texts: What is the source DNA for the body of Jesus?

texts:
This question focus on the physical body used by Jesus during his time on Earth.

I believe there is much biblical support for and little question that the body of Jesus gestated in the body of Mary for 9 months following the normal course of growth and birth.

If a sample of the blood of Jesus was tested by today's science what DNA results would be supported by the bible?

It seems like there are only 3 options:

Jesus has 100% Mary's DNA with a divinely created Y chromosome
Jesus has DNA created entirely by God at the time of his "Conception" (assume this includes a sampling of DNA from anything more than 2 humans, as well as no relationship to any human living at the time)
Jesus has 50% DNA from a human female (Mary's) and 50% DNA from a human male (this need not be a challenge to Mary's virginity, today's science can do it)

There are several questions on this site, asking for clarification on what Jesus looked like, and a couple of questions asking about the creation of his body; How can Jesus, born of mankind, be sinless? & Was Christ the man created? are two good examples similar to my question, but don't really answer what I am looking for.

The question What was the conception of Jesus? seems to be asking what I am asking, but is either not well written or not well received as there is a single unaccepted answer, with only one up vote.

There are a couple of potential sources to obtain such a sample (i.e. Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail). If a source was offered, and a test made, what results would be supported by the Bible or other canon sources?


texts: Catholic Theology and Transubstantiation

texts:
I'm a bit rusty on my Catholic theology, but I don't every recall any specific set of rules or parameters that govern which substances can and cannot be subject to transubstantiation. Basically, the discussion of ingredients of wafers and wine came up in a discussion, and a friend of mine claims there is nothing that specifically proscribes lager (for example) to be transubstantiated in place of wine, especially in a situation where wine may not be available.

Does anyone know the official Catholic position on this, especially within the context of theological debate?


texts: What is the basis that some Protestants teach the non-necessity of baptism for salvation?

texts:
I have heard many Protestants say that "baptism is not necessary for salvation". They follow Paul I guess, who says all works including Baptism or circumcision are optional. But having read the following I am not sure how Protestants justify not doing baptism.

  Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of
  God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
  John 3:5

  16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your
  sins away, calling on his name.'
  Acts 22:16

  he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
  renewal by the Holy Spirit,
  Titus 3:5

Great commission was given to baptise disciples in all the nations:

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  Matthew 28:19

Many Church Fathers affirmed the necessity of baptism for salvation:

Origen:

  "It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism"
  (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

Hermas:

  "‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher,
  that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we
  went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former
  sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The
  Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Tertullian:

  "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203])

Hippolytus:

  "Perhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be
  baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to
  God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you
  change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to
  attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the
  [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born
  again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
  Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore,
  fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will
  not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of
  insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water
  for his own salvation" (Homilies11:26 [A.D. 217]).

Even Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of Baptism

  "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself.
  Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly
  commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are
  not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new
  red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as
  excellent, glorious, and exalted."
  Large Catechism 4:6

So it baffles me how many Protestants teach that it is not necessary for salvation. How would they address the above? What is their biblical basis for this belief?

It seems to me that many people accept the free gift of Jesus on the cross because they do not want to go to hell. Even though they may have some doubts, they choose to believe and become Christians because the stakes are so high. Protestants exhort them not to trust in universalism but in fact repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness in order to get saved. Similarly, then, wouldn't the same arguments apply to baptism? Where is the difference? The same Church fathers and universal traditions in the first few centuries they use to establish the trustworthiness of the books in their canon also affirms the necessity of baptism.  And yet they confidently tell people it's totally optional?


texts: Do Matthew and John have a discrepancy with regards to Jesus before Pilate?

texts:
Matthew 27:11-12 (Mark has a very similar account in Mark 15:1-11)

  11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
  “You have said so,” Jesus replied.
  12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.

John 18:33-37

  33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
  34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
  35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
  36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
  37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

How do we reconcile these texts with one another, then, seeing that Matthew essentially states that Jesus was silent while John reports Jesus holding a conversation with Pilate?


texts: The Bible seems to allow polygamy. Why doesn't the church?

texts:
In Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-16 (among many other passages), it talks about polygamy as if it were acceptable.

Indeed, there are several holy men (Abraham and Solomon come to mind offhand) that had multiple wives.

It seems pretty clear that God doesn't mind polygamy and that it is allowed.

Why is there a modern-day restriction on such practices?

Edit
As has been pointed out, I'm using "polygamy" in the modern/popular sense (such as "polygamy camps" of the FLDS group).  Truly, the actual word is "polygyny", which is a man marrying multiple wives.  Other forms of polygamy (polyandry and such) seem pretty clearly against God's word.

Edit 2
Per a comment, I'm seeking any answer from any denomination/doctrine that does not support polygamy.  Although there are a few denominations that do, I'm not interested in their history so much.


texts: What relationship, if any, does the Feeding of the Multitudes in Mark have to this passage in Goethe's Faust?

texts:
I'm reading Goethe's Faust and I came upon this passage, spoken by Mephistopheles:

  For Devils and for spectres this is law: Where they have entered in,
  there also they withdraw. The first is free to us; we’re governed by
  the second.

In the original German, this reads as :

  's ist ein Gesetz der Teufel und Gespenster:   Wo sie
  hereingeschlüpft, da müssen sie hinaus.   Das erste steht uns frei,
  beim zweiten sind wir Knechte.

Does this "law"/superstition have any basis in Christian doctrine? I ask because I was paging through a copy of Paul Verhoeven book, Jesus of Nazareth, which includes this passage in reference to the Feeding of the Multitudes:

Footnote 49, after this text "this suggets that he saw the communal meal as an eschatological feast, refers to this passage from Faust.

I don't see how these passages are related; is their a relationship that I'm missing?


texts: How can repentance for our everyday sins lead to forgiveness?

texts:
Repentance is not an 'easy way out' like a get-out-of-jail-free card. And doing bad things and planning to repent afterwards doesn't work, because that means you thought the things you were doing weren't really bad after all.
— @djclayworth earlier today (here)

We all do sins daily.
Lie, swear, watch pornography, use drugs, hurt people etc.
These sins are a part of many Christian's life.
Like the quote says, forgiveness does not work if you're planning to sin and then ask for forgiveness.
It would be hard to live without committing everyday sins, as we all do.
So does that mean no one can be forgiven?


texts: Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure = concupiscence?

texts: Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.


texts: Why did the 'storm' not remove the Unitarian from the Revision Committee that produced the 1881 Revised Version?

texts:
Prior to Westcott and Hort influencing the Revision Committee which produced the 1881 Revised Version (the supposed 'revision' of the Authorised Version which, in fact, replaced the Received Text with a new Greek Text - that of Westcott and Hort) these two gentlemen intimated that they would refuse to be on the Committee if the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith was not permitted to be a part of the proceedings.

Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee.

Nesher Resources
I have read, somewhere (and it escapes my memory where) that 'thousands' objected to the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith being on the Committee which would oversee the 'revision' of the bible.
Yet, somehow, the above mentioned 'storm' and the 'thousands' I have read of, did not result in Vance Smith, Wescott and Hort being removed from the committee.
Had they been removed, Professor Scrivener and the other members would have done as was intended and would have adjusted the known defects of the Authorised Version, rather than replace the Received Text with an altogether new text comprising of over ten thousand (seven per cent) alterations, omissions and additions.
Why were the 'storm' and the 'thousands' ineffective ?
Whose influence was it that overcame the opposition ?
EDIT NOTE :
The Protocol, referred to, here, by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' indicates the original intent of the 'Convocation' :

That [pg 003]“a Revision of the Authorized Version” is desirable; and the terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “plain and clear errors” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.” Such were in fact the limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) on the work of Revision. Only necessary changes were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in character: viz.—“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.”

Dean John Burgon - Revision Revised


texts: What sins can be absolved only by a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
My understanding is that only the Pope can give absolution to a priest who reveals the content of someone's confession.

What sins can be absolved only by a bishop or by a priest the bishop specifically appoints?


texts: How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?

texts:
My community recently found out that one of our local priests is also a Freemason. I'm not entirely sure of what Freemasonry is about and how it relates to Christianity.

What exactly can outsiders know using publicly available sources about what Freemasonry teaches about the relationship between itself and Christianity? Does it teach that they overlap with, are a subset of, or are unrelated with the Christian faith?

Note: Since one of our local priests is one, there must be others who profess Christianity and practice Freemasonry. How do they view the practice in relation to their faith? Where do ultimate allegiances lie for practitioners of both?


texts:
Can somebody who is a born-again, saved Christian through faith in Jesus Christ be possessed, controlled, or otherwise manipulated by the devil, demons or any other spiritual force of evil? Are there specific limits in place when it comes to Christians that are not in effect for the rest of the world?

 Note: this is a subquestion of whether demon possession itself is legitimate but a significant issue on it's own.


texts: Who first addressed a religious male or female with "brother" or "sister," respectively?

texts: What is the first occurrence in Church history of addressing a religious male or female (i.e., one who has taken vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty) with "brother" or "sister," respectively?


texts: What is the origin of the tradition that Thaddeus founded the Armenian Church?

texts: According to tradition, Thaddeus (aka Jude) and Bartholomew were the first disciples to bring the Gospel to Armenia.  As such, they are commemorated as the patron saints of that church.  What is the origin of this tradition?  That is, what is the oldest extant reference to Thaddeus preaching in Armenia?


texts: What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that a fetus posseses the soul?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?

What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that the soul is already in the fetus before the fetus starts breathing, i.e. before it is delivered?


texts: What was the literal meaning of the term 'stone rejected by builders'?

texts:
Matthew 21:42 (NASB) says:

  Jesus said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone
  which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This
  came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

I am curious to know the literal meaning of the expression, 'The stone which the builders rejected '. I wish to know what  qualities of the stone would be tested by the  masons of Jesus' time in order to assess its suitability for being used for construction. Which were the implements that enabled the testing ?

Views of any denomiation are welcome.


texts: Is a priest's sermon an explanation of bible?

texts:
When a priest reads a gospel in mass he ends saying, "the gospel of the
Lord", then continues and says today's gospel is about, does this mean that the priest is explaining that part of the bible? Or in other words, the gospel is part of the Bible, and the priest is explaining it?


texts: Is the Pentecostal concept of "praying in the Spirit" consistent with any pre-Pentecostal teachings?

texts:
In a recent small group Bible study sponsored by a local Pentecostal church, attendees were encouraged to "pray in the Spirit." The study leader cited these verses:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 1 Corinthians 14:15 (NIV)
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people. Ephesians 6:18 (NIV)
But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Jude 20-21 (NIV)

The leader then continued to teach that "praying in the Spirit" meant to pray in "tongues"—a spiritual language that can only be spoken and interpreted miraculously. Is this interpretation of these passages consistent with any church doctrines or writings that predate Pentecostalism?


texts: Did John Calvin believe there was no salvation outside the visible church?

texts:
What did John Calvin believe about salvation outside of the church?

He writes in book IV of the Institutes:

  But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.


texts:
We read at Mtt 1:18-19 (NRSVCE):

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.   Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

That implies that St. Joseph had always been a righteous man-- even before he was betrothed to Mary, and his decision to dismiss Mary quietly, would top up his righteousness. My question therefore is: are there stories available in Catholic tradition  which throw light  on the pre-betrothal life of St. Joseph , and which  would substantiate that he was always a righteous man ?


texts:
I read something recently from a highly regarded poster on a sister site, which states:

"I should extend the courtesy of allowing people to have evidence which they can't use to convince me, given that I'm asking others to extend the same courtesy towards me."

If I understand this correctly (and please correct me if I haven't), then this is advocating the deliberate ignoring of evidence.  The use of the word "evidence" is key here, as this indicates something which is provable.  Surely if something is provable, ignoring it is an act of deliberate ignorance?

Can this ever be a good thing?

Now, don't get me wrong.. This is not a trolling attempt (although I suspect you chaps may receive a few of those), I am just curious as to what you think.  I appreciate that the first response may be "Why not ask him?" but I've found that when you approach someone one-on-one about their beliefs they unsurprisingly tend to take it personally, which makes it much harder to have a proper discussion.

Regards,
Dave


texts: What is the sin of St.Peter that made St.Paul opposed him in Galatians2:11?

texts:
Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

(Galatians2:11-13)

In the above passages Peter was just eating with the gentiles and when he separated himself when certain Jews arrived, how come St.Paul opposed Peter and in other passages it even said the harsh words rebuked.

We know that Peter and the Apostles are with Jesus and know the Gospel of Jesus and St.Paul was the one not around during Jesus public ministry.
So, how come he opposed Peter whom is much knowledgeable to him by being around with Jesus personally?

The New Testament was not yet written at that time when St.Paul opposed Peter. What is the basis or the teaching of Christ that St.Paul used to opposed Peter?


texts: Who developed the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy first - Catholics or Protestants?

texts:
This article on Christian Fundamentalism says that it is developed by Protestants at Princeton University.

This Catholic source on Biblical inerrancy says that it has always been with the Catholics. Even prior to the Second Vatican Council, it was believed by Catholics that the Bible was without error.

I even answered an earlier Christianity.SE question on the history of inerrancy here, using different sources.

Do Protestants and Catholics each have their own versions of "Biblical inerrancy"? Or could it be that one theological tradition was inspired by the other? If Protestants are descended from the Catholic church, then how did they "lose" their own doctrine of inerrancy, as the sources seem to imply? Basically, was the doctrine of inerrancy a Catholic doctrine first, or a Protestant doctrine that later got borrowed by Catholics, or a doctrine evolved twice independently during the course of Christian history?


texts: Can a bishop allow Marriage between cousins?

texts:
Does a bishop have the extraordinary power to allow marriage between first cousins?  As per canon law 1091 it is not possible.

Please give me a clear answer.


texts: How did Christians respond to abortion in the early Church?

texts: I think that the churches (all Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox and others) should be involved in the fight against legalized abortion. I am looking to the history of the Church to see what forms of abortion occurred (e.g., abandonment/exposure), and how the early Church Christians responded, and the prevailing doctrines on abortion or its equivalent.


texts: Why can't we boil down the three fonts of Catholic ethics to two?

texts:
According to Catholic ethics, the three fonts of morality are intention, moral object and circumstance (reference). But why can't we explain the morality only using the intention and the moral object?
eg: Think you drive a car and someone holds a gun to your head till you drive over a person in the road. So due to this circumstance, the morality of the action is less evil. But still, we can explain the same with the 'intention'. Because you had no intention to kill the person but you were forced to do it by the person who holds the gun. Therefore the act is less evil.
My question is why is it necessary to have 'circumstance' in this equation?


texts: Does the Bible ever mention class systems?

texts:
Does the Bible ever talk about class systems? If so what does it say about them? Does it give a recommended class hierarchy at any point? Would a classless society be allowed?

See also this question at politics se (there are links to more questions at other religious sites there).


texts: What planet do Mormons think God the Father was born on?

texts:
In 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith decided that Mormon baptisms are not valid as far as Catholicism is concerned, because of certain doctrines of Mormonism that are problematic from a Catholic viewpoint.  This articleby Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. summarizes these problematic doctrines, and here is one of them:

  God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346).

My question is, what planet do Mormons think God the Father is a native of?  I didn't know that Mormons believe that there are or were humans on multiple planets.

By the way, TPJS refers to the LDS document "Scriptural Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith", and here is what I found on pages 345-346:

  God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I think the fact that Joseph Smith says "an earth" rather than "the earth" is why Ladaria says "another planet".

In any case, do the Book of Mormon or any LDS documents shed light on the identity of this planet?  Do Mormons believe that humans still live on that planet?


texts: How do Trinitarians interpret John 14:10?

texts:
John 14:10

  Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

My father and pastor, who is an advocate for the Oneness position stated:

  Jesus' divinity is what we call "the Father." That's why Son can say "the Father living in me does the works," since the term "Son" is used to denote the flesh or humanity of Christ. Jesus is then, both the Father and the Son."

How do Trinitarians explain the meaning of this passage? How is the Father "in" Jesus yet distinct from Jesus?


texts: Can Christians still eat meat with blood in it?

texts:
These are the verses in question that prohibits eating meat with blood in it:

  "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And
  for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
  an accounting from every animal."- Genesis 9:4-5.

  "‘Suppose someone eats meat that still has blood in it. It does not
  matter whether they are an Israelite or an outsider. I will turn
  against them if they eat it. I will separate them from their people."-
  Leviticus 17:10.

Is this just an OT ceremonial law or something else?


texts: If Jesus is God the Father, did God the father die on the cross when Jesus died?

texts: Most Christians believe Jesus is God. Scripture says there is one God, the Father. If this is so, when Jesus died on the cross did God the Father die also?


texts: God's emotions in contrast to his transcendence? (Catholic position)

texts:
We read about God's emotions, e.g., anger in Exodus  4:14 or in Exodus  22:23. Does it mean that God's behavior is influenced by those emotions? How is it compatible with his transcendence, i.e., is he independent of the material universe at this point if people can irritate him?

Biblical argumentation expected; Catholic position welcome.


texts: Source for this alleged quote from Martin Luther?

texts:
The following quote is often attributed to Martin Luther:

  "When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. When I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost."

However, after an exhaustive Google Books search, I haven't been able to find an original source for this quote (such as a sermon Luther preached or a book that he wrote).

Did Luther really author the quote and if so, when and where?


texts: What is the history of the "Sunday School publishing industry"?

texts:
As I understand it, Christian education over the centuries often involved a catechism, decade after decade, where both the student and teacher memorized a long and complete set of doctrines, often in question and answer format.

Today, it seems that Sunday School teachers are expected to use a book-- even magazine-- that provides new material each and every week. [Insert link to such publishers.] The teacher is as new to the material as are the students, even if it involves eternal truths.

When, historically speaking, did such publishing industries arise? (Bonus points: have any prominent theologians commented on such a trend in Christian education publishing?)


texts: What is the connection between Charity and Virtues according to Aquinas?

texts:
According Paul Wadell's book The Primacy of Love: An Introduction to the Ethics of Thomas Aquinas, Aquinas defends that Charity is the mother of all virtues, and also how they can be perfected into 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit. It is exactly this part of how charity perfects them into gifts that I do not understand. It says that charity, when faced with its human limit, with its limit as a virtue, it is transformed by God into the Spirit, taking the virtue to its plenitude.

How does this transformation happen? Or is it a mystery?


texts: Which book of Scripture is most esteemed by the LDS church?

texts:
I understand that the LDS church regards the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants all as Scripture.

In practice, which of these works is most highly esteemed as being applicable and helpful to an individual's life?  Is one generally preferred over another?


texts: Who is "Samuel" in the story of Saul, Samuel, and the Medium?

texts:
In 1st Samuel 28, Saul gets the witch of Endor to summon Samuel back from the dead.  Is this really Samuel or some demon impersonating Samuel?

If it is the real Samuel here, how does this woman have the power to pull Samuel from Abraham's bosom (re: the story of Lazarus) back into this world?


texts: How do Trinitarians explain the almost exclusive use of singular pronouns to refer to God in the Bible?

texts:
In thousands of instances in the Bible, pronouns used to describe God are singular. Every instance is singular except possibly 4. These possibilities all occur in the Old Testament.
For unitarians, those 4 instances are typically explained as God referring to himself and his angelic court. Two unitarian articles that put this forth are The Testimony of Singular Pronouns from OneGodWorship.com and Let Us Make Man from BiblicalUnitarian.com.
As the latter article concludes,

"Understanding the “us” texts like this does not in any way damage the
massive evidence from the singular pronouns, yet it satisfactory
explains the verses in their context."

How do Trinitarians explain the heavily weighted use of singular pronouns to refer to God in the Bible, if God is 3 persons?


texts:
In Chronicles, David took a census on the people of Israel. However, God became angry at this, and he proceeded to destroy about 70,000 people in result.

  1 Chronicles 21:1-16: 1Satan rose up against Israel and caused David to take a census of the people of Israel. 2So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, “Take a census of all the people of Israel—from Beersheba in the south to Dan in the north—and bring me a report so I may know how many there are.”
   3But Joab replied, “May the Lord increase the number of his people a hundred times over! But why, my lord the king, do you want to do this? Are they not all your servants? Why must you cause Israel to sin?”

  4But the king insisted that they take the census, so Joab traveled throughout all Israel to count the people. Then he returned to Jerusalem 5and reported the number of people to David. There were 1,100,000 warriors in all Israel who could handle a sword, and 470,000 in Judah. 6But Joab did not include the tribes of Levi and Benjamin in the census because he was so distressed at what the king had made him do.

  Judgment for David’s Sin
  7 God was very displeased with the census, and he punished Israel for it. 8Then David said to God, “I have sinned greatly by taking this census. Please forgive my guilt for doing this foolish thing.”
   9Then the Lord spoke to Gad, David’s seer. This was the message: 10“Go and say to David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I will give you three choices. Choose one of these punishments, and I will inflict it on you.’”

  11So Gad came to David and said, “These are the choices the Lord has given you. 12You may choose three years of famine, three months of destruction by the sword of your enemies, or three days of severe plague as the angel of the Lord brings devastation throughout the land of Israel. Decide what answer I should give the Lord who sent me.”

  13“I’m in a desperate situation!” David replied to Gad. “But let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great. Do not let me fall into human hands.”

  14So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result. 15And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the Lord relented and said to the death angel, “Stop! That is enough!” At that moment the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

  16David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with his sword drawn, reaching out over Jerusalem. So David and the leaders of Israel put on burlap to show their deep distress and fell face down on the ground.

But this passage does not state the reason for God doing this. What was so wrong about taking census of people of Israel?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's position on the scientific theory of evolution?

texts:
Understanding the scientific [Biological] theory of evolution simply as descent [from a common ancestor] with modification through Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, starting from the time Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, what is the Catholic Church's position on the scientific theory of evolution as expressed through papal magisterium?

What is/is not acceptable for a Catholic as regards this theory?

What are the proscribed limits set forth by the papal magisterium?

From the papal teaching, why is the theory of evolution of interest to the Church?

Science as understood in

  Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and
  the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways,
  such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and
  religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and
  moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm,
  which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
  Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part
  of science. - Source: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View
  from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition"

Please note that this question is not asking about Theistic Evolution, a non-scientific theory.


texts: How does Jesus fulfill the offices of Prophet, Priest and King?

texts: I have heard that Jesus fulfills the three Jewish "offices" of Prophet, Priest, and King.  What is significant about this, and how specifically does or did Jesus fulfill those offices?


texts: Can a Catholic simultaneously profess more than one rite?

texts:
Background

In catholicism, there are 24 autonomous particular churches sui iuris, one Western and 23 Eastern. All of these churches are in communion with the Pope, and thus are considered, for all intents and purposes, Catholic.

When I was reading Orientalum Ecclesiarum, I was curious if there was no limit (other than 24) on the number of rites a Catholic could profess to be a part of.  The only statement I could find that implies "only one" was found in the 6th paragraph:

  Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability...

However, nowhere is this papal decree could I find anything explicitly banning professing more than one rite.  Hence this lead me to the question...

Question

Could a Catholic believer profess as many rites as he or she pleases?

Note: This is different from Can any catholic rite call themself Roman Catholic? because I am not asking about the validity of any one rite being equivalent to Roman Catholic, but rather the ability to profess differeing rites within Catholicism.


texts: What is the Biblical basis to declare that 'justice necessitates the resurrection of the body'?

texts:
I found a very good description of what the human conscience is:

  Conscience is nothing but that judgment which men do make, and which they cannot but make, of their moral actions with reference unto the supreme future judgment of God. (Owen, J. (1855). Vol. 22: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 5)

Following human conscience to the judgment brings a question about our common sense of justice. One question I have is, ‘Does a resurrection from the dead to the judgment instinctively necessitate the appearance of the body?’ In addition to the ‘appearance of the soul’, does justice necessitate that ‘our body’ appears before God’s tribunal to receive the penalty, or reward, which it deserves for the sins we have ‘done in the body’?

I know the Bible declares the necessity of the resurrection upon the grounds that Christ is resurrected, but what is the Biblical basis to say justice also makes it a necessity for the resurrection?


texts: How do nontrinitarians view Jesus? (overview)

texts: What is an overview of how nontrinitarians view Jesus?


texts: Which Christian denomination removed trinitarian language from the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"?

texts:
In a brief article on the Trinity by Gordon H. Clark, he makes a surprising claim about a popular trinitarian hymn:

  The hymn book of one denomination has rewritten "Holy, Holy, Holy," so as to exclude all reference to "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity."

I'd like to know what hymn book and denomination he's referring to.  Wikipedia doesn't mention any such rendition, and he doesn't provide any other identifying information about this denomination.  It's possible that the following paragraph's contrast to the "Presbyterian church" indicates that the change was made in a non-presbyterian hymnal, but that's not definitive.  And this article was written in 1954, so the hymnal must have been published before then, but probably not long before.

Which denomination and hymnal is Clark likely referring to?


texts: What denominations consider Apocrypha to be heretical?

texts:
Over several years I have asked several pastors and preachers of differing denominations to comment on some books considered to be Apocrypha. Most generally my question was ignored, but on a couple of occasions I was told that they were heretical.  In the 1611 edition of the King James they included several books called the Apocrypha, and some of those books have become a part of the Catholic canon. However; some books have been rejected by both Catholics and Protestants.

I am not questioning why or even why not they are accepted or rejected; only which books are considered Heretical and the reasons they are. I am curious to know what denominations hold that opinion of the Apocrypha and if it extends to all books or to only certain books.

Please indicate which denomination you are representing and the basis for your answer (I.E. doctrine, common acceptance, and so on).


texts:
Many parts in the bible where he said he can't do anything by himself, but by the will of God.
If you look at the sentences above almost all the prophets before him used the same words.
When he said son of God or my father, almost all prophets before him used the same word, because in some parts of the bible it mentions children of God. That means we are his brother and God is our father, I don't think that means we are really his children; it means we are servants and if we are servants, then Jesus too was a servant of God.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying that the least in the kingdom of heaven in greater than John the Baptist?

texts:
We read at Matthew 11:11 (NRSVCE):

  "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

What exactly did Jesus mean by the above saying? Was He conveying that whatever the level of holiness one may achieve on earth, one needs to attain special grace to  be a member of the kingdom of heaven? Are there any official teachings on Matthew 11:11 available from the perspective of the Catholic Church?


texts: What is the present position of the Catholic Church on resurrection vs "immortality of the soul"?

texts:
The Catholic Church has traditionally affirmed the unconditional "immortality of the soul", with its final destination either to the blessedness of Heaven or to the eternal torments of Hell. Purgatory was meant to be for the souls of the elect, still in need of some "cleansing" or "purging".
On the other hand, there is the position of some theologians who, following suit from some theologians in the Protestant world, put the biblical faith in the resurrection in stark contrast with the traditional belief in the "immortality of the soul" (e.g. see Summary of Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?, Oscar Cullmann, 1955, @religion-online.org).
An authoritative document from the CDF, Letter on certain questions regarding Eschatology (Rome, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 May 1979, Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect) tries to "forestall the dangers that could threaten this faith in the minds of the faithful", regarding the "article of the Creed concerning life everlasting and so everything in general after death".
The document is worth reading in its entirely, in spite of its ambiguities. A simple, immediate statistic confirms the impression, that the CDF's main concern is to reaffirm the faith in the resurrection (6 times), whereas it uses the word soul (2 times) with full awareness of its having become problematic for the faithful ("the question is put of what happens between the death of the Christian and the general resurrection") and that the Catholic Church still uses it mainly because of pastoral and liturgical reasons ("the Church thinks that there is no valid reason for rejecting it; moreover, she considers that the use of some word as a vehicle is absolutely indispensable in order to support the faith of Christians").
It is worth noting that the expressions "immortality of the soul", or "immortal soul", are never used throughout the whole document ...
A more recent document, Some Current Questions in Eschatology (1992, International Theological Commission, under the leadership of Rev. Candido Pozo, S.J., with the approval of His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Commission) seems to resume a more traditional approach (in a "post-modern way, we may say ...), and a more balanced (albeit exorbitant) recourse to the words resurrection (151 times) and  soul (68 times). Unnlike in the previous document, we see reappear the expressions "immortality of the soul" (1 time), and "immortal soul" (3 times).
In this document we can see the effort of skirting the pitfalls of Platonism ("Christian anthropology has characteristics proper to itself and quite different from the anthropology of the Platonic philosophers").

All the above being premised ...
Is there an element of ambiguity in the Catholic Church's position on eschatology?


texts: According to Catholicism, how can a relic help a sick person?

texts: I took several holy cards to view and touch relics of the saints.  Now do I keep the relic and pray for someone or give it to the person so that he/she can pray for healing?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's position on the drug DMT?

texts:
Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that using the drug N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT or N,N-DMT) is sinful and contrary to Christian beliefs? What is the stance of the RCC on this drug?

I have heard that this drug is not addictive, has no side effects, and is basically safer than alcohol or cigarettes. Many people using it have experienced effects similar to near-death experiences, and find that it has life-changing positive affects on them and on their spiritual life.


texts: Hebrew New Testament with cantillation marks

texts:
Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Tanakh feature taʿamim or “cantillation marks” incorporated by the Masoretes.

Are there any Hebrew translations of the New Testament that feature cantillation marks?


texts: What is Carlo Maria Viganò's religious order?

texts: I was wondering in which religious order did Viganò got ordained as a priest (is he franciscan, jesuit, dominican)?


texts: When Christians say "the Lord" in everyday speech, do they mean Jesus or the Father?

texts: It's very common to hear Christians say "Lord" or "the Lord" in different contexts: everyday conversations, prayer, testimonies, sermons, etc. Some example sentences that come to mind: if the Lord wills, I love the Lord, etc. When Christians say the Lord, whom are they exactly picturing in their heads? Do they mean Jesus (as in "Lord Jesus"), or the Father?


texts: In what different ways is the word "cult" used as a label inside Christianity?

texts:
The word "cult" gets bandied about quite a bit, but is there an official definition or some kind of formula which can be used to consistently identify whether a group is a cult or not? Baring an absolute standard, what are the various usages and who tends to use each possible meaning?

In particular, I am interested in focusing on the sense in which the word is able to adapt to apply to both one man whack jobs such as David Koresh as well as larger stable groups such as Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses but not for the major traditions such as Catholics or Protestants? What definition is used in Christian circles that makes this usages make sense?


texts:
What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties?

In Genesis 49:5-7 when Jacob was telling his children what will happen to them, he told Simeon and Levi that they were violent and that they would be scattered among the descendants of Jacob and they would be dispersed among Israel. Could this have been something like a prophecy and could this be the reason?


texts: What are the reasons for fasting from midnight before Eucharist?

texts:
According to traditional Catholic rules (before Vatican the 2nd Council), as well as in Eastern Orthodox traditions, those who want to receive the Sacraments should fast, i.e. do not consume any food or liquids, from midnight until receiving Holy Communion.

Presumably, this rule is based on the Canon XLI of the Council of Carthage (419):

  That by men who are fasting sacrifices are to be offered to God.
  THAT the Sacraments of the Altar are not to be celebrated except by those who are fasting,
  except on the one anniversary of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; for if the commemoration
  of some of the dead, whether bishops or others, is to be made in the afternoon, let it be only with
  prayers, if those who officiate have already breakfasted.

At least, it is how this tradition is explained in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But I don't see in this canon any mentioning of midnight. Why fasting is obliged to be from midnight?


texts: Who was the Egyptian that led the revolt of the Assassins in Acts 21?

texts:
When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem he was mistaken for an anarchist Egyptian:

  Acts 21:37-38 ESV As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city. I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.”

There is a snippet of info about what the Egyptian did here, but it's very little. Is there any more information about this Egyptian? Specifically his name, what he did, who the Assassins were, etc...?


texts: Explanation of Russian assorted saints and festivities icon "Plenka"

texts:
Monastery/production company Sofrino supplies icon "Plenka" of assorted saints and festivities:

ИКОНА НА ДЕРЕВЯННОМ ПЛАНШЕТЕ 18Х24 ПЛЕНКА

I have bought one in almost A4 format but still the writing is too small for understanding. Is there available explanation of this icon? I guess, it is quite standard icon and so there should be quite standard explanation?


texts: Are there examples of "successful" celibate homosexuals, according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
The Catholic Church puts forward to the laity the example of many many saints, in their different dimensions (charity, chastity, prayer, sacrifice, etc), as inspiration to our own lives and challenges.

Relatedly, the Catholic Church asks homosexuals to be celibate, so as not to commit sin contra natura (and, given the more recent sexual abuse scandals, partly involving homosexual priests, the Church is more vocal against those who see the religious life merely as an alternative to an active homosexual life).

Are there examples of openly homosexual Christians who have taken the suggestion of the Church and "successfully" lived a celibate and fruitful Christian life, examples that the Church has put forward to others to imitate?

It is common to get into trouble when defending the position of the Church, not the least because it is considered unreasonable by non-Catholics. Yet, the existence of examples could help to "defend" better such position, in my view.

PS: the stress on "examples that the Church has put forward" is important here. It is not enough that others beside the Church (e.g. the "LGBT lobby") state that a given saint was homosexual (here?). What matters is that the Church takes a stance on this. Hence the "according to the Catholic Church" qualification.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses have membership fees or how are they funded?

texts:
I was given an invite to a convention by Jehovah's Witnesses. It says on the bottom "FREE ADMISSION" and "NO COLLECTIONS TAKEN" and the couple who gave it to me had mentioned that there are quite a few conventions around USA.

Considering the cost of renting the convention sites, and what other costs there may be, I got curious on how their meetings are funded. The questions I would like to ask:

Do Jehovah's Witnesses do collections in any other meetings, or have
they ever done so in the past?
Do they have membership fees or other automatic/mandatory fees (such
as mandatory purchase of books or study material), or have they have
such in the past?

I would prefer an answer from a Jehovah's Witness.


texts: Is there any biblical support for copyright law?

texts:
There are people and organisations that state that copyright is wrong, and that copyright law should be deprecated. I think the same way but as a Christian I want to be sure that such thought is not be against the will of God.

Would being an advocate for the deprecation or abolition of copyright law run contrary to any Biblical or Christian principals? Is there any justification for copyright stated in Bible or other Christian sources?


texts: What innovations in ethics occurred within Christendom during the 9th Century?

texts:
I am looking for any noteworthy developments, formulations, or codifications of ethics that occurred between 770 and 890 AD in any country or empire that was nominally Christian. If the answer relates to Charlemagne, even better. Who were the theologians, legal scholars, noblemen, rulers, or clergy that put forth these ideas or enacted them in law or custom?

If you know of several, which would you say had the longest lasting influence?

The ideas need not be specifically related to Christian theology; they only need to be informed by such a worldview. In a different epoch, an answer might include the Code of Justinian or the Magna Carta.

Research note:

I just came across a wonderful resource: https://historyofphilosophy.net/
It has podcasts from Kings College in London on a wide range of topics, including several about the Carolingian Renaissance and John Scotus Eriugna.


texts:
What does this mean in the Old Testament: Genesis 3 Verse 22.

  And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

How through the fall from the Garden does it say that they become one of us? What is meant by "us"?


texts: Refutation of Chizzuk Emunah, Part II, Ch. XII: "Doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Examined"

texts:
Yitzchak ben Avraham of Trakai, Lithuania, also known as Isaac ben Abraham of Troki, was a Karaite Jew who wrote a polemic against Christians known as Chizzuk Emunah (חזוק    אמונה), which translates into English as "Faith Strengthened."

I would like to offer some of the arguments he makes (each in a different thread) to the Christianity.SE forum so we may engage them.

Here is the first argument I am offering from Chizzuk Emunah.

  Matthew 8:19-20, "And a certain scribe came and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath nowhere to lay his head." The same saying is recorded in Luke 9:57. This passage we deem a strong proof of the consciousness of Jesus that he was not God. For, if he had really been filled with such a conceit, why should he have called himself the Son of Man? And moreover, why should he have dissuaded others from relying on him? Perhaps he bore in mind the admonition given in Psalm 146:3, "Do not rely on princes nor trust in the son of man, for salvation belongeth not unto him." Or perhaps the words of Jeremiah in chapter 17:5, "Cursed is the man who relieth on man." Had he imagined he was God, why should he have said he had nowhere to lay his head? Would he not have considered the whole earth to be his own resting-place; for does not the Psalmist remind us in Psalm 24:1, "That the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof, the world, and the inhabitants therein?" [bold added]

What is the refutation of Yiztchak ben Avraham's argument?


texts:
ICOC is the "International Church of Christ". They are mainly charismatic.

Knowing their faith a little bit, I can't decide if they are. I can't remember the mention of the Trinity in their views.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?

texts:
According to Catholic Doctrine, the Immaculate Conception refers to the teaching that Mary's own conception (not that of Jesus) was without the stain of original sin.

What is the biblical basis for this? And if this is true, did Mary not need to be saved from her sin? Was she also sinless? If she were sinless, then why would she have suffered the consequences of sin--that of death?


texts: Is the Catholic teaching regarding the definition of mortal sin de fide?

texts:
The Catholic definition of mortal sin:

  Its subject matter must be grave.
  It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
  It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent

Is this definition De Fide (dogma)? Or are Catholics permitted to hold to a different definition of mortal sin, for example the Eastern Orthodox (and potentially Eastern Catholic) definition which states that a mortal sin is "any sin for which you do not repent"?


texts: Did any Church Fathers write anything about mental illnesses?

texts: Did any of the Church Fathers write about what today with modern medicine we know to be mental illnesses?


texts: Is suffering a proof against intelligent design?

texts:
An atheist has argued with me that suffering is going against "intelligent design" in humans and animals.
He would agree that pain is vital for our nature to indicate when something is wrong, but he is saying that people are experience deep suffering which can change someone entire life and some people can never recover (like huge depression, mental illness etc.)
Also there are unnecessary suffering like, why suffer when someone dies?
He said that if God is perfect in creation we shouldn't have this experiences...
I was defending in two ways:

original sin
unknown reason God may have to allow this, since he is all knowing, we cannot argue that we are imperfect, because we do not see the entire picture and we cannot understand fully what is the purpose we were made for... Therefore our current features could actually be perfect for a specific purpose.

I'm wandering how would you answer this question;
Is suffering a flaw in intelligent design?


texts: Why are Independent Baptist Fundamentalists labelled Protestants?

texts:
Something that always bothers me which I witness to Catholics: the well-meaning ones tell me I am a Protestant and say that "we protested the Catholic Church". This isn't true, the Baptist Church was never a part of the "Protestant Reformation" movement, and we don't actively engage in protesting the Catholic Church because we have no roots in it.

Although our theology might sometimes be labelled as "reformed" we call ourselves "fundamentalists" and not "reformers" because unlike Luther there was nothing for us to "reform". Our teaching does not come from any tradition and we teach solely what comes from the Bible. We take the Bible literally and base our theology off of that and not any tradition. For example, we don't have the Nicene creed  a tradition which Lutherans have which can be traced back to Roman Catholicism.

If you disagree please cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the "Protestant Reformation" and can thus be labelled Protestants or Protestant Reformers.


texts: What does the Bible say about ones wishes concerning their body after they have died?

texts:
Sometimes people would like certain things done with their remains after they die. Some want to be cremated and have the ashes saved in an urn or spread over a certain area, while other want to be buried in a specific location. Does the Bible weigh in on this topic? Do the dead have a right to say what happens to their body according to the Bible? Perhaps there are stories that support the idea. If the Bible is silent, what does Christian tradition1 say?

By Christian tradition I first mean what Christians in the past have done, then after that I mean the Catholic Church because of its extremely long history and integral association with the early Church.


texts: Why First Epistle to St. John by St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered to be spurious? Were there any valid reasons put forth to consider it as spurious? The wiki page and this Catholic source only state that this and other epistles by St. Ignatius of Antioch are considered to be spurious, but don't mention any reasons why.


texts: Where to find information about numbers of Mormons in France, Poland, Russia during WW2

texts:
I am interested in the numbers of members in the LDS Church in France, Poland, and Russia between 1935-1945.

Would anyone know what the amounts would be, or where it can be obtained from?


texts: How do Roman Catholics explain their change in Eschatology?

texts:
Gregory I, Pope from 590-605, predicted that the end of the world was imminent in a letter he wrote to Ethelbert, a European monarch. He advised "Further, we also wish your Majesty to know, as we have learned from the words of Almighty God in Holy Scriptures, that the end of the present world is already near and that the unending Kingdom of the Saints is approaching. As this same end of the world is drawing nigh, many unusual things will happen - climatic changes, terrors from heaven... All these things are not to come in our own days, but they will all follow upon our times." (Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End-Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Page 64, Published 1979)

Pope Innocent III (died 1216) predicted that the world would end 666 years after the rise of Islam in 618.


texts: What are creeds and how they came about. Is there a Biblical basis for them and how many creeds are there till date?


texts: What does it mean for a priest 'to lose faith'?

texts:
In some movies, often comedies but sometimes not, they show a priest who is experiencing certain troubles/suffering because he 'has lost his faith'. It is possible, in the course of the movie, that the priest 'restores his faith'.

I wonder if such a losing/restoring process has been described more formally in the Bible or elsewhere.

Secondly, I wonder what is the impact on those people to whom the priest preaches, or otherwise serves, while he is in the state of 'having lost his faith'.


texts:
If Jesus Christ is supposedly part of the trinity how come he didn't even know when the hour would come?

Mark:13:32

"Jesus says, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."


texts: Does James contradict Jesus when he says some foods should not be eaten?

texts:
In Matthew 15, we read:

  [Jesus] called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person ... Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."

We see in Mark's account that "thus He declared all foods clean."

Now, when we move to James and the church elders in Acts 15, we find them writing a letter in which, among other things, they impose food requirements on the Gentile churches:

  For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Do these statements contradict, or can they be correlated? If they contradict, then who gave James and the elders the authority to overrule the teachings of Jesus?


texts: Was Thomas a believer before seeing the resurrected Jesus?

texts:
A friend of mine and I had a debate this evening about whether or not the apostles were actually believers in Jesus. She claimed that since the Bible does not explicitly say that each man declared belief that Jesus was who he said he was, that one cannot assume that they did believe him. She said that they might have just thought he was doing some "cool stuff" (miracles) and liked what he had to say. She specifically mentioned that Thomas was not a believer until John 20, when he was face to face with the resurrected Jesus. Thomas' statement of "until I see the nail marks...I will never believe" somehow means, to her, that Thomas was never a believer up until he saw Jesus.

My question is this then: is it logical to think that the twelve apostles (also called disciples) were believers in Jesus and his message prior to his crucifixion/resurrection? I am of the belief that since they were selected by Jesus, and considered disciples who followed him everywhere for his 3+ years of ministry and witnessed his execution on the cross, I'd say that they were all believers (even Judas, who committed suicide because of guilt). Thomas decided to not go with the other apostles when they heard that he had resurrected, and when the others told him that Jesus was alive, he didn't believe it. It's not like people rise from the dead all the time; I'd be skeptical too.

Anyway, thoughts? I'm curious to see what the varying denominations believe. (I'm Church of Christ.)


texts: On what basis does the Catholic Church oppose penalisation of women guilty of abortion?

texts:
There is a very heated public debate about abortion in Poland at this moment. Pro-life organizations, seeing opportunity in the fact that the current government claims to be pro-Catholic, formally proposed a complete prohibition of abortion, with the possibility to penalize women guilty of it. This proposal has, however, recently been rejected by the Parliament, with prominent members of the governing party citing the position of the episcopate, who keep reiterating that while they support any propositions to prohibit abortion, at the same time they oppose any possibility to penalize women who have performed abortion.

Is this the position of the Polish episcopate only, or is it the teaching of the whole universal Church that women guilty of performing abortion should not be penalized?


texts: Is the LDS's view of Trinity/Godhead considered monotheistic or polytheistic?

texts: With the LDS view that the Trinity is three beings would that mean they (LDS) are monotheistic or polytheistic?


texts: How is the "spirituality of the church" consistent with theonomy?

texts:
In Hart and Muether's history of American Presbyterianism, Seeking a Better Country, they describe a doctrine of the "spirituality of the church," which emphasizes the spiritual, not social, task of the church:

  The church was not commissioned to make the world a better place in which to live.  It had no business telling the government how to rule the body politic.  It was not to feed the hungry, or provide houses for the homeless, or protest social injustice.  These political and social temptations only distracted the church from its spiritual calling. (223)

This view was "championed by James H. Thornwell," one of the most prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterians.  But in what seems to me a contradiction, Thornwell is cited by others as an advocate of theonomy, which Wikipedia defines:

  the idea that God's Law-Word, including the judicial laws of the Old Testament, should be observed by modern societies.

For example, theonomist Greg Bahnsen writes:

  Even into the late nineteenth century respected Reformed theologians were contending that the state should conform its laws to those found in the law of God. The southern presbyterian, James H. Thornwell, stated in 1861: "We long to see, what the world has never yet beheld, a truly Christian Republic." (source)

Put simply, my question is: how are these two views are reconciled in the thought of Thornwell and other theologians who hold these two views?  How did he/they see the spirituality of the church and theonomy as non-contradictory?


texts: Are people who "think a lot about" God, Jesus, right and wrong more likely to go to heaven?

texts:
King David (probably) went to heaven. That was in spite of the fact the he committed a number of sins, the most egregious of which was stealing Bathesheba from Uriah.

The some is probably true of his son King Solomon.

David wrote the book of Psalms, and Solomon the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. That shows that they thought a lot about God, Jesus, and right and wrong.

Then there was the story of the prophet (I believe it was Daniel) who "mediated on the law day and night."

All other things being equal, are people that "think a lot about" God more likely to go to heaven than people who don't? Put another way, would another king who committed "Bathesheba" and other similar sins but don't "think a lot about" God be more likely to go to Hell than King David?


texts:
What is biblical view on curiosity? Is curiosity sin and therefore impossible for God?
One reference is rom.10:17 that tells that first proclaiming the gospel, hearing it and faith cometh, but before that you need to have curiosity or need aroused through advertisement by the media or what?


texts: Is there a difference of substance between the veneration of Mary, and the worship of God?

texts:
Speaking from a protestant understanding, I had just assumed that Catholics would say they worshipped Mary.

They (often) pray to her, sing her praise (calling her holy, and such). Sometimes bowing to her, and constantly adorning her with titles (Blessed Mother, Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, etc etc.). Sometimes kneeling before her statues, etc. This from an outside perspective seemed like worship to me. And it was a thing they were very much proud of.

I was talking to a Catholic apologist at a local event as she passed out rosaries. She was trying to teach me the hail Mary, and convince me that I should pray to Mary.

But when I used the word "worship" she recoiled, and claimed not to worship Mary. On this site I have had a similar reaction. I was surprised by this reaction.

If you just google search "worship" here is what you get. (the verb form)

  show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
  //"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"//
  synonyms:   revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honor, adore, praise, pray to, glorify, exalt, extol; More

The question

So, it seems that Catholics would agree that it is wrong to Worship Mary. Obviously they don't think of the things they are doing as worship. I am interested in the substance of "adoration/veneration/worship" that is appropriate for God alone, and that which appropriate for Mary or the saints.
A criteria by which one could judge a concrete example of adoration.

How do Catholics make this distinction?
What is Worship for a Catholic? And is it reserved for God alone?
How does this play out practically (what would it look like to worship God in light of this distinction)?


texts: What does it mean to be an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ?

texts:
Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

There seems to be a lot implied/assumed in those two verses. I'll try to keep it focused.
What is meant by children of God being "heirs of God"? What does He have to give us besides salvation? If salvation is something to be inherited, then does it mean that God once inherited/was given salvation?
As for being joint-heirs with Christ, does that mean we can obtain the same glory as he has?


texts: Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire

texts:
What is the difference between Heaven/Paradise/Sheol

How about Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire?

Are they synonyms, are they different places?


texts: What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted?

texts:
What are the different main views existent in Christianity on how 1 Peter 4:6 must be interpreted:

  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
  that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live
  according to God in the spirit (KJV)

Can anyone, please, give an overview? I am especially interested in who has been understood as the "dead" in this verse.


texts: Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin?

texts: I think most, if not all of us, agree that Jesus did not sin.  However, the devil tempted Jesus, at least in the wilderness, prior to Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 4:1-11).  Does this mean it would have been possible for Jesus to sin?  Or was the devil just too stupid to realize his efforts were futile?


texts: What does the Bible teach about "fire" in the phrase "Hell fire"?

texts:
I was studying today Matthew 5:22(KJV).

  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I understand that Dante's Divine Comedy had a substantial influence on our idea of what Hell is, and though I wonder if many any longer believe it to be the place of flames described by Dante, it's still the idea that (I suspect, if we're all honest), most Christians have pop into their heads before they start talking about it.

Therefore, asserting my personal belief that Hell isn't a place of flames, what are the Biblical beliefs or support for the Lord's use of "fire" in this verse?

As you consider this, note that my point of view is that the Lord is proposing (whether literally or figuratively) greater dangers for greater errors of judgement.

Angry without a cause -> danger of judgement (a "crime" against an individual.  Most likely judgment by your brother, family, friends, neighbors etc.)
Name calling without a cause -> danger of the council (a "crime" against society: slander)
Calling someone disobedient/sinful without a cause (Prov 12:15, Ex 20:16, etc.) -> danger of hell fire. (a "crime" against God, bearing false witness, final judgment)

I understand the "hell" part, but what is the Biblical basis for using the descriptor/adjective "fire?"  What idea was the Lord trying to convey?


texts: Quote about judging "a man by his post" from the City of God, according to Alain de Botton

texts:
A few years ago, the philosopher Alain de Botton gave a TED talk on "A kinder, gentler philosophy of success" where he quotes St. Augustine supposedly having written in the City of God that "It's a sin to judge any man by his post" though he declares himself to be a "secular" person.

I have just finished my year-long reading the City of God and found no explicit statement about judging someone by their profession.  I did find Augustine listing what he means by sin close to the end of the reading (eg. books 20 and 22) but I became curious how Alain de Botton came to this interpretation.

Could this be a misattribution?


texts: According to the Bible, how should Christians meditate?

texts:
In the recent years the word "meditation" has been used widely, including  in non-religious contexts. Should we, Christians meditate? If yes, what should we do while meditating? S

What does the Bible say about meditation?  Please answer with specific verses that state the right way to mediate?


texts: Is communion service at the rail vs. in the pews a function of denomination or church size?

texts: In the small baptist churches I've been a part of, (and the LDS service I attended), the communion elements are served to worshippers in the pews. In my Episcopal church, everybody comes up to the rail.  I'm wondering a bit about how this variation in practice arose (Anyone know which came first?) and if there is a way of predicting how any given church will practice it.


texts: If a sin is not intentional but due to psychological or physical reasoning, will Jesus Christ still count that act as a sin?

texts:
Sin is really vicious and annoying to God.

But what if a sin that is caused by a person's physical or mental ailments does God look upon that person with empathy, sympathy, and compassion?

For example, a person might have anger management problems due to his mental illnesses even though he is seeing a psychiatrist, therapist and taking med regularly. He is not into himself. What if he is deeply repentant after the act. But he continues to show anger. Because his physical and mental world does not cooperate with the spiritual realm. What if he is trying every day with all his body, mind and soul to get over it and taking baby steps. But he does not know when this burning problem will be resolved. Will Christ still look at him with Mercy? Or other acts related to mental and physical illnesses that are offending to God but the intention is not fully present. They are helpless. They wish that Christ would cure them immediately so that they would not commit those acts against God.

St. Paul was about to obliterate Christians and on the way, Christ showed his face in the cloud. And he never took up the sword again. He was cured of his sinful ways.

In the Bible, we also have a mentally ill teenage boy at the foot of the hill who was behaving erratically. Jesus Christ showed sympathy toward that boy.

If sin is not intentional but due to psychological or physical reasoning, does Jesus Christ still count that act as a sin? What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say about it?


texts: To whom the Election applied according to the Calvinist (TULIP)?

texts:
A. To every human (including Adam and Eve) who will exist in the future.
B. To every human (except Adam and Eve) who will exist in the future.
C. To every human who will exist in the future after Jesus ascended to heaven.
D. (if not A/B/C)

In detail :
A. Once Adam and Eve exist on earth (and all the rest of their generation), the possibility for them are :
- they are all the elected one (absolutely go to heaven)
- none of them are the elected one (absolutely go to hell)
- some of them are the elected one

B. That kind of possibility applied only to Adam's generation.
For example : once baby Cain/Abel/Seth (Adam and Eve not included, but the rest of their generation) were born.

C. That kind of possibility applied only to Adam's generation who will be born after Jesus ascended to heaven
For example : assuming there are 10 babies were born at the same time soon after Jesus ascended to heaven, then the possibility on these babies after they die (even if they die after a few days)  are :
- all of these 10 babies will go to heaven (all are the elected one)
- all of these 10 babies will go to hell (none of them is the elected one)
- some of them will go to heaven, the rest to hell (some of them are the elected one


texts:
I’ve attended numerous churches in both RCA and UCC denominations in which RCA had a very literal take on the crucifixion and resurrection where the UCC church has a very allegorical approach.  Excluding talking about this specific instance I’m asking about why there is a difference in how it was taught.

** Why is the RCA church more literal in scripture where the UCC church is allegorical?**

I’ve noticed during switching denominations specifically RCA reformed church of America and UCC united church of Christ, RCA seems to have a more literal translation of scriptures to which is applied to daily life.  UCC on the other hand has taken a more allegorical and symbolic approach.

I edited the question to exclude asking about specific events in the Bible and focused it more on the observed differences in how Christianity is taught


texts: How do Calvinists interpret Acts 7:51 in light of the doctrine of 'irresistible grace?'

texts:
In light of the doctrine of irresistable grace, how do Calvinists interpret Acts 7:51?

  Acts 7:51 (DRB) You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also.

Cf. Mt. 23:37.

Doesn't this imply they ought not to resist the Holy Ghost, implying both 1) one can, and they did, resist the grace of God, and 2) they had the capacity to, but refused to, comply with God?


texts: Do we Give our life to Christ or receive Christ's Life?

texts:
I just read this post from a friend and I am a bit confused. According to him you don't give your life to Christ, you instead receive Christ's life.

I want to deeply understand this. What is the difference? What, according to Bible, is supposed to be said?


texts: How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching?

texts:
Contemporary "theological liberals" have often argued that traditional doctrines about guilt and sin and repentance lead to feelings of guilt that can become pathology. This claim shouldn't be too hard to believe, because I believe it's the intended question behind a user's provocative question asked here not too long ago.

  insistence on holding people to an impossible standard and then instilling guilt in their minds (sin / confess / repeat) causes psychological distress and prevents some people from reaching their potential in life

Some of them have advocated this as a reason to jettison these doctrines outright. I have a strong memory of a seminary professor in ELCA Lutheranism explicitly making such a claim but couldn't find his web page, as perhaps he's now retired. I have often wondered to what extent when "extreme" guilt has happened, it can be said to be

The result of really bad (unorthodox, if "conservative") preaching?
The result of unrepentant hearts who insist on continuing the sin?, or
The neglect of great theological traditions in Christian theology?

I am of the conviction that this question can be answered straightforwardly in terms of a non-Truth question, if it is "How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching or theological writings?"

(I'm not looking for medical diagnoses or answers of what is BEST. I am searching for what HAS BEEN SAID.)


texts: Are these verses from Proverbs contradictory?

texts:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will become just like him.  Proverbs 26:4 NIV

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes..Proverbs 26:5 NIV

Should you? Or, Shouldn't you?


texts: In a Catholic viewpoint, is it possible for Rome to fall?

texts:
I was wondering if the Roman Catholic Church is subject to complete institutional corruption, or total destruction, according to Catholic thought.

Now this would not necessarily be the fall of the Catholic faith, but instead that of its earthly headquarters and global authority.
I want to know because it may play a role in personal view of the end times, and the view of Catholics as well of course.


texts: Why has God created us? The Almighty Lord does not need anyone; he does not need the angels, the heaven, or the earth. Are there any written words in the Bible that tell the reason?


texts: What is the reason that intercourse is required for a valid marriage?

texts: Within the Catholic Church, it is required to have intercourse with each other after marriage. But what is the reason behind this?


texts: How do I track the history of changes to a given verse's actual text? How do I discover it's "lineage"?

texts:
Has there been a project that traces the genealogy of each verse of the scripture?

I.e., for each verse, it traces back through all the documents it was translated from, the default translations at the time, ... all the way back to historically verifiable fragments?

I'm not talking about a generic "this book of the bible came from XYZ". I'm talking about details at the grainularity of a single verse. I.e, for each verse, trace it's lineage, through all the translations, back to the original inspired writers.

Thanks!


texts: How do the Catholic and Orthodox views of original sin differ?

texts: While reading about original sin, I often read that the Catholic and Orthodox churches disagree on the doctrine of original sin. But as far as I can tell, they both reject the idea that mankind inherited sin from Adam and believe that mankind only inherited the fallen nature. The only differences I see are in terminology. What am I missing? How are their views on original sin different?


texts: How to reconcile both Outer Darkness and Unquenchable Fire as descriptions of Hell

texts:
From the book "4 Views On Hell", edited by William Crocket (there is a second edition edited by Preston Sprinkle) I understand that until around the 16th century the traditional, orthodox view of the Christian Church regarding Hell has been one of literalism and that the metaphorical take on Fire, Darkness, and Suffering only began to gather momentum since then.
Among those denominations who hold that the "outer darkness" in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30 are literal references to Hell, how is this reconciled with Hell's depiction as a place of unquenchable fire?  Is it a fire that gives off no light?


texts: Can a third party ask for an annulment if neither married person wants it to happen?

texts:
Say that a couple was married despite an impediment, which is usually justification for annulment. Some examples of impediments include:

One of them was abducted (raptus, or bride kidnapping) and has been under the kidnapper's control since to the point of developing Stockholm syndrome.
The two are close blood relations and there is an issue of consanguinity.

Now let's say that both married people do not wish to have their marriage annulled. Can a third party, such as their families, ask for an annulment?


texts: Why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"?

texts:
I've noticed that some people would single out "Catholics" from "Christians". Belief.net is one website that separates "Catholicism" from "Christianity", and the website does not claim to be affiliated with any religious organization. Sometimes, a public university's student health center may classify "Catholic" and "Christian" into two separate categories under "Religion".

Assuming that everyone has benign intentions, why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"?


texts: How is Moses' and Jesus' contradictory teaching regarding oaths reconciled?

texts:
In Deuteronomy Moses teaches to make oaths in the Lord's name:

  Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.
  Deuteronomy 6:13 NIV

  Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.
  Deuteronomy 10:20 NIV

The instructions surprised me because Jesus to take oaths at all and that we should simply say yes or no.

  “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’  But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;  or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
  Matthew 5:33-35, 37 NIV

God urges the people to do one thing and later the polar opposite thing. Surely, there must be something that I've missed.

I recall learning that there was a silly opinion among people that it was okay to break oaths made on the temple gate but it's not okay to break oaths made on the temple coins. Jesus calls out the silliness of that. So is this related to that in a way or the Deuteronomy one needs to be viewed in some context?

How have various theologians resolved this contradiction?


texts:
Good Day,

In the Old Testament Moses was given the Ten Commandments which we all know and try to follow as best as we can. The general usefulness of these Ten Commandments have shaped western law and morals for centuries, they even are the basic rules of any society of any size regardless of what the local religion teaches. I however have a hard time of understanding the purpose of the Commandments and the laws set by Moses in relation to each other.

Were both set of rules given by God?

If yes, then why is it that some laws can contradict the Ten Commandments?
If no, then what was the point of having a set of laws besides from the holy ones (the ten commandments)? And even worse, how is it justifiable to set these laws such that even one law can contradict one of the commandments?

I'm not asking these questions from a position disbelief or critique; I am merely trying to understand the relationship we have to the laws of Moses vs the Ten Commandments. I guess I'm also struggling to understand why we no longer follow the old laws if they were considered to be holy.


texts: Are sins forgiven without a payment in Matthew 9:1-7?

texts:
Matthew 9:1-7 involves Jesus forgiving someone's sins. Is this forgiveness granted in light of Jesus' future sacrifice of himself on the cross? If not, how is this person forgiven of their sins since, "under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins?"(Hebrews 9:22, ESV)

  And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, knowing[a] their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home.  Matthew 9:1-7 ESV


texts: What hymns about death were common in the early 1400s?

texts: I am writing a novel and would like to know what hymn a family might have sung as their loved one died - in 1405 in England.


texts:
My name is Dash. I am 16 and I am a Methodist Christian. I am currently learning about church history on my own and Ive come up with a few questions that have definitely been asked 1000 times.

Do Catholics believe Protestants are part of the Christian Faith?


texts: Calvinism and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

texts:
Matthew 12:31 says blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the ESV Study Bible, says that it is, "This sin is committed today only by unbelievers who deliberately and unchangeably reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in calling them to salvation"
In Calvinism, the I in TULIP is irresistible grace. Those God elected cannot resist His grace and that man will answer God's call. You can't resist it. So how does this fit in with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit where unbelievers resists the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit try to work in everyone? Or does the Holy Spirit only work within those elected?


texts:
My question is based on Matthew 5: 17-20

This question addresses the first part of the passage. The second part is the phrase

  Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and
  Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. -- verse 20 - emphasis mine.

What does Jesus mean by "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees"? Any help to make me understand this important passage will be much appreciated.


texts: If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C? (Trinity)

texts:
If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C?

If the son is God (A=x) and the father is God (B=x) and the holy ghost is God (C=x), then why isn't the son = the father = the holy ghost = God (A=B=C=x)?

This is a logical fallacy


texts: What are the major differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism?

texts: I'm looking for concrete theological beliefs and practices on where they differ. Christians say that Mormons aren't Christian and yet Mormons call themselves Christian. So it can be quite hard to tell for a everyday person who is who and what is what.


texts:
Luke 18:18-30 (NIV) tells the story of the "rich young ruler" who asked Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life:

18A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ...
22 ...[Jesus] said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

My understanding of Calvinism is that salvation (from the Calvinist perspective) is entirely a work of God, and no human can do anything, even including "accepting" the gift of salvation, to affect their salvation.  These instructions from Jesus appear to contradict this concept.  Jesus seems to be offering to the ruler some concrete actions he could take to ensure his salvation.
Granted, based on the ruler's reaction, his heart was in the wrong place, as he was unwilling to do what Christ commanded.  So really, Christ's commandment was not about the act of giving away possessions, but about the state of the man's heart.  But if the truth is that the man was powerless to affect his salvation, wasn't Christ in effect lying by suggesting the ruler could do these actions (and change his heart) in order to achieve eternal life?
What is the Calvinist interpretation of this (and other similar) stories?


texts: How did Christian come to be the name for believers?

texts: Who changed the name believer to Christians.  Are there bible verses calling the followers of Jesus Christ Christian?  If yes, were are the verses?  If no, who coined the word and under what condition did he coin the word?


texts: Is there, or was there, a Christian denomination that believes, or believed, that Jesus Christ was "just a normal human"?

texts: I have met several people that came in contact with Christianity as adults. Their perception is that Christ was a human preacher that voiced his concerns in a time of corruption, abuse by authorities, dishonesty, crime and debauchery. This makes me wonder if in the time of Christ some of his followers had similar impression and took him as a role model, but not as a divine entity.


texts:
What are the root causes of the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church?
A comment to this question (Is it known which seminary or seminaries produced the majority of Catholic priests who were accused of sexual abuse in the USA?) lead me to ask this one:

Considering clerical abuse is a worldwide phenomenon that crosses all denominations, looking for a few seminaries as the root cause seems misguided.

Protestant churches have no requirement of celibacy, but they are not immune to these vices either.
What are the origins of this sinful phenomenon within the clergy of the Catholic Church.


texts: Why is God asking questions or appearing uncertain in the Bible if He's omniscient?

texts:
Is God omniscient? lists all the passages were it is written that God is omniscient.

Reading other passages, I found a few things that seemingly contradict this:

In Genesis 3:8-13 God asks Adam and Eve where they are and if they have eaten from the tree
In Genesis 18:20-21 he apparently does not know what they have done

  20Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

In Genesis 32:22-30 God wrestles in his bodily form with Jacob, but asks Him about His name
In Numbers 22:9 He asks “Who are these men with you?”
In Deuteronomy 8:1-2 and other instances, God tests people, but wouldn't He know beforehand what they would do?


texts: How did early "street evangelization" differ from the modern practice?

texts:
Biblical "street preachers" gathered interested and/or interactive crowds, often followed by mass conversions. We could conceivably chalk some of this up to the "signs and wonders" they tended to perform; but even on that note, it's oft-noted in scripture that belief precedes the signs and wonders. Hence, the crowds must have gathered first.

Even the Biblical preachers who worked no signs and were abrasive gained a lot of positive attention. Consider John the Baptist, who stayed in the desert/wilderness and told everyone they were sinners -- folks went, presumably out of there way, into the desert to see him!

Modern street evangelists don't appear to garner many converts. They're commonly portrayed as lunatics and nuisances. And in general, they don't seem to gather the crowds of Biblical proportions, or even small crowds or anyone in most cases.

Why the difference? Is it cultural? Are the modern evangelists saying or doing different things? Were early evangelists more like the well-known motivational or expert speakers of today?

Is there sound evidence to suggest that the Biblical "street preaching" was a normal means for content/news delivery? And/Or was their delivery different than a modern street-preachers?


texts: Why did Martin Luther change his surname from ‘Luder’ to ‘Luther' very early in his career?

texts:
I was surprised to find out ‘Luther’ is not Martin Luther’s original surname but ‘Luder’ is. The Greek word έλεύθερος that was the origin of his Latin name was Eleutherius. You can see ‘uder’ does not quite sound as good as ‘uther’. You can hear the sound of the Greek word here: click on the speaker sign to listen

I have read that in the fall of 1517 he changed his name. So what would make Luther get so fussy about his name so that he wanted it to match the original Greek more audibly?