texts: Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints in Light of 1 Corinthians 8:11 (Calvinism)

texts:
The acronym T.U.L.I.P summarizes five core doctrines of Calvinism concerning salvation. I hope I've summarized them accurately enough for the question's purpose.

T. Total Depravity — The doctrine that fallen man is 'dead in trespasses and sins' to the point of not even being able to accept salvation where such an offer thereof to be said to be possible or made possible in Calvinism.
U. Unconditional Election — The doctrine that God's election is, for lack of a better word, arbitrary, or not based on a condition on the creature—everyone saved is just as worthy of it: that is to say, not worthy at all.
L. Limited Atonement — The doctrine that since the grace of God is irresistible and is beneficial without exception to its recipients, this necessitates that Christ died only for such recipients, whose technical term are the elect.
I. Irresistible Grace — The doctrine that those whom God has elected to receive His grace, cannot resist it—according to Calvinism, any notion of 'resist' it would imply that His grace wasn't powerful enough in the first place, since grace means an action God does to someone, and not a spiritual help (which would naturally be able to be refused).
P. Perseverance of the Saints — The doctrine that if God has elected you, you are not among those that are damned, but of the infallibly saved: therefore it is impossible that you will be lost.

In light of these, how do Calvinists answer the objection that 1 Corinthians 8:11 (among other verses, of course) disproves in a marked way the Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints (but also all of T.U.L.I.P since each point can be said to rely on the truth of the others)?
Here is 1 Corinthians 8:10-11 (NA28; my translation):

ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον, οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς τὸ τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν; ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, ὁ ἀδελφὸς δι’ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν
For if someone sees you, who know better, sat eating in the temples of idols, will not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrifices to idols? For by your knowledge he that is weak has been destroyed: a brother for whom Christ died.

This appears to me to invalidate both Limited Atonement and Perseverence of the Saints, since scandal is described as destroying one for whom Christ died.
In the same context, St. Paul writes the following to the church at Rome (Romans 14:14-15, 20: NA28; my translation):

οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν· εἰ γὰρ διὰ βρῶμα ὁ ἀδελφός σου λυπεῖται, οὐκέτι κατὰ ἀγάπην περιπατεῖς· μὴ τῷ βρώματί σου ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε ὑπὲρ οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. ... μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. ...
I know and am fully convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself, but that to him who considers anything to be unclean, for him it is unclean. For if by food your brother is offended, you are no longer walking according to love: do not destroy for the sake of food him for whom Christ died. ... Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. ...

Thanks in advance.


texts: Is there an evidence about the doctrine of Christophany in the New Testament?

texts:
The doctrine about Christophany teaches that before the eternal Son was incarnated he already appeared in the Old Testament as the Angel of the Lord.

The question is if there is a New Testament backround about this.


texts: What were St. Maximilian Kolbe's views on general relativity and sanctifying grace?

texts:
I read or heard somewhere that St. Maximilian Kolbe posited that Sanctifying Grace spread throughout the cosmos faster than the speed of light at the moment Jesus died on the cross.  I know his works have only recently been translated into English.  I have not read them.

Is my understanding of Kolbe's position correct, and what is the source of that summary (beyond Kolbe's original work)?   I suspect that it came from the novels distributed by Catholicity.com which I read some years back but am unable to pin it down.


texts: What are the objections to Newton's critique of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16?

texts:
In "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture", Isaac Newton argued that 1 John 5:7 was a corruption of the early church and did not appear in the original Greek scriptures. He makes a similar claim regarding 1 Timothy 3:16. 1 John 5:7 is the strongest biblical reference to the trinity. Is there an objection to Newton's historical analysis of these verses?

1 John 5:7 -- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 Timothy 3:16 -- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


texts: Is Jonathan Edwards's view of "philosophical necessity" compatible with the Westminster Standards?

texts:
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) was a major 18th century theologian who, though rooted in Reformed theology, innovated in some important ways.  According to J. V. Fesko, in The Theology of the Westminster Standards (chapter 4), one of these areas was Edwards's belief in philosophical necessity, which Fesko explains:

  Nothing, according to Edwards, can occur without a cause, and there is a "fixed connection" between cause and effect.  For Edwards, if everything has a cause, there can be no contingency in the world.  For him, contingency means that something has no cause.

Thus, says Fesko, Edwards denies the idea of contingency.  But this seems to deviate from the Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1:

  God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Fesko mentions one author, William Cunningham, who "argued that Edwards's views were compatible with the teaching of the Reformers and the Westminster Standards."  But Fesko lays out the case against compatibility in more detail, and concludes that "the Confession does not teach philosophical determinism (or necessity) and does affirm contingency."

I don't believe that Edwards subscribed to the Westminster Confession, so a lack of compatibility isn't necessarily surprising.  But I'd like to better understand how Edwards's view differs from that of the Westminster Confession, and how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled.


texts: Is there any correlation between national prosperity and percentage of Christians?

texts:
I have heard of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the proportion of Christians in a population directly (positively) impacts national prosperity. In other words, the more Christians in a nation, the richer the nation becomes.

Possible current examples include India and China which are apparently seeing both an increase in the proportion of Christians (India / China) and in prosperity (India / China).

This would seem to follow the Biblical pattern, see e.g. Haggai 1.

But is this a real phenomena? Can we see a genuine correlation? And if so, what is its cause?

Note: in light of comments and answers so far, this question is about Christianity, not religion generally.

Other resources:

Christianity by country
Christian population growth


texts: Does New Testament accounting language have any Old Testament backing?

texts:
Throughout the New Testament, the language of money is used to discuss sin and the gospel: words like debt, forgiveness, redeem, and impute.

For example, Colossians 2 explains forgiveness of trespasses as cancellation of debt. This brings in both the metaphor of a trespass as a debt and the concept that such a debt can be cancelled or "set aside" as part of regeneration by "nailing it to the cross".

In Romans 3, those who are "justified by his grace" are said to be done so "as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Here justification (or righteousness) is made to be something that can be given as a gift, and it is done so by redeeming one as from bondage. Redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις here) language is often connected with paying the debt of someone else; often someone who has been made a slave to the creditor.

Finally, the language of "imputation" is sometimes used, in which funds are "transferred" from one account to another, at least on paper. I use the quotes and qualification to point out that there is no physical transference of monies, but rather, the funds are "counted" or "imputed" to the other account. This is not especially difference from the electronic transactions we have today. Romans 4 uses this language as a way of explaining how God gives righteousness to those who have faith in Jesus: "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." Other translations here say that faith is "credited" is righteousness, or "reckoned" or "accounted", or can be translated "imputed". The Greek word here is λογίζεται, and these are all accounting terms with this same meaning in this context.

So my question is two-fold:

Does the Old Testament use this sort of language to refer to sin and righteousness?
In these Old Testament usages of monetary/accounting language, is such a concept of a transaction included, whereby sin is taken on by God, or that man is redeemed, his sin-debt forgiven, or righteousness granted?


texts: What is the biblical basis of the belief that Earth is the center of the universe?

texts:
Giordano Bruno was considered heretic because he said that Earth is not the center of the universe, which was believed to be contrary to what is mentioned in the Bible. That is what some historians say, whereas others say he was executed because he held opinions contrary to the Catholic Church.

So, what is the biblical basis of the belief that Earth is the center of the universe?


texts:
1 Samuel 18: 10-11

  10 And it happened on the next day that the distressing spirit from
  God came upon Saul, and he prophesied inside the house. So David played
  music with his hand as at other times; but there was a spear in Saul's
  hand  11 And Saul cast the spear for he said for "I will pin David to
  the wall!" But David escaped his presence twice.

Why did the distressing spirit from God come upon Saul?


texts: Is the Russian Orthodox Church pressing the government of Russia to ban Jehovah's Witnesses?

texts:
As early as today (April 7 2017) the Supreme Court of Russia may ban the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This would make it a criminal offense for Jehovah's Witnesses even to meet together to pray.

Additionally all of their properties will be seized by the Government.

It is suggested that behind the scenes and even openly the Russian Orthodox Church is responsible for inciting this crack down on freedom of religion in Russia.
An article in Christianity Today stated in part :

  “A ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses is just the beginning in a series of repressions. Society needs an internal enemy to which the government can point in full cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church,” Cherenkov said. “The silence of Protestants with regard to repressions against Jehovah’s Witnesses will merely unleash a new wave of restrictions and repressions.

Additionally see the article from Forbes entitled "An Un-Holy Alliance"

(Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism

Is the Russian Orthodox Church actually encouraging such intolerance?

Update Russian government has banned Jehovah's Witnesses as an extremist group. (April 20,2017)

See:
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN17M1ZT


texts: Where did the claim that "the Bible we have today is unreliable because of retranslation" come from?

texts:
I've heard many people assert that the Bible we have today is unreliable because of a long chain of translation-of-a-translation. This seems false, because new translations can use ancient manuscripts as their source. What is the origin of this fallacy? Is there any one organization to blame in propagating it?

Here's a link to my basis for the question.


texts: What are the classics/giants of Biblical Theology?

texts:
Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology.

Based on Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics.

Who are the giants in Biblical Theology?

What are the classics / great works in Biblical Theology?

Related question on Systematic Theology (Split into multiple questions as requested.)


texts: What is the basis upon which the concept that God and Allah are the same?

texts: On several occasions I have heard it said that both Islam and Christianity serve the same God. They have said that both serve the God of Abraham, however. In comparing the two, God's nature and Allah's nature seem to be totally different, and almost opposite.


texts: What is the importance of Leviticus 19:19?

texts:
Leviticus 19:19 states

  "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

What is the importance of including these rules? I know some of the dietary laws of the Old Testament are there for practical reasons, such as preventing disease. Is there a similar practical explanation for the inclusion of these laws? Or perhaps a more symbolic reason for their inclusion?

I notice this verse is mention in the question here, but I am not asking should we or should we not follow such rules, but rather why such laws are present.


texts: Are there any archaeological evidences suggesting the existence of the Book of Mormon?

texts:
The Old Testament has many archaeological findings which confirm its existence many years ago. A good example would be the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls with some of the scrolls estimated to be created around 300 years before Christ.

The New Testament also has many archaeological proof of existence. One good example would be Codex Sinaiticus estimated to be created about 350 years after Christ.

I have no idea about the archaeological evidence for the existence of Book of Mormon at least some 1000 years ago. Is there any discovery till date which suggests the existence of the Book of Mormon before Joseph Smith? Did any ancient scholar mention it? Was it ever quoted by ancient writers? Such an important book about Jesus Christ should leave some traces of its existence in the past.

(Please note that this question is not asking for the evidence of events in the Book of Mormon)


texts: Why many Catholics believe that Mary is co-redemptrix?

texts: Where does the belief come from? Why is her intercession believed to be necessary? Please provide Biblical evidence for the belief as well as Traditional sources.


texts: Which of Luther's 95 Theses are still potentially valid critiques of Roman Catholicism?

texts:
Pope Leo X enumerated 41 positions that he required Luther to recant from in order to be restored to communion with the Latin Church.  Presumably, he wasn't all that excited about some of the other Ninety-Five Theses, but preferred to ignore them:

  86. Again:—"Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

Further, it seems that the Roman Church has changed her position on indulgences to the point where, though I disagree with the theology, I can see good purpose in the practice.  In fact, I'm tempted to say that Luther's proposed reforms have been implemented in the spirit they were offered if not to the letter.

So which of Luther's theses, if any, still have bite?


texts: What is the understanding between the Genesis account and the book of Abraham account of creation? (LDS)

texts:
There seems to be a clear difference between the Pearl of Great Price and the Bible in terms of creation:

The Pearl of Great Price

  And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
  beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the
  heavens and the earth. - Abraham 4:1

The Bible

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

How does an LDS member interpret this distinction? Why does the Pearl of Great Price change from one God to multiple 'Gods'?

According to Biblical Hermeneutics, The Hebrew scripture implied a plural God ('Elohim') in singular context which in a Protestant/Catholic perspective would be perceived as the Triune God; How is this specific case interpreted from an LDS perspective?  https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/8331/why-is-elohim-translated-as-god-rather-than-gods-in-genesis-11

Moreover if Jesus created the world, in Genesis 1:31, the word 'he' is used as a singular alongside 'God saw all he made' while God remains as Elohim in Hebrew acting as a plural in a singular context. Can Elohim be used for both Jesus and The Father in the LDS church?

  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. - Genesis 1:31


texts:
(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory)

This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment:

  ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment...

I always had trouble with this. It is honestly not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter).

Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied),  a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly giving something up.

It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?


texts: What is the origin of "This is the Word of the Lord" and "Thanks be to God?

texts:
In the past I attended a church where at the end of the Scripture reading, the reader would say:

This is the Word of the Lord

And the congregation would respond:

Thanks be to God

Does anyone know the origins of this tradition?


texts: Are there any Christian traditions that say anything about feminism?

texts: I'm wondering if the topic of feminism is ever discussed or approached with critical, religious perspective within any Christian tradition.


texts: Was Barnabas' land ownership as a Levite against Mosaic Law?

texts:
Acts 4:36-37:

  Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

How did Barnabas come to own land near Jerusalem that he could sell, if he was a both a Levite and a native of Cyprus?  Levites had no inheritance and were to be supported by the other tribes for their priestly or temple service. Was he in disobedience to the Lord to own the land in the first place, according to Mosaic Law?


texts: What did Jesus mean by 'going for a second mile '?

texts:
At Matthew 5:39-41 (NRSVCE) we read:

  But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;   and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;   and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

I wish to know about the backdrop against which a person could have been forced to go one mile, say by a soldier who was shifting his post and was looking for a native  to accompany him to his new place of posting. How do the Catholic teachings interpret the said  saying of Jesus?


texts: To what extent did BC gentiles have access to the Old Testament?

texts:
In Matthew 2:5-6 we see the wise men from the East telling Herod of the king who was to be born in Bethlehem, and they seem to be quoting from Micah 5:2.

Did gentiles have access to the Old Testament before Christ? Could they have known what Micah said without having the book of Micah?


texts: How do deniers of Jesus' divinity explain that the angel at Revelation 22:9 did not include Jesus in the list of beings that can be worshipped?

texts:
Note: this is an adaptation of a question asked on Hermenutics.SE. Check it out if interested in answers from different viewpoints.

When John fell down to worship the angel that had just showed him the prophetic visions of Revelation, the angel quickly stopped him in his tracks and corrected him for doing so, as he (the angel) was just a fellow servant and God is the only one to be worshipped:

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” [Revelation 22:8-9 ESV]

However, angels are reported to have worshipped Jesus as well. For example:
Hebrews 1:5-6 ESV:

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?
Or again,
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

Revelation 5:11-14 ESV:

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living
creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads
of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and
wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the
earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor
and glory and might forever and ever!”
14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell
down and worshiped.

Why didn't the angel at Revelation 22:9 mention Jesus when he said to John that God is the one to be worshipped? Shouldn't the angel have concluded the verse with "Worship God and his Son"? Did the angel forget about Jesus?
I know that most trinitarians would quickly answer with something like "come on, these are trivial questions, Jesus is God, by saying God the angel is implicitly including Jesus in the list, He is part of the Godhead". Of course, that answer assumes that Jesus is God as a premise. But what about those who deny this premise? How would they answer these questions?


texts: What are Andrew Wommack's most foundational truths?

texts:
Andrew Wommack Audio Teachings
Andrew mentions in lesson 1 at around the 02:20 mark that the 'You've Already Got it!' revelation is ranked 2nd or 3rd in terms of the most foundational truths that Andrew draws from on a constant basis. Since I've not listened to many of his teachings, I wanted to ask if anyone else knows some other revelations/teachings from Andrew Wommack that he has ranked either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?


texts: How do Trinitarians reconcile Jesus is a spirit?

texts:
From my understanding of the Trinity (please correct me if I am wrong), the Trinity is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate beings (or personalities) but one God. They also are a spirit so they can be everywhere and are not confined to one place. Working with my understanding, I will proceed with my question.

In the New Testament we have a record of the physical birth of Christ, His ministry, and His death. We also read concerning His resurrection, or the rejoining of His spirit and body.

If Jesus Christ is a spirit in the Trinity, how do the Trinitarians reconcile this if the New Testament records His appearance with a physical body after the Resurrection?

-- Please correct my understanding of the Trinity if it is incorrect.


texts: CS Lewis said time would probably continue in Heaven...But how?

texts:
(See 'Letters To Malcolm') CS lewis said, because mankind is by definition finite, that we shall always be in a situation of successive time, with the present becoming past. In 'The Problem Of Pain' he says that time in Heaven may not be so much like a linear line but have thickness like a plain as well.
I'm a bit confused by that analogy as that still inplies length...does he mean we will just experience 'a lot of things' within time or, erm, well, help!
Great guy CS Lewis but  am a little confused on 'how' he thought time would behave in Heaven.


texts: Marriage between syrian catholics and roman catholics?

texts:
In Kerala, what is the difference between a Syrian Catholic and a Roman Catholic?
And can they marry each other?


texts: Catholic Church - What happens when a married couple will never have sex?

texts:
Let's say that they just do not want to have sex for some reason after the wedding.
Does it mean that their marriage can be annulled by the Catholic Church even if they were married for 10 years?


texts: How do YECs interpret waters above the expanse in Genesis 1?

texts:
According to Protestant Young Earth Creationists what are the waters above the expanse in Genesis 1?

Day four says the expanse contains the stars sun and moon so I do not think it can be the atmosphere as many try to claim. Anyone ever study this topic?


texts:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Here is another one.

  "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:12-14).

I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching.

I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.


texts:
The title of this question has an element of humor but is very real.

On my way home, I was listening to a pastor's sermon on KWAVE.

This pastor stated that God is like a Shepherd and that we are His sheep...

More specifically, that in the old days, if the Shepherd had a sheep that was prone to wandering off from the herd or out of the protection of the pen, the Shepherd would actually break the sheep's leg and reset it, so that it would not wander and be killed by a prowling predator. So, because the Shepherd so loved His sheep, He would break their legs to keep them alive.

Next, the pastor stated that this is what God does with us because He loves us.

Now, he did not go into detail or give examples, so my question is:

Does God inhibit us in ways that are to keep us from going to Hell?

If so, does He do this for some people or for everyone?

Lastly, what would be some examples of this? Would God try to keep someone humble and alive for eternity by giving them depression? Or if God knew someone could not control their lust make them unattractive, to preserve them?

Any info on how this works is greatly appreciated. In addition, if this pastor's message is wrong, please do explain.

Thank You.


texts: Is there biblical evidence that God knows my unspoken thoughts?

texts:
I am trying to understand the broader rules for my own existence.  I know I exist and think. If I want to convey thoughts to another person or living being I have words.  Many times words are poor tools for adequately communicating thoughts.  How much easier would it be to have someone you trust just mind meld with you for a minute to understand what you are trying to express?

With that said, I would like to think that my thoughts are sovereign.  That I have a safe place closed off to work out ideas that are not fully formed.  A place where I can reason out ideas free of judgement.  Then when I am ready to commune or pray to God, that I can do so reasonably, respectfully, to not grieve his spirit.  To not act (speak) to God until I have a legitimate thought that is worth speaking about.  Not unlike forming a legitimate question at this web site.

So, is there precedence in the Bible that tells me that I my as well give that idea of a free independent sovereign mind free from God or anyone for that matter, where there a space in the universe, a place in the universe, that is not to be intruded upon by any spirit but my own so that I can exercise my own freedom of will of choice and thought?


texts: What does the Bible say about giving worship to a created being?

texts:
Is there any biblical basis to support the view that God, through Michael the Archangel, commanded all the angels to worship Adam?  Why would God ask the angels to worship a created human?  Doesn’t the Bible say to worship God alone?

This question arises as a result of a recent question: What is an overview of explanations for why fallen angels are motivated to attack Christians?  According to Protestantism, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians?

One answer quotes from a source which says: “Michael went out and called all the angels saying: 'Worship the image of God as the Lord God hath commanded.' And Michael himself worshipped first; then he called me and said: 'Worship the image of God the Lord.' And I answered, 'I have no (need) to worship Adam.' And since Michael kept urging me to worship, I said to him, 'Why dost thou urge me? I will not worship an inferior and younger being (than I). I am his senior in the Creation, before he was made was I already made. It is his duty to worship me.'”  (1913 English translation of the Latin version of the Life of Adam and Eve chapters 12-16, section xiv)

Another source here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/759-adam-book-of

When challenged by the Jewish scribes as to which was the most important commandment, Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:28-30) Jesus’ answer was based on the ‘Shema’ in Deuteronomy 6:4.

Yet God the creator commanded the created angels to worship a created human, Adam?  I realise there are various apocryphal sources that support this view but what does the Bible say about giving worship to a created being?

For example, if it is unbiblical to worship a created being (whether an angel or a human), then why does Hebrews 1:6 quote from Psalm 97:7 and say that all God's angels are to worship Christ Jesus, the Son of God?  Surely this must prove that Christ Jesus, the Son of God, was never a created angel?


texts: In Catholicism, how is the practice of infant communion reconciled with the rule that first reconciliation must precede first communion?

texts:
Paragraph 1457 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, without qualification,

  Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.

On the other hand, in some Eastern rite churches, infants receive the Eucharist. Paragraph 1233 of the Catechism says,

  In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation.

Since infants have not committed any personal sins, it doesn't seem like it would make sense to require them to receive the sacrament of Penance. Should Paragraph 1457 have an exception for infants?


texts: What books does the Orthodox Bible contain? Additionally, when was this settled (if it is settled) and how was it decided?


texts: What record is there of a canon of Scripture having been set at the First Ecumenical Council?

texts:
According to this synopsis

  As to Judith, he notes that the Council of Nicæa had, contrary to the Hebrew tradition, included it in the Canon of Scripture, and this, with his friends’ requests, had induced him to undertake the labour of emendation and translation.

by the editors of the Nicene and Post-Nicene series, Jerome wrote in his introduction to the Books of Tobit and Judith that that he was including Tobit in his Latin translation because it had been included in the canon by the Council of Nicea.

Assuming (a) that the synopsis is accurate (I can't find the full document); and (b) he means the First (Ecumenical) Council at Nicea in 325 (the second Nicean Council was in 787 - long after Jerome's death), which canons or acts are recorded that refer to the canon of Scripture?  I can find none.

We know from the Apostolic Canons (Canon LXXXV) and from the Canons of the local Council at Carthage in 397, that most of the deuterocanonical books were included in the Old Testament canon, but I can find no record of this being affirmed by the First Ecumenical Council. It also seems odd to me that Carthage would have issued Canons related to the Scriptural canon in 397 if Nicea had already issued such a canon in 325.  It similarly would not have made any sense for the eastern Fathers to have issued the Scriptural canon they did at the Council of Trullo in 692 (which also included the deuterocanonical books), nor for the 7th Ecumenical Council to have issued their Scriptural canon in 787 (which confirmed the Carthage and Trullo canons).


texts: Does "Positive Christianity" still exist?

texts:
Positive Christianity was a movement in Nazi Germany. It advanced interpreting Jesus as an active organiser, preacher and fighter against institutionalised Judaism.

I was wondering if anyone still follows this interpretation? The Wikipedia page suggests that it went into decline and suggests that some adherent groups still exist. However, the links don't really lead anywhere.


texts: Why do other religions exist if Yahweh is the one true God?

texts:
God is omnipotent and loves his human children. If that is the case why does he allow the continued propagation and existence of other religions.
Does this signify that there is in fact no reason for God to mind the existence of other fictional Gods, which further implies that God actually doesn't care about us and that we are just created and left to our own devices?


texts: In consideration of Numbers 23:19, can God be a human? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
In the King James Version of the Bible, it is mentioned in Num. 23:19 that God is not a human:

  19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? KJV, 1769

Now we know that Jesus was a man, being the son of Mary. So, based on Num. 23:19, how can he also be God? I am requesting a Catholic perspective.


texts: What is the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire?

texts:
The answers on this question "Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire" are not clear enough regarding difference between Hell and Lake of Fire.

  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and
  hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged
  every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast
  into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was
  not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
  (Revelation 20:13-15, KJV)

Here is what I understand from reading the above passage. Apostle John was watching the Judgement Day event as if it was happening in front of him. He saw how the dead came to live and how their fate was decided.

Three places where the dead came from:

The sea
Death
Hell

Three things which were thrown into the Lake of Fire:

Death
Hell
The unsaved people

The word 'Hell' has other translations -

Hell (KJV)
Grave (NLT)
Hades (NIV)
Sheol (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

The only difference I can find from this verse is that the Lake of Fire is bigger than Hell/Grave/Hades/Sheol because it can hold both death and Hell. :)

How have theologians explained the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire?


texts: Is there a term for a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant?

texts:
I know that different denominations have different rules about inter-denominational marriages. Is there a specific term for this kind of marriage?

I'm looking for any term from anywhere. Best case, I'm looking for a term for a marriage specifically between a Catholic and a Protestant. Other similar terms would be acceptable, such as a marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic, or Christian and non-Christian.


texts: How prominent was "prosperity theology" in the early church?

texts:
Prosperity theology, or the "health and wealth gospel," is a recent movement that teaches that God promises material blessings, in this life, to those who have faith in him and who do his will.  Wikipedia traces its origin to the 19th century, but while researching the subject, I found Augustine apparently addressing something similar in a sermon on shepherding:

  But what sort of shepherds are they who for fear of giving offence not only fail to prepare the sheep for the temptations that threaten, but even promise them worldly happiness? God himself made no such promise to this world. [...]

  For the Apostle says: All who desire to live a holy life in Christ will suffer persecution. [...] You say instead: “If you live a holy life in Christ, all good things will be yours in abundance." (LotH, 1010)

This looks like indirect evidence that even around the year 400, Augustine was dealing with teachings similar to those of today's prosperity theology.  Thus I'd like to know:

Is there any surviving direct evidence of these sorts of teachings in the early church?

I.e., surviving writings that actually teach this, as opposed to secondhand accounts

How much indirect evidence is there?
Can we tell how popular these teachings were, and when they gained traction?

I am interested in material after the apostolic age, up to the end of Augustine's life (AD 430).  I know it's somewhat anachronistic to apply the term "prosperity theology" to writings 1500 years older than the movement by that name, but to help clarify what I'm looking for, here's an example, followed by two counter-examples:

God promises1 material2 blessings, in this life,3 to those who have faith in him and live holy lives

This is an example of what I'm looking for; note the three marked elements

God promises blessings to those who have faith in him

Not an example; blessings may be spiritual or material and may not be in this life

God [generally] blesses those who live holy lives

Not an example; this is a proverb, not a promise


texts: To what degree could a person be "pro-polygamy" yet still obey the LDS church?

texts:
As I understand it, the LDS teaching is that polygamy  is acceptable, in this mortal life, only when God decides to permit it, and that God has done so twice so far in history (1) during Biblical times (2) during the early history of the LDS church, from when Joseph Smith introduced the practice in the 1830s until the Manifesto of 1890. So offshoots of the LDS church which continue the practice today, are in the LDS belief, disobeying God, by practising polygamy  when He has not allowed it.

My question is then, to what extent could a person express support polygamy without being considered a transgressor by the LDS church? I know that any actual practice of polygamy today is considered transgression by the LDS church, as does any expression of support for that practice continuing today (even though one does not practice it).

But I can conceive of several ways in which a person could be "pro-polygamy" without practising it today or advocating its practice today:

A person could express the hope (privately or publicly) that God will soon allow it
again
A person could pray (privately or publicly) that God would allow it again soon (such
as by revealing to the President of the Church to that effect)
A person could advocate that current laws against polygamy be repealed, and that
polygamy be legally recognised. That would not necessarily entail supporting the
present-day practice of polygamy, since it is entirely possible, and not uncommon,
to advocate that an act morally ought not to be done, yet at the same time advocate
that it be legal. Also, insofar as one of the motivations for God revoking permission
for polygamy was legal opposition, the removal of that opposition might hasten God to
grant permission for it again

If a member of the LDS church took positions similar to the above, would they be likely to be considered transgression?


texts: What are the differences between most Christian Bibles and Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible?

texts: Are most Christian bibles and Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible the same ? If not what are some important differences in them?


texts: Luke 21:32 and the coming of the kingdom

texts:
I'm new to Christianity and am still exploring the gospels. According to the gospel of Luke, verse 21:32, Jesus says that

  this generation shall not pass until all these things have taken place."

Does that mean that all the things mentioned in the bible, including the coming of the kingdom, should've already happened by now (in that generation)?
What are we waiting for?


texts: When it seems a Pope has heretical beliefs, who determines whether those beliefs are Magisterial?

texts:
I know that even some Catholics think that certains Popes held personal heresies (were material heretics). For example Honorius I believed that Jesus had only one will, the heresy of monothelitism.

I understand that a Pope might be a heretic, but to preserve the believed infallibility of his office he can't impose those beliefs ex cathedra—i.e., using the full weight of his office—onto the Church.

Who has the authority to judge which statements issued by the Pope are infallible?

Note: This question seems to address what the "criteria" used are, but I am asking: Who uses these criteria to decide the matter?


texts: How do Protestants interpret Malachi 1:11 and Isaiah 66:20-21?

texts:
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same
  My name shall be great among the Gentiles;

  And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering:
  For my name shall be great among the heathen, Saith the Lord of hosts.

  Malachi 1:11 (KJV)

I have been looking for Protestant explanation of this and how it is fulfilled in Christ.  The only one that I have found suggests that the incense that is offered to God represents prayers and the pure offering is also those prayers.  My problem with this interpretation is the Hebrew.  It clearly suggests two distinct offerings, incense and a pure offering.  Some translations suggest it as a grain offering but the Hebrew text does not support that.

Supporting this offering which is sacrificial in nature is Isaiah 66:21 (KJV), which must be read in the context of the rest of Isaiah 66.

  And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

Are the Levites something other than ministerial priests who make sacrificial offering to the Lord for the people?

What is the pure offering if not the offering of Christ on the Cross re-presented daily all over the world in the Catholic Church?  What is the Protestant version?  What is the reference to Priests and Levites if not that of the "priesthood of believers" and "a sacrificial ministerial priesthood" (Catholic Clergy) taken for the first time after the Cross--from outside the Jewish Rabbinical traditions?

How do Protestants say these prophecies have been fulfilled in their churches?


texts: In 1 Corinthians 8:5, what do the "many gods and many lords" refer to?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 8:5–6, we read:

  5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God (ESV)

I'm having a hard time with in one breath we see "one God" and then the former "many gods and many lords."  What is an overview of how should we understand "many gods and many lords" here?


texts: Do non-Catholic traditions ever have family altars?

texts:
Catholics may have a special place in their homes designated as the family altar.

This is mentioned many places:

  In contradistinction to the typical home which has a television set as its centerpiece, the focal point of a Catholic home should be the family altar -- a place where the family can gather to offer up their prayers to the Most Holy Trinity and to ask the Saints to pray for them. Morning Offerings, family Rosaries, prayers for special intentions, family novenas, Lectio Divina, etc., can all be made here. source emphasis added

CatholicMom.com provides a list of Home Altar Ideas.

And photos of such altars are easy to find on google and pinterest, such as this one:

Are there any non-Catholic traditions that do a similar sort of thing? If so, what is the purpose of having a family altar, and what do they typically put on it?


texts: According to Protestants, what "new" things has the Eastern Orthodox Church acquired over time?

texts:
What things in general have been brought with time into the Eastern Orthodox Church that the mainstream protestant Christianity considers as not being able to be traced back to the times of the church of the first century?

To clarify, my question is about what kind of things the mainstream Protestantism sees as new in the today's Eastern Orthodox Church. We know, for example, that the "Sola Scriptura" principle that was put forth by the Protestants has been deemed as something new by both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (meaning that originally there was no such thing as "Sola Scriptura" in the early Church of the time of the 12 apostles). So, my question is about some such "new" things (as Protestant would deem them) in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.


texts: How does Calvinism explain how an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator could NOT have a plan for universal salvation?

texts:
In the haze of discerning truth and wisdom by the hybrid application of scripture, tradition, philosophy, and experience it seems illogical that a loving creator with perfect and complete knowledge could be considered incapable or unmotivated to ensure the eventual salvation of all His created earthly beings.

On the poles of the Christian salvation continuum are:

Originating a fully comprehensive blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and intended usurping of the throne of heaven, earning total never-ending removal from all of the Godheads' presence and power;

through to,

An utterly sinless existence both by inheritance and behaviour, leading to eternal companionship with the Almighty intimate as the Apple of His eye.

Within this continuum is the immortal human range of states wherein a sinful nature inherited from Adam's sinful act distances us at birth from communion with YHWH permanently.

By degrees however, according to the outcome of the function of personal sinful behaviour, belief, proffering of faith, acceptance of grace, and works within faith the temporal and physical degree of separation is reduced: primarily post earthly existence.

The book of Revelations in particular seems to support this with reference to souls currently crying out for justice and awaiting the return of the Lamb, and the unrepentant crying out for mercy.

It then details the process of judgement from the second coming, the sweeping away of the old creation, day of judgement, culminating in the universal bending of every knee in declaration of Christ's sovereignty.

Finally Revelations describes the new creation as free from pain or blemish with a clear distinction between those that live in the continuous immediate presence of the LORD within the city and those peoples living in the lands beyond the city walls.

Therefore universal salvation is really more a theological compound of differential eschatology wherein degrees of punishment by separation from YHWH resolve at different rates into redemption at varying degrees of everlasting proximity / intimacy with the Trinity.

In the light of this how can Calvinism defend a doctrine of predestination as regards selective eternal damnation by default?  Does universalism move towards a theology of purgatory unpalatable to Calvinism?


texts: Jesus said I am the Way, how does the Catholic Church best explain this passage?

texts:
John 14:6 New International Version (NIV)

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

This passage from St.John Gospel had a strong emphasis on Jesus as the only means of salvation.

Add to this the 1Timothy2:5

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,.."

This two powerful verses is very dear to our Christian brothers and I would say somehow had a negative effect as it set a dividing line on how the salvation of man is viewed in light of this passages.I believe Christian beliefs and Catholic teaching  can be harmonize in view of this two important passages, only if a good biblical explanation from the Apostolic to Early Church Tradition can be both accepted as the mediating factor.

The Catholic Church I think never interpret this verses the way our Christian brothers magnify the explicitness of this verse and always harmonize the biblical meaning of this in light of the whole gospel.

My question is, how does the Catholic Church interprets this passages in the Apostolic times & early Church Tradition and does the Vatican II share the same view or teaching from the very beginning of Catholicism?

A good biblical explanation will be a good start for Ecumenism to succeed.


texts: Do any denominations teach that Adam and Eve had children in the Garden of Eden?

texts:
In the Garden of Eden, God commands Adam and Eve to

  "Be fruitful and increase in number" Genesis 1:28 (NIV)

Later, after the Fall in Genesis 3, we're told that

  "Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain" Genesis 4:1 (NIV)

The Bible does not tell us the time difference between these two events, or even clearly state that Cain's birth happened after the fall (although it's implied by the order it is recorded).

Do any Christian denominations or beliefs teach that Adam and Eve produced children (Cain, Abel, or others) while they were in the Garden of Eden?


texts: For many reasons Jews had to offer an animal for healing their relations with God. But why needed those animals to be killed?


texts:
I have seen two views about the laws of the old testament in the bible. One view is  where Jesus himself says "keep the Law" while in the other Paul says that "the Law has been nailed to the cross"

This is odd, but both these teachings are in contradiction. I was hoping to get a clarification if the Law should be kept or nailed to the cross??

Please provide some verse of the bible and not personal opinions.

Quotes from the bible are below....

In the gospel, Jesus says....

  Matthew 5:18

  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

  Matthew 5:19

  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

But Paul says...

  Colossians 2:14

  having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.


texts: What is an open atheist's fate in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe?

texts: What would happen to me if, while living in Europe, say, in the 13th or in the 15th century – in fact, in any time of the existence of the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation – I openly declared that I didn't believe in Christ or in the existence of God. What consequences would I have been facing then?


texts: Just what does Infant Baptism accomplish as regards Original Sin?

texts:
The answer to this question indicates that the human soul is created by God, and without any lack of saving grace, at the precise instant that the soul is infused into the newly propagated human body.
The sin and death we inherit from Adam, says Aquinas, are passed in the physical human nature by the human father.  God does not, the answer declares, create a deprived human soul but the newly created human soul is 'infected' instantly upon infusion with that body.  At that moment the human soul becomes devoid of saving grace and stands in need of salvation.
Infant Baptism is intended to remediate this 'original sin' in the Catholic Church:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called [Cf Col 1:12–14]. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

My assumption is that infant baptism does not remove original sin from the physical aspect of humanity, otherwise no further sacraments would be necessary.  1 John warns us not to say that we have no sin:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - 1 John 1:8-10

And Paul details his current struggle with the sin that dwells in his physical members even after his experience on the Damascus Road and his Baptism and call to Apostleship:

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? - Romans 7:14-24

Additionally, Paul looks to a future day (the return of the Lord Jesus and the resurrection) when he will be delivered from his body of death so it is clear that he is not currently experiencing freedom from the presence of sin in his members.
Infant Baptism then must somehow remove the stain of sin that the human soul derives from it's infusion into the body and return it to it's intended created state possessed of sanctifying grace.
If this is the case, what keeps immediate re-infection of the soul from happening since the soul/body union still remains and the body is still tainted and infectious?


texts: How does the Catholic church explain Matthew 19:9, which seems to allow divorce in case of sexual misconduct?

texts:
Matthew 19:9 (NIV)

  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual
  immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

On a simple examination, it seems to imply that sexual immorality, for example,  adultery,  constitutes grounds for divorce.

Yet this is not the Catholic interpretation. What is the Catholic explanation of this verse?


texts: Is there a 'correct' pattern for Anglicans and/or Roman Catholics when crossing yourself?

texts:
Some Anglicans 'cross themselves' at various points of an Anglican church service. It is common practice for Roman Catholics. Is there in standard Roman Catholic or Anglican catachesis / instruction any guidance as to a 'correct' motion when crossing yourself:

left-to-right or right-to-left, for example?
 the horizontal motion first, or the vertical?


texts: What does St. Augustine mean by predestination?

texts:
St. Augustine says somewhere (quoted in the old Catholic Encyclopedia):

Predestination is nothing else than the foreknowledge and foreordaining of those gracious gifts which make certain the salvation of all who are saved
Predestination - Catholic Encyclopedia

So... is this just a tautology?  The fact that those who are saved will have salvation doesn't seem terribly deep, is this all the farther a Catholic can go with the concept of predestination?


texts: Are there legitimate saints not documented in western hagiology?

texts:
In Croatia the patron saint of Vukovar is Saint Bonus/Sveti Bono. There's nothing in any English Catholic encyclopedia but Croatian wikipedia lists the following facts:

Martyred under Decian (or was it Valens?) in the third century
There's an inscription of his name on a street in Rome.
His body was donated to the people in Vinkovski by Benedict XIV

How common is it for saints of one region to be "left out" in the English hagiographies?


texts: "The Son of Man", Jesus' favorite designation of himself, in view of Numbers 23:19-20?

texts:
(This question has been closed though OP rephrased it.I will risk asking it rephrased again):

Given this quote from Numbers 23:18–20

  Then he took up his discourse and said, "Arise, O Balak, and hear; Give ear to me, O son of Zippor! God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Behold, I have received a command to bless; When He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it."

Given Jesus used the title the "Son of Man", to refer to himself, 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels. For example, he asked his disciples: "who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" (Matthew 16:13). Given this expression "the Son of Man" is used only in the sayings of Jesus.

The question is (in view of no consensus—agreed upon single—interpretation of this phrase, "the Son of Man", has emerged despite almost two centuries of Christology):

What are the reasons for this disagreement on interpreting Jesus' favorite designation of himself (despite the plain words of both Jesus and Numbers 23:19-20)?
What are the major Christological interpretations of this designation "the Son of Man" and what are their biblical bases?

Thank you very much (please do not close).


texts: Why was Jeremiah treated well by the Babylonians?

texts:
Jeremiah was persecuted, and all but killed by his countrymen, the Israelites. But when they were conquered by the Babylonians, he was rescued and treated well by the conquerors.1

Why is that? Was it because he predicted a Babylonian victory, so the Israelites saw him as a traitor and the Babylonians saw him as a "fellow traveler"? Or was it because the Babylonians saw "eye-to-eye" with him on matters of "righteousness," while the Israelites did not?

See the Wikipedia article on Jeremiah


texts: If Satan is unable to become incarnate will he possess and control the Antichrist

texts:
While doing research into the Antichrist, I came across an article that suggested Satan will possess and control the Antichrist, the first beast that comes out of the sea.  Revelation 13:5 says that this beast receives power from the dragon (Satan):

The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:5-8)

Then came a statement that made me stop and think:
>Satan works through the Antichrist, for Satan himself is not able to become incarnate.
I began to investigate what it means to be incarnate. Here are a couple of partial quotes:

The word incarnation means “the act of being made flesh.” It comes from the Latin version of John 1:14, which in English reads, “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us.” Because of the near-exclusive use of the Latin Vulgate in the church through the Middle Ages, the Latin term became standard.  https://www.gotquestions.org/incarnation-of-Christ.html

When Christ took on the form of a human, His nature did not change, but His position did. Jesus, in His original nature of God in spirit form, humbled Himself by laying aside His glory and privileges (Philippians 2:6–8). God can never stop being God because He is immutable (Hebrews 13:8) and infinite (Revelation 1:8). If Jesus stopped being fully God for even a split second, all life would die (see Acts 17:28). The doctrine of the Incarnation says that Jesus, while remaining fully God, became fully man.  https://www.gotquestions.org/God-incarnate.html

While angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5) - but that is not an incarnation.
Jude verse 6 refers to those fallen angels who abandoned their own home (heaven) whom God "has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day."
2 Corinthians 11:14 says that Satan is still free to "masquerade as an angel of light" - but that is not an incarnation.
What, then, does it mean or imply for Satan, a created, fallen, angel to become incarnate?  Can Satan take on human flesh as Jesus did, i.e., be born as a human being?  Or can Satan only take on the outward appearance of a human?
As for the Antichrist, if Satan is unable to become incarnate, is that why Satan has to possess and control him?
I am looking for a Christian overview on this specific question and am pleased to receive both Protestant and Catholic views.


texts: According to Roman Catholicism, in what way do wives need to submit to their husbands?

texts:
What is the Catholic teaching on the way a wife needs to obey her husband?

In Ephesians 5:22, we read:

  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (NIV)

I'd like to know if it's in a spiritual direction, moral direction or maybe intellectual direction? Or this doesn't relate to every-day life but more to a general decisions the couple make. I.e., a man make a final decision on whatever they are trying to decide.

So things like man saying: don't go to that gas station because it's out of way but woman still go there and then she is late and wonder why (that is not the case? wouldn't that be intellectual?)


texts: There are some Catholics who disagree that Muslims and Catholics "worship the same God". What are their arguments that Allah is not God?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that Muslims [...] adore the one and merciful God.

  In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who,
  professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one
  and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. - Cf.
  Dogmatic Constitution on the Church > Lumen gentium and CCC
  841.

There are some Catholics who disagree that Muslims and Catholics "worship the same God". Thus to me disagreeing with Church teaching.

What are their arguments that Allah is not God?


texts:
I understand that the Roman Catholic church direct some prayers to Mary, the mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God?

Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why?


texts: I know there are a TON of translations out there and that some people prefer things like King James Only. But I was wondering: What are some good criteria for choosing a translation and why?


texts: What was Saint Thomas Aquinas's girding by the two angels?

texts:
Diego Velázquez's Temptation of St. Thomas shows him being girded by angels with a belt of purity:

What is the event behind this painting?


texts: Why are the books of the Protestant Bible in the order that they are in?

texts:
I am curious why the books of the Protestant Bible are in the order that they are in?

Someone told me they thought the books were in some sort of chronological order - is that true?  (I know the content isn't chronological, but are they in the order written or something like that?)


texts: Where is Jesus's Soul according to tripartite theology?

texts:
When Lord Jesus came to the earth, He was fully God and fully human.
Many Christians believe that the human has three parts – body, soul and the spirit – and the word says He came in flesh.  Then we read in Luke 23:46:

  And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into
  thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the
  ghost. (KJV)

My question is: Are there references in the Bible that indicate what happened to the Lord's soul when He died or when He resurrected?

My question is directed to those that believes the Human has three parts (body, soul, and spirit).


texts: Which prophecies does Justin Martyr claim predict Jesus' Advent? Please identify them

texts:
In his First Apology Justin Martyr writes:

  We find it also predicted that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things, and that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him. And He was predicted before He appeared, first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose.

Please identify the predictions he refers to (prophet, document, passage):

that certain persons should be sent by Him into every nation to publish these things
that rather among the Gentiles [than among the Jews] men should believe in Him
predicted 5000 years before He appeared
predicted 3000 years before He appeared
predicted 2000 years before He appeared
predicted 1000 years before He appeared
predicted 800 years before He appeared

If we don't know to which prophecies he refers, then how do we know he wasn't mistaken?


texts: Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics

texts:
So, I've seen this quoted in The Faith of Millions, and on the Internet

  "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul.  If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him:  ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’  and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’  I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough.   I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that.

The source always appears to be other Catholic documents, which I don't have. So, before I put this in an upcoming blog post and forever rue that day, could someone tell me if this is a genuine quote?


texts: How do practicing Catholics keep track of all the sins they commit before going to Confession? Do they have to confess all of them or as many as they can remember? Is contrition the sign of having committed a sin, so every time the person feels guilty or remorseful of something (i.e. stuffing the whole chocolate cake slice into one's mouth and leaving none for brothers and sisters), would that be counted as something to confess to the priest the next time that person goes to Confession?


texts: Has anyone heard of or seen anything that Angels can be redeemed?

texts:
Has anyone heard of or seen anything that Angels can be redeemed as My boyfriend prayed that he could save the angel and offered to give himself to the lake of fire.
Can someone please help?


texts: What are the early Church Fathers' views on the veneration/honoring of Saints

texts: I recently watched a video from the youtube channel Ascension Presents and Fr. Mike Schmitz on whether or not Catholics worship the saints. He quoted St. Augustine who said that we give the saints honor, Mary higher honor, and God worship (or something similar). My question is where was quoted from and what were the other Church Fathers' and early Church views on the veneration or honoring of Saints?


texts: In Catholicism, is skipping weekly Mass a mortal sin?

texts:
The statistical blog FiveThirtyEight states:

  Weekly Mass attendance is a natural place to divide Catholics by practice — skipping weekly Mass is a mortal sin, so Catholics who don’t attend as often are likely to view the church differently than those who show up every Sunday.

Is this correct? Is skipping weekly Mass considered to be a mortal sin in Catholicism?


texts:
From Wikipedia article "Worship pastor"

  A Worship Pastor usually refers to a person in some Christian
  churches, largely in North America, who ministers within the church
  via music performance, as well as counseling and pastoring members of
  the church's music team.

  This is a distinct role within a church, that contains elements of,
  and overlaps with some of the roles of a church music director and
  pastor, while being neither. Usually a worship pastor will also be
  considered a worship leader of the church with the added
  responsibilities of caring for members of a team, including other
  worship leaders.

A prominent Worship Pastor that I know is Darlene Zschech, the former worship pastor of Hillsong Church, who composed one of the most well-known modern worship songs, "Shout to the Lord".

When did the term "Worship Pastor" originate?
Is this use of the term very recent?
Which denominations have Worship Pastors?


texts: Does Ecclesiastes give an example of a time to tear and a time to mend?

texts:
Ecclesiastes chapter 3 lists fourteen pairs of opposites, inluding "a time to tear and a time to mend". I have found one or more examples of most of the pairs elsewhere in the book, but can't find any for tearing or mending. For example, there are references to laughter, to mourning, to being born, to dying, to war and peace. I take chapter 3 as a sort of index into the rest of the book. For some of the words, I have to resort to emotional synonyms; there is no reference to dancing, but there are references to joy, and we dance when we are joyful.

However, I can't find anything that I can match to clothing analogies
 like tearing and mending. Perhaps this is Solomon being silent about a
 touchy subject:

  10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did
  not keep the Lord’s command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since
  this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my
  decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom
  away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12
  Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it
  during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13
  Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one
  tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem,
  which I have chosen.” (1 Kings 11:10-13)

Solomon makes a point of speaking about how unfair it is to leave your estate to someone who did not build it, and that person might not deserve it:

  18 I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I
  must leave them to the one who comes after me. 19 And who knows
  whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have
  control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my
  effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. (Ecclesiastes
  2:18-19)

Given all that, I would expect some additional reference to tearing in Ecclesiastes, but can't find it. Maybe the Hebrew admits some clothing references that the English does not show? Or maybe Solomon is "on the nose" for once and eschews a parable?


texts:
It's something that has stumped me since I was a kid:

What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark?

Did Noah also round up sufficient vegetation to feed all of the animals? Or did they somehow maintain the circle of life on the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights?


texts: How do evangelical universalists reconcile their position with the designation for Judas that it would be better if he had never been born?

texts:
By "evangelical" in this context I am referring to those with the common evangelical view that the Bible is the word of God and inerrant in the autographs.

The idea that Judas might be ultimately saved would be required to hold to universalism, but it seems irreconcilable with the idea that he would be saved and yet be one of whom woe is pronounced and that it would be better for him not to have been born. (Matthew 26:24, Mark 14:21)


texts: Was there any significance for the make of the tomb which was used to lay the body of Jesus?

texts: As per the Gospels of Matthew (27:60), Mark (15:46 ) and Luke (23:53) , the Body of Jesus, after his crucifixion was laid in a tomb 'hewn in the rock'. That all the evangelists except John mention the make of the tomb, suggests that there is some significance to it.  My question is: are there any official teachings from the side of Catholic Church on the significance of the make of the tomb viz. hewn in rock , in which Jesus was laid after his crucifixion ?


texts: Can all Catholic sacramentals be re-consecrated after being desecrated?

texts:
When a sacramental, for example, a chalice, an altar, or a church has been desecrated, can it be reconsecrated? If yes, does the desecrated item have to undergo a normal consecration process, or does it have to undergo extra steps for it to become consecrated again? Does it apply to all sacramentals, or only certain types of sacramentals can be re-consecrated?

Thank you!


texts:
I have mostly studied theology by people who have their views labeled as Covenant Theology, by the label makers. Recently, I have studied views of some who prefer the label, Biblical Theology.

I have noticed differences between the two but have not attempted to put those differences into words.

My question is, 'What are the main differences between Reformed Protestant Biblical Theology and Covenant Theology?'

I am not asking about Systematic Theology as this label seems to speak more about style rather than content. I am asking about differences in actual belief, not style.


texts: Is the injunction in the Benedictine rule “Deinde non occidere” interpreted to forbid the killing of brutes, or only humans?


texts: Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals?

texts:
Catholic Bishops  have been, from time to time, issuing  a Pastoral Letter, often called simply a pastoral, which is  an open letter addressed  to the clergy and/or laity of a diocese, containing general admonitions, instructions, consolations or directions for behaviour in particular circumstances. Each letter would be read on a designated date in all churches across the diocese. One is curious to know as to why the Pope does not issue such letters, in spite of the fact  that  information technology has enabled us to download any letter issued by the Vatican,  in  any part of the world and to have read it out in churches on a designated date. In fact, such letters would go a long way in guiding the clergy and the faithful alike on different issues of importance.

My question therefore, is : Why does the Pope not issue letters on the lines of Pastorals to all churches across the globe?


texts: Do Paul and the other Apostles command the keeping of Kosher diet in Acts 15:29?

texts: If so, why do many ignore it? I realize there are many verses as well that state in the New Testament that nothing is to be considered unclean anymore, but that makes this verse stand out as particularly odd.


texts: How many people were killed by Protestant Inquisition style tribunals? Asking for references

texts:
It's relatively easy to find estimates for the number of people killed during the Catholic Inquisition; one just needs to check the Wikipedia page, to see several estimates of the number of people killed.

However, there are several historical references to Protestant Inquisition style tribunals, e.g. in Scotland. Furthermore, there's also historical references showing that even among different protestant currents, protestants were killed.

I'm looking for estimates of how many Christians (Protestants and Catholics) were killed in newly protestant countries.

Any help would be appreciated.


texts: What do immersionists believe it means to be buried with Christ through Baptism?

texts:
Romans 6:1-4 (NIV)

  What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may
  increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we
  live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were
  baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that,
  just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
  Father, we too may live a new life.

How do immersionists/Baptists understand the meaning of being buried with Christ? What significant role does being buried with Christ have on the baptized person's spiritual life?

Do immersionists use this verse as support for Immersion Baptism?


texts: Could there be any possible action proving Yahweh to be cruel?

texts:
Recently, one of my christian friends died of cancer. My Christian friends told me that Yahweh is very merciful. But if he got well, Yahweh would be merciful, too.

So, HYPOTHETICALLY (see the note): could there be any possible real action proving Yahweh to be cruel? By real I mean not requiring faith in soul, heaven, sin and other christian stuff, clear to non-Christians.

In other words: If Yahweh did X, he would be cruel. - Is there any X from christian perspective (any doctrine)?

Note: I expect many downvotes here, but please help me improve it instead of closing votes: I don't mean this as holy war against Christians, I just want to know any reference to this question. Thank you.


texts: Did Mary, sister of Martha, anoint Jesus's feet on two different occasions, John 11:1-2 and John 12:2-5?

texts:
At John 11: 1-2 (NRSVCE) we read:

"Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.   Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill."

We also read at John 12:2-5(NRSVCE):

" There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him.   Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.  "

It appears that the Evangelist John is presenting in Chapter-11 a 'flash forward'of the event relating to  anointment of the Lord by Mary, which he later describes in detail in Chapter- 12. Or, is it possible that Mary had anointed  Jesus on one different occasion or more, before the death of Lazarus ? My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the positioning of John 11:2 before John 12:3 ?


texts:
Why does the bible say that David kept all the commands of the Lord when he so clearly didn't?

  1 Kings 15:5 NIV - For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Yes, there was the episode with Uriah the Hittite. But there was also the matter of David taking a census of the fighting men of Israel:

  2 Samuel 24:10 NIV - David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

And that's just what's written down. Other biblical figures like Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and even David himself says there is no one who is good, so certainly David would have been guilty of other sins.


texts: What is the basis for saying that Aquinas accepted the Immaculate Conception?

texts:
It's commonly said that Thomas Aquinas did not accept the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary.  For example, Wikipedia says:

  Saint Thomas Aquinas refused to concede the Immaculate Conception, on the ground that, unless the Blessed Virgin had at one time or other been one of the sinful, she could not justly be said to have been redeemed by Christ.

The article cites the Summa Theologica, III, Q27, A2, which argues that Mary was sanctified after animation, not before:

  And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

But recently, @Geremia made me aware that there is good reason to believe that Aquinas actually did support the immaculate conception of Mary in other writings.

What is the basis for saying that Aquinas did, at some point in his life, believe in the immaculate conception?


texts: What is the Etymology of the Name of Jesus?

texts:
What is the origin of Jesus' Name?  Is it derived from the Greek god, "Zeus"?

Here's some context for my question. At my church this Sunday a woman told me that the name "Jesus " was derived from the Greek god "Zeus" when it was translated over time by Greek scholars.

Is there any truth in this? Please feel free to give me the name his disciples would call him, and other names he has been called in the scriptures too.


texts: According to Catholicism, is repeatedly visiting a Protestant church a mortal sin?

texts: I am Catholic and have been visiting a Protestant church for the last 2 months. According to Catholicism, did I commit a mortal sin by visiting this church?


texts: Why did John the Baptist question the identity of Jesus?

texts:
Clearly John was a prophet and he dedicated his life to God. God revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah.

In Matthew 3:13-17 he baptized Jesus, and proclaimed that he is The One in John 1:29

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

When John was arrested suddenly he doubts Jesus as Messiah. In Matthew 11:2-11

  "Are you really the Messiah we've been waiting for, or should we keep
  looking for someone else?"

This doesn't make sense. How should I understand it?


texts: Are there exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible?

texts:
During a sermon I heard the pastor saying that there are 12 resurrections in the Bible.

Are there more than 12, less or exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible?

At the moment I can remember the following ones:

The resurrection of the son of Zarephath's widow
The resurrection of the son of the great Shunammite woman
The man that comes to live touching the Elisha's bones
Lazarus's resurrection
The Jesus's resurrection
The people that came to life when Jesus died.

I am sure that there are other resurrections. Which are them?


texts: Why did the Commonwealth Parliament ban theatre?

texts:
I've known for a while that theatre was banned under Cromwell, because the Puritans disapproved of it. What was their objection?

Wikipedia adds this information:

  Pastimes such as the theatre and gambling were also banned. However, some forms of art that were thought to be 'virtuous', such as opera, were encouraged. These changes are often credited to Oliver Cromwell, though they were originally introduced by the Commonwealth Parliament; and Cromwell, when he came to power, was a liberalising influence.

Assuming that's true, in what sense is the opera more virtuous than the theatre?


texts: Does this mean He will help us overcome difficulties in this life?

texts:
Ephesians 3:20 - "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us"...

I, at first, read this as being about Heaven. A lady in a church in leeds said it was about Him strengthening us now, in this age. Correct?


texts: What's the significance of hyssop in John 19:29?

texts:
There is just one verse in the New Testament that refers to hyssop and is not referring to the Old Testament:

  John 19:29 (NLT)
  A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to [Jesus'] lips.

Why is the fact that a hyssop branch was used significant enough to mention it by name?


texts: How (and by whom) are financial decisions made in the Catholic Church?

texts:
Coming from a denomination that doesn't subscribe to one earthly central Church authority, or a rigid structure, I find it very interesting to learn about denominations that do have such a structure.  While browsing through the "Gospel Topics" section on the LDS website, I ran across the article on Tithing, which says this:

  Church members give their tithing donations to local leaders. These
  local leaders transmit tithing funds directly to the headquarters of
  the Church, where a council determines specific ways to use the sacred
  funds. This council is comprised of the First Presidency, the Quorum
  of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. Acting according
  to revelation, they make decisions as they are directed by the Lord.
  (See D&C 120:1.)

That's a very clear, understandable high-level explanation of the process including who makes the decisions.

Before getting to the question, here's a high-level explanation of my Church's process and who makes the decisions.

In my own Church (A Baptist one) it's handled in a more straightforward democratic fashion.  Once per year, the Pastor puts together a budget of anticipated expenses (by category - Pastoral care, Sunday School Supplies, etc.) and anticipated income (based on last year's Tithes, growth trends, etc.), and presents it to the Church.  The Church (meaning the voting (age 18+) members of the local Church) discuss and vote on the budgets.  Usually we accept the Pastor's budget, but we may discuss and adjust certain line-items.  Then, throughout the year, as needs arise, they are met if they fall within the budget.  The Pastor has some leeway on certain items. For example, we have a line item for "Needs of others", and the Pastor can dole that out to individuals in need at his discretion.

One last thing before the actual question, I really am interested in how this is handled in other denominations, but I don't want to turn this into a "list" question.  And I don't want to re-post the same question over and over naming different denominations in each.  So I'm going to focus on one Church with a central authority and a well-defined structure that interests me, and ask about them.

Without further ado:  In the Catholic Church, can someone provide an overview of who makes the broad financial decisions, and what is the process?


texts: Mark 6:48 - Why was Jesus about to walk on water past the disciples?

texts:
Mark 6:47-49 The Message (MSG):

  Late at night, the boat was far out at sea; Jesus was still by himself on land. He could see his men struggling with the oars, the wind having come up against them. At about four o’clock in the morning, Jesus came toward them, walking on the sea. He intended to go right by them. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and screamed, scared out of their wits.

I often muse that Jesus must have had a sense of humor.  Mark 6:48 seems to be an example of this.  I understand that miracles were used by Jesus to demonstrate that God was with him, but nonchalantly walking on water passing the disciples?  That projects a sense of humor to me.  One could picture him snacking on an apple or whistling as he went by.  What other interpretations have published commentaries offered on this passage?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Why is Christmas on December 25th?
  When did Christmas (the birth of Christ) first begin as a Christian celebration?
  On which date was Christ born?
  Also Related:
  Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?
  Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays?
  Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?
  Se also: The christmas tag.

I have a curiosity about our celebrations, for instance Christmas, based on Jesus birth. It is not biblical.

25 December is a pagan date, commemoration of Mitra's birth and not Jesus's birth.

The only clue about Jesus birth is that of the shepherds who visited Him, they were still in the fields, which lets us eliminate the month of December, as the harsh winter in the northern hemisphere did not allow the action.

And I never saw a Christian not celebrating the Christmas even it been a pagan celebration.

There are other dates that I have doubts but I'll leave them for another question later.

Is my information correct about it?


texts: Did the coins at the time of Jesus have distinct images and inscriptions?

texts:
At Matthew 22:18-21(NIV) we read:

"... But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?  Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and He asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then He said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

My question is : did the coins used by Jews at the time of Jesus bear two different types of images and inscriptions in order to indicate the usage meant of the coin ?  To elaborate, were there distinct  images and inscriptions on the coins meant for being offered at the Temple of God ? What were those like ?


texts: What is the theological justification for believing in the real presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

texts:
I stumbled across the wikipedia article for a sedevacantist, schismatic Catholic group called the Palmarian Catholic Church which states that this group

  has also declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith

I don't really know whether I should be shocked, outraged, amused or curious, but I'll go with curious.

Would anyone happen to know the theological justification for the dogma of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist?


texts: According to Catholicism, what does 'come upon thee' and 'overshadow thee' mean?

texts:
When reading the verse regarding the miraculous birth of Jesus, there are certain terms used which I find very confusing.

How does the Catholic Church understand the bolded phrases in Luke 1:35

  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

For context, Luke 1:30-36:

  And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found
  favour with God.

  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
  and shalt call his name Jesus.

  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the
  Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
  kingdom there shall be no end.

  Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
  man?

  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
  upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
  therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
  called the Son of God.

  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in
  her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called
  barren.

If you say Jack will come up thee and over shadow thee it certainly brings certain thoughts to the mind, but how do Catholics understand this verse?


texts: What are the practical differences between German Lutheran and Swiss Reformed traditions?

texts:
I know very little about the German Lutheran church and what set them appart from the religion I've been raised in, Swiss Reformed. However, my understanding is that they are closer to Catholics, and they are sort of hybrid catholic-reformed. For example, they decorate their churches while we reformed don't.

I'm more interested in the differences in practice, as what are the religious traditions, rather than the theoretical aspect of what Luther and Calvin respectively thought was right.

I ask this because religion is often taught from one's mother, and my great-great-great-grandmother immigrated from Germany and was a German Lutheran; does it makes me a subconscious German Lutheran? How easy would it have been for her to convert from German Lutheran faith to Swiss Reformed faith?


texts: Why is "in the name of Jesus Christ" usually used at the end?

texts:
In the scriptures, a phrase such as "in the name of the Lord" or "in the name of Jesus" is typically used at the beginning of statements, especially commands. In our day, I notice that most of our prayers, for instance, end "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of Jesus Christ." By way of another example, it seems that even most special Priesthood blessings by Latter-day Saints end with such a phrase, instead of starting with it.

Is there significance in the reversal of the placement of this phrase? Does the meaning change whether at the beginning or end?

(Sometimes I think when we say a prayer and end it with that phrase, it tends to get lost behind the other words, or is said quickly as a part of just ending the prayer, instead of carrying the meaning of praying in the Lord's name, which is why I'm asking this question.)


texts: Does faith cometh by hearing only as alluded to in Romans 10:17?

texts:
(KJV) Romans 10:17

  17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It seems Paul alludes to faith cometh by hearing the word of God,but in several instances in bible(Hebrews 4:1)(Isaiah 53:1) they heard the word of God but did not believe.

So can we conclude that faith comes by hearing alone?


texts: What is the name of this fragment? Where can I find more?

texts:
According to this article in The Blaze:

  The discovery of a small papyrus fragment containing words from the Book of Mark could end up being the earliest copy of a Christian gospel on record, according to experts. The biblical text, which came from Egypt, was reportedly placed on a sheet of papyrus before the document was recycled and used to create a mummy mask.

The article goes on to state several interesting "facts" about this Gospel of Mark fragment:

It may date to 90AD, which would make it even older than p52 - the oldest known fragment
It is currently unpublished, although it may be published in 2015.
Daniel Wallace has mentioned it

While I'm sure the historians will debate the scientific evidence, I have a much more simple question - what is it being called, and how will i be able to follow updates about its veracity?

And, if I wanted to see a copy of it, where would I go to find it?


texts: Is there a co-relation between the name or Bethlehem and Jesus' teachings?

texts: Bethlehem, the birth-place of Jesus literally means 'house of bread' . It is possible that the town had a good concentration of bakeries, from which oven-baked bread of prized quality was bought by the people of adjoining areas. It looks coincidental that Jesus frequently used the image of 'bread' in His teachings, culminating in the institution of Holy Eucharist. I wish to know if any studies have been made by the Catholic Church on the co-relation of the name of Jesus' birth place and His teachings in which bread plays a prominent part.


texts: Why do the Catholics and Orthodox keep relics and bone fragments? Isn't this disrespect for the body?

texts:
In Orthodoxy, cremation after death is not permitted. It is not preferred in Catholicism. This is because of the strong respect for the integrity of the body. Both traditions are also strongly pro-life/anti-abortion.
Yet all churches in these traditions must be consecrated with the relics of a saint. So is someone out there...cutting up saints' bodies?! How do these traditions understand the dignity of a body, even to the point of not destroying a dead one, but yet we disseminate these holy relics?
(Please note I am not asking why we venerate relics, I am asking how their creation squares with other teachings on bodies.)