?

texts:
The Bible tends to put dogs in a negative light, which may be appropriate: but I'm wondering if dogs of Bible times existed differently than our highly trained obedient breeds of our time.

Revelation 22:15

2 Kings 8:13

Matthew 15:27

Some dogs of our day actually perform some duties of a shepherd, being highly bred and refined. They are amazingly loyal and have a lot of empathy that most animals lack. In many ways they can be superior to sheep in domestic qualities (I'm not a sheep-herder, so I speculate).

So I ask a question based on the bible settings:

Were the dogs of biblical civilizations more wild or different than our highly refined ones of our day?

The only thing remaining in terms of the symbolism of the animal is it's extreme unclean habits.

What dog breeds and species (even non-domestic) were common among the Jews between the time of the exodus (which would include the Egyptian dogs) and the Christian era, where the 'little dogs' are seen in a positive light. What did a dog mean to an ancient Jew or ancient Christian?


texts: Where can we find the official records of canonizations?

texts: Famous Catholic saints are often surrounded by various popular beliefs. Or sometime there is little that is actually known about the life of a saint (e.g. we don't seem to know that much about Thomas Aquinas). Is there an official website where the Vatican provides the official canonization documents of saints (old or recent)?


texts:
Scripture informs that God is immortal (1 Tim 6:16) God the (eternal) Son cannot experience death, yet the human incarnation, Jesus, did. John 3:16 "...God gave His only Son..." Am I missing something here?
My focus is on "God gave His only son..." Rather, it seems only a human version of His son. If that's got any validity according to scripture then there must be some proof it isn't so... in scripture.


texts: Why do people die but angels do not, but both have sinned?

texts:
In City of God, Book XIII, Ch. 1, Augustine wrote,

  Having disposed of the very difficult questions concerning the origin of our world and the beginning of the human race, the natural order requires that we now discuss the fall of the first man (we may say of the first men), and of the origin and propagation of human death.  For God had not made man like the angels, in such a condition that, even though they had sinned, they could none the more die.  He had so made them, that if they discharged the obligations of obedience, an angelic immortality and a blessed eternity might ensue, without the intervention of death; but if they disobeyed, death should be visited on them with just sentence—which, too, has been spoken to in the preceding book.

It is my belief that only God is inherently immortal (1 Tim. 6:16), being the Creator, and all else, being created, and existing by Him (Acts 17:28), is granted immortality according to His grace. Thus, angels do not die like men, for they are granted immortality. Furthermore, man's soul/ spirit, is also granted immortality according to God's grace. Hence, upon death, while man's body perishes and endures corruption, his soul/ spirit continues existence.

But, I wonder, how is it that angels who have sinned (2 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 12:9) continue to exist in an immortal state (for it is certain that Satan sinned, yet he still exists, as the biblical authors attest), yet man dies as a result of Adam's sin?

What is the explanation of this phenomenon?


texts: What is Christ's role in salvation according to Arian theology?

texts:
This is related, but intended to be a more specific version of this question.

The answer provides a pretty concise, Sunday-school refutation to Arianism, but it assumes a Trinitarian view.

From within an Arian theological framework, how does Christ fit into the work of human salvation?

Please provide Biblical and historical references as appropriate.


texts: Saying the concluding prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours

texts:
One of the most confusing bits of the Liturgy of the Hours is the concluding prayer for the offices. There are lots of bits in different brackets, and the "long ending" (through our Lord Jesus Christ your Son, who lives and reigns...") is never included in the text. Can anyone clarify which bit is said at which offices? Does it depend on whether you are reciting it in common or alone?

For example, today's concluding prayer at Lauds (Thursdays in Advent):

  Show forth your power, Lord, and comeCome in your great strength and help us.Be merciful and forgiving,and hasten the salvation which only our sins delay.(We make our prayer) through our Lord.(Through Christ our Lord.)


texts: Is there really a Catholic "blessing for bacon?"

texts:
The following appeared on my facebook feed today:

  The "what random things do we have short formulated prayers for" game is almost as funny as the "how many bizarre things do we have patron saints of" game.

  I seriously just found a blessing for bacon. Specifically for bacon.

  "Bless, O Lord, this bacon, that it may be a meritious food for Thy children, and grant that through the invocation of Thy holy name all those who eat of it may obtain prosperity, health, and preservation of their souls, through Christ our Lord. Amen. "

I realize that for Baptists, this is totally acceptable. We can pray about anything, and since potluck is a sacrament, and if you take out the "preservation of their souls," probably has been done.  We can pray about anything. And, we wing it a lot. For Catholics, however, I assume there is a little more rigour around making a prayer "official."

So, several questions came to mind in regards to this question, all centered around the legitimacy of this claim and authentication thereof.

Is this actually a thing, or is someone pulling my leg?
(Note: this link appears to substantiate it)
How would I find out?
Who within the heirarchy has the ability to declare an official "blessing for bacon?"


texts: Why did Paul say "I am pure from the blood of all men"?

texts:
In Acts 20 Paul is saying his farewell to the elders of Ephesus. He is bringing to their memory the manner, in which he had spent all that time with them - in humility (Acts 20:19).

Then he says:

  Acts 20:26 (KJV)
  Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood
  of all men

Why on earth did Paul need to mention this?  Was there a possibility that during his ministry he might've killed someone?  Was it not clear that Paul didn't kill anyone and didn't even intend to kill anyone?


texts: How is the Trinity compatible with divine simplicity?

texts:
Divine simplicity is the doctrine that God has no parts/composition. It implies that God is equivalent to his attributes and his attributes are equivalent to each other. So God is love and God is Justice and God's love is the same thing as God's Justice.

How does the doctrine of the Trinity mesh with this? There seems to be some distinction within God: three unique hypostases.

Perhaps the relations between the hypostases of the Trinity do not constitute "parts" or "composition" but are instead just "distinctions". If so that's a really "semantic" technical answer and I don't get it, some elaboration would be appreciated.

Perhaps it has something to do with the doctrine of interpenetration, aka circumincession aka perichoresis aka co-inherence. This being the doctrine that "the father fully contains the son and the spirit, the son fully contains the father and the spirit, and the spirit fully contains the father and the son." In this way, if you take any single member of the trinity, you get the entire trinity; it is impossible to separate one hypostasis from the others because whenever you take one hypostasis it always comes with the other two as well. In this way the trinity is inseparable and indivisible, just as the divine simplicity doctrine implies. Nevertheless it still looks sketchy because as mentioned, there is distinction between the hypostases.

How is divine simplicity reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?


texts:
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Galatians 1:15 and 16, KJV

Paul, in developing his argument to the Galatian churches, expresses his own, personal, calling and experience. He stresses this in order to support his own standing with the churches - first, his calling and second his experience.
What do modern Protestant, Trinitarian, evangelical churches expect of their leaders. Do they expect such a ministry ? Are they gathered by such a ministry ?
And from whom do they expect to be taught what is the gospel and who is Christ ? Do they expect, and are they gathered, by such called and experienced persons ?
And, what are the names, today, now, of such persons who are leaders of Protestant, Trinitarian, evangelical churches ? Who are they ?
Paul says he is separated.
Paul says he is called.
Paul says that God has 'revealed' his own Son 'in' Paul.
Who, today, in Protestant, Trinitarian, evangelicalism supports their standing in the churches by such expressions as Paul uses to the Galatian churches in the first century ?


texts: Concerning the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults

texts: Why do the American and Canadian Rites of Initiation differ in numbering and in the way that the rites are sometimes celebrated?


texts: Do we have any more information on Jesus's Sisters?

texts:
Matthew 13:55

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and
  aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his
  sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3

  Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,a
  Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?”

There are at least two references to Jesus's sisters in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and although his brothers are referenced by name, and we know quite a bit about James, his sisters are not named at all. Is there any surviving information about who they were? Is there any other texts or traditions about them?


texts: How is "Veneration" similar or  different from "Adoration"?

texts:
Most Catholics teach about honoring the saints, and mostly about "venerating" the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Though in my country (I'm from the Philippines), the line between honoring saints / Mary and the way we should honor the Lord is very thin, to most extreme cases, like some documentary I watched in TV, wherein one bedridden young woman prays to Mary  to heal her from her sickness (got no link sorry).

What are the similarities both acts share? How must they differ (aside from the recipient of the act (God for Adoration, Saint / Mary for veneration))?

OFF-TOPIC: My original question was: Why do Catholics "venerate" Mary and why do they give somewhat "more emphasis" on "venerating her" over directly praying to Jesus?

My original question might not suit here, though if you were compelled to answer me, thanks a bunch!


texts: What are demons according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
What are these demons?

There are a lot written outside the Torah or New Testament on this. The comment on this question you might find in the book of Enoch or the Talmud, and many other scriptures. Fallen angels or created by the sin men commit.

Many say there are or if connected to the soul. But what are they and can they be more then one thing?

According to the Catholic Church.


texts: How has the position of the Catholic Church on drugs changed over time?

texts:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially [...] the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Unfortunately, the Catechism does not provide a definition for the word drug or a description of what constitutes a distinction between drug and medicine. Paragraph 2290 includes food and does not therefore instruct abstinence but temperance, as it states, even with substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and medicines, which according to most definitions are indeed drugs. In addition, Paragraph 2291 excepts from the prohibition on drugs strictly therapeutic use. This seems to conflate the two terms drug and medicine, even though the use of one is prohibited and the use of the other is condoned with temperance.
In many western cultures, prohibition and control of substances is a relatively new practice, at least in terms of the lifetime of the Church. Is the prohibition of these substances by the church contemporaneous?
How has the position of the Catholic Church changed over time, from the Early Church Fathers until now, in condoning, instructing temperance, or commanding strict abstinence from the use of substances that perish with use, either for medical treatment or purposes other than medical treatment?

Edit to assist answers for bounty: I'm looking for a well sourced answer that gives an overview of the progression of moral and practical teachings concerning drugs, especially citing those traditional sources that mention substances or uses specifically, and considers any such progression alongside drug (or anti-drug) policies of nations like the US and the UK. An excellent answer would demonstrate how the use of some substances that were once permitted with temperance are now prohibited (or vice versa) if that is the case, or demonstrate that the church has always deferred the definition of "illicit drugs" to local churches and their (secular) legal systems, etc.


texts: Does the Bible say that the Devil was an archangel?

texts:
Did the Devil's expulsion from heaven occur before Jesus came to earth?

Does the bible say that the Devil was an archangel?


texts: How did Jesus reconcile his teachings with Judaism?

texts:
The Gospels tell us that Jesus was a Jew.
Yet Jesus revealed that he was the Son of God.

It seems to me that Jesus' contemporaries must have been forced to decide if his teachings were either:

Extensions of or updates to Judaism.
Or things that were so transformative/disruptive that they were suggestive of a new religion and a new interpretation (perhaps to the point of being heretical).

My Question:
- Did Jesus bother to reconcile his teachings with Judaism? And if so, how?


texts: Is it true that Martin Luther was calling for killing Hebrew people?

texts: Is it true that Martin Luther was calling in his books for killing Hebrew people and that the Lutherans of the USA in 1983 officially recanted this part of Luther's writings?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to praying with other Christians?

texts:
After receiving divergent comments on my question Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith?, I feel I need to ask the follow-up question that really should have been the first one:

Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to joining in prayer with other Christians?

Reading “Prayer—To Whom?” in The Watchtower, October 2010, gives me the impression that prayer is generally condemned if not directed explicitly to Jehovah. Does this, in extension, mean that prayer without a proper understanding of who God is is considered not praying to Jehovah?

And in “Prayer—Does It Matter Where and When?”, The Watchtwer, October 2010, it says

  When servants of God assemble and pray together, their petitions can
  be effective. If the group is united in spirit and the prayer offered
  in their behalf reflects Scriptural principles, God is pleased.

Is “Scriptural principles” here supposed to mean a proper understanding of God’s nature?

Is there a general guideline how to behave in the following situations:

What should a Witness do when meeting Mormon missionaries who ask to have a prayer together?
Would prayer be an option (or recommended) when meeting a Mormon in his home to teach him?
Would prayer be an option (or recommended) when meeting a Catholic (or other Trinitarian Christian) in his home?
When meeting with a Jew, can/will they pray together?
When meeting with a Muslim, can/will they pray together?

Summary

In essence, is there an official objection to praying with people who have a different understanding of who God is?


texts: What Bible passage does this $1,000,000 dollar bill reference?

texts:
Got this neat dollar bill on a trip to D.C.. Turns out it was an advertisement for a church. The back of the bill is a story about Jesus and something about becoming a Christian. But I digress:

What I am curious about is the upper left. I am not Christian at all, but I love to read through the Bible because of the stories inside.  The code reads: JN316 D0UB3L13V3.

I know the first part translates to "Genesis", literally read "Jeneisix", but I'm curious about the last part, something I have no idea of.

Some guesses I had was that it was "Double Eve", but I don't get how that would make sense in the context of a passage from the book (Genesis Double:Eve?). Or I thought it was Double Leave, but still I have no idea what it means.

Could anyone help me out here? I can post the back if anyone would like, but I prefer not to give publicity to the organization in question.


texts: According to the Trinity doctrine was the Son created by the Father?

texts: According to the Trinity doctrine was the Son created by the Father at some point?


texts: Do Catholics really believe in contemporary miracles?

texts:
I know beatification requires a miracle. And, I keep reading statements like this,

  "On 19 December 2009, John Paul II was proclaimed venerable by his successor Pope Benedict XVI and was beatified on 1 May 2011 after the Congregation for the Causes of Saints attributed one miracle to him, the healing of a French nun from Parkinson's disease."

I don't mean to be denigrating to the adherents, but is there any research on what percentage of Catholics believe the pope actually healed a French nun from Parkinson's disease?

And, on Mother Theresa,

  "In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor."

I suppose I can understand praying to a Saint, and even believing in miracles -- but, what percentage of Catholics believe in these very contemporary ones?

all quotes from Wikipedia articles.


texts: What encyclical upheld God's sovereignty over the regularity of natural laws?

texts:
Somewhere in my readings (I forget exactly where) I came across the following chain of events:

The Philosophy of Aristotle regarding the regularity of science --- scientific laws can be relied upon for future predictions --- acquired acceptance in the Catholic Church thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas.
The philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas acquired great deference, to the point of being mentioned very favorably in a council decree.
Science gained prominence as a reliable explanation of many aspects of the world.
Someone(?) proposed that God had setup the material world to obey the scientific laws, and that therefore those laws could not be violated, even by God.
Against this, the Pope of the time issued some kind of document saying that God is sovereign, and is not Himself bound by the regular laws he established for nature, and that therefore He is free to act independent of these laws in specific instances (or to abrogate them entirely?).

I am looking for the name of the encyclical (or other similar document) mentioned in (5).  Hopefully someone will have its name.
Thanks!