texts: In accordance to LDS doctrine, would Mary & Joseph need to be sealed (by proxy) in the temple?

texts:
It is my understanding that the LDS faith places great emphasis on the family unit  because they believe that through the sealing powers performed in the Temple by the holy Melchizedek priesthood, these families can live "together forever." The sealing aspect is not only important for uniting the family for all eternity, but for reaching the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. And for those who have passed on who hadn't had the opportunity to do their own work (which is why the Church invests so much time in doing genealogy), the LDS members can vicariously do these sacred ordinances for these individuals.

Since we know that Mary and Joseph are undoubtedly one of the most righteous couples/parents, and are deserving of the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, has the LDS Church performed their ordinances by proxy for them? If so, would they seal Christ to Joseph?

Am I right in assuming that in Christ's time, sealings were not performed in the Jerusalem Temple?I suppose the same could be said for all the righteous Biblical figures? These answers may not be answerable, but I wasn't sure if the LDS Church has any statement on it or not.

We can assume, well, "I'm sure they are taken care of... don't worry about it." But we know that Christ was an example, and while He was sinless, He still entered the waters of Baptism to show us the way. So I'm just curious if the LDS Church has mentioned the other sacred saving ordinances (according to LDS beliefs) pertaining to Christ and His family?


texts: Is the Holy Spirit offered worship at any instance?

texts:
This question is similar to this one except that its on Holy Spirit:
All the references where Jesus is offered worship

Is there any reference in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is offered worship?


texts: How is Derek Prince viewed by mainstream Christianity

texts:
The goal here is NOT to compare preachers/pastors, and create arguments.

This question came from the following:

I found a book on Amazon on a topic on Christianity that I like
the author is Derek Prince
I know nothing about the person
I looked at Wikipedia, it's not obvious to me if this person is mainstream christianity or heretic

To a first approximation, I don't know how to judge a book besides by the reputation of the author.

Thus, I'm curious of how Derek Prince is viewed in mainstream Christianity (as compared to the likes of John Piper, John MacArthur, Paul Washer).

Thanks!


texts: Regarding the biblical phrase 'everlasting life', would Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox be able to explain how everlasting life destroys death?

texts:
In the New Living Translation Study Bible notes for Daniel chapter 12, the topic 'Resurrection' on page 1421 offered this explanation of the phrase, 'everlasting life' in verse 2:

  "God's people will finally be rescued from death, not just from human
  kings, fire, or lions. Everlasting life destroys death."

Please note, I am NOT asking for views as to where everlasting life is believed to be enjoyed, or about views on the doctrine of the resurrection. I simply want biblical exegesis regarding the claim that 'Everlasting Life destroys death' as stated in the NLT Study Bible notes.


texts: What do Evangelical Protestants mean by "receive Jesus"?

texts:
In conservative Evangelical Churches, one often hears exhortations to become "saved" by "accepting" or "receiving" Jesus "into your heart", often accompanied by an invitation to pray a special prayer of salvation.

According to Evangelical Biblical interpretation, what exactly, in Biblical terms, does it mean to "receive" Jesus into your heart?


texts: Was Jesus' time in the wilderness the only time that He encountered Satan on Earth?

texts:
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Matthew 4:1-3

Was Jesus' time in the wilderness the only time (recorded in the Bible) that He encountered Satan on Earth?


texts: Looking for a specific sermon about Barnabas

texts:
I remember hearing a sermon1 in the last few years (so probably after 2010). I think it was a series of three about Josephs in the Bible (hence one sermon per Joseph). The first was about Joseph, son of Jacob; the second was about Joseph, husband of Mary.

I am looking for the third, about Barnabas (referring to his real name). I think it was by Bill Hybels (and probably all three were by the same person) but no amount of Googling on my part can find it.

In it I think he mentions three specific stories from Acts about Barnabas:

his selling a field
his bringing Saul to the believers in Jerusalem
his choosing to go on missions with John Mark

The latter story was particularly interesting because John Mark later went on (according to church tradition) to meet up with Peter and write the Gospel of Mark. Hence, the speaker said, humanly speaking had Barnabas not encouraged John Mark we would have missed Mark's Gospel (and possibly others).

Hence the focus of the sermon was the power of encouragement.

I'm pretty sure I heard it and did not see it, so it is possibly a podcast. Or perhaps it is from a CD, since it does not seem to be online.

Does anyone know where I have heard this?

1 There is a possibility that it was not a sermon but a book, but I'm pretty sure I heard it as a sermon.


texts: Why was Jewish High Priest commanded to have a golden plate inscribed “Holiness to the Lord”?

texts:
Why did God ask the High Priest to have a golden plate with the inscription “Holiness to the Lord” on his mitre (Exodus 28:36)? Is there any significant meaning in this?

In Exodus 28:38 it says, “Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things” and “they [gifts from the people of Israel] may be accepted before the LORD”.

The complete passage (Exodus 28:36-38) from the King James Version:

  And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD.

Why does this Golden plate receive such impressive lines?


texts:
All I know about Ignatian spiritual exercises was orally transmitted to me from priests and others, therefore I may misunderstand Ignatian spiritual exercises and in that case please correct me.

According to this video and from what I hear from people around me, is that Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation (whether one should be married or live as a monk or become a secular priest) for one's life. In these Ignatian spiritual exercises, one should listen internally for some kind of spiritual movement of the soul that comes from Holy Spirit and based on these feelings discern what path in life to take. These movements from the Holy Spirit are conferring some grace to one's soul, but why believe that one should feel the receiving of grace? One typically does not feel grace, rather, it is perceived through a longer time by considering objectively one's life. From what I understand about these Ignatian spiritual exercises it seems to me that they just add to what solid Thomist Rev. Fr. Richard Butler O.P. calls "An Unnecessary Mystery".

Question: Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation?

Some related questions that shed more light on the Thomistic understanding of vocation and which will help in understanding my question:

Catholic doctrine on spiritual vocation.
History of the doctrine of a religious vocation in the Catholic Church.


texts: Is there a commandment to love your parents?

texts: In Exodus 20:12 or Deuteronomy 5:16 (i.e. in the ten commandments), it states that you should honour your father and mother. I have often heard that we are commanded to love our parents: is this just folk-religion? Is there a Biblical commandment to love your parents? Is this just loving your parents as part of loving your neighbour (e.g. Mark 12:31)? Or is there a specific commandment?


texts: According to the Bible, do animals have souls?

texts: Randy Alcorn claims in his book Heaven (page 374) that animals have souls, though not necessarily like humans. Is there any Biblical support for this?


texts: Legal base for "any male baptized Catholic is eligible to be elected Pope"

texts:
A lot of sources (e.g. Wikipedia) mention the fact that "any male baptized Catholic is eligible" to become Pope. I'd like to find the canon law (if any) that states this fact.
Canon 332 states that If the person elected [to be Pope] lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately. So I would take this to mean that a person, in order to be eligible to become Pope, MUST be eligible to become bishop, but Canon 378 states that, to be eligible to become bishop, one must have been ordained a priest. Doesn't this contradict the "any male baptized Catholic can be elected Pope" statement?


texts: Is the betterment of the world impossible?

texts:
As I understand, Christians believe the world is inherently sinful and going in a downhill spiral until its end, when Jesus rescues the good and leave the bad. Am I correct?

If I am, are the initiatives to make the world a better place by Christians (without the intent to convert people to Christianity) genuine? In other words, are Christians being cynical when working on such initiatives because they truly believe it is an impossible task?


texts:
It is probably impossible to determine what his view was for certain, but what evidence is there that he believed eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, or universalism?

Evidence ranging from his words, to what his opponents, or even to the Christian school of thought he grew up in said is welcomed.


texts: How is the Vulgate rendering of Romans 5:12 explained (Roman Catholic perspective)?

texts:
The Greek text (Textus Receptus) of Romans 5:12 reads:

  δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν και
  δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους ο θανατος
  διηλθεν εφ ω παντες ημαρτον

Which one fairly literal translation (The Orthodox New Testament Praxapostolos) renders:

  Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, on account of
  which all have sinned

But the Vulgate translates the final phrase ("on account of which all have sinned" - εφ ω παντες ημαρτον) as in quo omnes peccaverunt.  The Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate reads therefore:

  Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The implication is that somehow all have sinned in Adam - i.e. they inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.  Unless I am misunderstanding the apparatus, there is no variant in the Greek text that supports this wording.  John Chrysostom - a 4th century Greek Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church - does not seem to interpret the verse this way in his homily on the passage.

My understanding is that the verse appeared this way in Latin in Augustine's De Peccato Originale, which also introduced the term "original sin" in the west, though perhaps that was not the first occurrence.

It seems that the Augustinian-Vulgate understanding of this verse has seeped into other English translations to various degrees.  While the King James is close to the literal translation above (And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned), other translations follow more closely the Latin meaning.  The ESV and RSV state, for example, ... and so death spread to all men because all sinned (i.e. cause and effect are transposed).

Is there some reasoned explanation for the apparent departure of the Vulgate from the Greek text of Romans 5:12?

(Perhaps this should be posted in BH instead, but since the passage of interest touches on theological differences between Christians I thought to post it here.)


texts:
The manuscript autographs of the gospels and epistles have perished or been lost. How long would the average autograph last before it perished or became unreadable? Take Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians as an example. It is thought to have been written sometime around 55 AD. No doubt, it would have been well looked after by the Church in Corinth, and many copies made. Given normal use, and a natural desire to preserve the autograph, is it reasonable to assume that it was still readable after 50 years? After 100 years? Longer, perhaps?

Edit:
There is an answer here:
"How Long Were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism" by CRAIG A. EVANS
Bulletin for Biblical Research
Vol. 25, No. 1 (2015), pp. 23-37
See https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371610?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract: "Recent study of libraries and book collections from late antiquity has shown that literary works were read, studied, annotated, corrected, and copied for two or more centuries before being retired or discarded. Given that there is no evidence that early Christian scribal practices differed from pagan practices, we may rightly ask whether early Christian writings, such as the autographs and first copies of the books that eventually would be recognized as canonical Scripture, also remained in use for 100 years or more. The evidence suggests that this was in fact the case. This sort of longevity could mean that at the time our extant Greek NT papyri were written in the late second and early to mid-third centuries, some of the autographs and first copies were still in circulation and in a position to influence the form of the Greek text."

Evans says the evidence suggests that autographs remained in use for 100 years or more, and perhaps as long as two centuries.

I accept Evans' answer as reasonable. Does anyone have other information?


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe in ghosts (or what-ever these may be)?

texts:
Here's a bit of a story from my childhood that's related to this question.

(Sorry if this is too long but I wanted to explain what I mean.)

I grew up in Sweden in a family of Finnish immigrants. During summertime, when most people took their 4 weeks of vacation, my family would often visit the locality where my dad had grown up, in the Satakunta region.

This locality was about 7 miles from the nearest town and about 20 minute walk to the nearest neighbor. It had been more densely populated in the past but esp. since WW2 people had started moving to larger cities where most of the jobs were. The "farm" (more like a set of houses but no farming or horses for since a long time) where my dad grew up had a main house, two barns, and a separate small sauna building. The main building looked similar to the building to the left in this picture.

Usually when we visited this place, our relatives from other parts of Finland came also so that everyone's kids (my dad had like 6 siblings) could have a chance to be with each other. During these weeks everyone slept in the main house, and supposedly that is where unusual things had sometimes happened.

What I was told is that sometimes one of my uncles had woken up at night because he felt like something (invisible) had sat down on the couch he was sleeping on. At some other times supposedly someones cover had been yanked from off him. Or they had heard foot steps from the stairs leading to the attic, as if someone was coming down from the attic.

And then there was a story that supposedly had happened to my grandfather, on the day his friend had died. This friend had come to visit him and they had chatted for some time and when the friend had left, he had supposedly walked through a closed door and disappeared. Later on my grandfather had heard that that friend had actually died earlier that day.

My dad also told me that his grandfather's father was supposedly known as a male witch (or "warlock" I guess is the right term) although he seemed to have been more like a part-time such.

There were more paranormal stories like these although I never experienced much of anything during the times I visited the place.

(Just wanted to add that I do realize that some people believe these kinds of events are hoaxes, jokes, or are only "experienced" by people who have psychiatric problems, but I personally never felt that I had enough reason to doubt my uncles, aunts or dad who told me these things.)

What I wanted to ask is, do JWs have a belief about these kinds of things, and if so, what causes them? Are there lost souls that are trapped between heaven and hell, or is it something else?


texts: Are there any authors that who believe Eph. 4:11 is not describing titles but general characteristics of how God created the church to work together?

texts:
Ephesians 4:11ff reads:

  And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

(Ephesians 4:11–13, American Standard Version)

I have been attempting to view the NT early church as an expression of the DNA of Christ instead of a clear blueprint of what the church should look like today. This is one example of the kind of passage that I have been struggling to understand correctly. Is there an author anyone knows of that might give me this perspective or can anyone tell me from this passage and the context if there does seem to be a very specific blueprint?


texts: What are the necessary circumstances that qualify a marriage for annulment in the Catholic Church?

texts: I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments under certain circumstances for some marriages.  What are the specific circumstances necessary to qualify a marriage for an annulment?  I'm wondering if some annulments are denied, leaving the couple to resort to divorce instead, and what circumstances might lead to that.


texts: Forgive Others As We Have Been Forgiven?

texts:
Colossians 3:13 (KJV) - Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

As far as I am aware, God only forgives those who confess their sin to Him and repent of it.  Does this then mean, contradictory to all teaching on forgiveness I've heard, that we only need to forgive those who confess to us they have wronged us and repent of it?


texts: How sound are the arguments that Melchizedek invoked a Canaanite deity when he met Abraham?

texts:
Melchizedek serves an important theological role in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews interprets Psalm 110 to speak of Jesus' priestly order (Melchizedek), thus resolving the potential problem that Jesus might have been suspected to be an illegitimate priest since he was not named after the order of Aaron.
As I understand it in Hebrews 7, he makes the argument that because because Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, it demonstrates that Abraham was blessed in some legitimate priestly fashion by Melchizedek, and that the one who blesses is superior to the one who receives the blessing, therefore Melchizedek is even superior to Abraham, which makes it quite fitting that Jesus would be after this priestly order, not the priestly order with descendants of Aaron who are limited by their own death. One might venture to guess from this theological interpretation that Melchizedek might have even been a type of theophany of Jesus, or if not, that his priesthood was special, unparalleled, and arcane.
However, the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary on the passage in Genesis 14:1-24 in dealing with the question of authenticity notes (p. 109):

Finally, the notice about Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in its own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity (see NOTE) as good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Abraham, on the other hand, refers to Yahweh, using the Canaanite name or names in suitable apposition, which is not less appropriate in his particular case.

The NOTE referenced mentions:

El-Elyon. Both elements ('el and 'elyon) occur as names of specific deities, the first in Ugaritic and the second in Phoenician; the Aram. inscription from Sujin combines the two into a compound. Though appellatives at first ("god" and "supreme" respectively), both are attested also as personal synonym for Elohim; and 'elyon occurs either separately (Isa xiv 14; Ps ix 3), or as a divine epithet (Pss vii 18, xlvii 3, lvii 3, lxxviii 56). But these are relatively late passages which conceivably could hark back to instances before us. The question, then, is how to interpret the latter.
Now that this chapter is amply attested as a source unto itself, it is not only unnecessary but fallacious to harmonize its contents with other portions of the OT. As a Canaanite priest, Melchizedek would invoke his deity or deities by name; and this is what the above translation sought to reproduce. Abraham would just as naturally turn to Yahweh, especially in an oath.

While Speiser (the author of AYB Commentary on Genesis) argues that it's fallacious to harmonize El-Elyon, it seems to be attempting to prove too much from Melchizedek's choice of deity name he invokes. Melchizedek appears upon the end of a bloody struggle between pagan kings, but was not himself involved in the battles. His words impose divine significance upon Abraham's victory, which make little sense if Abraham does not believe in his god. Further, it would seem to undermine the general message of the Pentateuch. Why would the author of the Pentateuch who bundles law about the Levitical priesthood receiving tithes, and the Canaanite deities being abominations, include Abraham acknowledging the legitimacy of the pagan Canaanite priesthood of Melchizedek by paying him a tithe?
What's Speiser's argument here? Is it more than a simple reaffirmation of the source hypothesis?


texts: What exactly did Yahshua/Jesus do during his 40 day fast after being baptized?

texts: It is stated in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that during the 40 day period Christ was tempted by The Devil/Satan but not many other details are given. In the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 58:1-12), the Prophet Isaiah highlights what a pleasing and acceptable fast is according to The Creator. In order for his fast to be acceptable unto The Creator, what was Yahshua/Jesus doing during that period? Are there any stories, commentaries, articles, and/or resources that highlight or discuss what was going on during his 40 days? Thank you.


texts: According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, where does the Devil come from?

texts:
I had two ladies come over yesterday from the local Jehovah's Witness place. They asked if we knew where the devil comes from but left when my wife said we're Catholic.  As a Catholic, I've got some ideas, but if I wanted to wow them if they ever come again, where do they believe the devil comes from?

Possibly related question


texts: Did the Romans not breaking Jesus' legs fulfill a prophecy?

texts:
I seem to remember that Jesus having already died and not needing his legs broken fulfilled an OT prophecy.

Where was this prophecy recorded and what did it say?


texts: Why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all of the gospels? Does it matter?

texts: I recently saw Bill Maher's documentary and he mentions that the virgin birth is only mentioned in two of the gospels. He goes on to bug Christian people several times by asking questions such as "How can you believe in the virgin birth if it's only mentioned in two of the gospels?". I know for a fact that the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew (1:18) and Luke (1:26-35), however, it is mentioned in neither Mark nor John. In spite of that, millions of Christians world-wide take the virgin birth for granted. My question is, as stated above, why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all four gospels?


texts: Was Onan really struck dead by God for masturbating?

texts:
Historically, Onan in Genesis 38 has been accused of masturbation, and for this supposed transgression was struck dead.  The term Onanism (or in German Onanie) is still used to describe this practice.

For example:

Jerome write:

  But I wonder why he the heretic Jovinianus set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?

Clement of Alexandria, while not making explicit reference to Onan, similarly reflects an early Christian view of the abhorrence of spilling seed:

  Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted. To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature

Was Onan's sin really masturbation?


texts: What are the written signs referred to in John 20:31?

texts:
John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

My question is about verse 31, what are the signs which are written? Is it A) what Jesus does in chapter 21, B) what he has done during his life (as recorded by John), or C) is it something else?
If it is A, would this be an example of where a chapter breaks up the record (chapters are arbitrary)?
If it is C, what are the signs and where does John reference them?


texts:
First of all I would like to state that this is not an attempt to disprove religion, or the existence of God. There is just a lot of confusion, due to many contradictions.

According to some people, God sends people to Hell because they were misinformed (believed in the wrong God/followed the wrong religion, etc).

Is this true? And why? If God saw the future, he would know that
there would be many people, millions even, preaching the wrong
things. If God had the power to create us all, why didn't He write
The Bible, and just dump it somewhere on earth for us to find and
replicate? Thus helping to eliminate the chance of
mis-interpretation, which is seeming to be a never-ending problem.
What was wrong with the Old Testament? Apparently, the Bible is
revised because things are mis-interpreted and that's how the New
Testament came to be.
If God could see the future, why didn't he write a version for each
language that would be invented my man kind? So that there would be
no possibility of mis-interpretation in future generations?
How do you believe in God, without doubts, when there are so many
other religions and Gods? What is it about your religion that makes
you say "Yep. This is the real/only God."?

Now I will admit that I have not followed religion my whole life but I have never dismissed the idea that there was a God, either.

But I am so confused by everything, and when I read things online, I get even more confused because there are so many Christians out there who preach this, or that, and then I click away to a different website where another Christian will preach the complete opposite of what I just read.

How can one follow religion when we do not really know the real story? As far as I know, everything we read today about the Bible is just yet another revision of something we have not read yet.

Is there an original Bible? I.e. An unedited/authentic version of the Bible that still exists that is being sold, or given away around the world? Or is it merely an artefact preserved in some Museum now?

How can we believe in the right thing when there is more of a chance of us believing in the wrong thing, and never even knowing?


texts: What is the Bible and Christian view on Astrology?

texts:
Being on this site has given me an opportunity to reflect and investigate more my beliefs and gain a greater understanding of the beliefs of other Christians. I was raised being taught that astrology was a pagan practice that went against Christian beliefs. Is that a view that is widely held by other Christians?

I've heard counter views that astrology is another way in which God speaks to man, while others say there is no validity to it at all, and it is just a harmless form of amusement.

Is there a Biblical point of view on astrology?


texts:
Is there a scriptural basis (preferably in Doctrine & Covenants) for the priesthood being restricted to men (at least on this earth)?

If not, what is the explanation for this practice?


texts: Does a person lose anything by just praying to God the Father all the time?

texts:
I have known many Christians to address prayers to Jesus, to Mary, various saints, etc.

What if someone always simply prays to God by calling on His name, God? Or says "Our Father who is in Heaven" as Jesus taught?

Can you see any downside to this?

Will this have any effect on their salvation?

If not, why do so few Christians seem to do this?


texts: Is the "belly of a whore" phrase from the Bible?

texts:
Several times, I have heard a phrase along the lines of "It is better to plant thy seed in the belly of a whore than to be cast upon the ground."

Is there a biblical reference for this phrase? I can't find it in the protestant Bible...


texts: Why does John 1 say "the Word was with God" and not "scripture was with God"?

texts:
Given that the Bible and Scripture is referred to as God's word, would the meaning of John 1:1 and John 1:14 be changed if the word 'scripture' was interchanged for the word 'word'?

  John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

  John 1:14
      The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.


texts: What is Deuteronomy 15 saying about the poor?

texts:
Deuteronomy 15 is giving laws and rules relating to the treatment of the poor in communities. Verse 4 says:

  However, there will be no poor among you, since the Lord will surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess

But verse 11 says:

  For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’

What is the solution to the apparent contradiction here? Obviously we have poor with us today, so is verse 4 based upon a condition of obedience?


texts: What is the earliest mention of how often the Eucharist was celebrated?

texts:
There is no explicit mention of how often the Eucharist was celebrated in the Bible.

What are the earliest historical documents that make reference to how often the Eucharist was celebrated?


texts: In which country is the Garden of Eden located?

texts:
Genesis 2:15(NIV)

  The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it
  and take care of it.

I'm curious to know, now, in which which country is the Garden of Eden located? (which is mentioned in Genesis)


texts: What does it mean that John's Gospel does not have an account of the institution of the Eucharist?

texts:
I'm preparing a class on the institution of the Eucharist and my text says

  "The Gospel of John includes no mention of the institution of the Eucharist"

it goes on to give the account, for reasons unknown to me, of Jesus washing His disciple's feet.  Which incidentally would have happened at about the same time as the institution of the Eucharist in the other Gospels.  The thing I noticed here is that in the same way that Jesus says we should consume His Body and Blood in remembrance of Him, He also says that we should wash each others feet.

Do washing feet and the Eucharist have anything to do with each other?  What could have made John write about washing feet and not what so certainly stuck out in the minds of the other Gospel authors and St. Paul.


texts: Where was Joseph when Mary visited Jesus on the cross?

texts: Not much was mentioned about Jesus's foster-father. Mary visited Jesus, but where was Joseph at when Jesus was being crucified?


texts: What was the origin of the practice of adding a halo around the pictures of Jesus and the saints?

texts:
We see at Ex 34:29:
"Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God."
We also read at Mtt 17:2
"And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white."
Different denominations which depict Jesus and the saints in pictures, make sure to add a halo, mostly around the head, to represent divinity and/or holiness. One wonders whether the said practice started with Christianity and was based on depictions  in the scripture, like the one relating to  Moses in OT. My question therefore is: What is the Catholic Church's teaching regarding origin of the practice, within the Church, of depicting Jesus and the saints with a halo .


texts: Explain to those knowing only of the Ordinary Form of Mass, what incense is and why it is used during the Liturgy at Mass?

texts:
In the Mass of Paul VI (OF = Ordinary Form) it is extremely rare throughout a liturgical year for incense to be used as compared to what is now the EF = Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Explain to say one's children who know of only the Ordinary Form of Mass, what incense is and why it is used at Mass?

The questions are: what is incense, when and why is it used in either form of the Mass, are there rubrics in the Missal determining its use in either form of the Mass? What dictated the differences in its use from the EF to the OF of the Mass?

cf. Holy Smoke - The Use of Incense in the Catholic Church


texts: What does the Bible say about aliens? Did God create any life outside Earth?

texts:
Duplicate of:
  Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets?

God created us in His own image, we can be proud that we are His privileged creations in this Earth. But are we unique in this universe?
I believe that God has kept rest of the Universe for us to praise His wisdom and wonders and to praise his creations which are limitless. We will not be able achieve/find anything beyond this fascination. Even if there are 'people' in some other galaxies, we do not have the privileges  to find them.
But I know my faith related to this has no base.
So, what does the Bible say about this? Any support to my belief?


texts: Does the Roman Catholic church recognize LDS baptisms?

texts:
According to some of the answers in this question, the Roman Catholic church recognizes baptisms that use water and follow the Trinitarian formula, even if they are not performed by a Catholic.

Baptisms in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as follows:

  “The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ
  to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has
  presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him
  or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize
  you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
  Amen.

  ”Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again
  out of the water.“

Source: Doctrine and Covenants 20:73–74. see also 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11, and  Handbook 2, 20.3.8.

Therefore, does the Roman Catholic church recognize LDS (Mormon) baptisms as valid, or would a Latter-day Saint need to be re-baptized to become a Catholic?


texts: Do Protestants believe that all sins are equal?

texts:
I know that Protestants reject the Roman Catholic understanding of "mortal" and "venial" sins. I also know that there's biblical basis for seeing sins as both equal and different.

But how do Protestants explain this?  According to them, are sins equal or different?

Related: How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?


texts: Why did God tell David to go to the town of Hebron?

texts:
After the death of Saul, David asks God where he should Go. God indicates he should to to Hebron, where David is soon anointed king.

  2 Samuel 2:1 (NIV): In the course of time, David inquired of the Lord. “Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?” he asked. The Lord said, “Go up.” David asked, “Where shall I go?” “To Hebron,” the Lord answered.

Why did God chose the town of Hebron? What does the Bible say is special about it?


texts: Why do Evangelical Protestants reject the Catholic approach to venerating Mary?

texts:
When Elizabeth greeted Mary -

  42 ...she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..."  - Luke 1:42-43 (RSVCE)

Why don't Evangelical Protestants treat Mary with at least this much reverence?


texts: Pure curiosity, I see that Mel Gibson is an adherent of Traditionalist Catholicism. Is this a part of "normal" Roman Catholicism, or some distinct branch? What are the differentiators here?


texts: Have there been any cases of Stigmata outside of Catholicism?

texts: Have there been any cases of the Stigmata appearing to someone who is outside of Catholicism, yet still a member of Christianity? Such as a member of a Protestant denomination or sect of Eastern or Coptic Orthodoxy?


texts: In Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism, what are the main explanations on the matter of why Jesus Christ needed to be baptized?

texts:
What are the main explanations on the matter of why Jesus Christ needed to be baptized in Catholicism, in Eastern Orthodoxy, and in Lutheranism?

As far as I understand, baptism in the above-mentioned traditions is meant to be performed on fallen and sinful humans. So why did it need to be performed on Jesus Christ then?


texts: C. S. Lewis' description of heaven and hell contrasted with Catholicism

texts:
I was going through The Great Divorce by C S Lewis and was wondering how much in line with Scripture his descriptions of heaven and hell are. I've heard very different descriptions coming from saints like St. Teresa of Jesus and they seem to conflict in many ways.
Lewis describes hell as the person's choice to reject God and to stay in hell (the gates of hell are locked from the inside), whereas others describe it as God placing the damned there and locking them up. There's also a conflict in the "design" of hell. Lewis and others describe it as a torture of the mind, whereas others describe it as a physical torture.
There seems to be support for Lewis' view in the Bible, such as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus where the rich man doesn't want to go to where Lazarus is but rather wants Lazarus to come to him. But also there's support for the other views because it's written that one can be cast into hell.
How does C.S. Lewis's descriptions of heaven and hell compare with the teaching of the Catholic Church?


texts: What problems, if any, do Jehovah's Witnesses have with the Apostles' Creed?

texts:
I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.

However, it's pretty clear from other portions of the series that its creators do not consider non-trinitarians to be orthodox.  Which made me wonder about how various non-trinitarian groups view the Apostles' Creed – do they actually accept it as written, or not?

In this question, I'll focus on one particular such group.  Do Jehovah's Witnesses disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

By "reinterpret," I mean divergence from a typical understanding of the text held by trinitarians.  I realize of course that some trinitarians "reinterpret" some phrases too, like "he descended into hell," so it can be a gray area.  But hopefully answers can cite JW publications or scholars to show to what extent they adopt the creed as their own.

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and Swedenborgians.


texts: What is the nature of the 7 demons in Mary of Magdalene that Jesus cast out?

texts:
Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9 mention that Mary Magdalene had seven demons, which Jesus exorcised.
In spiritual warfare literature, it's common to distinguish different types of demonic influence; example in the article The Extraordinary Actions of the Devil.  Another tries to give the following definitions:

Demonic Possession - It's when a demon takes over a person's body without their consent. It's what you see in most movies. It involves speaking in tongues, sudden personality changes, sudden violence, even superhuman strength.
Physical Pain - This is a sickness or an injury due to a demon being inside a person. It doesn't impact the soul, just the body.
Diabolic Oppression - This is when a demon torments a person, causing tragic events in their lives the loss of a loved one, the loss of a job, a home. Basically, the story of Job.
Diabolical Infestation - It's when demonic entities take over a house, an object, even an animal.
Diabolical Subjugation - It's when the possessed invites the demon into their lives. They do this through game play or pledging their soul to the devil. It's real in that if a human wants power, they can trade away their future for that power.
Diabolical Obsession - It's when a person has constant, overwhelming and irrational thoughts, making them act in perverse ways. It's hard to detect because it's the most highly functional of all the possessions. But it can lead to suicidal ideation and murder.

But today, especially in Western countries, people tend to "psychologize" those demonic influence into chronic depression, etc, such as how this article tries to contemporize Mary Magdalene's seven demons.
Rather than speculating from modern / Western lens or use Western categories (like the above), my complete question is: using the best studies of demonology in Jesus's time, what is the nature of the 7 demons oppressing Mary Magdalene in terms of how the Gospel writers would have conceptualized it?  In other words, what did the gospel writers have in mind when choosing the words to narrate what Jesus did?  Is it always a spiritual entity perceived to be gone out like in the Exorcist movie?  Or on the other extreme, is it an idiomatic expression for what today we call mental or physical illness?  Or is it something in between?
The significance of this question is to enable a more faithful interpretation of the many Gospel passages on Jesus and the Apostles casting out demons, which today's Christian groups (esp. those with Freedom ministries) use as the basis of their practice.  Some groups even take Mark 16:16-18 literally as the sign of a true believer ("... in my name they will cast out demons...") and exhorting them to practice Jesus-given authority to regularly perceive demonic influence in yourself / others and exorcise them.
Preliminary research

A 2009 PhD Dissertation Jesus, A Jewish Galilean Exorcist: A Socio-Political and Anthropological Investigation by Amanda Witmer, McMaster University
Book Article Exorcism or Healing?: A Korean Preacher’s Re-Reading of Mark 5:1-20 by Sejong Chun (Vanderbilt University), reviewed here, part of the 2010 book Mark: Texts @ Contexts.  This paper contains 5 plausible hermeneutical understanding of the Mark 5:1-20 story, demonstrating the horizon of interpretation we are looking for in this question.
Demons and Politics: A Consideration of Jesus' Exorcisms in Mark a by Bible scholar Andrew Perry, pdf available here at his Academia site, commenting on three 20th century social study theories of exorcism discussed by Paul W. Hollenbach in his well-cited Journal of the American Religion 1981 article Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A Socio-Historical Study
2007 Master's Thesis The Representation and Role of Demon Possession in Mark by McGill Religious Studies student Eliza Rosenberg, which includes 15-page (!) list of works cited plus a 4-page list of modern exorcism accounts, mostly from news articles from 1995 to 2007.


texts: Are non-Anglican Protestant churches ever named after extra-biblical saints?

texts:
Catholic and Orthodox Churches are often named after saints because we believe in the communion of Saints and like to put our congregations under some sort of patronage.

I've seen Episcopal churches named after St. Francis and St. Dunstan and I'd imagine there are quite a few named after the various awesome Saxon saints.

And I've seen Lutheran Churches named after Biblical Saints (John, Mark, Luke etc...)

I've never seen any traditions in Protestantism (not that it's a thing) that violate this rule, or this custom.

Are there any Protestant churches who name their churches after extra-biblical saints?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the concept of "partial" or "imperfect" communion?

texts:
According to Wikipedia,

  The Catholic Church makes a distinction between full and partial communion. Where full communion exists, there is but one Church. Partial communion, on the other hand, exists where some elements of Christian faith are held in common, but complete unity on essentials is lacking.

According to my understanding, being in communion means one is incorporated into the body of Christ (i.e., "in Christ"), that is, one is a Christian. Accordingly, Christians are "members of his body" (Eph. 5:30) or body parts of Christ's body.

With that being said, what is the biblical basis for being in "imperfect communion" or "partial communion"?


texts: What is the difference between Heaven and Paradise?

texts:
In this question, under Mawia's answer, Narnian made the comment:

  This uses an example taken from before payment for sins were made. Thus, it does not refer to heaven, but to Paradise

What is the difference between "heaven" and "paradise"?


texts: Has a Pope ever secretly canonized a saint?

texts:
We know that at certain times a Pope has created a cardinal of the Catholic Church "in pectore" (in the heart). This simply means that the Pope, in creating a cardinal in such circumstances, chooses not to publish the new prelate's name publicly due to some political (or other) reason. His name remains known only to the Pope until such time as he can announce the cardinal's name publicly.

Has this same process ever been applied to the canonization of a saint "in pectore"?


texts:
The following are some lines in which Jesus (Peace be upon him) mentions "Father" or "God".

Is Islam we consider "Father" or "God" to be referring to Allah as Jesus (Peace be upon him) is considered to be a prophet of Allah.

I would like to know what these lines are referring to in Christianity:

  My Father, who has given them to me,  is greater than all;  no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.—John 10:29 (NIV)

  "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.—John 14:28 (NIV)

  But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God  has come upon you.—Matthew 12:28 (NIV)

  About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).—Matthew 27:46 (NIV) (parallel in Mark 15:34)

  But if I drive out demons by the finger of God,  then the kingdom of God  has come upon you.—Luke 11:20 (NIV)

Also in the next one it is said by Jesus (Peace be upon him) that "he who sent me".

  By myself I can do nothing;  I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just,  for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. John 5:30


texts: What is the basis for why certain musical beats are deemed by some to be unchristian or immoral?

texts:
I have encountered people in the past that have asserted that certain musical rhythms or beats are inherently immoral or sinful.

It seems to follow, then, that even if the words of Scriptures themselves are put to music with the wrong beat, the result is somehow still immoral.

What is the particular basis or argument for this belief?  Is there any biblical basis for this?  Did the Psalms follow a certain beat pattern that could be the basis for this thinking?


texts: Did John Calvin help Nicolas Cop write his infamous inaugural address?

texts:
Early in John Calvin's career, he was involved in a controversy that forced him to flee Paris and live in hiding for a time.  Calvin's friend, Nicolas Cop, delivered an address that many considered heretical, and Calvin was implicated as well.  R. C. Sproul says:

  Now it was also discovered that this student, John Calvin, helped him compose this sermon, and so, as a result of this event, Calvin also had to flee not only the city, but he had to flee France itself. (10:30–11:00)

Bruce Shelley relates the event this way:

  In the autumn of 1533, Calvin was so closely linked with his friend Nicholas Cop that when Cop gave a strongly Protestant address as rector of the university, some suspected Calvin wrote the speech. (CHPL, 269)

While Wikipedia says, without a citation:

  Calvin certainly influenced but did not write Cop's address (permalink)

So, my question is, do modern biographers of Calvin or historians of the Reformation believe:

that Calvin had a role in the actual drafting of the speech?
that Calvin had any influence on the content of the speech?
or that Calvin was accused simply because of his friendship with Cop?

That is, what is the scholarly consensus, and the basis for that consensus, on Calvin's involvement in the writing of Cop's fateful address?


texts: How are King Zedekiah (Old Testament) and Laban (Book of Mormon) related?

texts:
In the Book of Mormon, Nephi and his brothers go to the "house of Laban" to retrieve the plates of brass (see 1 Nephi 3). In 1 Nephi 3:31, Laman and Lemuel object to Nephi stating that they should try again to retrieve the plates after their first failed attempt, stating that "Laban can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?"

In my LDS upbringing, I seem to recall Laban being referred to as a "king," though I cannot find any reference to him being a king of any type in Book of Mormon verses. Additionally, according to this Wikipedia article about Laban, he is not referred to as a king, but as a prominent member of Jerusalem society.

In 1 Nephi 7:14, Nephi references that Jeremiah (the presumed acting "Prophet") is cast into prison:

  14 For behold, the Spirit of the Lord ceaseth soon to strive with them; for behold, they have rejected the prophets, and Jeremiah have they cast into prison [...]

As a cross-reference to the Old Testament (Jeremiah 37:17-18), one can surmise that King Zedekiah is the appointed king of Jerusalem:

  17 Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took him out: and the king asked him secretly in his house, and said, Is there any word from the Lord? And Jeremiah said, There is: for, said he, thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.
  18 Moreover Jeremiah said unto king Zedekiah, What have I offended against thee, or against thy servants, or against this people, that ye have put me in prison?

Thus, my question is this: What title does Laban hold? Is he a government figure, a religious figure, or in a position of power of any kind? And if he is capable of commanding fifty, how is he capable of that? Does he work for King Zedekiah at all? Is he one of King Zedekiah's priests? Or is Laban just some rich member of society who has his own personal/private security and servants?


texts: How does Christianity define idolatry which is prohibited in the 2nd of the ten commandments? Is there any general consensus among the different branches or are there different opinions? What are the earliest positions/opinions of Christianity on this subject?


texts: What topic in Theology does Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" fit under?

texts:
Context:

I recently read Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone." I'm searching for similar material.

Now, it's clear that it does not fit under "pre-destination" or "trinity".

The closest thing I can think of "preservation of the saints" -- but even that is not quite right -- the focus seems to focus more on "solitude."

Question:

Is there some word, on the calibre of christology, eschatology, soteriology -- that describes the type of issues Tozer addresses?
If not, what general "Christian Topic" does Tozer's "The Saint Must Walk Alone" fall under?


texts:
God cursed Cain to be an eternal wanderer:

  Genesis 4:12 King James Version

  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee
  her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

So he went to a (probably figure-of-speech) land of wandering, the land of Nod, this much I understand. But then he builds the first city, Enoch. How is it compatible with being an eternal wanderer?


texts: Isn't reincarnation affirmed by the Bible?

texts:
Malachi 4:5:

  I will send you the prophet Elijah. He will come before the day of the Lord arrives. It will be a great and terrifying day

Jesus says in Matthew 11:14

  "and if you are willing to believe their message, John is Elijah, whose coming was predicted"

Jesus says in Mathew 17:12

  But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”

It's pretty clear from the above verses that John was Elijah reincarnated.

Wouldn't the above verses imply that reincarnation is true?


texts: Are there any accounts of "words of knowledge" taking place outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations?

texts:
First of all, let me clarify what I mean by "Word of Knowledge" to avoid confusions. I'm particularly interested in the following definition from Wikipedia:

[...] It can also be defined as knowing the secrets of another person's heart [...]

Or in my own wording:

Person A receives a "download" of very specific private/sensitive information about person B, which person B has not shared with anyone up to that point or at least there is no way person A could've known that information. Person A discloses these revelations to person B together with some encouraging message, and person B reacts with shock, typically expressing their bewilderment with phrases like "How did you know that?!!!!".

In my investigations I've come across a handful of anecdotes that more or less match this definition (e.g. 1, 2). For example, I remember the case of a preacher A approaching a person B and telling them something along the lines of "do you remember when you woke up at 4:00 am in your room on this specific date, you stood up and did these specific actions, and then you asked God these specific things? The Lord is telling me that ..." while person B broke into tears as their secrets were revealed with astonishing accuracy. When I come across anecdotes of "word of knowledge" like this, I can't help but feel very impressed. However, my personal impression is that these sorts of anecdotes are relatively uncommon, and I'm having a hard time recalling a case that didn't happen in the context of a Pentecostal or Charismatic denomination.
Question: Are there recorded occurrences of "words of knowledge" outside of denominations that label themselves as Pentecostal or Charismatic? Say, a Baptist missionary receiving a "word of knowledge" in the jungle which led to an unconverted accepting Christianity, etc.


texts: does sword in Matthew 10.34 mean a branch?

texts:
does sword in Matthew 10.34 mean a branch as in a branch of Judaism?

if one translates the Greek word sword (macherion) back into Hebrew it can mean a literal sword or figuratively it can mean a branch as in Isaiah 27.11


texts: In the LDS church what is the process of calling a new prophet?

texts:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was originally founded by Joseph Smith believed to be a prophet of God. After his death he was followed by Brigham Young and after Brighams death it was followed by John Taylor.

This pattern of a prophet dying and then a new one being called appears to be repeated again and again in the LDS church.

What is the usual process that is followed for calling a new prophet?

How is the decision made and by whom?

Were there any prophets called by a different process or unusual circumstances?


texts: Why does Jesus have to be fully God and fully man? Is it not sufficient to be the son of God and fully man?

texts:
This is a follow on from the question
Why does the Messiah have to be God?

Fully Man: I agree that Jesus had to become man, I believe this is VERY well supported in the bible. Hebrews 2:17-18, Hebrews 4:14-15 and much more.

Fully God? I know that Jesus himself claimed deity, (See all the references here: Moody Global Ministries).

Question: What is the Biblical basis for saying that  Jesus must be fully God and fully man? Why does Jesus have to be God himself?

Is it not sufficient that he is the son of God? The son of God can still save, the son of God can still be our intercessor, the son of God can still have fully God attributes (because he is the only son of God), the son of God can still exist from before there was time. So back to the question, WHY does Jesus have to be God?


texts: What is the Biblical basis the for Immutable Nature of God?

texts:
Dei Filius sayeth this:

  God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

and the Catechism quoteth it and sayeth this:

  "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived"

Which is something I heardeth a priest say a few days ago in reference to 4th graders asking whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.  The Catholic answer is actually no, because God can't change His nature.

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the Catholic Church's teaching on this is indeed based in Scripture.  But, since the references in the Catechism point to a Vatican I document, I'm not entirely sure which scripture (sounds like something St. Paul would say) or if it is just a teaching that is consistent with scripture.

This is asked in regards to the documents (Dei Filius and CCC 156) and Catholic or Catholic leaning answers would be most appreciated.


texts: A set of traits common for all protestant believers

texts: What is a set of traits that are common for all protestants (excluding those who call themselves Christians, but don't pray to Christ), yet setting them apart from other Christians (the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox)?


texts:
Proof of sacramental absolution required for marriage in France during the French Revolution?

I remember reading an ecclesiastical works of how the Catholic Church had suffered during the French Revolution and how the Church responded in various ways. The dechristianization of France during the French Revolution was literally a terror.

One of the things, I can recall, was the fact that those who wished to get married had to produce a Receipt of Absolution from a confessor that they had been to confession and received sacramental absolution for their parish priest to proceed with the marriage of the couple, within the Catholic Church.

How long after the French Revolution this norm remained in force I am unaware of.

If anyone in able to find a source which states the requirements for this proof of absolution in either French or English, I would greatly appreciate it!

I know it was required, but now I can not find a source for it.


texts: Can I believe in evolution and still be a Christian?

texts:
It would seem that the first part of the book of Genesis contradicts what science teaches about the origin of life on earth. If I am to reconcile evolution and Genesis, it seems that I have a number of options.

Accept Genesis as a metaphor for the sinfulness/corruption of mankind
Dismiss the story entirely
Believe that God picked two early humans and the first that he 'breathed' life into, and these two were Adam and Eve.

These options are not very good in my book because both Jesus and St. Paul, in the New Testament, made it clear they understood the story to have been a historical truth. At the same time I believe God gave us two eyes and a brain, and you cannot reject evolution out of hand.

This is a question that has had quite a heated debate for quite some time, and I do not have expectation that one answer will be 'right'. However, I am asking it anyway since it is one I continue to struggle with.


texts: Latter Day Saints, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden

texts:
It was pointed out in this answer and this answer that in the book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:22-23 it states

  And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
  And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Is there any biblical basis for the book of Mormon to state that everything in the Garden of Eden was to remain unchanged and therefore Adam and Eve would not have had children without falling from God's grace?

This seems to contradict God's first instruction to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28 when He said

  Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. (NIV)


texts: Why did the Old Testament command to kill?

texts:
I've been reading the answers given in this similar question or even in the "duplicate question" but they don't respond to my question which is slightly different.  I'm not wondering if Killing is legit or not, but WHY God commanded to kill in the Old Testament.

This is a very common question asked by atheist as a way to show Bible inconsistencies and I believe the question and answers given in the previous questions are not exactly answering that.

I'm wondering why, in the first moment, God in the Old Testament was commanding to kill other people when in the New Testament killing is totally forbidden and Jesus never commanded it in any case.

It sounds like two different Gods: the aggressive one and the pacifist.

Some quotes from the old Testament commanding to kill are the following ones:

Leviticus 20:13 NAB

  "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

  They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Exodus 22:17 NAB

  You should not let a sorceress live.

Leviticus 20:27 NAB

  A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.


texts: Which Protestant denominations support the position that Peter is the rock that Jesus builds his church upon?

texts:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18

It is my understanding that there is still debate amongst Protestant scholars over the interpretation of this scripture, and that there may be partial protestant support for the Primacy of Simon Peter.

Is this true? If so, which denominations of Protestantism support the interpretation that Peter is the rock Christ is referring to?


texts: What keyboard hymnals do beginner piano accompanists use to learn the Catholic Mass?

texts: I'm actually looking for a gift for my wife to buy me for Christmas, but in trying to make this an objective questions for this site, I'd like to know, assuming there is some sort of common underground progression that the accompanists and liturgists make from being relatively crummy amateur piano players (like myself) to being able to crank out "On Eagles Wings" like a virtuoso, are there hymnals that are easier for pianists?  Our local church has been without an accompanist for several years since the last one reverted to Lutheranism, I'd like to help, but I'm kind of a bummer pianist, as I've mentioned previously, anyway, any help would be much appreciated!


texts: What is the biblical basis for the doctrine that salvation can be lost?

texts:
In contrast to the doctrine of Eternal Security, many denominations believe that a person can, in fact, lose his or her salvation.

So, what is the biblical basis or biblical argument for the doctrine of the Loss of Salvation?  Put another way, what is the biblical argument against Eternal Security?


texts:
Psalm 103:1-2  (KJV)
  Bless the Lord, O my soul:
  and all that is within me, bless his holy name.
   Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits

What does it mean to say "Bless the Lord"?. It is more logical that the superior one should bless the inferior one. We are sinners and the LORD is far more superior than us. We should be asking blessings from Him. But what does it mean when we bless the Lord?

There are many songs using this phrase like  this beautiful song.

We are sinners and how can we bless the Lord? What is the exact use of this sentence? If I am simply telling my soul to bless the Lord then I think it's reasonable. But can it be used while praying and say "Lord, I bless you"? I feel uncomfortable at this.

Is this a translation issue?  What is the meaning of this phrase and what is its usage?


texts: What are liturgical honours and privileges for the Patrons of categories of people?

texts:
In the Motu Proprio E sancti Thomae Mori proclaiming Saint Thomas More Patron of statesmen and politicans Pope John Paul II. declares:

  Therefore, after due consideration and willingly acceding to the petitions addressed to me, I establish and declare Saint Thomas More the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, and I decree that he be ascribed all the liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people.

What are these liturgical honors and privileges?

For groups and regions that can have a particular calendar it is just the liturgical memororial. Rules on this are in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Calendaria  particularia (in Latin; AAS 62 [1970], 651-663). As a group like Politicans has no own particular calendar (and most time no own litrugical celebrations), I have no idea what kind of litrugical honors a Patron can be granted.

Clarification: After Ken's Answer I want to further explain my question.

The pope uses the term "liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people" like it is a clearly defined set of honours and privileges that apply to all "Patrons of categories of people". I want to know, if such a set exists and which privileges it includes. So a list of liturgical honors for certain Saints does not help me, even if they are also "Patrons of categories of people".

Such privileges could be:

the use of the propium of the Saint's memorial on other days in masses of/for this group
some privileges in veneration for members of this group (e.g. if there were a ban on private possesion of Saints's image, an exception for this group)

Maybe the Red, Blue, ... Masses are such a privilege, but than I did not understand it. I have never heared before of this pracitice (Germany). If the Saint is mentioned in these masses, it may be one of the liturgical privileges I am searching for.


texts: Do non-Catholics get protection by confessional seal?

texts: A non-Christian is travelling with a priest and seeks his moral advice because he is available.  Since the non-Christian was never Catholic, do the rules of confessional seal apply anyway when he reveals is dilemma before the priest?


texts: Our Daughter died today and her mother asked me to have absolution for her. How can l have this done because only a methodist pastor prayed over her?


texts: Are there any scholars or doctrinal schools that address the conspicuous dearth of needy people in Jesus' sayings and stories?

texts:
I'm doing a research project that has involved a lot of different types of survey of the Gospels. Having noticed a surprising number of rich people in Jesus' sayings, I  surveyed for verses with elements that pertain to socioeconomic status. That is, verses where Jesus uses examples or stories that involve having something (food, clothes, a home, a job, cash, storerooms, livestock, farms, storehouses, real estate, investment property, servants, slaves, hired hands, etc.) or not having anything (for example, being a beggar). I found such elements in about 28% of his 1300-ish speaking verses.

Rather glaringly, after a handful of comments on the needy (about 30 verses) and a handful of warnings to the rich (about 30 verses again), Jesus speaks some 300 verses of unrelated parables and examples full of detailed descriptions of people who have something--often very, very rich people. (Note that I allowed for narrative overlap among the four Gospels in arriving at these figures.) I tried googling around for explanations, but I can't find anyone who talks about the preponderance of haves as opposed to the precisely one have-not in his teachings. (And to clarify, I mean the only have-not who gets to be the protagonist. Jesus does tell a few stories about slaves, but he makes them the villains, in the end having them tortured for an unfathomably long time or summarily and brutally executed for their wickedness, so you can see why I didn't count them).

So here I am, naively asking: why does Jesus spend 60-ish verses promoting charity and warning the rich, and 300-ish verses on unrelated sayings and stories with detailed descriptions of people who have something--often the very rich? Or another way of asking the question: it seems to me that any of the points he makes in these 300 verses could be made with stories about beggars and seriously needy people, but he never uses them, preferring the rich instead.

Have any scholars, Church fathers, prominent theologians, or even obscure pundits noticed and commented on this?

Edit:
You guys, I am deeply sorry to have offended anyone. I did not realize this would be inflammatory. All I did was read the Gospels, and I was just asking a question that I thought would have an obvious answer. I am very sorry.

I am confused about the complaint that I have misused the word "rich". I must point out that no matter where you draw the line between rich and poor in Jesus' words, the needy are always the furthest away from it and on the wrong side. I just figured someone would have written a book about the stark contrast between the popular, modern conception of Jesus and the character actually presented in the Gospels.


texts: Is this distinction of biblical "love" terminology compatible with scripture?

texts:
I very frequently hear repeated that there are three Greek words (or word-groups, more precisely) that are translated into the same English word "love"; the words being ἀγάπη, φιλíα, and ἔρως. ἔρως is said to refer to sexual love, φιλíα to a non-sexual "brotherly love" that is not specific to Christians and ἀγάπη to the highest form of love that only a Christian can know.

However, I've never heard any backing for this claim and have a sneaking suspicion that this is one of those things that gets passed around pastoral circles without getting checked out.

The problem lies, of course, when one imports the distinction into his/her exegesis and extracts a meaning that may not be present. For example, if φιλíα is used rather than ἀγάπη in a particular passage, one might conclude that less is being required.

So, my question is, are the semantic ranges of these words as rigid as is claimed, and are the definitions consistent with what is intended in scripture?


texts: Find this quote regarding Inspiration of the Apocrapha

texts:
I once read a passage from one of the apocrypha books but I don't remember which one. I believe that it's from one of the books of the Maccabees but I was unable to find it. In paraphrasing, from what i remember, the passage goes as follow:

"I do not know if all that I wrote was true and correct but I wrote to the best of my ability."

Can anyone help me find this quote or one that is similar? Thanks!


texts:
People can be canonized (declared to be saints) and these official declarations are held to be infallible. Some people might be considered saints because of popular devotion, without being actually canonized - they could be "grandfathered in," rather than going through the modern process. I am aware of instances where the Church has decided that some of these people are of dubious historicity and therefore are not actually saints.

Examples:

St Guinefort, who was not only fictional, but was also a dog. 1
St Josaphat, whose story is a fanciful version of the life of Buddha (Josaphat = Boddhisatva). Yes, Buddha existed, but the Josaphat story is not historical. 2

Has the Church ever declared "X should no longer be considered a saint" where the reason isn't "because X never existed"?

1: It's like the end of Lady and the Tramp, but seven centuries ago.
2: Also, Wikipedia is wrong to say that he was canonized: he appeared in the Baronius Martyrologium Romanum but Benedict XVI's De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione says that doesn't imply canonization.


texts: In Roman Catholicism, does an individual's history of miscarriage lead to different or more specific guidance on pregnancy prevention?

texts:
As I understand it, Roman Catholicism teaches the following:

Life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong
Artificial birth control is wrong

Under normal circumstances these teachings seem complementary or at least unrelated.  But it seems to me that this combination might be problematic when considering the case of a woman who has a history of miscarriages.  Does the Roman Catholic Church specifically instruct such women differently than others?

For example, assume a woman who has had several miscarriages despite medical intervention, and no live births.  Would the RCC consider the deaths of the children in the womb of such a woman significant enough to instruct her to take one of the following approaches?

Abstention from sexual relations until menopause (eliminating the chance of miscarriage)
Mandatory use of natural family planning and/or artificial birth control (allowing the latter since it can prevent pregnancy more effectively than natural family planning alone)
Mandatory use of natural family planning only (reducing the chance of miscarriage, but not as much as previous options)

Or does the RCC not recognize a distinction in such a case?  From the perspective of the RCC, are such women just as free to pursue pregnancy as those with no history of miscarriage?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, does any child have the "right" to be baptized?

texts:
The Church, echoing the affirmation of the LORD himself, teaches that  Baptism is necessary for salvation.1

Furthermore, parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.2

And CCC 1261 ends by saying, 'All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.'

With the backdrop of all these Church teachings and practice, and noting point 52. of Synod 2014 of "Relatio post disceptationem"

  Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of
  sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.
  Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to [...] children who
  live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of
  the little ones must always be given priority.

does the Catholic Church teach that any child, or all children have the "right" to be baptized?

Does the Church teach that anyone has the "right" to be baptized?

If the answer is in the affirmative, who granted those rights?

Please note "Rights" are to be understood as the Church understand them.

1. cf. VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM | Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257-1261.
2. cf. Code of Canon Law Cann. 867 and CCC 1250-1252.

Right (Definition noun 18. | Dictionary.com): a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: "You have a right to say what you please."

Please see also: According to Scripture, does anyone born in the world have the right to be baptized?


texts: Did Jesus use non-believers to perform acts of community service on his behalf?

texts:
I'm trying to answer this question, "What would Jesus do?"

An organizations I am involved with is a network of foster homes that is used for emergency placement. These are the families that take kids that have been very recently removed from their biological homes.  Foster homes are aggressively recruited from the local church community... but we, the church community, have failed to step up and meet the need.  There are families that are interested in being a part of our program, but they are not Christians.

So the question is.  Do we place kids with the non-Christian families that are stepping up and interested in participating in the program?

Opinions will vary widely and I can understand why people might say yes or no.  What I'm looking for is any biblical examples of where Jesus used a non-believer to do his good work.


texts: What is the earliest use of the phrase "God the Son"?

texts: Does the phrase "God the Son" appear in manuscripts or early translations (Textus Receptus, Vulgate, etc.) of the New Testament scriptures? If not, when did the phrase enter into the Christian vernacular?


texts: What did Jesus mean by seventy times seven?

texts:
We hear Jesus telling Peter at Matthew 18:22 :“I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven " when Peter asks for the  maximum number of times he is expected to forgive his brother or sister.
 One is prompted to think that the numbers seven and seventy have some deeper connotations when they refer to repeated occurrence  of something. In other words, Jesus may  not have meant 70X7 i.e. 490 while answering Peter's query. I have heard some say that Jesus in deed said "7 raised to 70 " , which would make a big number.  Before, accepting that argument, I would like to know if any denomination including Catholicism has any official teaching on this ?


texts: What happened to the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah?

texts:
2 Kings 22 (NIV)

  8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found
  the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan,
  who read it.

  11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his
  robes.

From the reaction of King Josiah, it looked like he had never read the Book of the Law. Verse 8 also sounds like the book was lost for a long time.

Was the Book of the Law lost for a long time that King Josiah never saw it before?
Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before?
Which copy of the Book of the Law was it? Was it the copy for the King or from the  Levitical priests? (Deuteronomy 17:18)
Did their ignorance of the presence of Book of the Law mean that nobody at that time cared to go inside the Temple to read from the Book of the Law?
How may we refute people who say that someone forged the book and put it there?


texts: DJClayworth answered a question about the meaning of C.S. Lewis description of Christianity as a "true myth." What Lewis text uses the "true myth" terminology?


texts: What is the Amillennial view of the ‘Times of the Gentiles’?

texts:
Exactly when are the ‘Times of the Gentiles’ according to the Amillennial prophetic viewpoint?

  “There will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this
  people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive
  among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the
  Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke
  21:23-24)

I am looking for precise start and finish dates. What events mark those dates?  Also, a brief summary of the Amillennial thinking concerning this prophecy would be useful.


texts:
God created the universe. Therefore He transcends the universe. He is outside the universe.
Yet, He has a throne room in heaven:

Revelation 4:2 - Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne.

I told someone that God is outside the universe, but "part" of Him is in it.
I was told that violates divine simplicity, since God has no parts.
How does one explain God being outside the universe yet on the throne in heaven without violating divine simplicity?
Or is the premise wrong somehow?


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation?

texts:
The book of Revelation refers to 144,000 servants of God who will be sealed in two different places.  I have heard that the Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to this number.

Who, exactly, do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe these people to be?  Are they members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who lived in the past, who are living in the present, or who will live in the future?  Or are they male Jewish virgins, as the text suggests, who will live at some point in the future?   (male virgins - "who have not defiled themselves with women"; Jewish - "from every tribe of the sons of Israel")

  After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the
  earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might
  blow on earth or sea or against any tree. Then I saw another angel
  ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God,
  and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given
  power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea
  or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their
  foreheads.”

  And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe
  of the sons of Israel:   12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed,
  12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 12,000
  from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000
  from the tribe of Manasseh, 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000
  from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 12,000 from
  the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the
  tribe of Benjamin were sealed.  Revelation 7:1-8 ESV

  Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him
  144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many
  waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like
  the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they were singing a
  new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and
  before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who
  had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled
  themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow
  the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as
  firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found,
  for they are blameless.  Revelation 14:1-5 ESV


texts:
In the four Gospels, Jesus seems to talk a lot about the Law, about how to behave, about "the Kingdom" and how to restore social order. It doesn't seem like he talks about what Paul talks about: grace, law vs. gospel, gentile-inclusion. Mostly, what most Christians mean by "Gospel" and grace.

What are some examples of passages that demonstrate how (or how not) Paul preached the same gospel Jesus did?

I'm looking for passages of Paul or Jesus that match up with each other, not external verification that they are on the same page.


texts: A Christian that believe in one God and gives him no image. What kind of Christian is that?

texts:
I always believed in One God, with no image( which for me means no mental image of something).
Jesus Christ is a prophet from God. I was taught in this way. I was in a Catholic College and I never heard from a priest that Jesus Christ is God. What type of Christian am I?

I ask this because many non-Christians tend to believe that all Christians believe that the son of Mary is God - I'm not talking about trinity here because as I said, I believe in One God.


texts: Can the laity use exorcised salt? If so, what are the rules for the proper use, handling, and storage of exorcised salt?

texts:
In Catholic tradition, can a Catholic acquire exorcised salt from a priest? If yes, what are the rules of such salt (acquiring, use, handling, storage) that the laity have to comply with?

I have so far read here telling the laity that they can sprinkle salt all over their property, their neighborhood, in their cooking, etc. with an accompanying prayer, and sometimes medallions, to send a clear message to the demons that they are not welcome in that particular place. One believer tapes some of the grains of the salt into fence posts, etc. to keep it in place.

Are the faithful are allowed to use the salt in such manners?

Very much appreciated!


texts: What is the biblical basis that people who are attracted to the same sex were not created by God that way?

texts:
cf. Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? [closed]

  It is quite common for people who identify themselves as homosexual to
  say that God created them this way. Some way even go so far as to say
  it was a misfortune that they were born into:

    "Unfortunately for me, God made me gay."

  This line of reasoning usually continues with
  - "so I can't do anything about it"
  - "it's not my fault, it's God's fault that I sin"

  Others claim that since they were created that way it must not be a
  sin.

  What does Christianity hold about the way people were created? Does
  having something in our natures make it not a sin?

The question here is what is the biblical basis that God does NOT create homosexual people as homosexuals (i.e those who say that since they were born that way, God must have created them that way, what is the biblical basis that God has not created [/and does not create] those people that way)?

Note:

[I take people at their word when they say they were born that way and see no reason to discount their testimony and that of their parents until some other refuting evidence becomes available.]


texts: Is it greedy to have a collection of material possessions (e.g. comics, stamps, etc.) that are not needed?


texts: Why do Greek Orthodox venerate icons and Roman Catholic statues?

texts: Historically how and why did this difference arise?


texts:
I am a Protestant. I have been trying to trace the church from the time of Jesus to the current day. I have a question.

In the first half a century I see great debates in the defense and development of true doctrine. During this time central truths were developed such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. At least 24 major heresies were withstood, and the New Testament was canonized. If any of this would have failed to happen, Christianity, as we know it today, would not look the same.

Here is my question.

Many of the doctrines of the early church, such as tradition, liturgy, icons and so on were all well established by the third and fourth centuries. They have been rejected by the Protestant faith as false teachings. But these doctrines were developed close to the source where the water is usually the purest. They were developed by men that gave their lives for what they believed and taught. If they were heretical, would the streets have not run with blood, yet it seems there was unity on most doctrines?


texts: How do we make sure that we are on the rightful religion/path?

texts:
I borrowed (with permission) a question from Ahmed Han

Which is:

  People of every religion claim that they are the ones in the right
  path. Even the people of sects in these religions think that they are
  on a better path than the peoples of other sects are on. How come
  could they be so sure?

  As a Muslim, how can I be sure that my religion or sect/madhab/path is
  the rightful one? How can I be sure that there isn't any other
  religion sent by Allah which is better than Islam, but it is wrongly
  advertised so that I think that it is wrong?

Change some words and we get:

People of every religion claim that they are the ones in the right path. Even the people of sects in these religions think that they are on a better path than the peoples of other sects are on. How come could they be so sure?

As a Christian, how can I be sure that my religion or denomination/path is the rightful one? How can I be sure that there isn't any other religion sent by God which is better than Christianity, but it is wrongly advertised so that I think that it is wrong?


texts: Promises of God that help us partake in His divine nature

texts: What are the promises referred to by Peter in 2 Peter 1:4 through which we can partake of the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world by lust? What are the views regarding this according to Reformed Theologians and those of the Keswick theology?


texts: According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God?

texts:
Disclaimer - Even though my personal views are well-established, I'd like to point out that I am not out to make a point with this question, and I am absolutely not out to establish whether any specific perspective is true.  I am simply curious about this.  I know the atheistic views, I know the day-age theory, the gap theory, etc, but I've never heard an answer to this, good or bad.  I'd like to know what the answer is from those who genuinely hold this view.

Theistic Evolution defined from Wikipedia:

  Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts
  that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the
  modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short,
  theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the
  creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within,
  and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that
  creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God
  employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific
  Affiliation:

In general, most Christian teachings assert that the relationship between God and Man is unique, and different than the relationship between God and other animals.

Assuming that theistic evolution is a valid point of view (and I'm not arguing that it's not), are there any established teachings from any denomination or proponents that explain at what point we evolved enough to have a unique relationship with God?

Barring that, what characteristics had to be present in order to have said relationship?  The ability to speak?  Cognitive reasoning?

The Wikipeda article lists several denominations that hold a theistic evolutionary view.  I'd like answers/reasoning from any of those perspectives, or from any established organization that holds/defends this view.


texts: Why didn't Martin Luther provide for his family to be taken care of after his death?

texts:
I recently heard Professor Stephen Nichols of Reformed Theological Seminary state that following Martin Luther's death, his wife, Katie, and his children struggled financially for some time.

Did Luther simply neglect to provide for the care of his family? Did he make some provision which was later misappropriated? Was there no church to care for his survivors?


texts: Did any other philosophical systems have as much influence on the early Church as Platonism and Stoicism?

texts:
Many historians agree that the philosophical systems of Platonism and Stoicism had an important role in the efforts of the early Church to communicate the message of the Gospel to unbelievers, and even in informing some early Christians' interpretations of the writings of Paul and others.

According to historians, did any other philosophical systems have a similar level of influence early in the life of the Church?


texts: Who may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?

texts:
Who in the following groups may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?

Among Catholics. (cf. the current debate on communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics).
Among non-Catholic Christians.
Among non-Christians (= non-baptized persons).

Please provide the supporting Church teaching, guidelines and reasoning, including any scriptural basis.

Related: As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church?


texts: How to receive the gift of tongues according to the New Testament?

texts:
1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)

  Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not
  forbid speaking in tongues.

In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church.

However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues?


texts: How do the Father and Son differ if they have the same particular essence?

texts:
My question assumes ousia in Christian orthodoxy means a particular (not universal) essence or form, and not a concrete instantiation (hypostasis).
If the Father and Son have the same ousia, where are the properties that distinguish them? Does the hypostasis have additional distinguishing properties? If so, are these properties necessary or contingent? If necessary, how are they definitionally excluded from the ousia?


texts: How do Protestants interpret Ezekiel 18:20-32?

texts:
Here is my translation:1

Ezekiel 18:20-32
The soul that sins, the same [only] shall die: the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father the guilt of the son: the righteousness of the righteous will fall to the righteous, and the wickedness of the wicked to the wicked. 21 And a wicked man who turns away from all he sins which he had comitted, and observes all of my statues, and does righteousness, and judgement, the same shall live: he shall not die. 22 And none of his transgressions shall be remembered or held against him: by his righteousness he shall live.
23 Do I enjoy the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, Would I not rather see him turn from his ways and live? 24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and does iniquity, after the manner of the deeds which wicked men are wont to do, shall he do it and live?
25 Yet you say, The way of the Lord is perverse. Listen, O house of Israel! Is my way not right, and your ways perverse rather? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and does iniquity, and he dies therein, the same shall die in his iniquity. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns from the wickedness which he committed, and does judgement, and righteousness, the same shall keep his soul alive: 28 when he examines [himself], and turns back from all his trespasses, he shall live, and shall not die.
29 But the house of Israel say, The ways of the Lord are perverse. Are my ways not right, and your ways perverse rather, O house of Israel? Are not rather your ways perverse?
30 Therefore: I shall judge a man according to his ways, thou house of Israel, says the Lord God. Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, and your sin shall not be an obstacle to you. 31 Cast off from yourselves all of your transgressions wherein you have transgressed, and create for yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit: for what reason would you then die, O house of Israel?
32 For it is not my desire that anyone should die, says the Lord God: turn therefore, and live!

This seems to teach that sin directly corresponds to condemnation, and righteous living directly corresponds to life. However, this would seem to be at odds with the Protestant doctrine of simul justus et peccator (at once a sinner and just[ified]).
Question
How do Protestants interpret this passage?
I would like to anticipate a couple responses:

'Keeping the law perfectly' clearly isn't in view here, since God expects people to be able to keep his statutes in general: it must therefore refer to an attitude of holding them as necessary and as pertaining to justification, even if you fall short (for which repentance is here recommended). In other words, the space given for repentance doesn't make them not necessary for justification.

This is not about capital punishment under the Mosaic Law, but justification—life and death of the soul: "Therefore I [God] will judge you according to your ways." "A new heart and a new spirit."2

However, feel free to challenge these.
Thanks in advance.

1 Avoids doctrinally relevant 'surprises' pertaining to translation.
2 This need not be conflated with a later dispensation in the New Covenant era (He's speaking to people in Ezekiel's time, and expecting them to obey) or regeneration proper. In context it simply means here turning your life around.


texts: What are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV translations?

texts: I have read both the New King James version and the English Standard version. I have noticed very trivial differences between the two. What, if any, are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV?