texts: Who are the prominent Christian thinkers that define "permissive" will?

texts: I would like to get a better understanding of the term "permissive will". I have read a couple threads on this forum related to this topic, but neither has given me a satisfactory understanding. I desire to know whether there are any Christian philosophers (e.g. Augustine or Aquinas) who discuss this subject, or, on a similar note, which theologians first introduced the term into discussion. At the moment, I contrast this term with two others, God's sovereign will and his declared will, per a conversation with a pastor.


texts: How does Mormonism (the LDS Church) answer "the problem of evil"?

texts:
My question this evening is:

How does Mormonism (the LDS Church) answer "the problem of evil": if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good and benevolent, why does evil exist in the world? (The premise is that a God with these attributes should know about the evil, be capable of stopping it, and be benevolent and good enough that he would necessarily act on that capability.)

I would appreciate it if answers would also explain whether the LDS view on God explains whether or not He knew humans would fall into sin. If so, why would He allow such a thing?


texts: What is the basis for anointing of physical objects and who practices this?

texts:
It's been a tradition of my family and friends to anoint a home with oil when a family moves in.  I understand the significance of praying and dedicating the space as God's, used for His purposes and will - and my interpretation of anointing has mostly been along the lines of prayer in this manor.

However is there a biblical reason or basis for the practice of anointing a physical object? Were does this originate and what Christian traditions practice it?


texts: Is there any branch of the Protestant Church that can receive Communion at Mass?

texts:
Does Roman Catholicism allow certain Protestants to receive communion during the mass if they have been baptized and confirmed?  I'd like to know if there are any Protestant denominations that Roman Catholicism would "accept" for this purpose, such as the Episcopal Church.  Does it matter if the Protestant believes Catholic doctrine regarding the nature of the Eucharist?

Or do all Protestants have to convert to Catholicism in order to be able to be permitted to participate in the mass?


texts:
My questions is in regards to this snippet:

  ...almost no denomination believes that inspiration and infallibility are attributed to modern versions/translations of Scripture. -- David Stratton

It was written as an answer to Does Mark 16:9-20 Prove the Bible is not the infallible word of God?.

I'm trying to get a better mental picture of what "modern version" means here.  My impression is that the Bible hasn't been changed for hundreds of years, maybe even over a thousand years.

Question: When did versions of Scripture start being regarded as not fully infallible?

My best guess is as derived as follows:  I found this (although I can't judge its authenticity):

  Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. -- Bible-Researcher.com

and the other answer in that question states:

  The process by which those writings were declared to be Scripture took hundreds of years, and the addition of the last twelve verses of Mark certainly predate that. -- DJClayworth

So I'd guess that these "later additions" were added within the "hundreds of years" since the time of Jesus (around 2000 years ago).  This would imply "modern version" could mean one compiled ~1700 years ago.  I don't really know if this is accurate though.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the special mediatorial position of the Pope, Cardinals, etc in the Catholic church?

texts: Following-up a previous question, what Biblical basis does the Catholic church claim for the special role of Priests, Cardinals, and Popes in the structure of the church?


texts:
This question is a follow-up to my question, "Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution?"
The Wikipedia article on Philip Melanchthon states in its opening paragraphs:

Philip Melanchthon . . . (16 February 1497 – 19 April 1560), . . . was a German Lutheran reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an influential designer of educational systems.
He stands next to Luther and Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of Protestantism. Along with Luther, he is the primary founder of Lutheranism, and is often deemed by historians to be its intellectual leader as contrasted with Martin Luther's rather simplistic views. They both denounced what they believed was the exaggerated cult of the saints, asserted justification by faith, . . . .

Under the subheading, "As theologian," the article states:

Melanchthon . . . furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction.

This suggests that Melanchthon, rather than Luther himself, may have been the origin of the common Protestant view that Luther's theology of justification and redemption revolved around the penal substitution theory of atonement—and of the ascendancy of that doctrine within Lutheranism generally. Indeed, this is the very thing suggested in footnote 10 on Wikipedia's "Penal substitution" article:

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

However, the Wikipedia article on Melanchthon does not go into any greater detail on his theology of justification, redemption, and atonement. So my question is:
Did Philip Melanchthon teach penal substitution?
Whatever other sources an answer may use, please provide direct quotations from Melanchthon's own works to support your answer.
(Note: Answers regarding Luther's teachings on penal substitution should be posted under the related question linked above. Also related: "Who first clearly formulated the penal substitution theory of atonement?")


texts: Do the Catholic Church ex cathedra pronouncements about necessity of Catholicism to be saved still apply?

texts:
I think the following was spoken Ex Cathedra:

  “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches
  that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only
  pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share
  in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was
  prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are
  joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this
  ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can
  profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone
  can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings,
  their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian
  soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one,
  even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved,
  unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic
  Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate
  Domino, 1441.)

So as far as 600 years ago, this was considered an infallible statement by Catholics, correct?

Here is another one from 700 years ago:

  “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one,
  holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and
  simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor
  remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim
  to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation
  are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam
  Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302)

Why then today do Catholics seem to change their mind about it?

There is indeed confusion about what Pope Francis meant about atheists.

This answer on Stack Exchange states that there are other ways outside of the sacraments and union with the Catholic Church to get to heaven.

To be fair, it does contradict paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catholic Catechism.

So how does the Catholic Church regard these Ex Cathedra pronouncements which were clearly aimed at people trying to break away? Now that we have Protestantism, they seem to have mellowed a bit. But I would like to get a more in depth answer that explains

How Ex Cathedra statements seem to be disregarded
How Catholics actually squared these statements in the first place with the teachings in the Cathechism that seem to teach the exact opposite


texts: What does "gates of hell" mean in Matthew 16:18?

texts:
Matthew 16:18 (KJV):

  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.

I take it "gates of hell" is a metaphor (there are no literal gates to Hell, are there?), but what is it a metaphor for?


texts: Does the Bible say for sure that Daniel was a eunuch?

texts:
Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
  (Dan 1:9, KJV)

The prince of the eunuchs is the guy Daniel asks for permission to eat the pulse and water instead of the king's meat. This seems to indicate that Daniel was a eunuch, because the prince of the eunuchs was the person that he asks. This is an important question because how we translate it gives credibility to how hard it would be if not impossible to be as great and for God as Daniel was.

Think about it. Guys are distracted by lots of things that wouldn't be as distracting, if distracting at all, if one was a eunuch. If Daniel was indeed a eunuch then in a sense he would have had a head start at being a man of God.


texts: Does a priest have to consume the Eucharist no matter the state of his soul?

texts:
Can a priest decide not to consume the Eucharist during mass if in doubt whether he is in mortal sin?
We know he still has the power to change the host and wine into Christ's body no matter the state of his soul. Right after "Behold lamb of God" statement he consumes the host. Is he allowed not to do it if he thinks he is in mortal sin? I never seen this to happen so I was wondering if there is some kind of protocol prohibiting him to do so even though he might have had a mortal sin on his soul.


texts: To which cleric(s) does a lay Catholic have to obtain Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?

texts:
For example, a group of lay Catholics are about to publish an app (i.e. a game) that aims to teach Church doctrine. Who must they approach in order to obtain Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur to certify that their work has no moral objections from the Roman Catholic Church?

Do they have to submit his/her work to his/her country's episcopal conference? To their company's (or non-profit org's) local diocese? To the Diocese of San Jose (in reference to the fact that Google's Mountain View Office is located in the Diocese of San Jose)? Does the target user locale determine the authorities that will give the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur? (example: Locale-en-US)

Very much appreciated!


texts: What specifically is in the Pentateuch that later writers could not have known?

texts: I have heard people say that the Five Books of Moses had to be divine and written 3-4 thousand years ago because there is content in it that later writers (a la Documentary Hypothesis) simply could not have known. I'm unsure what specifically that includes. Perhaps some details of culture of Bronze Age Ur or Egypt. Could it have been written by ordinary scribes in the Iron Age, or are there actually specific details that could have only been known at one point in time?


texts: What are the reasons for having special names for God/ Jesus?

texts:
I was watching the "Truth Project" (a religious DVD) and the speaker kept referring to "Jehovah Jireh".    A recent answer here makes a reference to "Yahshua Ha-Maschiach", whom we have to infer is Jesus.

Q: What are the intended purposes by those who would use "unusual" names for God or Jesus?

My speculative answer is that such persons believe they are beholden to a specially refined orthodoxy-- hey we all do to some extent-- but believe they need to refer to a more special name in order to clue others that they have many false ideas about the "god" they worship.

If this answer is wrong, I beg forgiveness and correction.


texts:
Does the Catholic Church teach that is a sin to attend another Christian Church that is truly focused on the Bible?

If it is OK to attend another Christian Church can they take the Holy Bread and Grape Juice? Is this the same as the Eucharist?


texts:
According Catholic theology, what does the joy of heaven consist of?

If there is a principal joy, what is it?

Anecdote: I remember riding on a bus and a man going of saying to the effect that if heaven consisted of praising God for all eternity, it could wait.


texts: How does the LDS Church handle verses that imply there is no one like God?

texts:
There are quite a number of verses that seem to contrast the LDS teaching of exaltation, where man may become like God and God was once like man, in submission to a God like Him on a different world somewhere.

The most difficult ones to reconcile with this theology are in Isaiah 43, 44 and 45.

  "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me."
  Isaiah 43:10

  "'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."
  Isaiah 44:6

  "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of
  none." Isaiah 44:8

  "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God."
  Isaiah 45:5

  "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God."
  Isaiah 45:14

  "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

  "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A
  righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21

  "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like
  Me" Isaiah 46:9

There are more on this page here, which is where I got these, so I don't know what translation they are.

How does the LDS church respond to this?


texts: Who is a Christian according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
How does the Catholic Church define who a Christian is? Is a Christian, according to the Catholic Church, someone who

is baptized,
a member of the Catholic Church or Mystical Body of Christ
something else?


texts: What is the test that determines doctrine from discipline?

texts: Some of the hubbub around the Synod on the Family in 2015 has been (at least superficially) around whether disallowing civilly remarried couples, without annulled marriages, whose original spouses are still alive from communion is a doctrine (and therefore unchangeable) or a discipline (and potentially malleable) so what makes this part of marriage  doctrine.  Are there other rules concerning marriage that are discipline and not doctrine? Is it possible to have invincible ignorance when it comes to receiving communion in an invalid marriage?


texts: How old was Flavian of Constantinople, roughly, when he died?

texts:
I have a timeline of church history that I've been building that includes things like councils, important dates, and lifespans. I would like to add Flavian of Constantinople, but have been unable to find even an estimated birth date for him. I recognize that the farther you go back in church history, the harder it is to find precise dates, and I'm okay with that. If I could even guess the decade of his life in which he died, that would give me at least something to go off. However, everywhere I find information about him simply lists his birth date as unknown.

Do we have any information at all with which to at least form an estimate? Given that he was archbishop, does that suggest that he was older?


texts: In John 4:1-3, in whose name were Jesus' disciples' baptizing?

texts: In regards to John 4:1-3, were Jesus' disciples in this passage baptizing with John's baptism?  If not, and they were baptizing in the name of Jesus, did the people who receive this baptism have to be re-baptized to receive the Holy Spirit (as did those who received John's baptism)?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God foreordained the fall of Adam and Eve?

texts:
I was reading the other day and I came across these verses

  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (1 Peter 1:19-20, KJV)

I came to the conclusion that if Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world then the fall of Adam and eve, and the need for a savior, must have been planned for, expected, or even meant to happen.

What is the biblical basis that the fall was the plan all along?


texts: Existence of Catholic Church without hierarchy

texts:
In case of a global catastrophe (nuclear war or something similar), a big majority of the global population would die, including pope, all bishops, all priests, all deacons. In all churches with apostolic succession (Catholic, Orthodox,...).

However, there will be a small community of lay catholic people in one place. Let's say ten thousands, including theologically educated adults. What would be subsequent life of Catholic church?

Would catholic church exist?

I am not asking on the sacramental life that would be most likely limited to baptism and matrimony only. I am asking whether we would speak about catholic church. Not just believers, but church itself.

Are there any supportive or declining references in the official teaching of the church for "yes" or "no"?


texts: Why did "versus populum" (instead of "ad orientem") become commonplace after Vatican II?

texts: Why did versus populum (the priest facing the congregation) become commonplace after Vatican II, when ad orientem ("facing east," with the priest's back to the congregation) was the norm before Vatican II? Did a Vatican II document prescribe versus populum?


texts: When was the name "Easter" first used for the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus?

texts: So what I'm trying to find out is who, and what religion, and where was this word "Easter" first used to describe the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?


texts: Today the Catholic Church makes potential converts participate in the RCIA program. Before Vatican II could someone go into a Church and tell the priest he wants to be Catholic and receive baptism on the spot? If so, could this still be done?


texts:
In Christianity what are specific real life examples of how the devil works?

Also, any specific examples of how the devil works in the Bible?


texts: What is the official Roman Catholic Bible?

texts:
If I want to buy a copy of the Bible, which version does one buy that would be the official Roman Catholic version?

It seems the Kings James version is the most popular, is that the one?

Will this contain both the New and Old Testament?


texts:
Between the fighting in Israel, blood moons, and the Harbinger, there has been a lot of chatter about the end times on my radar lately. Natural disasters are, too, discussed as omens of the end. I have tried not to bother too much with it, but I'm curious.

What did Jesus have to say about the end times? Did He give specifics, or discuss it in parables? I do recall Him saying that no one (Himself included) knows when it will be... But does He give any indication as to what will happen?


texts: Did Origen castrate himself under a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12?

texts: I was just reading some history on extreme forms of asceticism and monasticism. In passing the subject of Origen it said he had castrated himself. Is this generally considered true by church historians?


texts: Why don't many churches obey Paul's command that women must be silent in church?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says that women must be silent in churches and ask questions to their husbands when they get home:

  Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, NIV)

This is completely ignored in many churches today, with many women being leaders and singers on stage, and many women in the congregation not keeping silent.

This also seems to contradict the passages which say that we are made in the image of God and are equals.

How is this explained, and why do people seemingly pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow?

Was this just Paul's opinion rather than the word of God?

Also, what would unmarried women do?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for opposing State Brutality?

texts:
If there was ever a case of a completely innocent man being beaten and killed for crimes he did not commit, it would have to be Jesus. Yet, when Peter sliced off the ear of a slave, Jesus told Peter to put back his sword ... and healed the ear of the slave.

When Paul was imprisoned and beaten 39 lashes he did not incite a riot. Instead, he sang, preached, and converted the prisoners and guards.

Thus, I must ask: from where does one get scripture support that Christians should march against police brutality; what is the biblical basis that they might do this? The case of Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament seems to suggest otherwise.


texts: What evidence is there that the genealogies in the early part of Genesis refer to tribes instead of individuals?

texts: One method of interpreting the genealogies in the early parts of Genesis is as not referring to actual individuals, but rather to tribes, nations, and groups of people represented by the names of individuals.  What evidence (internal or external) do people who support this interpretation cite?


texts: Introduction to Greek Texts; Byzantine vs. Alexandrian

texts:
I'm trying to learn more about the process by which our current Bibles came to be. In doing so I'm wanting to learn more about the Greek Manuscripts from which they are derived, from my current (and very limited) knowledge I believe there to be primarily 2 families of texts; Byzantine and Alexandrian. I've heard that Older Bibles favour Byzantine whilst contemporary Bibles favour Alexandrian

Where could I find a history and discussion on these families of texts? Are these texts the basis for our current Bibles?


texts: Wilhelm Gesenius' vowel pointing of the tetragrammaton YHWH

texts: Is there a writing of Wilhelm Gesenius in which he discusses the vowel pointing of the Tetragrammaton that produces the English transliteration "Yahweh"?  Does someone have a URL for it?


texts: Does the Bible stipulate priorities among personal allegiances?

texts:
I think it would be fairly well agreed among this audience that one's allegiance to God comes before all others.  Aside from that, does the Bible have anything to say about "all others"?

Where, in relation to one another, does the Bible put one's duties to:

Family

Parents
Siblings
Spouse(s)
Child(ren)
Extended Family

Close Friends
Country


texts: Is there a respectful way to dispose of old or worn out scriptures?

texts:
I'm finding myself accumulating various copies of the scriptures, and honestly, I don't need all of them laying around. Nowadays I study, read, and mark them electronically.

So now I'm looking to declutter my living space. Throwing them away feels kind of weird... donating them does too, since some are marked up from my studies, have personal notes in them, or have my name engraved on the front.

I'll probably just keep one or two nice printed copies for guests or convenience.

Is it bad to throw scriptures away? Is there a better way?

Note: I live in a rural area and it's common to burn our own trash, since we don't have a sanitation service here. But I'm definitely open to options that don't involve burning. :) -- And actually, an option that doesn't involve burning, if there is one, would be good so that the answer applies to more people.


texts: How do Catholic marriage laws differ by region?

texts:
(I'm asking for roman catholicism, but you can answer eastern or other full communion's if you want.)
Example: You can see some of my questions on marriage law in the Philippines (for example, Q1 and Q2; and also Q3, that's not about the Philippines specifically). Ostensibly:

The Philippines differs from other Catholic countries in that Filipinos or well anyone gets married in the Philippines and wishes to be annulled in the Philippines is required to get an secular annulment (or foreign secular divorce. not sure.) before applying for a church annulment. In other countries, this requirement relaxed to a secular annulment OR a (local) secular divorce (again: or foreign secular divorce. not sure.). Therefore, poor Filipino Catholics who cannot go abroad to get a secular divorce and then a secular annulment. This unfortunate situation for Filipino Catholics is ironically because the Philippines doesn't have divorce because of Catholic reasons.

But this doesn't matter IF (but not only if I guess) Philippine secular marriage/canon laws accommodate all of Catholic marriage/canon laws. It seems that the former accommodates at least almost all of the latter.

2.1. But still! Even if there's a single unaccommodated case, then there's the question of the poor Filipino Catholics who are invalid church married but valid secular married. I think of Genesis 18:27-33 or 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' (Oh wait, this statement is called 'Blackstone's ratio', and apparently it's a literal, well, ratio. I didn't think the statement was literal. I thought it really meant that I would rather have infinity guilty people go free than one innocent person in prison.)

I'll repeat that the above has an 'ostensibly' attached.

Question 1: In general, how do Catholic marriage laws differ by region?

Eg there's a sufficient condition that makes a Japanese Roman Catholic marriage void/able that doesn't apply to French Roman Catholics or to German Eastern Catholics or whatever.

Eg there's a loophole that allows a Roman Catholic marriage conducted in Argentina to be void/able if the couple seeks an annulment in Scotland, whereas the marriage would've been otherwise 'valid' (as in not necessarily invalid) from the viewpoint of Argentinian diocese or whatever.

Eg the consummation rules are somehow different. (Maybe certain positions don't count in Ireland. IDK.)

If there are a lot, then well I find this insane since we're talking about a single denomination here, but ok, please say a few differences. (eh the lent and holy days of obligation already differ. I don't expect zero differences. I just expect there to be not so many differences.)

I attended a Catholic university in the Philippines, and we were required to take a course that included some canon law stuff like necessary or sufficient conditions for a marriage to be sacramental/consummated/void/able/invalid/whatever. I don't recall there was any mention of the regions to which these were applicable like 'applies to the Philippines but not necessarily to other countries'. I just assumed they were applicable everywhere.

Re canon vs marriage: Okay so the term I seem to be looking for is 'matrimonial law' a subset of 'canon law'. Idk. I just remember from that class that catholic laws related to marriage and stuff are under 'canon law'.

Question 2: How are Catholic marriage laws regionally affected by local laws?

Eg Because of certain laws in South Korea, Catholic marriages have or don't have a certain requirement expected of Catholic marriages elsewhere.

Perhaps age.


texts: How well supported is the generic interpretation Rublev's Icon as being a depiction of the Holy Trinity as portrayed in Genesis 18?

texts:
This was produced in the 15th century by Andrei Rublev's icon of the Trinity, a highly regarded Russian orthodox artist:

It is generally taken to be depicting the three men of Genesis 18 as being physical visitations of the Godhead.

Are there any texts from authoritative commentaries, the early church fathers, theologians or research that support Rublev's depicted interpretation of this passage?

Different denominations may have differing views so please quote your source references.


texts: Did St. Nicholas punch Arius at the Council of Nicaea?

texts:
Was Nikolaos of Myra (St. Nicholas) present at the Council of Nicaea and, if so, did he punch (or slap) Arius? This amusing factoid tends to crop up at this time of year and has a well-established place in Byzantine iconography, for example:

This blog post from 2015 and this article from 2016 dispute the historicity of this fact with fairly convincing arguments, including the fact that the first mentions of his presence are more than 500 years after Nicaea and the actual "punching" story is first recorded in the 14th century.

The Teubner critical edition of the various lists of Nicaea attendees, Patrum nicaenorum nomina latine, graece, coptice, syriace, arabice, armeniace, sociata opera seems to conclude that his name was only added to the list by influence of later biographies (such as of Symeon the Metaphrast), but that the earlier, more reliable manuscripts do not include him.

So, what is the evidence that St. Nicholas was at Nicaea and punched Arius?


texts: Does the Catholic Church believe that we become just souls after we die?

texts:
I am a Roman Catholic and I ask this question as one, but I'm also interested in understanding the answers that other christian denominations may have to my question. So, feel free to share here your conviction, even if you aren't Catholic. Here's the question!
Considering that:

The Catholic Church states that each one of us, human persons, are not just body or soul and that we also are not just a agglutination of both, but an unity that is formed by the mix of the two;

The Catholic Church also states that, after we die, our soul is separeted from the body;

Then:

What happens to us after we die? Do we live as just souls until the Final Judgment, when we will finaly get a new body?

If we cannot say that we, as human persons, are not just a soul or just body, as catholics, how could we say that, after death, we would still be human? I mean, if being human is to be an unity of body and soul, how could we still be humans once separated from our bodies?

I hope I was clear in my question. And if I comited a mistake in my exposition of catholic belief, please correct me.
Thanks!


texts:
While studying the book of John I came to:

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

Jesus would not allow Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection until he had ascended to God the father, and in:

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

Because he tells Thomas to stick his hand into his side, does it indicate that he had already ascended to God the father in Heaven?

Then in Luke we have the account of him ascending into Heaven as he was blessing the disciples.

Are there any other passages which might help answer my question?


texts: What is meant by "order" in reference to ministries within the Church, and how did its usage come about?

texts:
FMS' answer to What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? mentioned a twofold hierarchy in the Church, that of order and that of jurisdiction.

Given examples from the secular world, it is a bit easier to understand what is meant by jurisdiction.

The question is, what is meant by order and how did its usage come about?

Note:

Please note @curiousdannii's comment that Anglicans also have a three fold order of ordination and a book called the Ordinal. Perhaps the answer will speak to the Anglican meaning so long doing so will not make this post off-topic.


texts: Why do 21st century Protestants still not include the deuterocanonical books in the canon?

texts:
Given the Protestant motto semper reformanda and the doctrine of sola scriptura which in essence strives to purify Christian teaching to be based only on the Word of God interpreted through the lens of the 12 apostles, what is preventing Protestants today from including the Catholic deuterocanonical books back into the canon when it can be shown:

How the NT writers did make allusions to those books
How recent research showed how the NT writers relied on the Septuagint's version of the underlying Hebrew OT vs. the Masoretic text
Appeal to what Judaism itself consider as canon (i.e. 39 books) is irrelevant because Christianity should have its own hermeneutic, especially when the Septuagint text could be shown as less tainted by errors now.
How the two highly voted answers for the question "Why were Deuterocanonical books rejected in the Reformation?" fails to show a good reason for their exclusion from the Protestant canon because none of the reasons mentioned are derived from sola scriptura:

Luther and Calvin were motivated to either diminish or eliminate the deuterocanonical books to exclude scriptural support for Catholic doctrines
Appeal to St. Jerome's concern of the reliability of Septuagint has since been reversed after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (see 2nd point above)
Synod decision post Luther & Calvin should in principle be re-evaluated when the apostles can be shown to rely on Septuagint more than what was known 400-500 years ago

500 years have passed since the violent and emotional schism.  Both the Protestant and Catholic sides, especially in the academia, have since understood each other much better and became much less polemical.  In the past 100 years the trend for both sides is to dig deeper into each NT author's 2nd temple Judaism worldview to better inform our understanding of the NT books, which is clearly also in the spirit of sola scriptura.

Of course, one obvious reason is because the Catholic church had developed doctrines unacceptable to Protestants based on those books, like Purgatory, indulgences, etc.  But if Protestants use proper hermeneutic to guard against "overzealous" interpretation of those deuterocanonical books (such as by controlling interpretation to what only the 12 apostles taught in the 27 NT books), why not include them in the canon?

What makes this question different from previous questions such as this one is the 21st century context because in principle Protestants are not bound by past decisions (per semper reformanda principle), but bound only by what the NT authors taught (sola scriptura).

Therefore, my question asks for a 21st century argument for rejection based on those 2 principles (semper reformanda and sola scriptura) which should not include polemics and outdated Masoretic text / St. Jerome argument as in the answers of the previous question.

Another way of stating the question (positively): given 1) fresh discovery in the 20th century into Jesus and the 1st generation apostles's OT background (such as the texts they use) and 2) given Protestants's commitment to the semper reformanda and sola scriptura principles, what criteria does it take for Protestants to include back the deuterocanonical books that they rejected 500 years ago in order to fulfill their ad fontes ideal of being faithful to the original revelation?


texts: Can a priest give a Mass in American Sign Language (ASL)? What does he do when he is supposed to lift up the Eucharist while speaking in ASL?

texts:
Part of the mass involves the priest lifting up the Eucharist and saying the following aloud:

  Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

In the event that the priest is saying the mass using English
sign language (as opposed to saying it in a verbal language and having an interpreter repeating his words in sign language), what does he do? He can't both hold up the Eucharist and say the words with his hands. Does he lift up the Eucharist, set it down, and then say those words? Does he do the opposite? Is there some other way this situation is to be handled?

(I'm guessing that there's an answer somewhere in canon law, since surely someone has run into this situation).


texts: Which doctrine supports the idea that Daniel 2:44 is the Millenium Kingdom?

texts: After looking at Clarence Larkin's charts, I noticed that some (chart1, chart2) of them associate the Kingdom in Daniel 2:44 with the Millenium Kingdom. Is there any doctrine that supports this? I would hate that the Church is still under the Roman Kingdom - iron and clay. Divided.


texts: Can indirection bring us closer to Christ?

texts:
Peter's excellent blog posting pointed to a movement I'd never heard of before: Militia of the Immaculata (MI).  In the process of figuring out what it might be, I read this important qualification:

  Marian consecration is a formal act of self-giving that does not stop at Mary, but is Christ-directed. It is really consecration to Jesus. The MI's mission is "To Lead Every Individual With Mary to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus."

To the computer science side of me, this sounds like indirection:

Consecration to Mary points to
The Most Sacred Heart points to
Jesus.

In programming, indirection can be incredibly useful since it:

Hides irrelevant details
Increases flexibility
Can be efficient from a CPU performance perspective.

Of these, only #1 makes any sense as a use for indirection in the Christian faith, but that can't be a justification as there are usually many more symbols added to the mix in these sorts of movements.  Given that there's something important in the chain of symbols, what's the right way to think of this sort of indirection?


texts: Where does the Scripture say that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace in order to go to Heaven?

texts:
If I am correct, the Catholic Church teaches that you need to be in the state of Divine Grace at the moment of your death if you wish to go to Heaven.

If you are not, then you are automatically cursed for all Eternity and go straight to Hell.

Let's say a man had devoted his whole life to God, believed in Jesus and lived his life according to what Jesus had said, but prior to his death committed some kind of 'eternal' sin. Still, he didn't stop to believe in Jesus for even a second. Let's say he was caught off guard by temptation and died shortly afterwards.

According to the idea of Divine Grace, he goes to Hell.

My two questions:

1) How can this be just whatsoever ?

2) Where in the Scripture does Jesus say that you will end up in Hell if you are not in Divine Grace state ? If I am correct he doesn't say it at all and the whole concept has been invented by the later Tradition of the Catholic Church, not by Jesus himself.

I'm not trying to offend anyone by asking these questions. I believe in God, Christ and the Scripture. I also have a deep faith that the Church tries to bring us to God as close possible. I'm just trying to figure out the purpose of some of the 'constructs' like Divine Grace and whether they can have such a big impact on our salvation.


texts: Are mainline Protestants our Brothers in Christ by virtue of the Trinitarian Baptism? [Catholic]

texts:
If I am not mistaken, water baptism is one of the 7 sacraments and it can be performed by laymen and must not necessarily involve clergy. In such a case, since Protestants have no apostolic succession unlike the Orthodox, are their baptisms valid in their own right?

  To be clear, belief in the Holy Trinity is a prerequisit that seems
  obvious and mainline Protestants do believe in the Holy Trinity. Some of the
  Reformers had a similar view of Catholics being their brothers by
  baptism, notably John Calvin.

EDIT : My question is different to certain others because it deals with the validity of the sacrement of baptism in Protestant circles instead of merely if God will have extraordinary mercy on Protestants as opposed to ordinary mercy with sacrements. If the mercy is extraordinary it almost pushes salvation in Protestantism to the level of salvation in for instance paganism, where there are no elements of the Church to draw life from like a source of water. However if Protestantism has ordinary significance then we can safely say that Protestants are Christians, and not simply hope that they are.


texts: Who first said, "We are all born Pelagians?"

texts:
In What Is Reformed Theology? R. C. Sproul attributes the following quote to Roger Nicole, a 20th century Reformed theologian:

  We are all born Pelagians. (source)

By this, Sproul means to say that all people naturally have Pelagian tendencies, that is, we innately believe we have the ability to choose to do good without God's aid.

My question, however, relates not to Pelagianism itself but to the origin of this quote.  Was Roger Nicole the first to say it?  Or did some earlier theologian say it first?


texts: Why was Dan removed from the list of 12 Israel tribes in Rev 7?

texts:
Here is the list of 12 tribes of Israel from Genesis, Numbers and Revelation.

I sorted them according to the list in  Genesis 29-30.
In Numbers, Levi is replaced by Ephraim and Manasseh who replaced Joseph also.
But in Revelation 7 Dan is removed and replaced by Manasseh.

Why are these list different? Why is Dan removed from the list?


texts: How many Anglo-Catholics (I.e. members of the Traditional Anglican Communion or derived churches) are there in the world today and how many have joined the Ordinariate set up by the Roman Catholic Church?


texts: Why do the majority of Protestants celebrate Easter on the same day as the Catholic Church?

texts:
There are likely some Protestants that either refuse to celebrate Easter or with Jehovah witnesses that celebrate on a different day to the Catholic Church.

But the vast majority of Protestant ecclesial communities can be caught celebrating Easter at the same time as the Catholic Church. Every single year since 1518.


texts: Overview on the Theology of Forgiveness vs Reconcillation

texts:
What are the main theological stances on the doctrine of forgiveness vs Reconciliation?

I think at the far far extreme (or perhaps the most biblical definition is):

we should forgive others as God forgave us
God forgives us for our sins, not bringing them into  account
God treats us with the imputed righteousness of Christ
therefore, we should not bring others sins into account and treat them with the righteousness of Christ.

I'm interested in an overview of other theological stances on forgiveness / reconciliation (I suspect there's a spectrum).

The ideal answer would be something that present an ordered list, where each item has a name along with a description of how forgiveness / reconciliation is viewed within that stance.

Thanks!


texts: According to Catholicism, did Moses believe in the Trinity?

texts: According to Catholicism, did Moses, and especially the Jewish people during his time, know that God is triune?


texts: Rephrase: Does the Bible claim itself to be inerrant?

texts:
Before I go on, I do realize that biblical claims for the inerrancy of the Bible is in fact self-satisfying and therefore questionable (at least in a court room), but bear with me.

The old testament scripture is verified by Jesus's obvious regard for it as He quotes it all the time (See Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6, Heb 4:4, Acts 7:3, the list goes on...).

I could see the words of Jesus while he was on earth (mainly the gospels) verified as Jesus allowed the Holy Spirit to help the apostles remember what they had heard (John 14:26).

But what about the epistles and apocalyptic books? We can obviously assume that the apostles writing the books knew mostly what they were talking about as they spent so much time with Jesus, but there's a pretty big leap from that to infallible. We also don't know who wrote some books (Hebrews for example), how do we know these are the words of God?

Worth mentioning is 2 Timothy 3:16:

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

But how do we know what "Scripture" Timothy is referring to here? And as for the "canonization" of the books, are we just trusting that God safeguarded the accuracy of the Bible by guiding the decisions of those involved in the Council of Trent and Synod of Hippo, for example?

If there is no such claim, why did some Christian denominations start believing it was inerrant?

Thanks and God Bless!

CLARIFICATION: I know any answer supporting the inerrancy of the Bible can't, by nature, be a perfect proof because of the recursiveness, but I think it worthwhile to find out if the Bible claims itself to be inerrant or if people just assumed it was later.


texts: How do YECs respond to the lack of non-Christian buy-in to their "creation science"?

texts:
The history of science is full of cases where a new, sound scientific theory didn't catch on right away, and was ridiculed by the scientific community, sometimes for decades or centuries, before becoming accepted theory.

The theory of the Flat Earth, orbits of the planets, even the theory of relativity... all were met with scientific resistance initially.

So it seems conceivable that "creation science" is solid science that simply hasn't yet taken hold in the mind of the masses.

But if this is true, one would expect there to be at least some non-Christian scientists who hold that the "creation science" theories are valid.

How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?


texts: Where does the tradition come from that Noah's sons went separate directions?

texts:
I have heard in many places, and was even taught as a child, that Noah's sons, sometime after the Flood, separated and went North, South, and East to repopulate the Earth. The story is commonly used to point out that North, South, and East of where the Ark is said to have settled have three distinct races, which are those of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as this answer mentions and AiG hints on.

The issue is that I cannot find this in the Bible. I see the nations that come from Noah's sons listed in Genesis 10, but that doesn't say the sons went in any particular direction. The story of the Tower of Babel follows in Genesis 11, after it is implied that it has been some time since Noah's sons had died.

From a Google search I found this very detailed description, but there is no source.

Since this doesn't appear to be Biblical, where did this story, or tradition, or theory, come from.


texts: How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?

texts:
Alternatively:
How many books were included in early Bible compilations and then later removed?

A book in the bible, to my understanding, is one of the many named divisions in the Old and New Testament.  Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would be 4 different books, and each of Paul's letters to the churchs in the different cities would each be a 'book'

There are a certain number of Books in the King James Version, but how many other 'books' or writings did scholars/historians/religious leaders have access to but for one reason or another, were never included in the more modern Bible compilations.  (perhaps due to controversy, or translation disputes, or issues in verifying the author)

If we could go back and add all of these books and letters to the Old and New Testament today, how many books would the Bible have?

This questions comes out of curiousity after seeing books in a Catholic printing of the bible that did not exist in the King James version.

I'm assuming the Apostles or whoever compiled the Bible books, didn't have the whole structure and order down in the exact way they printed now.


texts: What Biblical evidence is there that the Apostles feared for their lives after Jesus was crucified?  A good answer will cite published commentary and/or provide in depth analysis of specific passages.


texts: Is it a correct to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request in Mark 3:31-35?

texts:
The verse clearly states by itself:

  Mark 3:31 Then Jesus’ mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent word to him, to summon him. 3:32 A crowd was sitting around him and they said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are outside looking for you.” 3:33 He answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 3:34 And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

Is it correct interpretation to say that Jesus did not entertain His family’s request?


texts: Which denomination allows homosexuality and why?

texts: Which denomination allows homosexuality and what Biblical support do they have to accept homosexuals in the church?


texts:
1 Cor 6:18-20 (NEB)

  Shun fornication. Every other sin that a man can commit is outside the body, but the fornicator sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a shrine of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is God's gift to you? You do not belong to yourselves; you were bought at a price. Then honor God in your body

I have heard many time that we were bought at a price. Who did Jesus buy us from, I don't want to believe its satan?


texts: How do Christians argue about Jewish objections against Jesus being the Messiah

texts:
Traditional / Orthodox Jews argue that Jesus was not the Messiah, because we don't live in a Messianic Age. In the Messianic Age

All Jews would be living in Israel (Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13);
Israel would also be populated by the resurrected souls who died in previous generations (Isa. 26:19);
The Holy Temple would be rebuilt and functioning (Micah 4:1);
There would be world-wide peace (Isa. 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3); and,
The entire world would believe in the God ofAbraham (Isa. 11:9, 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9).

(from: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8857/why-dont-jews-think-jesus-is-the-messiah)
Since Isa and Micah are also prophets of the Old Testament, how do Christians argue about these objections?
I'm interested in the position of the Catholic Church on this topic.


texts: Do the Eastern Orthodox think the state of virginity is more meritorious than marriage?

texts:
Do the Eastern Orthodox think the state of virginity is superior and more meritorious to the state of marriage? If so, what modern Eastern Orthodox theologians support this view?

cf. Is virginity more meritorious than marriage, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7?


texts:
I ran across this quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  Pope St. Anastasius I

  A pontiff who is remembered chiefly for his condemnation of Origenism.
  A Roman by birth, he became pope in 399, and died within a little less
  than four years. Among his friends were Augustine, and Jerome, and
  Paulinus. Jerome speaks of him as a man of great holiness who was rich
  in his poverty. It was during the time of the barbarian invasions.

I followed the link to "Origenism" and started to read to see why it was condemned, but (and I really hate to admit this) the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia just confuse me.  There are so many terms that I've never heard, and am unfamiliar with that I end up having to look those up and then looking up others.

So, in a nutshell, I'm looking for a lay-person's explanation of what "Origenism" is, and if it's not obvious when comparing it to traditional teachings, why it was condemned.


texts: Were the debates between Gnostics and orthodox Christians recorded and preserved?

texts:
Gnosticism was an early Christian sect that taught mysticism, rejected Jewish scriptures, such as the Hebrew Bible, and felt that Jesus' teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection were mere appearances. Jesus' true mission, they said, was to teach mysticism to his few devotees. One of those teachings was in the belief (if we compare it to Zorostriaiam which is similar) of an imperfect creator[1] (Ahriman) who created the world and humans and that of the supreme G-d (or, Wise Lord) who sent Jesus (Zoroaster) to teach the ancient, mystical teachings. As a result, the Gnostics and bishops held many debates, no less fierce as debates between later Christian Catholics and Jews[2]. For example, many bishops called Gnostics "empty ditches" which lacked water of truth flowing from within. The Gnostics similar called the bishops "wolves" who preyed on Christ's flock. The early bishops struggled against Gnostic "ravings," barring Gnostic writings from the New Testament.

My question is:

Where can one find debate(s) of early Gnostic and Chaotolic writings? I am aware of the Disputation at Barcelona between Jewish sage Nachmanides and Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani in 1263 before the king of Aragon, James I. Do similar recorded debates exist between Gnostics and bishops?

[1] These were also the views of the pagan Greek philosopher, Plato.

[2] Or, we might compare the Gnostic and bishops' feud to the ancient Jewish sects called Sadducees and Pharisees who argued over the authenticity of Oral Law (Oral Torah).


texts: Is Frisbeetarianism a Christian denomination?

texts:
I heard a guy on talk radio talking to a caller who claimed to be a Frisbeetarian. I had never heard of this religion I wondered if it is Christian or some obscure ancient pagan form of religion.
Does anyone here know what their main beliefs might be and how they compare to mainstream churches?


texts: Authenticity of the Pontius Pilate's letter to Tiberius Caesar?

texts: Just looking to find out if this alleged Letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar is authentic or a later forgery? I don't care how it physically describes Jesus, just want to know how it was found and why it's claimed authentic or not. Thanks.


texts: What are the biblical arguments for and against the "two books" view of God's revelation?

texts:
I think it was Francis Bacon who said that the Bible and nature were God's two books and that one would do well to study both in great detail. What are the biblical arguments for and against this view? In particular, I want to highlight Matthew 11:25

  At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and
  earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned,
  and revealed them to little children.

Could these hidden things involve, for example, the historical Adam and Eve, forever concealed from scientific scrutiny?

Also, for some reason I cannot pinpoint, I am a little skeptical about placing the study of nature on equal footing with the Bible, as much as I love what science has given us. Perhaps some good answers can clarify my own thinking on this.


texts: Since Jesus said, "No man goeth into Heaven, but He who hath come from Heaven," John 3:13. Where then is the place that Jesus will prepare for us...that we will be with for eternity?


texts: How is sin transfered from one to another?

texts:
Question : How is sin transferred from person to another person? Not through birth?

We can not accuse Adam when we see him that he caused all humanities sin. Why because the word says "we all have sinned and have gone astray". We all sin sometime between our birth and death, yes we are the ones that sin (its our sin not anyone's else sin that made us a sinner). Therefore Jesus came to save the world from sin, yes yours and mine ( the sins we individually sinned).

Through one mans sin we all have sinned, not one righteous (through one mans righteousness we are all righteous ).


texts: How can we understand Jesus's omniscience?

texts:
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is God. He thus is entitled to be described by the various attributes of God, such as omniscience.  However, the following passage  raises a tough question regarding this, because Jesus plainly refers to knowledge that he does not have:

  Matthew 24:36 (NASB)

  36  “But  of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

Another issue is raised by the following passage, where we are told that Jesus gained wisdom as a child, which indicates that he was not omniscient, at least in his childhood incarnation:

  Luke 2:52 (NASB)

  52  And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in  favor with God and men.

How can Jesus's God nature, and specifically his omniscience be understood in light of these passages?  My initial inclination is that in becoming human, he temporarily emptied himself of the independent use of his power (Philippians 2:6-7), but I wonder if there is more to it.

Answers should assume that Jesus is God.


texts: Could Jesus have extraterrestrial brothers or sisters?

texts:
According to Sacre Scriptures, Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism and so on, could Jesus have had, or could have, one or more brothers or sisters?

I'm not referring to terrestrial brothers or sisters who lived during the time Jesus has lived on the earth, which, however, would be in disagreement with the dogma of the Virgin Mary(1),  but to brothers or sisters  that lived on other planets where other kinds of extraterrestrial beings live or lived.

Or, in case, did God send always Jesus, the same son who went on the earth, on these planets?

I'm not looking for an opinion based answer, but for an answer that describes the position of diffrent christian churchs on this matter(2).

(1) However, there would be the problem to exclude the circumstance that Joseph, the 'father' of Jesus, did not have other son/s with other women.

(2) If it is unclear, the matter is what the position of christian churches is about extraterrestrial civilizations and their need to be saved.


texts: Why don't Catholics believe that Christ's atonement removed Original Sin?

texts:
Original Sin is the Catholic doctrine that all human are born sinners due to the inheritance of the sin of Adam. However, Jesus Christ atoned for the sin of mankind.

Therefore, one would assume the sin of Adam which Man inherited would be included, and thus children would not need to be baptised in order to be saved as they would be innocent.

Why do Catholics believe original sin was not washed away along with other sins?


texts: What does "witness" refer to in Matthew 24:14?

texts:
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matt 24:14, KJV)

What does "witness" refer to in this verse? Is it a native believer, or any believer, or something else?


texts:
I understand that Latter Day Saints believe all human beings, male and female, are the spirit children of heavenly parents – a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.  Those spirit children progress by being born to earthly parents.   While doing some research, I found this article on the Godhead:

Godhead: The Mormon view of the members of the Godhead corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.  Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. (D&C 130:22)
Heavenly Father had a glorified physical body from the before the world was created. Jesus Christ, however, did not have a physical body until his mortal ministry (Ether 3:16). Now, as a resurrected being, He has a glorified physical body like Heavenly Father's.  (emphasis mine)

Christians believe that the eternal and uncreated Word of God (Logos) came to earth to be born of a woman and is Christ Jesus, the Son of God.  It’s the part about God being a glorified, physical being – that God was once a man – that confuses me, and probably all other Christians.  We understand that God the Father is not the same person as God the Son.  But this question is about the Latter Day Saints understanding of God the Father, not God the Son.  To be more specific, I’m trying to establish if God the Father is the same deity as Eternal Father.
What I’m trying to find out is whether Latter Day Saints worship a god that was once a man, a Heavenly Father who begat spirit children, including Jehovah who came to earth as Jesus and Michael who came to earth as Adam or whether the Eternal Father is different to Heavenly Father.
What is the name of the Eternal Father worshipped by Latter Day Saints?
EDIT: Please note – I am NOT asking about the Trinity or the LDS view of the Trinity.  I am asking about the LDS Eternal Father, or Heavenly Father, or Elohim, whom they worship.  I am not asking about spirit sons and daughters that came to earth in order to progress to godhood.  I am not asking about Jesus, or Michael or Adam or any other spirit son that was born as a man. The material from which I quoted is simply to establish my understanding of the LDS view of God.
Is the God worshipped by Latter Day Saints the Creator of ALL life or was he himself begotten of some heavenly father and some heavenly mother?  I know they say at one point in time he had to be born as a man in order to attain to godhood, but I am trying to get to BEFORE that point.  Surely the Eternal, the Uncreated and Supreme God of all Creation had no need to be born of a woman that he himself had created in order to become “a god”?  Is Elohim just the god over this planet, or is he the uncreated God over all Creation?
Please help me out here because I’m struggling to grasp the LDS view of the Almighty God, the God of the Bible.  Since Latter Day Saints believe the Bible (as far as it agrees with the Book of Mormon) then it is not unreasonable to ask for biblical quotes, which quotes would obviously agree with the Book of Mormon.  Is Elohim, whom they worship, the uncreated God over ALL creation?


texts: Request: Christian demographic statistics at the time of the reformation

texts:
I suspect I won't be able to get any good answers but I think it's worth asking anyway.

I'm curious about what Christian demographics looked like at different points in history. For example what percentage of the Christian world was Roman Catholic and what percentage were Eastern Orthodox at the time of the great schism? I'm also interested in the fine-details, for example what percentage of Christians were Greek Orthodox, what percentage were Russian Orthodox, what percentage were Ukrainian Orthodox? etc.

To narrow down the period a bit, I'm curious about demographics at the time of the reformation and to be really specific, I'll make it the date that Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door in Wittenburg.

To reiterate: I'm looking for an exhaustive coverage of the entire Christian world at the time, including the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Church of the East, any minor heretical sects of the day. What was the population percentage of each respective group?

For an example of what I'm looking for, this page on wikipedia does an outstanding job of breaking down the demographic statistics for today. I'm wondering if there is anything similar for the time of the reformation?

Note: the reason I'm asking is because I was perusing the statistics for today, and I was completely blown away by the dominance of Latin-Rite Catholicism. Roman Rite Catholicism is in the majority by far, completely dwarfing the other communions and churches, and I was wondering if it has always been this way.


texts: Does the LDS Church prohibit the use of caffeine?

texts:
I've heard it said a number of times that Mormons think it is wrong to consume caffeine.  This would seem to naturally require abstinence from a number of beverages, such as coffee, black teas, and some soda/pop/coke.  But other foods have caffeine in them as well, like chocolate, which, from what I can tell, are regularly consumed by Mormons.

Some years ago (15–20?) a Mormon friend explained that the caffeine in chocolate is somehow different chemically than the caffeine in coffee, and that this was why Mormons eat chocolate but don't drink coffee.  I have no idea if this is true, and I don't really care, but it seemed to confirm a prohibition on caffeine by the LDS Church.

However, after a bit of research, the basis for this restriction seems to be the following line in the Doctrines and Covenants, §89, which makes no reference to caffeine:

  9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

Has the LDS Church officially expounded on the meaning of this text, or of any other texts that may relate to caffeine?  That is, officially, does this text forbid:

Hot black tea (hot drink, caffeinated)
Hot milk (hot drink, not caffeinated)
Iced black tea (not hot drink, caffeinated)
Soda/pop/coke (not hot drink, caffeinated)
Chocolate (not hot drink, caffeinated)

What is the recent and current teaching of the LDS Church on this matter?  Has there been any change or clarification in the last 50 years or so?  A brief historical overview would help me put my Mormon friend's chocolate comments into context.


texts: Why is foot washing so uncommon nowadays

texts:
In John Chapter 13, Jesus tells us to wash each other's feet, and that we will be blessed if we do so. Why do most churches do not practice this?
How did this relatively easy and straight-forward task not become common practice in Christendom?

This answer does point out there are references of early Christians practicing footwashing, and there are few denominations still practicing footwashings.

Why is this not as common as communion? (Note: I'm NOT looking for why it is not part of the communion.)

  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and
  returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?”
  he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so,
  for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have
  washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have
  set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very
  truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a
  messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know
  these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Might it be a possibility that only John refers to footwashing and not the other Gospel writers? If we compare this to communion, communion is mentioned in all the Gospels except John.

EDIT: I do not accept "Our feet are more clean nowadays" as an answer. Even though this might be true, it is still needed to wash your feet once in a while.


texts: For those who don't believe baptism is required for salvation, when, scripturally, does someone die with Christ?

texts:
Paul recites as part of an early creed.

2 Timothy 2:11 ...If we have died with him, we will also live with him;...

Here it seems that our living with Christ is conditioned on us having died with Christ. The only place in the scriptures where we are described as uniting ourselves with Christ's death, I am aware of, is through baptism:

Romans 6:3-5 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

(*See also Colossians 2:12 and surrounding verses)
(I've significantly edited my question for greater clarity based on responses below)
For those who do not believe in baptism for salvation please answer specifically the following questions:

Do you believe it is necessary to have died and been buried with Christ in order to be saved? If not please provide a biblical basis for why not.
Do you believe that we are not buried with Christ at baptism?
If not, what is the biblical basis for believing that we are not united with Christ's death at baptism?
If you believe that we died with Christ at belief (or at some other time), what is the biblical basis for claiming that our moment of death with Christ is the moment we first believed in Jesus Christ specifically or some other specific moment?


texts: In Matthew 26:63-64, does the high priest think that the Messiah is Son of God?

texts:
Matthew 26:63-64 NIV:

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

So do Jews believe that the Messiah is to be the Son of God or is it a later Christian invention?

Jews tend to think that christians commit idolatry. However, merely believing that Jesus is the messiah is not idolatry. Rabbi Akiva did that too to someone else.

The question is about the idea whether messiah is the Son of God or not. If even the high priest, and Peter, believed that, then it'll be very interesting. Peter, a jew, also equated Son of God with Messiah when Jesus asked "Who do you think I am?"

This question is not about divinity of Jesus. That will be a different question. The question is whether the idea that messiah is a Son of God (perhaps in some lesser sense) originate out of judaism.


texts: Do people go to heaven immediately when they die?

texts:
When someone passes away, at their funeral the priest will usually say something that gives the idea that the deceased is in heaven. And a lot of people also like to give the idea that people who die are with Jesus Christ. For instance, say someone close to you passed away, chances are you've said something that gives the idea that the person is in heaven, such as, "I know you are in a better place, near Jesus Christ."

The reason I ask this question is that the when people die, I know that they go to the world of the dead till the day that Jesus Christ will return. But if people are already in heaven this means that there really isn't much reason for Jesus Christ to return, because all those that believe in Him are already in heaven.

If Jesus Christ will return and all those that have faith in Him will be raised and be priests with Him for a thousand years, why make it seem as if the deceased are already in heaven? If someone dies and goes to heaven before the Last Judgement, what need is there for him to be judged at the final judgement? Hasn't he already been judged righteous if he is in heaven?


texts: When did Satan get cast out of heaven?  Or is that yet to come?

texts:
This answer explains that it happened after Jesus ascended, and might even be something that will happen in the "End Times", but this answer says that it happened before Adam and Eve sinned.

What does the Bible say about this? I'm looking for an answer that explains all major verses about this event.


texts: Who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel?

texts:
I was reading the Last Supper passage in Luke the other day and came across this verse:

  Luke 22:30 (KJV)
  30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus tells the 12 disciples that they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Since I assume Judas Iscariot will not have this privilege, who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel?


texts: What Apostles-Creed affirming groups claim priesthood of Melchizidek?

texts:
I was looking at the online biography (perhaps an AOL or MySpace biography) of the friend of a relative some 20 years ago.  I was alarmed that my relative was associated with this person, based on some very immoral vices the person was proudly describing on their page.  One point that shocked me was that this person said they were "a priest of the order of Melchizidek."  It was the only religious statement on the page.

Q: Do any orthodox Christian groups (perhaps defined here as affirming the Apostle's Creed) use such language to describe themselves? Or would this be some sort of cult?


texts:
"Ex opere operato" says that a person must have the proper disposition and desire in order to receive graces through sacraments (correct me if I'm over simplifying this).

Does this not apply to infants when being baptized?

How do infants receive graces from baptism?

What is the doctrine regarding infants and "ex opere operato".


texts: What do charismatic Christians actually mean by the phrase "tonight is an open heaven"?

texts:
I have heard this phrase bandied around for about the last 10-15 years and I am wondering how it originated and if it has any scriptural basis.

My own belief is that in the light of the cross and the finished work of Christ, it is always an open heaven and God is always accessible everywhere.


texts: Why did Moses have the sons of Levi run about with swords slaying family and friends?

texts:
Today's OT Reading for CoE Common Worship was Exodus 32:15-34.  Although to the modern ear it appears indiscriminate no doubt it wasn't.

Please could someone explain why the Levites as the Priestly tribe were the only ones told to run about with swords slaughtering their brothers, friends and neighbours?  Was this somehow an act of atonement through the shedding of blood?

Also how does by so doing ordain them for the LORD's service?

Best I can fathom is that,

That judgement had to be dispensed on the people for their stubborn idolatry.
That as the Priestly tribe the Levites having had the greater responsibility for leading the other tribes in righteousness, were required to dispense the judgement both as a punishment for having failed to lead the people, as well as priests conducting a redeeming blood sacrifice of atonement.

However if that is the case then why would the LORD further punish the people at a later date?  How are two punishments just?


texts: Did Jesus' parables have different meanings to the different Gospel writer's congregations?

texts:
My parish priest uses the example of Matthew 13:18-23 to explain that this one explanation of the parable of the sower was the one that Matthew, wanted to put in his Gospel to drive home some particular point, but Jesus Himself, did not explain His parables when preaching - so there are many interpretations that the listeners (and us) would go home with.

So, does it fall within the scope of a valid understanding of the Bible, that Jesus' parables have different meanings according to ones station in life?

I'd like a Catholic answer, but any decent answer that doesn't start out by negating the premise of the question (which I don't totally understand and therefore cannot defend)  would be acceptable.


texts:
Christians are encouraged to give donations and free items to the needy.

But why are Bibles sometimes sold for profit, instead of being sold at cost-price, at a subsidized price, or even for free?


texts: The Knights Templar (Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) are an example of a Christian military order, but were dissolved in the 14th century. Are there any currently existing Christian military orders?


texts: What is the significance of adding "fiery" to Ephesians 6:16?

texts:
Ephesians 6:13–17 (NLT)

   13 Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14 Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared. 16 In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil. 17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

[Emphasis mine.]

Is the fact that these arrows are on fire of any significance?


texts: Did Calvinism borrow its scheme of predestination from Valentinian Gnosticism?

texts:
How does the Calvinist notion of predestination differ from that of the Valentinian Gnostics' predestination?  There are several sources outlining the Valentinian Gnostic system (anti-heretic "church fathers" like Ireneaus), but it basically had three classes:

materials (Greek hylics or sometimes somatics, the non-elect)
soul-lys (Greek psuchics, the partially or temporarily elect)
spirituals (Greek pneumatics, the true elect or those both elected and granted perseverance).

What further information is there on the relationship between these two systems? Is there evidence that Calvin borrowed from the Valentinian system through his study of the "church fathers"? did that borrowing come mediated through Augustine?


texts: What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex?

texts:
The title pretty much asks the question, but let's set the stage like this:

  Two people meet in High School, have sex, then eventually get married.

What does the bible say about sex prior to marriage in general?

What does the bible say about sex prior to marriage, but leads to marriage?


texts: Can the devil and/or yourself lead you to a wrong form of Christianity?

texts: I have the fear that the devil and/or myself can lead me to a wrong form of Christianity, such as one subtly based on works, without you actually knowing it. Is there an example of this in the Bible, or are there passages that talk about this? Thanks.


texts: When is Isaiah 11:8 supposed to be fulfilled?

texts:
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

When is this verse supposed to be fulfilled?

I would guess not today (or even tomorrow.)

Furthermore, if in heaven, we are to be like angels, to neither marry nor be given in marriage, where are the children to come from?


texts: Is there any manuscript or historical evidence to support the final 13 verses of Genesis 50 that appear in the Joseph Smith Translation?

texts:
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is unique in its listing of 13 verses at the end of the last chapter of Genesis--chapter 50.  These verses specifically name Moses, who would be born 400 years later.  They also contain a prophecy of a man named Joseph, which is believed by the LDS to be a reference to Joseph Smith, Jr, since his name, "Joseph", is "after the name of his father".

  And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.  Genesis 50:33 Joseph Smith Translation

What is the manuscript evidence--that is, the evidence of ancient manuscripts in ancient languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.)-- to support the existence of these verses in the original copies?  Is there any idea how they could have been lost?


texts:
Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a systematized way of finding specific types of persons?

Jehovah's Witnesses are known by their hallmark door-to-door proselytizing. But what I am interested in is the fact that their choices on which door to knock may not be random but planned. Perhaps, a group of Jehovah's Witnesses may specialize in ministering to specific ethnic groups and then try to find persons that may belong to the ethnic groups, even within the United States. If anybody appears interested, then they may launch a series of "Bible Studies" as a way to proselytize every prospective convert on a case-by-case basis, as well as supporting their own doctrines and rejecting others.


texts: What are the various eternal destinies or after lives that are possible in LDS Mormon Doctrine?

texts:
Upon reading Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life? to satiate my curiosity on the who, what, and how of the exaltation doctrine I learned that not all faithful Mormons 'become gods'. Once I learned of the doctrine I immediately assumed that exaltation is the eternal destiny for all faithful Mormons.

But now I know that is not the case, so I ask what are all the various possible eternal destinies in LDS Mormon doctrine? If it is not too much effort, the minimum requirements to gain those things would be nice to see as well.

For example, most Baptists would answer there is eternal life with God in heaven or eternal damnation is Hell. Catholics would include purgatory somewhere. Annihilationists would say eternal life or death (sometimes called eternal sleep). What would Mormons say, since they seem to have different "levels" of heaven for the faithful?


texts: External reference of Jesus's resurrection?

texts:
After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of
  whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. - 1
  Cor 15:6

I'm trying to find some external/non-biblical references about Jesus' resurrection. The quoted verse says there were a lot of witnesses to tell Jesus has been resurrected, so I'm wondering if any of them wrote something that referenced this event ?


texts: What is meant by the expression that Jesus came in the fullness of time?

texts: What do they mean when they say "in the fullness of time Jesus came"? I want to know what the fullness of time means in this scriptural context.


texts: What was the organizing principle of Melanchthon's Loci Communes?

texts:
Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics (BakerAcademic, Vol I, Chapter 1, pp 26 - 27), claims that while Melanchthon when writing his "Common Places" drew material from the book of Romans, his organizing principle was borrowed from Lombard:

  Melanchthon's loci communes owe their existence to two lines of work he was pursuing in the same period: a series of critical comments on Lombard's Sentences and a commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans. In 1520, as a result of this twofold activity, he conceived the plan to write Locos Communes concerning "law, sin, grace, sacraments as well as other mysteries." In other words, he sought to summarize and discuss under a number of general concepts—in the manner of rubrics, following the instruction of the rhetoricians—the scriptural material he derived from his study of the Letter to the Romans.

However, Ryan McGraw, in his 2013 review of Rick Gamble's Whole Counsel of God claims that the structure of Melanchthon's work also came from Romans:

  Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) wrote the first Protestant Systematic Theology. Yet far from imposing an arbitrary scheme upon Scripture, he developed a loci method based upon the structure of the book of Romans.

McGraw's citation:

  Lowell C. Green, “Melanchthon’s Relation to Scholasticism,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Bletchney, UK: Paternoster, 2005), 273-288.

Did Melanchthon use Romans to structure his Loci, or only to derive doctrinal content? Was his structure actually derived from Lombard?


texts: Why would popes choose the name Pelagius in light of the Pelagian heresy?

texts:
I was checking out the list of pope names by frequency on Wikipedia in search of minutia to defend my assertion that Pope Francis was the first new Pope name a long time and noticed that there were two popes named Pelagius (I and II) but there's also a Pelagian heresy that predates their pontificate.

So, why Pelagius? Or didn't the Popes think that hard about their names back then?


texts: Which church father first taught the perpetual virginity of Mary?

texts:
Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics, III, §366, briefly deals with Mary's perpetual virginity, and touches on the doctrine's history:

  We do not yet find this idea of Mary's continuing virginity during and after the the birth of Jesus in the church fathers before Nicea.  Tertullian, Origen, and Irenaeus do not yet attest a virginity in childbirth, and Tertullian also rejects the virginity after the birth.

Bavinck seems to discount the Protevangelium of James as not being the work of a church father, and for not mentioning Mary's continued virginity after Jesus' birth.  He then goes on to identify a wide variety of post-Nicene authors who teach Mary's virginity both during and after the birth.

This understanding seems to contradict Wikipedia, which cites a Karl Rahner's 2004 Encyclopedia of theology when it says:

  Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.

In light of this disagreement, I'd like to know which church father was first to teach the complete doctrine, that is, the virginity of Mary both during and after the birth of Jesus.  I don't think it will matter, but we can include Tertullian and Origen as church fathers here.  And as always, primary sources will be much appreciated.


texts: Miracle of the loaves and fishes, multiplication or sharing?

texts:
Did Pope Francis say these words about the miracle of the loaves and fishes or not:

  "This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer"?

Can we understand from this that he does not believe that fish 'plopped' into existence (a disgusting idea unless the miracle includes frying them in batter) but that it involved people sharing what they already had or even that people bought for each other?


texts:
Considering
Matthew 16:23:

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Why did Jesus choose the "Get behind me Satan" phrase here?  Is there context for this elsewhere in the gospels or in the Bible?


texts: In what order were the Sacraments added?

texts:
In his book The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer has this phrase:

  'The sacraments' were first two, then three, then four, until with the triumph of Romanism they were fixed at seven.

What were these first two sacraments? The third? The fourth? The last three? As the title asks, what order were they established?

I'm not exactly asking when they first arose, but rather when they were officially declared as sacraments in the early Church.


texts: How can I defend my position of being against homosexuality in front of unbelievers?

texts:
I am a high school student who stands fervently against homosexuality. I have remained quiet about my belief so far, but now it has been coming up in class as a topic that should be supported, and those against homosexuality have been discussed as bigoted and wrongly biased.

I want to stand up for my position, and I'm completely willing to risk my reputation in the process, but I just don't know what to say if I'm asked why I stand against homosexuality. The only reason I have at the moment is that the Bible is against homosexuality. That is sufficient for me, but obviously non-Christians, who don't believe in the validity of the Bible, want more reasons or at least more definite reasons.

What should I say if a non-Christian asks me why I'm against homosexuality?


texts: Why do some Catholics file up for commmunion?

texts: My wife was telling me about how in Spain, it's common practice to just go up to receive communion pretty much at random whereas in my experience I've always filed up (even when I was in Germany for World Youth Day). So I'd imagine some Catholics file up and some go up at random.  Buy what is the reason for filing up, or if that is indeed the more ancient practice (which I somehow doubt it is) what is the reason for going up willy nillly?


texts: Was Paul the ideal Christian we were meant to emulate?

texts:
Did God intend for Paul to show us the kind of Christian life we were all meant to live?

I don't mean every nitty-gritty detail. Obviously things would be different if you were born a woman or mute or disabled, or if you were married or terminally ill, or if you lived in a society that didn't persecute Christians, etc... And I'm not asking in an overly broad sense either: Paul loved God so Christians should love God. I'm talking about Paul's chosen discipleship and evangelism methods.

The algorithm of Paul's life seemed to be to go to a place where the gospel wasn't known, share the gospel and attempt to build a church (sometimes taking years), raise up leaders, double-back to the churches he planted before to make sure they were still following the truth, take mature leaders along with him, and do it over and over again. He also submitted himself to the leadership of Peter, James, and John (the so-called pillars).

This could be seen in contrast to other outreach styles: para-church organizations that don't have pastors, christian musicians/celebrities that go places and preach but don't attempt any church growing, churches that focus primarily on social justice, monk-style Christianity that seeks to escape the world altogether, etc...

I'm not asking whether one is wrong and another is right, but simply if Paul's methods indicate sort of a "best practice".

Here Paul was reproaching, rather tongue-in-cheek, the Corinthians for living such relatively comfortable, lavish lives while Paul and the other Apostles were spending there's on the gospel. Paul seemed to know that what he was doing and the matter in which he was doing it was what God had intended:

  1 Cor 4:9-17 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment. I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

I again want to emphasize that I'm not asking whether the bible shows that every little detail of Paul's life should be copied. I just wonder if there's indications that show that Paul's life of obedience was the life we were meant to imitate; as revealed through scripture.

EDIT: I think I may have been unclear. Paul intentionally said "...imitate me..." as opposed to "...ask God how he wants you to evangelize..." Plus the majority of the book of Acts is following Paul's life, along with most of the non-Gospel new testament being Paul's efforts in building up the church. Certainly all growth is from God, but we're called to sow the seed and water it. My question is to whether Paul was the man with the ideal seed sowing/watering method we were meant to emulate, as it seems to be so in scripture. This is a question of best-practices; principles, not exceptions.


texts: Why couldn't we reconcile ourselves to God?

texts:
I always hear people say things like, 'the debt was too large' ... well, why? Why couldn't I pay for my own sin?

I don't like that Jesus took punishment for me, I would hate for my earthly father to get fined or beaten or imprisoned for me, it would enrage me, it's completely unfair. I want to pay the price myself. Why can't I?

The only thing that seems to make sense is that for some reason there had to be a blood sacrfice and that sacrfice had to be a perfect being (similar to how animals could not be sacrficed if they had any defects.) ... but why? Why does the person/animal dying need to be perfect?
It doesn't make sense to me yet, I know it's the truth because I believe in God but I feel like there's a block in my understanding, like I'm waiting for a lightbulb moment where I go 'ahhhh ok now I get it.' PLEASE DON'T SAY 'there are some things we will never understand because God is God and mysterious and we just have to deal with that.' I don't believe that is the case with such a critically important issue. The early Christians seemed to have such a good grasp on the whole concept but it's evading me. Please offer your understanding if you get it. Please don't say anything if you're not 100% sure.

Thank you so much, I really want to get this so I can move forward in my faith.


texts: Famous theologians or saints who held that there were no valid Popes during the Great Western Schism?

texts:
St. Catherine of Siena and St. Vincent Ferrer, for example, disagreed about who the valid Pope was during the Great Western Schism.

Are there famous theologians or even saints who lived during the Great Western Schism and who considered none of the papal claimants valid popes?


texts:
I am a baptized Christian (church of England). I was married in a civil ceremony (Registry office in the UK) 15 years ago but divorced 10 years ago. My ex wife was never baptized.

My fiancee is Catholic and never married.
We are planning on marrying next year in a Catholic ceremony in the USA.

Do I need to get the former marriage annulled by the Catholic church, or was it never valid in the first place?


texts: If God cannot change, then why does His wrath need to be appeased?

texts: More or less I am asking for a defense of the propitiatory view of atonement in which God changes from being angry to being happy with us rather than sinners being the ones who need to change. Perhaps I misunderstand this model.


texts: Are there any Tridentine Rite Catholic communities that also use the Liturgical Calendar of 1970?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church has two Liturgical Forms of Mass in usage at the moment: The Ordinary Form of the Mass (of Pope Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (of Pope Pius V).

Usually those who use the Tridentine Mass (1962) follow the Liturgical Calendar of 1960.

My question is simple: Are there any Tridentine Rite Catholics that in the usage of this Rite have also freely and legitimately employe the Liturgical Calendar of 1970 in lieu of the older calendar?


texts: What is the Catholic definition of meat for Lenten Fridays?

texts:
On English Language Learners, the definition of meat came up, and the question of what animals comprise meat. Tangentially, this led to a question about Catholics abstaining from meat on Lenten Fridays.

What is considered meat in this sense, and historically, how has this definition changed over the centuries?


texts: Is Christ's love for us greater than the Father's?

texts:
The Father's love for us:

  See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be
  called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world
  does not know us is that it did not know him. (1 John 3:1, NIV)

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John
  3:16, NIV)

The Son's love for us:

  This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for
  us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
  (1 John 3:16, NIV)

  Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
  friends. (John 15:13, NIV)

Which one is a greater love; to give the one and only son, or to give one's own life?
Is the love of the Father and the Son for us equally same? Who has greater love for us?


texts: Does the Catholic Church attempt to explain scientifically any miracles associated with Jesus' time on earth?

texts:
Miracles by their very definition defy logical scientific explanation.
However human nature is to try to figure a way to explain how something incredible may have occured including what molecular manipulation would be necessary to bring about unexplainable occurrences found in the Bible.

Does the Catholic Church delve into the scientific intricacies involved in miracles associated with Jesus?
Is it considered a worthwhile endeavor to do so?


texts: Why is Jesus never portrayed as a child or as a teenager?

texts:
Most traditional paintings of Jesus portray him either as an infant or as an adult. However I don't believe any classical authors ever portray Jesus as a child, teenager or a young man.

What is the reason behind this, from the point of view of Christianity? I assume most religious paintings are commissioned by the church so they have a say in how Jesus is supposed to be portrayed.


texts: When was the first time God promised eternal life in the Bible?

texts:
One of the central tenets of the Bible is that you can enter heaven if you follow the way of the Lord, living harmoniously with him.

At some point of time (If not from the very beginning of the Bible), the promise/concept of eternal life was said to be one of the reward for someone who pleased the Lord.

When exactly did this happen?

When was the first time Mankind was promised eternal life as a reward?


texts: Blood of the New Covenant offered to whom?

texts: In Luke 22:20 Jesus says that the blood of the new covenant is poured out for "you". Is the word "you" only referring to the apostles only? Or is it meant to represent all of humanity.