texts: Is the type of love shared between all heavenly members an affectionate brotherly love mentioned in the Bible? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Does the Catholic Church teach that the type of love shared between all heavenly members is an affectionate brotherly love mentioned in the Bible, for example, in Romans 12:10 and 2 Peter 1:5-7?

Below are the verses from Romans 12:10:

  Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour. (NRSV)

  Love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honour. (RSV)

  (τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ εἰς ἀλλήλους φιλόστοργοι τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι.)

Below are the verses from 2 Peter 1:5-7 (emphasis added):

  For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.


texts:
As has been discussed before there are differences between the old and new testament.

What I wish to know is this: How accurate is the word of God written in the old testament? How much of it is/was culture and how much of it God?

I ask this because of a few things:

Much of it spans generations, some of which was then rewritten by others and passed on by word of mouth.
Jews are only allowed to eat foods under specific dietary restrictions. Most meats not allowed are already some of the most 'dangerous' to consume. As such while this may have been a said by God for safety, was it an actual command to only consume these things (or rather, is it a command to protect our health, or our spirit)? (interesting article on dietary restrictions)
The old Testament follows much of the history of Israel, so at what point is it truly God's word versus man's?
Did God talk to people directly, or as he does now, through an understanding of what must be done? I ask as if he did no talk directly to not only people in the bible, but those who wrote it, much of what was said could have the beliefs of those who he commanded intertwined in them, due to the free will God himself bestowed upon us.
In cases the bible follows the life of a single person, whose history we do not know how the writer obtained, even if he had God's blessing to write it.

Now, I'll admit the New Testament also has some similar problems. Jesus did not have a personal scribe who followed him around, and many books were not included in the bible, as while they followed what Jesus commanded, they were considered to polluted by the beliefs of those who wrote them. Yet I ask about the Old testament as it is much older, written over vast periods of time, and in cases the teachings can be quite different than those expressed in the new testament.

God chooses who does his biding and knows all. But as seen in much of the bible, it was written such that even a simple man could grasp the words. Depending on the writer, the examples given could vary. Similarly I could know God wishes me to do something, but ultimately how I go about doing it is left to how I feel it should.

On a side note, does old / new Testament get capitalized? Also I tried to remain somewhat objective and not to repetitive, but sorry for any failing of mine on either account.


texts: How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god?

texts:
The christian god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent according to all christian denominations I know of. These attributes seem to be contradicted by all the suffering we observe here on earth. Why does God not intervene to prevent suffering if he knows of it (omniscience), has the means to prevent it (omnipotence) and is benevolent?

The most common explanation I heard was that the free will of humans is responsible, but this questions is not about that. There is a lot of suffering caused by natural catastrophes, illnesses and so forth. I want to restrict the question to natural causes where we have no means to prevent them, such as e.g. incurable diseases.

How can one explain the presence of inevitable suffering not caused by other humans, but by natural means, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent?


texts: What is the biblical basis for restricting administration of the sacraments to ordained church leaders?

texts: What is the biblical support for the practice that only ordained church leaders should administer the only sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?


texts: Cleansing of unclean meat to clean meat interpretation of Acts 10:17-18 and 22-23 in relation to Isaiah 66:17

texts:
I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat "unclean meat" or unclean meat is now clean meat.

Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to "eat unclean meat" however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles:

  Acts 10:

  (17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men
  sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the
  gate.  (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was
  staying there.

  (22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is
  a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish
  people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that
  he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men
  into the house to be his guests.

Other verses in the bible tells "all foods are clean" however we should take note that it says nothing about "all meats are clean", food is totally different word from meat.

Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?

UPDATE:

And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states:

  Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the
  gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the
  abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV)

Which by deduction swine flesh as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these Shall be consumed together which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat  shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question:

"It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end" -- a questionable argument.

So I have two concrete questions here:

Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?
Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally and eating unclean meat is okay as it is already clean when there is verse in Isaiah 66:17 which conflicts with the interpretation?

Answers in the views of [protestantism] would be appreciated.


texts: What is achieved by baptism in Eastern Orthodoxy (compared with Catholicism)

texts: In Catholicism, a big part of baptism is the idea that it washes away original sin. As I understand things Eastern Orthodoxy denies original sin, so I'm wondering what the significance of baptism is for an Eastern Orthodox. I've read in passing that there is some idea called "ancestral sin" which is analogous to the Catholic concept of "original sin": Does baptism wash this sin away?


texts: Is the Qur'an compatible with Christianity?

texts:
In comment discussion of another question, these mentions about the Qur'an were made:

  The Qur'an teaches that Christ is a Prophet in Islam. In that sense I wouldn't say it's "Anti-Christian" or even heretical.

  I merely made this distinction because it doesn't directly teach against Christian theology, and some Christians have a similar view to the Qur'an with respect to the divinity of Christ.

I had never before heard of Christians that see the Qur'an as compatible with Christianity. I think this has a lot to do with what doctrines a Christian holds onto. For the purpose of this question, anyone self-identifying as a Christian is a Christian.

What Christian doctrines is the Qur'an incompatible with?
Is the Qur'an generally compatible with Christianity? (i.e. other than being incompatible with the specific doctrines)


texts: Beatification/canonization process in Eastern Orthodox Church

texts: What is necessary before someone is considered "saint" in Eastern Orthodox Church? Good life/martyrdom, any miracle/only preservation of the body/some other distinct miracle and cult of the saint? Is there something similar to beatification/canonization process, or is the saintness of certain person just pronounced? Who have the authority to pronounce someone saint?


texts: When did the Early Church begin and end their twice weekly fasts?

texts:
In the Didache, it tells us
"8:2 but keep your fast on the fourth and on the preparation day (Friday)."

Obviously some actually did keep these weekly fasts, when exactly did they begin and end?

Did they eat Tuesday supper and not eat again until Wednesday supper?

Or did they eat Tuesday supper and end the fast the morning of Thursday so that no food was consumed Wednesday?

Or Wednesday morning to Thursday morning etc?

I reckon the times of these fasts were in line with the twice weekly fasts of the Jews who did theirs on Monday and Thursday.

Can anyone provide more clarity on this?


texts: Why does Catholic Church (and possibly some other denominations) approve natural family planning and condemn different kinds of contraception?

texts:
That's one thing that bothers me. While I agree that using means of birth control that affect embryo is simply wrong in the terms of morality, I cannot tell any difference between natural family planning and different kinds of contraception (as mentioned in the title).

I know the argumentation that the first mentioned way is consistent with nature, while the other one is contradictory with characteristics of the true act of love. However, that doesn't appear to be really convincing to me. After all, preventing yourself from having sex in certain period of life also appears to be not consistent with nature - after all, it's act of human will (I'm not saying it's wrong, it just appears to be not different from other means of contraception).

Also, I think that the intention of the action is most important factor of moral evaluation of it. Nevertheless, both the outcome and intention of using contraception in both mentioned cases are the same - partners don't want to have baby, and so it happens, though no embryo dies.

Also, some people indicate that using, so to say, "artificial" contraception makes people more liberal in their love life. Actually, I'd dispute with that. After all, it's not impossible that individuals would be able to "control" themselves but just not bother with natural method of family planning.

To sum up, I wanted to indicate that for me there's no actual difference between natural and non-natural birth control (excluding all the means causing early miscarriage). Can anyone tell me real difference between those two that could cause varying moral evaluation of these?

Thank you in advance for all the answers.


texts: Where in the Bible does it say that God is creating a new earth?

texts: I've heard from my parents/grandparents that God is in the process of building a new Earth. Where in the Bible does it say God is creating a new Earth? Why would God build a new Earth? I know it says in the Bible that God loves all of man kind, but didn't he also regret creating man once he saw what they did? Why would he do this?


texts: What does the Catholic Church say happens on the New Earth?

texts:
There is a tiny blurb in my text book saying that

  Even the earth will be transformed in some way

referencing revelation 21:1-3 which it goes on to quote, but not actually explain.

So what happens on a new earth? Does it stay on the new earth, is that where folks who live through the second coming hang out until they ascend into heaven?


texts: Is *infallibilitas in credendo* a new or established doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
In Pope Francis' recent interview, he says:

  Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only. ... This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people.

He even goes on to explain it a little bit, saying:

  and, of course, we must be very careful not to think that this infallibilitas of all the faithful I am talking about in the light of Vatican II is a form of populism. No; it is the experience of ‘holy mother the hierarchical church,’ as St. Ignatius called it, the church as the people of God, pastors and people together. The church is the totality of God’s people.

Thing is (and I almost hate to admit this), but I've never heard of that before.  "People Infallibility", if you will, seems rather novel. (And yes, I get that its not really that, but I can see it being misinterpreted as such).  Is this a new term, or one that I just missed out on being of from the heretic arm of the church? :)


texts: What is meant by the punishment for Satan in Genesis 3?

texts:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
  thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
  upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
  thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
  between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou
  shalt bruise his heel.  (Genesis 3:14-15 KJV)

Is that punishment (upon thy belly shalt thou go) directed to the animal - "the serpent" - only, or does it have some symbolic meaning?


texts: Should we 'let our light shine' and tell people the good works that we do?

texts:
There are two subjects that could be construed as contradictory in our Lords sermon on the mount. Here is an instance:

1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

So what is Jesus saying? Should we tell others about the good things we have done, being a role model and example to them, or keep those things secret?


texts: What are the differences between hamartiology from a Nazarene to a Calvinist perspective?

texts:
Coming from a Nazarene tradition, influenced by Wesley and the Holiness Movement, my reflections upon sin are based upon the Nazarene manual's definitions (See 5.1,5.3) summarized as

5.1. Original sin, a hereditary sin descended from Adam

5.3. Actual (personal) sin, committed knowingly by a responsible individual. Exclusions are made for involuntary failings, excepting when contradicting the spirit of Christ.

I would be interested in knowing how this relates to other traditions, especially the Calvinist tradition. Does election in the Calvinist tradition have impacts upon the doctrine of sin? Are these concepts of sin standard (that is, agreed upon by most denominations?) within the Christian community at large? Perhaps this is a matter where both traditions agree, but I'm afraid I don't have many Calvinist sounding boards in my immediate vicinity, so I've had a hard time figuring out the distinctions.


texts: Which is the "correct" bible for Catholics?

texts:
There are many versions of the Bible, such as the:

King James Bible
NIV
NRSV

But which is the "correct" bible for Catholics to read?


texts:
Numbers 25 shows God as a god who destroys and kills anyone who aligns him/herself with the wrong deity.  However, Matthew 5:39 talks about how we should "not resist an evil person".

How can we reconcile God of Numbers 25 with the God of Matt 5:39?  To put this another way, is God a god of Anger or a god of Love?


texts: Abortion and Biblical End Times Prophecy

texts: Is there anything in scripture (or even private revelation to the saints) which says that near the end of the world, the world as a whole will come to accept abortion as morally acceptable?


texts: Why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence?

texts:
I'd imagine that if Christ directly taught the doctrine of the Real Presence, then one of the Gospels would have recorded it. So given that fact that it isn't directly taught, let us assume for the sake of argument that Christ did not explicitly teach this doctrine.

If this is the case, why did the early Christians seem to universally assume this doctrine to be true? Most notable example of this is St. Justin Martyr's First Apology. (I also say it seems to be "universally" assumed because nobody argued against the idea. This implies people thought of it as a typical Christian teaching.)

The typical proofs I hear from Catholic apologists are:

a certain reading of John 6
an insistence that the Words of Institution should be taken literally
a long proof of the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice (not merely a sacrifice of praise) thus implying the victim of this sacrifice must be Christ

But I cannot find any of these arguments in the early Christian writings. Further, it seems implausible that early Christians would even mount some of these arguments. i.e. it seems unlikely that St. Justin Martyr argued for the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice considering that he hardly quotes the NT (he vaguely references the Gospels and Revelation). He displays little to no knowledge of the Apostolic letters.

If you know of any early Christians making one of these three arguments, let me know.

Now, the fourth argument Catholic apologists make is from the testimony of the early Christians! So this leads me to my question. On what basis did the early Christians get this idea of the Real Presence in the first place? More specifically, if Christ didn't teach the doctrine of the Real Presence explicitly, where did the apostles/early Christians supposedly get the idea?

Update: Some on another forum have simply asserted that the Apostles themselves verbally taught the early Christians the doctrine of the Real Presence. However, this just pushes the question one step further. Where did the Apostles get the idea from if Jesus did not explicitly teach it? Did the Apostles simply take the Words of Consecration literally at the Last Supper? Any theory is welcome (though citing a scholar who proposes a theory is best). This is indeed a very speculative question.

Update 2: Some users are trying to close this question on the basis that I “falsely” assume that Christians from the 2nd century onward generally believed in the Real Presence. I would hope people’s personal theological beliefs are not driving this movement, as it is indeed historically factual that Christians from the 2nd century onward believed Christ was truly present in the Eucharist. This is a theoretical question about the development of the belief in the Real Presence, not an apology for Catholicism or Protestantism. Please base your answers in history, not personal theological opinions.


texts: If jealousy is sin, how can God be jealous?

texts:
Exodus 20:4–5 reads:

  for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for
  the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who
  hate me

But jealousy is sin, as explicitly stated in the NT:

Galatians 5:19–20

  The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and
  debauchery;  idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits
  of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions

and in the OT:

1 Samuel 18

Plus, the Pope says:

  Cosa brutta è l’invidia! E’ un atteggiamento, è un peccato brutto. E
  nel cuore la gelosia o l’invidia crescono come cattiva erba [...] (source)

which means approximately:

  What an ugly thing envy is! It's an attitude, it's a horrible sin. And inside the heart jealousy and envy grow like a weed [...]

Saint Augustine says:

  The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God.

So how can God be jealous?


texts: How can the Pope's recent actions not be viewed as condoning homosexuality?

texts:
How is the Pope biblically justified in co-celebrating mass with the homosexual priest who advocates for same-sex sexual touching and fondling between Catholic church adherents in same-sex relationships, which would not be within marriage.

Where in the Holy Scriptures can be found the justification for the Pope's actions of celebrating mass with this priest, and thereby showing his support of what this man stands for?

How is the Catholic Pope justified in his comments of 'hinting at' changes to be made soon regarding Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality? The hints suggest that the Catholic church rules will be changed to favor homosexual relationships.

Can someone show from scripture where the Pope is finding his support from passages that say that Christianity and same sex homosexual relationships are condoned by God? Holy Matrimony is Holy.

To add to this, Pope Francis has recently demoted an American cardinal who was a champion of Family Values and Right to Life issues.?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/thank-you-cardinal-burke-for-your-vatican-service

Pope kisses the hand of, co-celebrates mass with pro-homosexual activist priest

News on the Pope and homosexuality

Hint 1

  Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

  Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify
  civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed
  by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as
  ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various
  natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One
  needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety. -
  Read more: Full Transcript of Pope Francis’ March 5 Interview With
  ‘Corriere della Sera’ | NCR

Hint 2

  Providing for homosexual persons

  Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing
  [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes,
  they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home.
  Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their
  sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the
  family and matrimony?
  The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development
  and maturation in the Gospel,  while integrating the sexual aspect,
  all of which constitute an important educative challenge. Moreover,
  the Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot
  be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman. Nor
  is it acceptable that the pastor’s outlook be pressured or that
  international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction
  of regulations based on gender ideology.
  Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of
  sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.
  Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to [...] children who
  live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of
  the little ones must always be given priority.

  Source:   Synod14 - Eleventh General Assembly: "Relatio post disceptationem"

Hint 3+

As far as it is known, none of the people responsible for the Synod's scandalous mid-term report - a report whose rapid release in several languages even caught the Synod Fathers themselves by surprise - and for the controversial paragraphs which are not in keeping with the Church's Magisterium, have been held accountable.

Paragraphs rejected by the Synod Fathers have been kept alive by the Pope himself in the final document.


texts: I've heard the phrase and even used it before, in potentially dangerous and unintelligent ways.  But what did CS Lewis mean when he came to the realization that Christianity was not just Myth, but True Myth. And furthermore, was he talking about the Bible in its entirety or just the Gospel?


texts:
The Analytic philosopher Bernard Williams believed that the concept of truth has no history: It is the same everywhere, for every culture and language, has been, and will be. He writes as follows in his book Truth and Truthfulness:

One thing I shall not consider, however, is the history
of the concept of truth, because I do not believe that there is any
such history. The concept of truth itself—that is to say, the quite
basic role that truth plays in relation to language, meaning, and
belief—is not culturally various, but always and everywhere the
same. We could not understand cultural variation itself without tak-
ing that role for granted. There are indeed scholarly books that
describe themselves as histories of the concept of truth, but they
typically describe conceptions, varying over time, of belief-forma-
tion, or of knowledge, or of the metaphysical structure of the world (62).

That is, for a sentence to be true in Ancient Greek means the same thing as what it means for a sentence to be true in contemporary Dutch (and so on).
Now, let us say Christians literally believe God is Truth. But clearly, God-in-the-world, for a Christian, has a history. He has always been the same, but the history of his actions in time is very much a history--he has not acted the same in all places and times. After the life of Christ, men and women could not achieve salvation but through Christ as manifest in the world. Even if the concept of God has not changed, God-in-the-world certainly did.
Question: Must a Christian disagree with Bernard Williams and say the concept of truth does have a history?


texts: Do any prominent theologians point to Old Testament prophecies of there being two comings of the Messiah?

texts:
Christians believe there will be a second coming of Christ. They believe he will then fulfill many prophecies of the New Testament, as well as all the Old Testament messianic prophecies he left unfulfilled in his first coming.

Jews, however, often say that the second coming is merely a convenient device allowing a false messianic claimant to leave prophecies unfulfilled and claim they'll be fulfilled "later."

Christians have an answer to this. They say that the Messiah in the Old Testament is a man of tensions, familiar with contradiction. Would the messiah be a suffering servant or a conquering king? Some term these two groupings of prophecies "son of Joseph" (the first Joseph) and "son of David." Christians note that Jewish rabbis wrestled with how it could be possible for one man to fulfill such disparate sets of prophecies. They wrap up by saying that the fulfillment via two comings makes sense of it all -- first he comes as suffering servant then as conquering king.

But, Jews counter, why was there no explicit prophecy of that in the Old Testament? And that, my friends, is my question.

I'm looking for statements from prominent theologians/pastors/apologists throughout history which answer the question, "What passages speak of there being two comings of the messiah?" or "Why are there no prophecies speaking of two comings of the messiah?" with regard to the Old Testament.


texts: When did Martin Luther begin to see the church as entirely apostate?

texts:
Related to Martin Luther: "Therefore it is not a Christian Church either"? and What was Martin Luther's perspective on the apostasy of the early Christian church? and Is it true that Luther didn't consider anyone of the Catholic clergy to be a member of the true Church of God? but not the same question as any of those.

Martin Luther, of course, sparked the reformation by nailing 95 theses to the Wittenberg door. At that time he wanted to reform the Catholic Church from within, a la Erasmus, or at least that's my understanding. But somewhere down the line, he decided that the church was not "the church," and that they needed to break away in order to properly preserve the Gospel and safeguard it from apostate priests. When I've heard the chronology discussed before, it's sounded like the change occurred well before his actual excommunication by Rome, and that he decided the Pope was the Antichrist before the Pope decided Luther was a heretic. But what's the exact timeline here? When did he decide the Roman church needed to be left behind, and what developments -- either in history or in his own thinking -- precipitated that change?


texts: How well provided is Paris Foreign Missions Society?

texts:
I'd like to know how well provided is Paris Foreign Missions Society. How come they have the largest private garden in all Paris and located in Rue de Bac (it was originally just outskirts of Paris when this seminary was founded), sending numerous priests into the far east Asian countries? Many of them were died and executed there, Korea included in the 19th century.

Also, how did they provide money to the priests who took a nearly 10 month trip?

Their building seems very elegant as well. I don't mean to criticize things, it just seems doubtable and marvellous to me, seeing their nature as missionary works and I respect their sacrifice.

Or, do or did they get many donations to provide themselves, especially in the 19th century?


texts: What scripture speaks of filling a bag and "compressing" it?

texts:
When you purchase a box of cereal or bag of potato chips at the store, you often come home to find that 2/3 of the container is filled with air. This is because although the container may be filled up during production, while the container is "in transit", all the contents are slowly settling to the bottom.

There is a scripture I'm looking for that makes a similar point. Speaking of God's generosity, makes an illustration of how not only does God fill your bag of wheat or grain to the brim, but he "pushes down" on the bag, compressing the contents, so he can fill it even more.

Can anyone recall which scripture I am referring to?


texts: How to reconcile the number of people that went down to Egypt with Jacob?

texts:
In Genesis 46 26-27 it says:

  26 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob—those who were his direct
  descendants, not counting his sons’ wives—numbered sixty-six persons.
  27 With the two sons[f] who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the
  members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy[g] in
  all.

And in Acts 7:14 it says:

  14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family,
  seventy-five in all.

Is this a contradiction between the books or is there a way to get the extra 5?


texts: According to Protestants following the Reformation, what did Jesus mean when he said "do this and you will live"?

texts:
According to the Reformers, man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone, through grace alone, and not by any works- anything they can do. Consider the following passage from Luke.

  Luke 10:25–28 (NASB) And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

It seems here that according to Jesus, one lives by doing the Law, since he says the "correct" answer to the Lawyer's question is this commandment of the Law, found in Deuteronomy 6:5. How do the Reformers and Protestants after them who hold to the doctrine of Sola Fide reconcile this verse with that doctrine?


texts: Are there Christians who believe that Jesus does not have a physical body right now?

texts:
I've researched about this topic online and I could only find one Christian website so far that affirms this belief.

https://www.bible.ca/d-Jesus-body-now.htm

Does anybody else know if a particular Christian denomination believes this way too? Personally, it makes sense, logically, that Jesus doesn't have a physical body because human bodies freeze in space without a suit. Colossians 1:15 also explicitly states that the Son is the image of the invisible God.


texts: What is the Mormon view of Matthew 7:13-14?

texts:
This question is about statements by Latter-Day Saints that seem to indicate that a majority of humankind will be "saved".

For example, this page on resurrection says (emphasis added):

  Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected
  and saved from physical death

And this passage in Doctrine & Covenants 76:43-44 says (emphasis added):

  43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the
  Father has revealed him.44 Wherefore, he saves all except
  them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless
  punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and
  his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
  not quenched, which is their torment—

Similarly the answer to this question says (emphasis added):

  Finally, the eternal sense of the word hell is reserved for those who
  reject God, refuse the gospel, and deny the Holy Ghost. It's
  understood that these will be relatively few in number, but the sons
  of perdition, having departed in a sense the family of God, will not
  receive any glory.

Because of these statements I wanted to ask about Jesus' words in Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV):

  13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which
  go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the
  way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

How do Mormons interpret these words of Jesus in light of their view that most of humankind will be saved?


texts: Did any other early church fathers besides Origen teach the pre-existence of souls?

texts: Origen taught about the pre-existence of our souls, which, among many other of his teachings, was later condemned as heresy. Did any other early church fathers teach this doctrine?


texts:
What does Jeremiah 1:11 mean with regards to almond branch? The Lord’s response about watching is not clear with regards to almond trees.

  11 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Jeremiah, what do you
  see?" And I said, "I see an almond branch." 12 Then the LORD said to
  me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform
  it." - Jeremiah 1:11-12 ESV

Most commentators like Matthew Henry would posit some trait of almonds tree. Calvin and at least one other would prefer a “watcher” with reference to the root of the word being Hebrew verb ; because the Lords response is of watching instead of tree traits.

NIV

  11 The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?”   “I
  see the branch of an almond tree,” I replied.   12 The Lord said to
  me, “You have seen correctly, for I am watching b to see that my word
  is fulfilled.”

Douay-Rheims Bible

  And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What seest thou,
  Jeremias? And I said: I see a rod watching.

Young’s literal translation.

  here is a word of Jehovah unto me, saying, 'What art thou seeing,
  Jeremiah?' And I say, 'A rod of an almond tree I am seeing.

The word is rendered "a rod of almond" by the Septuagint, the Arabic version, and Theodotion; and also by Piscator, Drusius, Grotius, and Blayney; and "the rod of the watcher" by Sym., Aq., and the Vulgate The latter is no doubt more suitable in a translation.

  It should be, "I see the rod, "or the staff, "of a watcher."  Let us
  grant that the almond is intended; yet the tree may be called
  watchful, according to what etymology requires, and also the sense of
  the passage, as all must see. [14] God then caused his servant to see
  the staff of a watcher. ~Calvin


texts: According to Catholic teaching, what constitutes a prophecy to be Messianic?

texts:
It is a generally known fact that in Jewish history there have existed many diverse thoughts and theories regarding the Messiah, and different words of prophets, known as Messianic prophecies, have been used to support these said theories.

My question is regarding the reasoning given in the Catholic Church for what costitutes a prophecy to be Messianic in nature or not. For example, in Isaiah 7 we are given the image of a virgin birth. This prophecy doesn't seem to be explicitly referring to the Messiah, but rather referring to a Messiah-like figure that is existent in a smaller context. There are other examples similar to this that are considered by the Church to be Messianic prophecies, as in referring to the Messiah. So what is the line of reasoning regarding what pieces of Scripture are to be considered Messianic prophecies? If certain prophecies are referring to Messiah-like figures, what makes the Church hold that they are more substantially referring to the Messiah?

Note: I stumbled upon the nature of typology (I'm rather inexperienced in Old Testament studies) and found it interesting in this matter. It seems like a typological approach could resolve the last question I was wondering about, but the more general question remains. Granted the typological approach, or any other approach that resolves the distinction between the past events and the indication of this account for the future, how does the Church specifically/generally determine what prophecy is thus actually Messianic?


texts: Did the early church accept lifelong, faithful concubinage?

texts:
In Bryan Litfin's book, Getting to Know the Church Fathers, I was surprised to read the following about concubinage in the early church, in the context of Augustine's life before conversion:

  In Roman society, the practice of concubinage was widely accepted.  Even the Christian church was prepared to accommodate it as a kind of common law marriage so long as there was lifelong fidelity. (220)

In Augustine's case, he had no intention of lifelong fidelity, so the point is rather moot.  But in many places around the world, both historically and currently, government restrictions make it difficult or impossible for some men and women to be officially "married."

My personal response might be to disregard the government's restrictions and consider a man and woman publicly committed to faithful monogamy as married, and not fornicating, particularly if they have a "church wedding."  But in the Dominican Republic, at least, where I periodically do some ministry, the church I work with insists that those living together while not officially (legally) married are committing adultery, despite the legal barriers preventing some from marrying.1

All that to say, this isn't idle curiosity.  Did the early church "accommodate" faithful concubinage, as Litfin says?  In what sense – was it in the musings of a single church father, or set down at an ecumenical council?  And if so, under what circumstances would it be allowed?

1. For more on these barriers, see this documentary or its trailer.


texts: Did Mary know she was sinless, according to Roman Catholic teaching?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception that asserts Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless for her entire life.

Assuming this to be true, did Mary know that she was, in fact, sinless, while everyone else was not?  It seems that this would have been obvious.  If so, it seems should would probably have expected that God had already selected her for a special purpose.  However, she sounds surprised at the angel greets her as a "favored one":

  Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.  Luke 1:26-29 NASB

So, again, my question is, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, did Mary always know that she was sinless?  Or did she come to know that later at some point?  If she knew she was sinless, did she realize earlier that she had been set aside for a special purpose?


texts: How can apologists argue that if Jesus did not rise again then Christianity and the Church would not have lasted, when other religions have?

texts:
As I reflect on this Easter holiday, as a spiritually young person, I thought of the idea that's often repeated: that if the resurrection of Jesus were not true, then Christianity and the Church would not have lasted.

Given this one "method of proof", I was wondering: couldn't we then say the same about Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, which have lasted for many, many years too?

So, this makes me think that the argument, while very intriguing, is flawed.


texts: How old was Jesus when the Magi visited him?

texts:
We read at Mtt 2:16 (NRSVCE)  :
"When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men."
No king would want to kill his male subjects since it is they who would form his armed  forces in future . Herod ordered  the male children to be killed because he feared for his throne, but would definitely minimize the upper age, in order to spare those who were beyond doubt ( of having been born the King of Jews ) . It implies that the Magi had taken nearly two years in travelling to Bethlehem after seeing the star, or in the alternative,  it took Herod some two years after the Magi's departure to realize   that he had been duped by them. Anyway, they visited Jesus after his presentation in the temple, where Joseph and Mary had been able to offer only the minimum requirement of a pair doves (Lk 2:24), not knowing what the Magi would later offer him .
Going by the above, it is evident that Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Magi visited him. My question therefore,  is: According to Catholic Church, how old was Jesus when the Magi visited him ?


texts: What is the first documented usage of "Prima Scriptura"?

texts: While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Prima Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.


texts: Is there a scriptural and/or historical reason why priests wear those white collars? When did that start and why?


texts: How could the person in Luke 9:49 cast out demons without Jesus' mandate?

texts:
Luke 9:49 (ESV):

  John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.”

The 12 (and later the 70) only started healing people and casting out demons AFTER Jesus "gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases."

The Holy Spirit had not been sent yet, so with what authority was this person acting?

I am not questioning the good will of the anonymous healer. Was he an imposter Jesus would have stated so.

What I'm really wondering is that people didn't need a direct command (or mandate) from Jesus to act in His name?


texts: Is the Patriarch of Alexandria an Eastern Orthodox or an Oriental Orthodox?

texts:
I see Eastern Orthodox keyboard warriors commonly posting memes, bite size apologetics and propaganda against Catholicism which make some variation on the claim "4 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You should too".

I was wondering how much veracity is behind this claim. I was under the impression that the Patriarch of Alexandria wasn't even in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church at all. I thought he was a Copt and a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion instead? Likewise for Jerusalem and Antioch. I thought that the only Patriarch of the original Pentarchy that is an actual Eastern Orthodox is the Patriarch of Constantinople?

My understanding is that 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Catholicism, 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Eastern Orthodoxy, and 3 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Oriental Orthodoxy. Please help me understand this situation further?


texts:
Is it accurate that it was only on the cross that Jesus referred to God as "God"?

My God why has thou forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46


texts: Apostle John lived in Ephesus - what sources claim that?

texts: Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus?


texts:
Adam and Eve committed sin and were banned from the Garden of Eden and were cursed with the serpent according to the scriptures in Genesis 3:19-24 (KJV)

[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. [20] And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. [21]Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. [22] And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: [23] Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. [24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Adam and Eve were during the First Testament and when people sinned they had to give sin offerings so their sins could be forgiven and people died they couldn't go to heaven. Then the Second Testament occurs, where Jesus was crucified , so our sins could be forgiven and men who served the Lord GOD could finally enter  God's Kingdom.  My question is if Adam and Eve made it to heaven our are thy bound forever in the Pits of Hell?


texts: How do various traditions define the term "sufficient grace"?

texts:
I have read various polemics on the topics of Augustinianism, Calvinism, Jansenism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Catholicism which seem to use the term "sufficient grace" in different ways. For instance, this blog post by a Catholic claims that James White misuses the term "sufficiency of grace," and that White is ignorant of the history of Jansenism's denial of the Catholic doctrine of sufficient grace. However, it seems just as likely that White is simply using the term in a different way.

What is an overview of how the term "sufficient grace" has been used by various perspectives in these debates?


texts: Is there a moral goodness in In vitro fertilization?

texts:
I may have a couple of questions here but it's basically the same subject.

My first question: does the Catholic Church see any moral goodness in having a baby through In vitro fertilization (IVF)? Even though there is let's say 17 embryos frozen still but the couple bring one new life and cares for that life(nothing we can do about it).
Can we say that God brings something good out of something bad like this(talking about new life as good) or this is just not the case since the whole case is just wrong?

Romans 8:28(New International Version)

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who
  love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

The other question is why the Catholic Chuch doesn't talk about iVF in higher urgency. Let's say Pope should mention something about it in every conversation with media because from the perspective of the Church this is just such an evil. Does the silence have anything to do with

"John 8:11" (New International Version).

  "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus
  declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


texts: What is the scriptural evidence that faith comes from God?

texts:
I've heard both of these claims, and they seem to have irreconcilable differences:

God does his part (the call/invitation), now you do yours (respond in faith)
God not only gave his son for you, but he will give you the faith to believe it.

I'm less interested here in the broader question of the doctrine of election; I'm focusing specifically on the second bullet point: is there scriptural evidence that faith is a gift or something that we receive from God?


texts: Why did Pope Clement V leave Rome and relocate to Avignon, France?

texts: What were some reasons why Pope Clement V left Rome and relocated to Avignon, France?


texts: How do Calvinists go from "X is Sinful" to "X is unable to accept Christ on his own?"

texts:
I was recently reviewing Piper's TULIP notes. I'm also aware of What is the Biblical Basis for Total Depravity

Here, however, is something that I no longer understand. How do Calvinists jump

from: "X is sinful"
to: "X is incapable of believing in Christ"

It seems like we need one of two intermediate steps:

A. "X is sinful" -> "everything X does is sin" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ" or

B. "X is sinful" , "no one with sin can accept Christ" -> "X is incapable of believing in Christ"

I don't see biblical scripture for the intermediate steps for either (A) or (B). How do Calvinists make this work? [I'm really looking for Biblical verses, rather than Edwards's Freedom of the Will or Luther's Bondage of the Will]

Question:

What is the intermediate step?


texts: Sin Nature and the Sarx, how can Jesus be sinless if all flesh is evil

texts: Someone asked about sin nature and the answer they were given was that the word Sarx was translated as sin nature? In Greek Sarx just means flesh. So if Jesus came in the Sarx and was sinless how is that possible. Especially to my brothers who are Calvinist, how could Jesus be born in the Sarx if the flesh is inherently evil to God?


texts: How widespread is panentheism within Protestant schools of thought?

texts:
I'm confused about what panentheism is. The Wikipedia article and the few mentions of it here on Stack Exchange both indicate that some Christians identify as panentheists and some don't. I'm guessing it largely comes down to how you define it, but the Oxford English Dictionary has only one definition and I have a hard time seeing what separates it from an orthodox understanding of omnipresence:

panentheism, n.
The theory or belief that God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe but at the same time is greater than and independent of it. Freq. contrasted with pantheism.

Wikipedia mentions that panentheism influences process theology, open theism, universalism, and other doctrines generally regarded as unorthodox, as well as Hinduism, but it doesn't state that such beliefs are a necessary consequence of adhering to panentheism.
My questions, then, are:

What does panentheism imply that a classical Christian formulation of omnipresence does not?

How widespread is panentheism within Protestantism?

What problems do Protestants who reject basic panentheism have with it? By basic panentheism, I mean a panentheism that isn't attached to open theism and the other problematic doctrines mentioned above.


texts: When will the Millennial Reign prophesied about in Revelation 20 take place?

texts:
I'm confused by the 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation.

Revelation 20:1-15

  Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

I know that "of that day and hour knoweth no man" speaking to the time and day of the Rapture, but when in relation to the Rapture will the Millennial reign, or the 1,000 year rule of Jesus on earth, take place?


texts: Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?

texts:
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone the existence of doctrinal discrepancies among different branches of Christianity. Most of the time, these doctrinal differences arise from the differing ways in which theologians and Christians in general interpret the Scriptures. You don't see these sorts of discrepancies in mathematics, where theorems can be readily verified by anyone: it's just a matter of following the logical steps of the theorem's proof. Given the initial set of axioms, and provided that the proof is logically valid, there is no question about the final conclusion, and anyone can agree and verify by themselves the truth of the theorem.
Unfortunately, this is far from being the case in Christianity with regards to many doctrines (e.g. the Nature of God, the Trinity, the Sabbath, the Feast Days, the Law, Tithing, the Gifts of the Spirit, Tongues, Miracles, Christology, Pneumatology, Intercession of the Saints, etc.). In contrast to formal mathematical proofs, doctrines instead are typically defended via abductive arguments, where a certain doctrine is held as the "most plausible" explanation for the Scriptural evidence (a set of passages interpreted in a certain way), and possibly historical and testimonial evidence. Relying on abductive arguments to defend a position in a doctrinal dilemma sounds a reasonable approach, but we need to be aware of the fact that abductive arguments are not formal logical proofs -- they are not bullet proof. Thus, there will always be some room for uncertainty ("what if my interpretation is wrong?"), especially in the case of very controversial doctrines.
Question: Are there any denominations that openly acknowledge the existence of (some) uncertainty in (some of) their doctrines, and provide official advice to their members on how to handle that uncertainty?

Related: Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture?


texts: Reason for rise in evangelical observance of Lent in the United States

texts: I grew up and continue to live in the United States.  Maybe it's just me, but I was always been under the impression that Ash Wednesday and Lent were celebrated by Catholics and not really by anyone else.  Apparently I was wrong and some Protestant denominations do and have always celebrated it.  Even so, it does seem like within the low-church denominations (e.g. Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals) the practice has always been eschewed.  Again, maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like evangelicals observing these holy days has been becoming more and more popular.  Firstly, am I mistaken?  Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, is there some documented reason for this?


texts: How will Satan rage in the hearts of the children of men? (LDS perspective)

texts:
The following passage from The Book of Mormon teaches that people will be strongly influenced by Satan in the last days, which Mormons believe are happening now.  Are there scriptural references or leadership comments that explain how this influence will be manifest?

  For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; for behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. (2 Nephi 28:19–21)


texts: Is the OT translation in "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" based strictly on the LXX or MT text?

texts:
In reference to the answer given to Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? some further issues arise:

There's a rather interesting translation called, "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" by Charles Van der Pool, published in 2006 by The Apostolic Press. Does anyone know if it's based strictly on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)?

Concerning the other possible sources, mentioned elsewhere on this site, "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, by Charles Thomson in 1808" is not currently available for purchase ...

And, the revised translation of it, "The Septuagint Bible," by C.A. Muses is not what it claims to be; that is, its a heavily edited version that bears more resemblance to the KJV than the LXX! Changing the accurate rendering of the Greek scriptures to agree with the Hebrew has corrupted the validity of the translation, and made it useless for the purpose of studying the Septuagint.

As for "The Orthodox Study Bible," it uses the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text, so, it's questionable if this is really a strict translation of the LXX?

That's more than one question, sorry, but they are directly related.


texts: Why was heliocentrism such a threat to Roman Catholic leaders that their proponents were threatened to be burnt at the stake?

texts:
Truth-seekers on a mission of scientific inquiry who turned out to be right were threatened to be burnt to the stake by Roman Catholic leaders in Medieval Europe. Why should a difference in opinion amount to such a huge threat to the all-powerful religious figures then?

Why were the theories of scientists such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno about the nature of the Sun and Earth such a threat to Medieval Roman Catholic leaders that they were forced to recant or burnt at the stake? After all, scientists do not bear arms.


texts: Do Biblical Unitarians believe that Christians can pray to Jesus and, if so, that he can answer a prayer in which he is asked about his divinity?

texts:
I personally believe that there are biblical grounds for praying to Jesus (e.g. this and this), and, as far as I'm aware, many Christians believe the same. However, I'm currently in ignorance with regards to the Biblical Unitarian position on the subject.
I have four questions:

Do Biblical Unitarians believe that praying to Jesus is a legitimate, scriptural practice?
If the answer to the previous question is yes: do they also believe that Jesus can answer questions verbally (as in Acts 9:10-16 and 2 Cor 12:8-9)?
If the answer to the previous question is yes: do they believe then that if one prays to Jesus and asks him if he is God, he will respond with an unambiguous answer?
If the answer to the previous question is yes: has a Biblical Unitarian ever done this?


texts:
I've always thought that in Revelation 6:12 where it says:

  I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair...

... that the sun would actually turn black. But about a week ago I found in Genesis:

  "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." - Genesis 8:22

So I guess that won't happen. What does it mean, then?


texts: How do creationists explain the genetic diversity of animals after Noah's Ark?

texts:
One of the comments on How did all the animals fit into Noah's ark? asked "How does one propose to produce the various species/sub-species simply from 'some sort of cat', after the fact?" This was in response to how Noah brought a 'kind' of cat into the ark and now we have pumas, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, etc. I was curious myself and another person suggested asking this as a new question.

Basically, the argument would go along the lines of..."How does a single breeding pair turn into both Chihuahuas and Great Danes in under 5000 years? If Noah’s ark had only 1 pair of each kind, the speed of evolution required to get some of the variation that exists needs to be much faster than reality." (This was taken from http://anadder.com/noahs-ark-and-evolution which has a few other points for this argument)

How do Young Earth Creationists answer this?


texts: What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 3:16?

texts:
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)

What is the Roman Catholic way of interpreting John 3:16, the most popular verse in the Bible? What does the word "perish" mean?


texts: Under what basis does the Catholic Church condemn the use of drugs while permitting alcohol?

texts:
The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.

CCC 2291

  Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem. Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called “recreational drugs”, are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. Substitute drugs are not an adequate therapy but rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon. Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use.

Pope Francis

As we can see, the Catholic Church seems to firmly oppose the use drugs. But at the same time, the Catholic Church seems to permit moderate use of alcohol.

This position spawns much controversy among both alcohol prohibitionists and drug legalization supporters because of the claims that from the medical point of view there are no traits that would distinguish ethanol from other drugs like heroine, LSD, opium, marijuana, etc. Indeed, according to these claims, ethanol is even more harmful and dangerous than some of the others drugs condemned by the Church like marijuana. Therefore, as per this line of argument, Vatican should either prohibit the use of alcohol as sinful (which is hardly possible for liturgical reasons and would require re-interpreting some biblical passages like the one about the Wedding in Cana) or cease implying that the use of other drugs is inherently evil.

I find it hard to believe that this critique hasn't reached Vatican yet. Are there any documents or statements that would explain the Church's teaching on this subject?


texts: What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit?

texts: What is the difference between baptism of the Holy Spirit and receiving the Holy Spirit (or being filled with the Holy Spirit)? Do these two mean the same? I am open to the different views given by the denominations that exist today.


texts:
Over and over I hear people pronouncing in one way or another that God is "not fair"*. Sometimes this is stated directly, other times indirectly as in "that doesn't seem fair, therefore God must not be that way."

My question is, are we humans in a position to judge whether God is fair or not? If so what standard do we use to define fair? How should Christians handle issues of "fairness" and how should we respond to these accusations against God?

* Often with the conclusion: therefore I will not believe in him.


texts:
In Judges 6:11-12 we read:

  The angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.”

In Judges 6:14 we read:

  14 The Lord turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

The Angel of the Lord appears to speak God's mind, and is interchangeable (by the writer) with the Lord himself. He doesn't speak as a messenger (as Gabriel does to Mary).

One might conclude then that the person who knows the mind of God, and who the writer treats as interchangeable with God would be a pre-incarnation of Jesus.

My question is: What is the evidence that the Angel of the Lord in the old Testament is probably Jesus?

Clarification: This is asking generally across the whole old Testament - and is not limited to this passage.


texts: What was the pre-Babel language and what can be said about the mechanism used to confuse the languages?

texts:
The Tower of Babel episode in human history is known to many. This can be found in Genesis 11. As we know, it resulted in the languages of mankind becoming confused.

Question: Are there opinions, speculations, conjectures, or a consensus anywhere on what the pre-Babel language was? Are there linguistic clues in modern languages spoken today that can shed light on this topic? We do not really know the exact mechanism used by God to confuse the languages. Is it possible that the mechanism is something amenable to investigation from the fields of neuroscience/computer science?


texts: How should one reconcile a wrong against another person?

texts:
When someone commits a wrong against another person, what is he supposed to do to make things right?  Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to set things right with the other person?  If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends (what kinds), something else?

Does the answer depend on the type of damage done?  For example, is gossip different from property damage, or injury?

Does the answer depend on who was wronged?  Is the obligation to a fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian?

I'm looking for a general Christian teaching on this subject.  If there's a wide range of opinions on this, I'd like to know what the teachings are, and the Scriptural support for them.

I am not Christian and thus am not asking what I should do in this case.  I know what is expected of me as a Jew if I have wronged somebody else, and I am curious about how that compares to what your religion teaches about what is expected of a Christian who wrongs another.  I'm not asking about the other side of the case, the obligation to forgive.


texts: Did anyone before Augustine teach Original Sin?

texts: From what I understand Augustine was the first to introduce the idea of original sin. Did anyone before Augustine state that Adam and Eve's sin was a punishment to all humanity?


texts: Why did Jesus not share the meanings of the parables? MARK 4:34

texts:
In Mark 4:34 it says:

  "He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when He was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything." (NIV)

My question is this: why did Jesus not share the meanings of the parables with the general population he talked to and only to his disciples?


texts: Did the modern LDS idea of fast offerings have extra-Mormon roots?

texts:
[LDS] members are encouraged to fast once a month on Fast Sunday and to give the money they save by not eating two meals to the church; those who can afford to be more generous are encouraged to give more than simply the money saved as a fast offering.

So given that the biblical root of the concept of a fast offering is the exhortation of Isaiah:

Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?  (Isaiah 58:6--7)

And that Joseph Smith introduced the current LDS practice of using the cost of the meal foregone by fasting to support the poor in Kirtland (as later reiterated by the interregnal Council of the Twelve in these words):

Let this be an example to all saints, and there will never be any lack for bread: When the poor are starving, let those who have, fast one day and give what they otherwise would have eaten to the bishops for the poor, and everyone will abound for a long time; and this is one great and important principle of fasts approved of the Lord.  (History of the Church 7:413)

Is there a separate modern root or inspiration of this practice?  It doesn't seem to be derived from patristic or medieval Catholicism or Reformation practices as far as I know (which, admittedly, isn't a lot in the area of devotional practices).  Specifically, was this something the Shakers, the Campbellites, or another Restorationist group influential on early Mormonism practiced?


texts: What are Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on how those who died before Jesus, or before JWs existed, will gain salvation?

texts:
Christian denominations have different beliefs about how those who died before Jesus existed, or before their denomination existed, can gain salvation.

For example, some denominations believe that the souls of those people were in Limbo until Christ's Ascension. Others believe in the necessity to baptize people in the past by proxy.

Considering that people in the distant past would not have been Jehovah's Witnesses nor may not even have known about Jesus, in order to put faith in him, what are Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on how such people could gain salvation?

Do you believe that they were somehow informed about Jesus ahead of time? Or do you baptize dead people by proxy, or is there some other mechanism? Or are they eternally doomed?


texts: Why did Pope Francis tell atheists "just be good"?

texts:
“Just do good and we’ll find a meeting point,” The Pope

I don't think just being good gets you in heaven. Is the Pope singling out atheists to rethink how to win them over? Is he waiting for the atheists to come to him? I think he should have said 'repent and attend mass'. I could be wrong. I was hoping he would quote scripture. Did he gave up on the atheists? Did he water down Catholics?

What was TIME's Person of the Year 2013 thinking?


texts:
What is the biblical bases for giants living through Noah's flood?

Before flood:

Genesis 6:4 KJV

  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
  when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare
  children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of
  renown.

After flood:

1 Chronicles 20:8 KJV

  These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of
  David, and by the hand of his servants.

Numbers 13:33 KJV

  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the
  giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were
  in their sight.

Joshua 15:8 KJV

  And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the
  south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went
  up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom
  westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:


texts: Does Reformed Baptist Protestantism reject Annihilationism?

texts:
John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel.
What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?


texts:
I don't know much about Christianity so I was watching this video:
Is Jesus God?

I was stunned by the following things:

At the start of the debate Stanley Sjoberg says Jesus is the Son of God.
Near the 21:30 mark, the pastor mentions, "you see Jesus is not the son of God". At the beginning he said "Jesus is the son of God". After that he said "Jesus is the God" and then "Jesus is equal to God". Is he equivocating here or what is going on?
If Jesus was God, then why/to whom did he pray? How many Gods are there?
How many gods are there in Christianity? If there is a god superior/bigger than Jesus, then why are there no Church/temple for those gods? Why do people not worship them?


texts: What are the steps to become Confirmed in the Catholic church?

texts: What are the steps you have to take (general steps not necessarily church specific) as someone raised in the Catholic church to become Confirmed?


texts: Did Mary know that her Baby Boy would "soon deliver her"?

texts:
It's a little past Christmas, but I forgot to ask this question based on the song "Mary did you know", which really raises the question.  Did Mary know?

As a Catholic, there are lots of traditions around the Nativity of Mary, that she was brought up as a temple virgin, well versed in scripture, a humble, sinless and beautiful person with a timeless grace etc...  So, when I hear that song, "Mary, did you know?" I think she did know.

But, what do the saints and great Catholic writers, like St. Dominic or St. Alphonsus Ligouri say about the foreknowledge of Mary?

Also, is the line "the child that you delivered, will soon deliver you" heretical?


texts: Does Catholic doctrine teach that atheists go to heaven, too?

texts:
The following is taken from the following article: Pope Says Atheists Are A-OK By God.

  Referencing a passage from the Gospel of Mark in his homily, the Pope
  recounted the story of a priest who told an inquiring Catholic that
  Jesus redeemed everyone, even atheists, and all he asks in return is
  that people "do good and do not do evil."

  "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ:
  all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!" the Pope quoted the priest
  as saying.

  "Father, the atheists?," the skeptical Catholic responded. "Even the
  atheists. Everyone!" the priest replied, and added: "We must meet one
  another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’
  But do good: we will meet one another there."

  The Guardian notes that Pope Francis's ongoing efforts to unite all
  people, both believers and nonbelievers, stands in stark contrast to
  approach of his predecessors — particularly Benedict, "who sometimes
  prompted complaints from non-Catholics that he seemed to see them as
  second-class believers."

  Catholic Online has already embraced the newly christened Pope's
  message, taking it a step further by declaring that atheists can "go
  to heaven too."

Is universal reconciliation now the official belief in Catholicism?


texts: Schism leading to present day Christian Churches?

texts:
I was reading about schisms in Christianity. I could found out a few schisms which has lead to the generation of new churches. But many of those churches were died out after sometime but some of them have grown into churches of varying number of adherents.

I could only identify these many schisms that have lead to a church which is still active in the modern times. I am speaking from a Roman Catholic Church point of view, but I don't anyway hold that the teachings of Roman Catholic Church is superior to the teachings of other churches.

Nestorian Schism has lead to a breakup and the Assyrian Church of the East is still considered as a Nestorian Church because they don't accept the teachings of the First Council of Ephesus in AD 431.

Oriental Orthodox Churches were a result of the rejection of the teachings Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.

The great schism lead to the formation of Eastern Orthodox church.

Now, this is my question.

Is there any other church that is still surviving to present day that has formed due to any schism that has happened before the great schism?


texts: What level of will-power do humans have according to Luther?

texts:
Luther wrote a very forceful book about original sin and predestination called 'On the Bondage of the will'. In it Luther opposes the idea of free-will, defined as a person's power to do good without grace. However, I am asking something different than his opposition to free-will. I am asking, "While opposing 'free-will,' what degree of human will does Luther retain for the human experience?" In other words after restricting the will as either enslaved to sin or enslaved to the Spirit (thereby opposing independent free-will), what degree of human will is not completely subject to other forces?

For example, I am assuming that what we choose to eat Luther does not ascribe to either the influence of the flesh or the Spirit, but to a kind of limited power of human will. So what level of will-power do humans have according to Luther?


texts: My grandchildren were not baptized and I was worried about it. They are going on a trip.   Therefore, I took it upon myself to baptize them.   What if anything is the Catholic Church's view of this?  My children are not practicing Catholics.  When my oldest grandson was a baby, maybe about six months old, I was giving him a bath in the kitchen sink and poured water over him and stated specifically, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"...  I did this to the other four today.  I told my son and daughter.  My daughter just chuckled and my son was upset with me.  They were raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, but neither are practicing now.


texts: What actions does the LDS church (Mormon) take when a member does not pay tithing?

texts:
According to official policy, what happens to members of the LDS church who do not pay their tithing? Specifically, what happens to those who:

Forget to pay tithing for an extended period of time, or
Openly refuse to pay tithing.

Background: I am a Mormon, and I frequently see people online saying that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are forced to pay tithing by various enforcement methods. I would like there to be a canonical answer on this site to point people towards. I will offer my anecdotal experiences in the comments.


texts: What is the Biblical Basis for saying that we "go to heaven"?

texts:
I have found hundreds of Bible verses with heaven or heavens in them. But none of them said we "go to heaven".

We pray for the kingdom to come here.  Revelation has the new Jerusalem descending to earth. (Rev 21)

Why does anybody think we go to heaven? What is the Biblical Basis for this idea?


texts: What is "sin that leads to death" in 1 John 5:16?

texts:
1 John 5:16 (NIV)

  If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

(emphasis obviously added)

In that passage, it says that there is a sin that leads to death.  What sin is he referring to here?

I'm seeking a mainstream Protestant exegesis of this scripture.  I suspect that all denominations and doctrines that fall in this category will have similar understanding of this text.  If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll refine my scope.


texts: According to Catholicism, how can a Christian be freed from the concupiscence of the flesh and thereby possess a sinless body?

texts:
After the fall of Adam & Eve from pride & disobedience, all mankind inherit original sin.

The Catholic Church teaches that the original sin can be removed by the Sacraments of Baptism but the stain of original sin or the concupiscence of the flesh still remains.

St. Paul describes this in Romans 7:15-24 as;

  "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

  "So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

In light of this dilemna, is there a way to remove concupiscence or wash-away the stain of sins in our bodies. Does Christ leave the Church with any teaching how to remove or wash away the stain of sins after we are cleansed by baptism?

Unfortunately, this is a tough challenge for many striving Christians as we can see from Scriptures, Christ has elevated the definition of adultery:

  "You shall not commit adultery," Christ spoke of adultery in the heart. "Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt 5:28).

Now, I'm looking for Church teachings on how to remove concupiscence, as clearly based on Saint Paul himself as he overcame concupiscence when he exclaimed;

  "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Galatians 2:20)

So, its not hopeless for us.

**My question is how did Saint Paul overcame concupiscence, and what does it mean when Saint Paul overcame concupiscence his body is sinless like Adam & Eve?


texts: Do any theologians argue that in the Fall, Adam sacrificed himself out of love for Eve?

texts:
I've heard a few Christians say, perhaps half-jokingly, that Adam only ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden because he realized that it was the only way for him to stay with Eve.  By this they seem to suggest that Adam only sinned out of a sense of altruism, sacrifice, and love.

I don't find the biblical evidence for this view convincing, but when researching the origin of it, I stumbled across John Milton's Paradise Lost.  In the following lines, Eve is responding to Adam's choice to eat the forbidden fruit despite the threat of death:

  Tenderly wept, much won that he his Love
  Had so enobl'd, as of choice to incurr
  Divine displeasure for her sake, or Death.
  (Book 9, lines 991–93)

Thus, I wonder:

Is Paradise Lost actually the origin of this theory?
Have any Christian theologians/commentators in church history (before or after Milton) argued for this interpretation of the Fall? Or is this simply an example of pure poetic license that has infiltrated Christian thought?


texts: What is the Protestant belief known as "faith alone"?

texts:
"Faith Alone"?

If you have heard the term "Protestant" before, chances are you have also heard the saying "faith alone." The way Protestants speak of "faith alone" might almost give one the impression that Luther and his band of rebels chanted this mantra all the way out of the Catholic cathedral as they defected from the Mother Church and set off to seek a better way.

So what is the story on this "faith alone" concept? As a Protestant, the first place I go when I have questions is Scripture. ("Sola Scriptura," right?) When I do a query in the NASB Bible on "faith alone" this is the only entry that comes up:

  You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. -James 2:24

That is humorous. (Of course, from what I am told, Luther did not believe that the book of James belonged in the canon of Scripture anyway... but I digress.)

So where did the idea of "faith alone" come from? From what I understand, Luther had translated the following verse into Latin, at which point the Catholic church back-translated it into German, incorrectly rendering the bolded term as "faith alone":

  For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. -Romans 3:28

So the Catholics rendered the Latin as "faith alone apart from works of the Law," and were outraged. However, Luther maintained that the Catholics had mistranslated his Latin, and that the Latin solum ("alone") was necessary in Latin to convey the meaning of the sentence, though they were correct that the extra term was unnecessary in German. So in Luther's mind, the Latin was accurate with solum ("alone"), and the German was accurate without allein ("alone"). All that to say it seems that in Luther's mind "faith alone" was nothing more than a Catholic mistranslation! So how did it become a Protestant mantra?!

To further complicate matters, Romans 3:28 does not contrast faith with works, but with works of the Law; i.e. the Mosaic Law. Yet the modern Protestant mantra seems to contrast faith with any sort of action.

My Question

So, can someone explain the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" to me? Do I have my facts straight about its origin (a Catholic mistranslation from Latin to German)? If so, how in the world did a Catholic mistranslation (that Luther rejected) become a Protestant mantra?!

Also, is this doctrine really as foundational to Protestantism as people think it is? And what does this doctrine even mean? Is it "faith apart from any action"? Is it "faith apart from the Mosaic Law"? Something else? Would Luther even affirm the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone"?

Related: What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)? This question asks how a person would justify this doctrine from Scripture. It's not the same as what I'm asking here, but it is relevant none the less.

Also related: Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics? This question asks for a particular source to use in an upcoming blog post. Not at all what I'm asking, but related none the less.


texts: Is there any evidence that Lent used to be a 3 day observance?

texts: I was taught that Lent represents the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert. However, in church on Ash Wednesday, my Priest stated that it used to be 3 days and was extended to 40. I can only assume that the 3 days were the time Jesus was entombed. Was Lent ever 3 days? Was this official doctrine? And if so, when and why was it changed?


texts: What is the biblical basis for “the Sinner’s Prayer” and do Protestants believe that saying the prayer make one a Christian?

texts:
I came across a similar question asking about the Protestant view that when you first believe on Jesus Christ you become a Born Again Christian.  Here is the link to the question:

How did the Born Again teaching be associated with one first believing in Jesus Christ?

Please note that I am not asking about how a Christian is born-again.  I am asking about the claim that Protestants think if you say "the Sinner’s Prayer” then you become a Christian.  I’ve been a Protestant for a long time but have never subscribed to any notion that simply repeating some words will automatically make a person a Christian.  That is clearly unbiblical because there must be evidence of a life transformed by the Holy Spirit at work in the believer.

  "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

My understanding is that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts sinners of their need to repent and turn, in faith, to what God has done, in Christ Jesus, and seek forgiveness.  A “Prayer of Repentance” might better express what sinners need to do in order to be saved.

It seems to me that there are some commonly held misconceptions about this “Sinner’s Prayer”.  My question is therefore aimed at Protestants in order to give them an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings and to show, from the Bible, what it is that makes a person a Christian.


texts:
Genesis 3:12 says:

  The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me
  fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

I've heard several people interpret this verse as Adam blaming God and / or Eve ("whom you gave to be with me") for eating the forbidden fruit.

Are there contextual or grammatical clues in the passage that support this conclusion? I'm wondering if Adam was just being matter of fact or truly blaming Eve or God?

Update: I found this question on another StackExchange.


texts: What is the official Catholic position on same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships?

texts:
The reason I ask is because a documentary of Pope Francis' papacy was shown at the Rome Film Festival on October 21st.  Some of the newspaper headlines I've seen seem rather inflammatory and so I am trying to get an official view on this subject.
This is a quote from the U.K. Daily Telegraph attributed to Pope Francis regarding the documentary (Francesco) that was shown:

"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family.  They are children of God and have a right to a family.  Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it.  What we have to create is a civil union law.  That way they are legally covered.  I stand up for that."

What the newspaper article failed to say was when the Pope made this comment. When Pope Francis was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires he apparently opposed gay marriage but endorsed legal protection for the rights of gay people. Is the above quote related to this period of time?
It seems that Pope Francis gave approval to two gay men who have adopted three children to bring them up as Catholics (this in relation to the section of the film about Andrea Rubera and his partner Dario De Gregorio).
The newspaper article made this comment:

The endorsement of same-sex unions will have a huge impact in Africa, Asia and Latin America

It also pointed out that in some of those countries it can be a crime to engage in homosexual activities.
What is the official view of this documentary film about the papacy of Pope Francis in relation to the approval (or otherwise) of same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships?
EDIT:This link is relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#LGBT
Update: See this recent Vatican statement (link provided by GratefulDisciple): https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/world/vatican-moves-to-clarify-popes-comments-on-civil-union-laws-515948/
I apologise for still being unable to copy and paste these links properly.


texts: How much authority does a father have over his wife and children?

texts:
Some people might claim that a wife must do what her husband says in every situation and they will site the Bible as it being the Divine order of things.

It does seem that the Bible gives authority to fathers over their wives and children but to what extent? What does the Bible say about the father's authority over the wife and the children?


texts: Is there any Biblical reference strictly speaking about God being timeless?

texts: I've heard a lot, mainly from apologists, the notion that God is Timeless (Little example). So, this is an assumption on the philosophical ground, but is there a theological ground for it? Any verse in the scriptures that talks about His relatioship with time, or we can assume that He is timeless just because He is the Creator of everything and He is Eternal?


texts: Has the prohibition against construction and veneration of statues and images been abrogated?

texts:
I'm Catholic, so I subscribe to the idea that constructing and venerating images and statues is permissible and encouraged as a matter of Church dogma. However I must admit that I find it hard to square this position with the explicit command NOT to construct and venerate statues found in scripture.

  4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I understand that Christ "fulfilled the law" and as such there are large portions of the law which no longer apply (for example the dietary laws, sacrifice laws, ritual cleanliness laws) while other parts of the law still apply (ie, the moral component of the law).

Does the prohibition against constructing and venerating images fall under the "abrogated" category of the law, or the still in force "moral" component of the law?

I've heard many arguments in defence of venerating images and statues, and I reckon they are all great arguments with much merit and insight, nevertheless I still get the feeling that they can all be easily shot down in one go with a quick quote of the proof text above. It's causing me some annoying cognitive dissonance which I would love to resolve...

Stuff which is great but doesn't really answer my question:

Constructing images of angels, saints and Christ is permissible due
to the incarnation. Christ is the perfect image of God/Christ is a
"living icon" of God. Therefore by becoming man God demonstrated
that it is ok to make images of Divine things. That's all well and
good, but it just results in a contradiction with the above
scripture quote, unless Christ abrogated that particular
commandment.
When we pray to statues, we are not worshipping the statue, we are
merely venerating what the statue represents: in other words
"veneration given to an image travels to the prototype". Again, I
follow the logic, but it still doesn't explain why we are allowed to
construct these images in the first place, in light of the explicit
prohibition in the 10 commandments.
Elsewhere in scripture God explicitly commands us to construct
religious statues. Eg the bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of
the covenant. Therefore the prohibition against statues can't be
absolute. That's great, but these things seem to be very specific
exceptions to a general rule, and the general rule forbids us from
constructing and venerating images.
"Statues of Jesus and Mary are just like having a photograph of your
spouse and Children in your wallet. They help you to remember them
and keep them in mind". Again I follow the argument and agree in
principle, however I still don't understand how we can construct
these images in the first place considering we have been explicitly
forbidden from doing so, even if the reason for constructing them is
as benevolent as desiring a visual reminder of our Lord and Lady.

The only way I can find to square this scripture quote with the Catholic/Orthodox use of images and statues is to assume that this particular commandment was abrogated by Christ after he fulfilled the law. Is that right?


texts:
Something confuses me. God is omniscient, meaning He knows everything, including our decisions in life. God says we have free will, but how is that so if I can't make the choice to not do something God knows for a fact that I will do.

If God knows I will do something, I don't have the free will to not do it, meaning I don't have free will at all. So why does He say we have free will?


texts:
Revelation 22:5 states:

  Night will be no more, and they will not need the light of a lamp or
  the light of the sun, because the Lord God will shine on them, and
  they will reign forever and ever. (NET)

Reigning without subjects (animate subjects, not just planet earth) seems nonsensical.

According to reformed theology, who or what will the saints reign over in eternity?


texts: Conversion of the Romans and the Bible's Portrayal of the Romans

texts:
I have trouble understanding how the Romans converted to Christianity. In the Bible, the Romans weren't portrayed very nicely. For example, Herod the Great did quite a lot of awful things. Jesus was crucified by Roman soldiers. The Bible obviously seems to portray the Romans as the enemy of the Chosen People of God. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that the Romans could still become Christians.

[I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians. I have been studying the Bible on my own. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.]


texts: Do Catholics have an obligation to attend the parish closest to their homes?

texts:
So, this is something I should ask a priest, and I know there is a precept of the Church which is to provide for the needs of the church, but I'm asking here because I want to know if I have a leg to stand on in an argument with my wife, which is something priests never seem to be wont to help me with.

I live in a small town with a small parish that has one Mass once a week, it is linked (not sure if linked parishes is a universal term, but they're two parishes that share a priest and a bulletin with separate finance councils, etc...) to another parish in a town that is further away from my home than a parish in a neighboring city.

It seems like every weekend we're going to a different Mass, sometimes we go to Mass with the in-laws, sometimes we go to Mass near donuts, sometimes we go to Mass where the home-school crew all goes to Mass, very rarely do we go to Mass in our hometown and while we're still technically members, we have yet to go there this year and "pick up our envelopes".  So we're pretty stinky members and for all the priest there knows we're Lutherans now.

Is this OK, very, very bad or a grey area where circumstances can mitigate it?  Can Catholics legitimately hop around to different parishes, do they have to be members of one and go there regularly?