texts: Is there any clue/hint in the Bible that tells us “why or how” we won't sin on heaven?

texts:
Preferable denomination: Eastern Orthodox

So I have this (strange) question about heaven. Please bear with me.

When we die, we either go to hell or heaven. Let's assume (hopefully, God mercy us) that we go to heaven.

What entity of our being goes there? Since we leave our material body (flesh/bones) on earth, only our spirit/soul goes to heaven.
What stops our soul from sinning again in heaven? Could it be that our sins come only from our material world and since we no longer have this we can't sin?

Surely the majority of our sins are material based (ie lust, gluttony), even greed or envy can have its roots on our material world. But not entirely.
For example, we can envy someone because he's more intelligent than us, which has nothing to do with materialism.

So, clearly we can't blame completely our material world for the existence of sins.

Now, since a cornerstone of Christianity is free will, I guess God will not take this right from us on heaven. So I can't figure out why we'll stop sinning there.

We've also been there once, I mean Adam and Eve were there and sinned nonetheless. Sure, it was devil's work and he won't exist there, but devil didn't always existed (so evil can pop into existence without having any prior evil). I also don't think that just by being on heaven and experiencing God's power (ie via Holy Spirit) will make us unable to sin, because that's what happened with all those angels that betrayed Him and became demons due to the devil.

So this leaves me with two possibilities:

1) He returns and maintains our soul back to its most pure stage (ie baby child)

2) Adam's and Eve's heaven will be slightly different with this (new) heaven: Sin will no longer be possible, because there will be no evil seed (He will not allow this to happen ever again). By exiling devil, evil won't be allowed to work any more in His domain (the final heaven). After all the original sin (devil) happened only because He allowed it to happen, and He will not allow it any more.

Thank you for your time


texts: How many Catholics believe in Transubstantiation?

texts: Have there ever been any studies or surveys of reasonably significant size that indicate how many Catholics believe in transubstantiation or would at least claim that they do?


texts:
God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger, on tablets of Stone, in Hebrew.

  When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God. -Exodus 31:18

He also frequently spoke to His people in Hebrew.  And of course, we now have Hebrew records of all of these divine words.

My question is: Why Hebrew?  (I am assuming this is not because God speaks Hebrew in Heaven...)

Is it because Hebrew was the ideal language for communicating the truths of the Old Testament?
Is it simply because His people happened to speak that language?
Are there any Old Testament passages which show God speaking (or writing) in a different language?

I would also love it if you could include a comment about whether this teaches us anything about the nature of God.  Thanks.


texts: Is a Catholic "blessing of a marriage" not a wedding?

texts:
Consider the following case:

A Catholic woman marries an unbelieving man (in particular, a man not baptised in any Christian denomination) in a state ceremony. Following an adulterous episode on the man's part, and a reconciliation, the man is baptised and the couple's priest performs what he describes as a "blessing" of the marriage [such "blessings", so called in laymen's terms, are not uncommon: see this post on a Catholic parish website, for example] but termed it "not a wedding."

After some time, the couple separate, but do not divorce. Later still, the woman desires a divorce.

What, exactly, is the nature of this blessing? How does it affect the status or validity of the marriage?
If the couple obtains a civil divorce, may the woman marry again in the Catholic Church? May she receive the sacraments? Does the fact of the man's adultery affect the answer to these questions?


texts: What is the difference between Abraham's and Sarah's laugh after the LORD's promise?

texts:
In the bible we can see two events,

In Genesis the LORD promised Abraham and Sarah a son, but we can see they both laughed.

case 1:

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" -Genesis 17:17

Case 2:

Sarah laughed to herself,-Genesis 18:12
The LORD doesn't get angry'?' as Abraham fell facedown and laughed while Sarah laughed to herself.  Is the anger'?' of LORD because of Sarah's lie that She didn't laugh?

NB: '?' is used just because I'm not sure if it's real anger.


texts: At what level does the orthodox church recognize the individual rather than the collective?

texts:
I understand that Christianity is a religion founded in a collective ideal, but at what level is the individual considered, specifically within the Orthodox church as compared to Protestantism, in the context of salvation and the individual responsibility to the body of Christ?

The text that follows will give some context to my question but is not strictly necessary to answer it satisfactorily.

Based on my knowledge of scripture, the individual responds to the call of God and accepts the gift of salvation along with the responsibilities to the body of believers.

I recently got into a very frustrating conversation with an orthodox Christian who kept repeating phrases to the effect, "You're poisoned by American individualism", etc. and did not illuminate so much as simply naysay the ideas I was putting forth.

In the tradition I was raised in, it is commonly understood that the scriptures are to be the sole authoritative source for knowledge about God and the practice of the faith (sola scriptura).  That is to say that tradition and wisdom from other sources can be very valuable, but must be tested against the solid foundation of the scriptures before being accepted as true or wise.

In Orthodox practice, it seems that "to accept the books of the canon is also to accept the ongoing Spirit-led authority of the church's tradition, which recognizes, interprets, worships, and corrects itself by the witness of Holy Scripture".

To me, this seems that both philosophies are fundamentally getting at the same idea. If not for the idea that the church can correct itself and its traditions 'by the witness of the Holy Scripture', I could see a wide rift, but it seems from my perspective that the American Protestant tradition I'm most familiar with doesn't reject the leading of the Holy Spirit or church tradition, but is mindful to constantly test practices against the scriptures themselves.

Of course, in practice, many professing Christians don't have much of a grasp on these foundational principles and begin accepting many odd ideas that are far outside the example that the Holy Scriptures give us.  And some faiths, like a traditional American Church of Christ, follow the examples of the scriptures so strictly that they do not allow for musical instruments to be used in the organized worship of God. (That seems patently ridiculous to me, but that's another topic)

I feel as though I'm misunderstanding or completely missing some aspect of Orthodox Christianity, and given that I've been more and more dissatisfied with the culture of many congregations in the more familiar tradition, am trying to explore different understandings of my own faith.  To be more clear about my background, my early influences were primarily from a Church of Christ background and I have been a 'member' of a few different Southern Baptist congregations over the years.  From a doctrinal standpoint, I find very little to object to, but from a practical standpoint, I have been very frustrated with the isolation of generations from one another, the gossip and politics, and what I perceive as people putting on a front and being unwilling to be trusting or vulnerable about what is actually going on in their lives, even in small group settings.


texts: Should protestants not make the sign of the Cross?

texts:
I'm not a Catholic, but I've been aware since I was little that Catholics will "Cross" themselves. Early on I felt like I shouldn't copy it as it always had been portrayed in tv/film as something ritualistic or superstitious. But now that I understand some of the Catholic's reasoning, I'm wondering if there is any doctrine in protestantism that addresses why you shouldn't do it, or is it simply because we don't want to imitate Catholicism?

Catholic brethren please feel free to talk about the reasons why it should be done, in the comments.


texts: According to Evangelicals, before the Reformation, who were Christians if “Catholics are not Christians”?

texts:
Every now and then I hear non-Catholic Christians, usually Evangelicals, say things along the lines of “Catholics are not Christians” or “the Catholic Church does not teach the true gospel.” Unless I am mistaken, Catholicism and various Orthodox churches were virtually the only Christian “denominations” that existed before the Protestant Reformation, aside from a heretical sect here and there (e.g., the Cathars).

So for those who think the Catholic Church has abandoned the true faith or gospel, do they identify anyone from the time period of the fourth century A.D. until the Protestant reformation who had retained the true gospel?


texts: According to Catholicism, what particular truth will the great apostasy deny?

texts:
CCC 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

There are many Church teachings about the "Truth" taught by Jesus Christ in the gospel and other "Truth" handed by the Apostles as Sacred Tradition and deposited to the Church.

Is there a Catholic teachings or explanation on what particular "Truth" where apostasy will be committed?


texts: Where can I download the Antwerp and Paris Polyglot Bibles in PDF form?

texts:
Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, 4 important Polyglot Bibles were published.

The 1st one was the Complutensian Polyglot, issued in 1522.

The 2nd one was the Antwerp Polyglot issued 1569-1572.

The 3rd was the Paris Polyglot issued in 1645.

The 4th was the London Polyglot issued in 1657.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(book)

I tried searching for these to download as PDFs, but I was only able to find the Complutensian and London Polyglots.

Complutensian here - https://archive.org/details/complutensianpolyglot

London here - https://archive.org/details/walton_polyglot/

Is there any website where I can download the Antwerp and Paris Polyglot Bibles in PDF form?


texts: What arguments do KJV-only proponents give to support that the 1611 translation is better than say, Greek language Bibles?

texts:
I have an interlinear Bible, called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, that presents the New Testament (along with the Old Testament, from the Septuagint) in Greek and English. Of the Complutensian Polyglot, the NT Greek source for the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Wikipedia says,

  Theodore Beza's Greek NT Text was used primarily, along with Erasmus' Greek NT Text and with various readings from the Complutensian Greek NT Text to form the Textus Receptus published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633, and Erasmus' later editions were a secondary source for the King James Version of the New Testament. The Complutensian Polyglot Bible was a tertiary source for the 1611 King James Version.

What arguments do KJV-only proponents give against the authority of Bibles like the ABP that share, and even indirectly lend, source material to the 1611 KJV? What about the authority of the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus originally used for the Textus Receptus?  Do KJV-Onlyists hold at least those manuscripts in high esteem?


texts: Was there silence in heaven when our Lord and Saviour was crucified?

texts:
Revelation 8:1 says that when the seventh seal was opened "there was silence in heaven for about half an hour."  This speaks of a dramatic pause before the next series of plagues (NIV Study Bible comment).

Although Revelation speaks of future events, is there any biblical basis for thinking that when Christ Jesus was nailed to that instrument of torture, to endure the most awful, agonising death, that there would have been silence in heaven, possibly until the morning of the resurrection?

I realise that when the Bible is silent on a particular question, it simply means we don't need to know. But thinking about what Jesus, God incarnate, had to endure in order to redeem us from our sins, makes me wonder how that awful sacrifice was received in heaven.

Edit: Allow me to prevent any more negative comments and disagreements by bringing what has turned out to be a controversial question to a close. This question was inspired by two answers given in response to this question: What is the meaning of sacrifice?


texts: Are there any denominations that teach Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to be saved?

texts: Do any denominations officially teach that Adam and Eve did not have the opportunity to be saved after they sinned?


texts: How was the 70 weeks of Daniel understood over the ages?

texts:
What were the beliefs regarding the total fulfillment/non total fulfillment of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy before the Scoffield bible era?

I am especially interested in those who believed there was either 1 week or a half week left at the "end before Christ" returned.

However, I am also interested in those who believed the prophecy was totally fulfilled.

NOTE: I am looking for both early 1st century to Scofield bible opinions.


texts: What traditions hold that Satan is not actually a person?

texts:
I heard somewhere (can't remember where) that Satan is more of a term than a person. In other words, Satan is not so much a fallen angel, person, or being, but rather a designation for evil.

Is this a standard position of any churches or denominations?

If so, please clarify where this idea comes from and what backing (if any) it has from Scripture.


texts: God loves all humans, but does his love have limits? Can God love a person like Adolf Hitler, who killed millions of people who believed in him? What about serial murderers? Could God forgive a person like Hitler, if he was to come to faith?


texts: Did Lactantius ever say why it was good for Christians to be ruled by a Christian emperor?

texts:
Lactantius was a Christian who had been a part of the Roman government (which was hostile to Christians) prior to his conversion. Sometime between 303 and 311 he wrote a systematic theology, in which he wrote:

  When [God] might have bestowed upon His people both riches and kingdoms, as He had before given them to the Jews, whose successors and posterity we are; on this account He would have them [that is, "His people"] live under the power and government of others, lest, being corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, they should glide into luxury and despise the precepts of God; as those ancestors of ours, who, ofttimes enervated by these earthly and frail goods, departed from discipline and burst the bonds of the law.

But when Constantine converted to Christianity and became emperor, Lactantius became an advisor and hagiographer to Constantine, as well as a tutor to the emperor's son. It appears that he believed it good and right for a Christian to hold the highest post in the government, even though he had previously said that it was for Christians to live under a pagan emperor.

Did he ever say why it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government?


texts: If we had to make distinction, which is greater, faith or hope? [Catholic Perspective]

texts:
I assume the existence of God a priori.

I am looking for an answer from a Catholic perspective.


texts: Were the early Christians an apocalyptic sect?

texts: I saw a documentary with David Suchet about Paul the apostle. Suchet stated that Paul was convinced the world was about to end. Is this an accurate representation of the early church?


texts: Is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible?

texts:
This question is closely related to those regarding the definition of a Christian that was also discussed on the meta site here and here.  While I consider that question answered and outside the scope of this site (as discussed in Meta), it seems that there is still room for this tangent.  Quite apart from what individuals are labeled as Christian, is Christianity the sum of the actions and beliefs of its adherents or a set of actions and beliefs defined by the Bible?

Background: I recently referred an acquaintance to an article describing differences between Jews and Christians.  I (converting to Judaism) said that I thought the article pointed out important differences between Christianity and Judaism.  He (a Christian) said that he thought the article pointed out the differences between some Christians and some Jews.  Obviously he is correct in his observation, but, by doing the latter, the article was (to my mind) also doing the former.


texts: What's the point of the tenth commandment?

texts:
In the spirit of my previous question,
what's the point of the tenth commandment?

In Matthew 5:21-22 Christ reveals the true application of the sixth commandment:

  You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not
  murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
  22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his
  brother will be liable to judgment (ESV)

And in vs. 27-28 he reveals the true application of the seventh:

  You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
  28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with
  lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Essentially what Jesus was doing was elaborating on these commandments - and teachings on the Ten Commandments (especially the second table) traditionally do so as well (see the Westminster Confession, for example): the fifth commandment tells us to honor and respect superiors and leaders, the sixth not to hate, the seventh not to lust, ect.

But when we come to the eighth commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" - it would seem the logical elaboration on it would be "lusting" after possessions in the same way that the seventh commandment ("wife stealing", in a sense) covers lusting after a woman. In other words, it seems like coveting - the tenth commandment - is already "covered" by the eighth commandment. I'm not saying the tenth commandment is unimportant, but it seems to me that if you're going to include coveting, why not include a prohibition against pornography or lust?

TL;DR: Why the tenth commandment when it's covered by the eighth?

As with my 2nd commandment question, i've got a general idea of what I think about it. However, i'm going to let this one sit and see if I can get better answers than what I've thought of. If nothing comes, i'll answer it myself. Cheers! :)


texts: What is the Biblical basis for using the names "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua" (Joshua) for Jesus?

texts:
Messianic Jews commonly refer to Jesus as "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua," which are forms of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) name commonly translated into English as "Joshua."

What is the Biblical basis for using these names for Jesus?


texts: According to Catholicism, why do some possessed people vomit during exorcisms?

texts:
According to Catholicism, why do some people vomit during exorcisms?

The famous, recently deceased exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth frequently mentions in Memoirs of an Exorcist: My Life Fighting Satan that the possessed vomit:

  It doesn’t bother me at all to see people vomit.

  The woman screamed and began to vomit; clumps of brown dirt and saliva came out of her mouth.

  Then the witch began to vomit again, and after a scream she fainted and collapsed on the ground.

  On top of the insults, the possessed vomited and spat at us repeatedly…

  He vomits, and thus begins to liberate himself; he feels lighter, he cries, asks for help, even manages to make the sign of the cross.

  Again the boy vomits; I fuel his vomiting by making him drink holy water.

  …the wife was very ill and vomited up a medal. I was convinced that it was not a matter of possession, but I continued the exorcisms, given the gravity of the situation. Then the wife began vomiting up the strangest things: glass, nails, bandages, metal buckles, little objects like animals. … The almost-constant vomiting came back. … The strangest thing was that pieces of paper began coming out with the vomit, and they fit together like a puzzle. …after spending all day vomiting up food and pieces of paper with ballpoint writing…

  …he struggled to hold it in, but he would vomit. … Since then he’s stopped vomiting objects and falling on the ground.

  …she ground her teeth, tried to vomit, kept her eyes rolled back so you could only see the whites.

  …she vomited strange things like hair and raw beans…


texts: Is anyone familiar with this strange logo resmbling 'nfw'?

texts:
I see bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc all over the place when passing by Christian colleges with this strange logo that I believe is somehow affiliated with Christianity but I'm unable to identify it.

It looks like there is an 'n' on the left, a 'w' on the right, and something I can't discern in between, possibly an 'f' or a cross or something. The typeface is kind of script or Cyrillic or something. Here is a bad recreation of it:

Am I confused? Is this logo unrelated to Christianity? Can anyone identify it?


texts:
I'm not sure if this has been asked,

I watched a video on YouTube where the person in the video mentions "Poly Scriptura" at about 17:28, I have tried to look it up just to get the basic information on it and all that comes up in the search results is "Sola Scriptura"

Can someone please tell me what Poly Scriptura is?

Thanks and God bless.


texts: What evidence is there that the Chinese script reflects a knowledge of Genesis 1-11?

texts:
It has been asserted that the author of the Chinese alphabet could very well been knowledgeable of the accounts in Genesis 1-11--those that occurred prior to the division of peoples and languages at Babel.  It is stated that many Chinese characters intrinsically reflect the peculiarities of the Genesis account.

What is the nature of these characters?  What is the evidence that would suggest that the author of the Chinese script was, in fact, familiar with the Genesis account?

See this as an example


texts: What would be a typical Christian Pacifist response to 'rampant evil' - say in the form of large scale terrorism?

texts:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Do Christian Pacifists tend to argue against the sense of Burke's famous quote by affirming God's Sovereignty and trusting that He will not allow evil to flourish unchecked regardless of the actions of 'good men'? or Do Christian Pacifists expect specific non-violent action to be effective in halting the advance of those committed to achieving their aims by violence without regard to the restraints of the rule of law or basic human compassion such as terrorist groups?

What are some of the important doctrines of Christian Pacifism that speak to these issues and how might they be applied to real world examples such as the Jewish Holocaust of the second world war and the current regime of the Islamic State?


texts:
St. Thomas Aquinas' hymn Tantum Ergo, which is usually sung at Benediction, always seems better in Latin:

  Et antiquum documentum
  Novo cedat ritui:

Mainly because in both the transliterated and the literal translation it doesn't make a ton of sense:

  And let the old practice
  Give way to the new rite;

Given this is written over 1000 years after the rite was established, what is this line in the hymn about?


texts: Do Mormons believe that all spirits are omnipresent?

texts: Are all spirits omnipresent? According to Mormon doctrine, God is omnipresent through his spirit, does that mean that all spirits are omnipresent or is the Holy Ghost a special case?


texts: Does Roman Catholicism teach that appearances of *Santo Nino De Atocha* have some particular meaning?

texts:
Last night my elderly father sat up in bed, in the middle of the night, and he saw an image of Santo Nino De Atocha standing at the foot of his bed.

My father is very religious.  He believes all images have a meaning when they appear to an individual.  Thus we are wondering what it means for this saint to appear to you, according to Roman Catholicism:

Is it a bad sign to see him?
Is it a warning of something to come?

Does Roman Catholicism teach that appearances of Santo Nino De Atocha have some particular meaning?


texts: Besides the writings of John, what is the biblical evidence Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God?

texts:
Apart from John's writings, what is the Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten son of God?

John makes it clear (such as in John 1:18, 3:18), but other parts of the Bible refer to many "sons of God", in both the Old Testament and the New.

Can anyone help me understand this?


texts: We all know the sin of Sodom. But my question is, why was Gomorrah destroyed? Please give references to your answer.


texts: Was Jesus omniscient regarding earthly matters?

texts:
There are several questions regarding the omniscience of Jesus, but they mostly concern the Final Judgement, etc., not earthly concerns or human knowledge.

This question boils down basically to two ideas (please indicate if they are separate enough to warrant a split in two different questions)

Was Jesus omniscient regarding whatever happened in the mortal world?
The story of Lazarus could indicate against it, as Jesus needed being told that Lazarus is dying, instead of saying "I feel Lazarus is dying / just died, let's pay him a visit", unless it was deliberate to make a miracle possible.
Was Jesus knowing everything what humans are capable of knowing? Did Jesus possess something like the entirety of human knowledge? Of course, He did ask questions from time to time, but they could have been rhetorical questions so that the answer could be used to illustrate something.

Please, refrain from answering with personal opinions or own logical deductions. I know this applies to all questions on this site, but I feel this question might especially invite such answers. I'm interested in seeing an overview of major Christian beliefs on the subject, assuming there are no more than a few.


texts: Was Zwingli the first to preach lectio continua?

texts:
On January 1, 1519, Zwingli preached from Matthew 1:1, beginning the Reformation in Switzerland.* Thereafter he continued to preach linearly through Matthew. This manner of preaching (or reading) Scripture is known in Latin as lectio continua, and from what I know it seems to be the dominant approach to preaching in Protestant Christianity. It is also sometimes known as systematic expository preaching.

The Wikipedia article on lectio continua mentions that as a practice of reading it has early church precedence. I'm wondering, though, whether there was also the precedence of preaching in this manner? In other words, was Zwingli going back to something that had previously been done, or was it something new to him?


texts: LDS belief about salvation in other worlds

texts:
From this answer to another question, the below was stated.

  Mormons might believe that God had other children on other worlds, but I leave that to the Mormons to exactly clarify that doctrine. In any event, they still hold a high regard for the position of Jesus in this world.

So I am curious. Do Mormons believe that there are other worlds with humans on them? If so, the more important part of this question, do they have their own Christ?


texts: What general theological framework(s) are represented in the Life Application Study Bible commentary?

texts:
I was recently shown an excerpt of commentary from the NIV edition of the Life Application Study Bible from Tyndale/Zondervan. Frankly I was rather surprised by how blatant the eisegesis was in that specific case. Since I don't have a full copy of it to review key passages I can't tell whether this is a persistent issue or just one poorly thought out bit that slipped through.
It's remarkably hard to find reviews of Study Bibles online that delve into what kind of theological background the commentary is from. Some of them are obvious¹ but most of them seem to specialize in being as "middle of the road" as possible. It's easy to find descriptions of how many maps and illustrations and reader aids a given work includes and most tout "a broad range of scholarship", but a lot harder to find anything specific about the backgrounds of the actual commentators.
With that in mind I'm looking for a general break down of what went into the writing and editing of this particular work:

Who were the major contributors and from what theological traditions do they hail?
Were there any explicit boundaries set by the project as for as what hermeneutical approaches and/or theological traditions would be represented in what light?
Are there strong theological biases² evident at any point in the commentary? Specifically is are there consistent trends towards explanations that endorse specific views on key issues such as:

Arminian vs. Calvinist views on soteriology.
Complementarian vs. Egalitarian views of gender roles.
Premillennial, Postmillennial, or Amillennial views on eschatology.
Dispensational vs. Covenantal views on the nature of the church through history.
Credobaptist vs. Pedobaptist views on baptism.
Cessationist vs. Continuationist views of apostolic gifts?

Are there any notable trends in which denominations or traditions have embraced the use of or disapproved of the content of this work?

Note this same commentary content seems to have been published alongside a number of different English translations. As far as I can tell it isn't important to this question that the NIV edition is used for review.
¹ For example it's no mystery what theological framework the notes in the MacArthur Study Bible will represent. One can easily lookup the general editor's views on a variety of subjects and understand how he'll be evaluating passages.
² I don't use "bias" in a negative sense here, in fact I think bias is both impossible to avoid and even necessary, but I like to understand specifically what presuppositions are involved all the time.


texts: What does John 3:16 mean according to Calvinism?

texts:
John 3:16

  For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I originally believed the sentence above is like an offer. It's "open" to anyone to accept. But now that I follow Calvinist theology, it is different.  The sentence is not an offer at all; it is simply information.

I now see it like this :
For God so loved His elected that He gave His one and only Son, in order that His elected shall not perish but have eternal life

Since I'm not originally a Calvinist, my question is this:
Do all Calvinists interpret John 3:16 as I do above? In other words, do Calvinists view John 3:16 as a plain statement of fact instead of Christ offering salvation? If not, how do Calvinists interpret this verse?

Thank you.

addition :

I would like to extend my "original" interpretation.
I do agree that the word "world" and "whoever" is not in the sense anyone ---> literally anyone (even babies, toddlers, etc) without condition, but anyone on a condition which is someone who is old enough, already able to understand and realize that he/she need a help from God as he/she realize that they can not help themselves.

My reason about this condition is because I compare the situation from the verse 14

  Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man
  must be lifted up,

My imagination, the situation in that time - it's the Israel who is bitten by the snake, realize that he/she needs a help, then there the offer which is to look at that snake pole.

In simple term, it's just like a doctor is for everyone - but of course this everyone is the one who realize that he/she needs help from the doctor.

But again, once I revert to Calvinist Theology - of course, the [realize that he/she needs a help from God] I will point it to "because they are elected, that's why God stir/control/make these elected ones (like on/off switch) to realize that they need a help" :).


texts: Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination?

texts: From a Calvinist theological view, is it possible for God to predestine that XYZ be saved, but for XYZ to reject the doctrine of predestination throughout his or her life?


texts:
Numerous times in my life I have heard vague references to leaving a Bible open, usually on a table near you, as you sleep.

Is this is a real practice? If so what is the purpose? Is it thought to offer some protection? Is it thought to revitalize the soul?


texts: What is the Biblical evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary?

texts:
I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus.

What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?


texts: According to Catholicism, how can Catholics be faithful to an abusive spouse?

texts:
In old age due to dementia a person can become irritable and abusive, wholly unlike their prior self.
As a married person will have taken vows to be faithful; what guidance is there to a spouse in the instance their partner becomes abusive?
I bring up dementia as an example as the persons behaviour maybe completely outside of their own will.
Does the Catholic Church have some sort of official guidelines on how to deal with these issues in mental health situations and/or pastoral care training for priests?


texts: What is the basis for believing that the wrath of God is not an accommodation?

texts:
It is widely accepted that the Bible contains many accommodated descriptions of God; the finite human mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, so he has revealed himself to us in ways which we can understand, even though the true reality of God transcends what the scriptures say. For example, most Christians believe that the scriptures teach the immutability of God, so the times when the scriptures say God changed his mind (such as Exodus 32:14) are understood to be accommodations.

The wrath of God is believed by many Protestants to be a real attribute of God, but an accommodation by many other Christians. The wrath of God is important because it forms part of the foundation of penal substitutionary atonement.

What is the basis for believing that God's wrath is not an accommodation? Good answers will give exegetical and logical arguments why certain verses should not be interpreted as conveying only accommodated depictions of God's wrath.


texts:
Unitarians use John 17:3 to affirm their faith that the Father alone is the only true God. They would say that this is the strongest evidence that there is only one person who is true God. Thus, the Nicene Creed saying that Jesus was "true God from true God" would appear to be contradictory to John 17:3 based on Unitarian perspective.

  And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
  John 17:3 (ESV)

How do Trinitarians explain John 17:3? Can I have an answer with an elaboration on the passage itself, a patristic quotation and also with scholarly citation from Trinitarian perspective?


texts: How are devout Christians viewed by other believers, when they are not delivered from "evil"?

texts:
If a devout Christian is not "delivered" in this life, how are they viewed by other Christians?

For example, a black Christian pastor in segregated America, who truly loves the Lord, is killed by the KKK....or a Christian fed to lions in ancient Rome.

How are the events thought of by fellow believers? (is it considered the devil winning a round, the persons fault,a question, expected reality, God's act, etc?)


texts: St. Francis de Sales overcame a temper problem?

texts:
I heard that St. Francis de Sales struggled with a temper problem for many years, but he overcome it. What is the source of this biographical information?
Loiuse M. Stachoople-Kenny's biography, for example, seems to only mention his sweet temper, but nothing about how he fought to overcome his naturally choleric temperament:

Francis never lost his temper, was always patient and good-humoured, submitting with a smile to the constant rebukes of his old tutor, and treating him always with unfailing gentleness and kindness. As a matter of fact, M. Déage really worshipped the very ground his beloved pupil walked on, but like many people, ready to die for those they love, he tantalized and tormented with constant pinpricks, growls and grumbles, the man he loved most on earth; indeed, his affection and his temper would have made life unbearable to anyone less sweet-tempered and kind-hearted than the gentle Bishop of Geneva.


texts: Which Prominent Modern Religions Came from the "Great Awakenings" and What Have They Done For the World?

texts:
Since the 1700's there have been a number of so-called "Great Awakenings".

What are in fact the most prominent religions to come from the Awakenings and what are they most known to have introduced?

More on the Question

  But wisdom is proved right by all her children. - Luke 7:35

While the times since Christ have seen quite a few splinter groups and factions forming, the last 200 years could be likened to an explosion in comparison.

Why is this question important?

  You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness,
  how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything,
  except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. - Matthew 5:13-16

At this time we are somewhere between the traditional and the new age -- the purists becoming smaller in number and the interfaith movement is well along. At this point of saturation I was curious if it is possible to summarize the spiritual heritage that led to modern world developments as influenced by these denominations rising from the "Great Awakening".


texts: Was Billy Sunday the first evangelist to equate the "altar call" with salvation?

texts:
According to this article from the The Society for Effective Evangelism:

  Up until Billy Sunday, altar calls were invitations for seekers to come to an after-meeting or inquiry room where counselors would help people understand their heart condition. These ministers worked in concert with the Holy Spirit to help seekers repent and yield to God, and to pray that God would save them. Someone was saved only when they were born again—when the Holy Spirit came into them. Conversion and being born again meant the same thing.

Of course, I've been to many Christian events that feature altar calls and even more where the speaker simply asks non-Christians to "pray the Sinner's Prayer" with them.  I assumed the practice went back at least to Revivalists such as Charles Finney, but according the the article, evangelists before Sunday provided individual counseling before telling people they were saved.

Is there any evidence the practice of "salvation by altar call" is older than Sunday?


texts: According to Reformed Theology do non-trinitarians go to hell?

texts: According to Reformed theology, if one believes that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah and the son of God (but they deny that he is God and the second person of a triune god), is this person sent to an eternal hell where they will have their flesh burned forever and ever in agonizing pain?


texts: Did Jesus's rational soul or His spirit descend into hell?

texts:
Jesus said on the Cross: "Father into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46).

The Apostles' Creed says: "Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. And then Jesus descended into hell. On the third day he rose again…"

If Jesus already commended His spirit to the Father and had not yet ascended into Heaven, would it mean that the one who descended to the dead is Jesus's rational soul and not the Spirit that received as His anointing in the Baptism in the river Jordan (Matt. 3:16)?


texts: How is the Shema of Deuteronomy reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?

texts:
The "Shema" (שְׁמַע), found in Deuteronomy 6:4, states that "YHVH (יהוה) is one."  This verse can be interpreted to contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, yet this doctrine is quite prominent in Christendom.  How, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity reconciled with this verse?  How can this verse be understood to be in harmony with the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hear, O' Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH is one!
שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד


texts:
As you may know, God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, either by name (Yahweh), title (Adonai), or being (El). Neither is prayer.

Why not? I realize this is rather open ended, so I'll try to give some objective criteria:

If it never mentions God, why is it in the canon?
What is the theological application to be gained from Esther given the lack of any reference to God.
waves hands

I have a few thoughts on this myself, but i'll try to hold them until I can get a good sampling of answers.

(also, why hasn't this been asked yet? Have I missed an obvious duplicate? Or stumbled into the Area51 of ✝.SE?)


texts: Were musical instruments alowed in the temple holy and holy of holys?

texts: There appear to be examples of musical instruments on the temple grounds but is there any law allowing musical instruments in the temple sanctuary, the holy  and the  Holy of holys?


texts:
In 1 Corinthians 13, the Apostle Paul discusses various different spiritual gift, explaining that most of them will be redundant in the New Creation, and therefore "fade away". He concludes his teaching by saying:

  And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corithians 13:13

I can see how love will remain in the New Creation. But without the need to persevere through suffering, and seeing Jesus face-to-face, would faith and hope also no longer be required, and also fade away?

How would a Reformed Protestant understand faith and hope remaining?


texts: How could animals have gotten all around the world after the flood?

texts: I am a Christian, but this question has been troubling me for a long time. If all the world's animals dispersed from Mt. Ararat, it would stand to reason that there should be no animals in the Americas today. This cannot be explained by plate tectonics, a process far too slow to be of any aid. Or perhaps the flood did not affect the Americas? Or could they have crossed over the Aleutian islands, on the land bridge across the Bering Strait through which humans first arrived in the Americas? If so, when did that bridge disappear and how did it disappear so quickly?


texts: Is there a particular order in lighting candles on an advent wreath?

texts:
In the Catholic tradition, is there a particular order in lighting the candles on an Advent Wreath?

If there is, why?

Which candle is lit first, and what order follows to the last candle?

Where is the pink candle located in relation to the rest?


texts: What is the LDS (Mormon) position on eschatology?

texts:
There are several different eschatological (end-times) perspectives in Protestant Christianity, including the following:

Amillennialists - end times prophecies are largely figurative
Post-tribulationists - the rapture will not occur until the end of the tribulation
Mid-tribulationists - the rapture will occur 3.5 years into the tribulation
Pre-tribulationists - the rapture will occur prior to the tribulation.

What is the eschatological view of the LDS church?  Is it one of these or something different altogether?  From what teaching does it arise--the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrines and Covenants, or something else?

The rapture is the catching away of believers, which is believed by some to be taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13

The tribulation is the 7 year period of time of great trouble, spoken of in Revelation.


texts: Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest?

texts:
Mary, the Mother of Jesus was present at the foot of the Cross as her Son was dying in order to ransom mankind from sin.

This got me thinking that Mary must hold a special place in Catholic devotion. As Catholic priests offer the sacrifice of Our Lord on the altar, could not Mary have offered her Son on the altar of the Cross for our salvation?

I have been able to find a few pieces of religious art that shows the Virgin Mary dressed in priestly attire and I have included one here:

My question is quite simple: Does the Catholic Church allow us to honor Mary under the title of the Virgin Priest and if so what are the directives on it from Rome?


texts: I know that Jesus died for the whole world, but sometime this is phrased as Jesus died specifically for me.  What is the Biblical basis for thinking that Jesus died for me specifically?


texts: If you are in mortal sin but went to mass anyways are you in less of a sinful state?

texts:
Let's say John is in an invalid marriage and he intends to convalidate at some point but he is waiting for practical reasons such as making sure family can attend and it will take some time and money.

He is in a state of mortal sin and cannot be absolved until the marriage is convalidated.

Is going to mass beneficial to him? Does it make him in a less sinful condition than if he quit going until the convalidation?


texts: Why is "Fearing the Lord" equated to loving Him?

texts:
This question is probably more directed an Old Testament pattern of a description of our attitude towards the Lord.  I equate "fear" more closely with "hate". For example today there was local news that a  mountain lion "may have attacked a pet dog".  That fear factor would lead to efforts to have the mountain lion killed.  That's pretty far from love.
Let's go an assumption (that I made up) that "fear" were intended more closely to "respect". That may be the case but one can just as easily respect someone you love as someone you fear.
Are there multiple words/nuances of fear in the Biblical languages (Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic) ?  Similarly are there some aspects of the Biblical Hebrew culture - or even more generally Semitic/Middle Eastern culture - that explains why "fear" is chosen as the way to instruct/describe the attitude/disposition to the Lord?


texts: How does Swedenborgianism understand Amos 3:2, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth"?

texts:
If you can be so kind, please help me understand Amos 3:2:

  You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.

My understanding is that Swedenborg writes that God knew pre-Israelite people (or families); e.g., in historical order, the Most Ancient church (i.e., the church of Adam), the Ancient Church, the Israelite church, etc.

Yet, In Amos 3:2 we have, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth."

How is this reconciled in Swedenborgian theology?


texts: The four living creatures and twenty-four elders in Revelation?

texts:
"The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader."

The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation.

In Revelation 4:

  4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which twenty-four elders sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5
  From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal.
  In the center and around the throne, there were four living creatures covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming:
  “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty,
  who was, and who is, and who is to come.”

  9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming:
  11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God,
  to receive glory and honor and power,
  for you created all things;
  because of your will they came to be and were created.”

In Revelation 5:

  6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14.

In Revelation 6:

  1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories.

This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out "Come forward", and the next horse and rider emerge.

Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19:

  7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God,

  14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth.

  15:7 One of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever.

  19:4 The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.”

What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders?

Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that "reason through" the passages, saying "because of X, the elders are probably Y", unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.


texts: What do proponents of "Free Grace" theology believe about the salvation of Judas?

texts:
"Free Grace" theology is a strand of Evangelical soteriology that holds that sanctification does not necessarily follow the conversion and justification of a person – that is, those saying that they believe in Jesus do not need to become obedient disciples of him in order to be saved.

This view is certainly controversial, and rejected by many prominent Evangelicals, both Arminians and Calvinists (cf. Lordship salvation controversy).  One difficulty with the view, it seems to me, is associated with the salvation of Judas Iscariot.

The Bible refers to Judas Iscariot as a "disciple" of Jesus (John 12:4), but at the same time it seems to indicate that he was not saved (Matthew 26:24, John 6:70).  According to Free Grace theologians, is Judas Iscariot an example of a "carnal Christian," someone who "believes in Jesus" but doesn't obey him, and ultimately goes to heaven?  Or do they explain Judas in some other way, such as that he was saved and then lost his salvation, or that he was never saved?

Here I'm focusing on modern Free Grace theologians, like L. S. Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and Bob Wilkins.  If they take different approaches to this question, I'd like an overview of their views.

Related: How do Arminians handle the case of Judas?


texts: Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?

texts:
A lot of emphasis seems to be placed on the virginity of Mary.  (For discussion on that, see this question)

Is there a theological reason why Jesus's birth had to be a virgin birth?  Obviously God could have chosen a non-virgin to be the mother of Christ, so why did God choose a virgin?


texts: What was first, sola scriptura or sola fide?

texts:
I just watched a video with an Orthodox professor, in which he said that "Sola Scriptura" came first, and then "Sola Fide". Is that true? The best I can gather from the Wiki articles on these two topics is that both of them came pretty much simultaneously.

The video itself is in Russian.  Here is my translation of his words (starting at 5:57):

  …And all these new ideologues outraged by this so called scholasticism
  |of Roman Catholic Church| have declared, “The truth is only what the
  Scriptures say. Only the Scriptures and nothing else! Period. Let’s
  abandon all these theologians!” This apparently magnificent thesis
  made a big impression on many Christians. Because many had already
  been racking their brain over some speculations by some |theologians|
  like Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, their speculations were
  just abracadabra and no one really knew what to make of it.

  So, they said, “Only the Scriptures!” Perfect! Who would’ve dared say
  anything against that? It really sounded just perfect.

  But what was the outcome of that? |The outcome of that was:| “You
  think this way?”, “And you think another way?”, “And you have yet
  another opinion?!” So, as a result, the whole Protestantism began to
  fall to pieces. Soon it was like peas spilled and scattered all over
  the floor. Everyone had his own opinion.

  And where was the criterion for determining who was right and who was
  wrong? How was one to know which opinion was correct? Well, it was
  already too late |to look for such a criterion|. There were no
  authorities anymore. The Fathers were no longer held as the authority.
  Each person now considered his own way of thinking and his own
  understanding as true. The truth for each person was now his own thoughts
  and convictions. And each one would claim now, “That’s how the Holy
  Spirit showed me this!” (|Of course, it begs the question,| “How can
  it be the Holy Spirit if you are arguing with one another and just
  can’t find any common ground in your understanding?!”) They were
  really now all scattered like peas on the floor! You see? This is how
  sometimes a very attractive thesis, which one would think shouldn’t
  cause any disagreement, can |turn out to be false|.

  So what did they finally arrive at? They arrived at another thesis,
  which came right after “Sola Scriptura”, and that thesis is
  indisputable in Protestantism – the whole Protestantism is standing on
  this thesis like on a strongest foundation. This thesis is “We are
  being saved only by faith” By what kind of faith? By believing that
  Jesus Christ is the Lord, that He has suffered on our behalf, that He
  has redeemed us from sin, that we are saved through His sacrifice…

So he seems to be claiming here that "Sola Fide" was put forth as a reaction to the many divisions among Protestants caused by "Sola Scriptura". Thus, his chronology is as follows:

Sola Scriptura –> divisions –> Sola Fide

This contradicts to a story that I heard before about Martin Luther climbing some ladder on his knees in some temple and suddenly recalling, if I remember correctly, Rom 1:17 ("The righteous will live by faith"), which happened even prior to 95 theses.

However, I may have gotten this story wrong and my knowledge on Reformation is quite limited, so I don't know.


texts: Are there any documented cases of "Acts 2 type" tongue speaking (i.e. understood by a foreigner) in recent history (19th century on)?

texts:
I'm aware of the existence of many Pentecostal and Charistmatic groups that believe in the gift of tongues and claim to be able to exercise it. In fact, one can very easily find lots of videos of people who claim to be able to speak in tongues on platforms such as YouTube and others. Of course, that's not my question. What I'm asking is if there are any examples in history of tongue speaking a la Acts 2, namely, someone suddenly speaks in a foreign language that they do not understand and a native listener who does speak the language understands what they say (with both speaker and listener in shock because of what just happened). Are there any documented cases of tongue speaking a la Acts 2 in recent history (19th century on)? By documented case, I mean for example a missionary reporting this experience and then making it public via a missionary magazine or anything of that sort.
Below Acts 2:1-13 (ESV) for reference:

1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” 12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine.”


texts: Why did Theodore of Mopsuestia interpret John 20:28 as an exclamation?

texts:
John 20:28 says (KJV)...

  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Greek...

  ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.

According to Meyer's NT Commentary...

  ὁ κύριός μου κ. ὁ θεός μου] is taken by Theodore of Mopsuestia (“quasi pro miraculo facto Deum collaudat,” ed. Fritzsche, p. 41) as an exclamation of astonishment directed to God.

I know his writings were condemned several centuries after his death, but I can't find his reasoning for this particular interpretation. Why did Theodore of Mopsuestia believe1 John 20:28 was an exclamation?

1 In his commentary to St. John. This particular passage is from the Latin text quoted in the Second Council of Constantinople (Search for the words "My Lord and my God.") .


texts: Can I take communion in the Catholic Church?

texts:
I was baptized and raised in the Presbyterian Church. I am a speech language pathologist.  For the past 12 months have been volunteering my time tutoring a Cathololic priest who was born in a third world country and who resides in the US.  We read the Gospels together.

I help him with his pronunciations, inflections and intonations, etc. of the English language as well as interpretion and discussion of the Gospels he inturn reads at mass each week.

He has grown immensley where initially he had great difficulty sending the messages of the Gospels.

He has never asked me if I am Catholic.   I go to his church to listen to his readings periodically.   I would love to take communion during the service but I don't feel welcomed by the Catholic Church even though I am providing a great service to all.  Can I take communion if I am not a Catholic?


texts: Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life?

texts:
The Mormon doctrine of exaltation is that we can become like God is, and in essence, attain godhood. This has sometimes been summarized, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become." I understand that this means, in part, that a believer can become his own "God" and ruler of his own world.

Under what circumstances does a believer become his own "God" and ruler of his own world? Is that world their own planet?
What is the LDS scriptural backing for this doctrine? (I'm pretty sure it is not in the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox canon, but I do suspect it is somewhere in the Book of Mormon or D&C. If I wanted to read the primary source of the doctrine, where would I go?)
Is there an "alternate universe" with other gods and sentient beings? What is the nature of this "alternate universe" or world?

Is such a world a physical planet, an alternate universe, or something else?
Is this promotion to divinity concurrent with our timeline?
Is this world or universe something that interacts with our own? In other words, could we communicate a denizen of such a place using purely natural or physical means (rather than "divine" or "spiritual" means)? (For example, assuming we somehow had the technology to transcend light-years of distance with instantaneous communication, would we be able to speak with them?) Would a denizen of one of these "other universes" be able to interact with ours?
Are there already other such universes in existence, or is our God the first?


texts: According to Biblical Literalists, who is Satan? Where did he come from? What is he? And what will happen to him?

texts:
According to Protestant Biblical Literalists:

Who is Satan?
Where did he come from?
Where is he going or what will happen to him?

I'm interested in answers with citations from the Bible.


texts: From Genesis to Exodus - is God dealing with Israelites or Jews?

texts: Finished reading Genesis and now that I'm on Exodus, I get the impression God is dealing with Israelites and not Jews. Is this because Jacob was given the name Israel, so all his descendants were called Israelites?


texts: Where can I find the text of the documents produced at the Council of Quiercy (853)?

texts:
The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about the "Councils of Quierzy", and indicates that at the 853 council, Hincmar wrote decrees about predestination, universal redemption, free will, and grace. In paragraph 605, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites the "Council of Quiercy (853)" (presumably the same council) for the quote,

  There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.

Where can I find the original text of the documents produced at this council? Or, even better, where can I find an English translation?


texts: Was regular weekly fasting a widespread, formal tradition in the early Church?

texts:
In The Story of Christianity,* author Justo Gonzalez offers the following:

  There were indeed times set aside for sorrow for one's sins, in particular during the two weekly days of fasting, which the church adopted from Jewish practice. At an early date, however, at least some Christians began fasting, not on Mondays and Thursday, like the Jews, but rather on Wednesdays and Fridays. It may be that this shift took place in commemoration of the betrayal and the crucifixion.

Was this fasting practiced in a majority of early churches? If so, at what point in history did the tradition cease? Is there more information as to why the days of Wednesday and Friday were chosen over Monday and Thursday?

* Revised edition, Volume 1, Chapter 3.


texts: Reason for the choice of new 12th Apostle?

texts:
In Acts 1:20–26, the Apostles are choosing the 12th Apostle who will replace Judas:

  20 Peter continued, “This was written in the book of Psalms, where it says, ‘Let his home become desolate, with no one living in it.’ It also says, ‘Let someone else take his position.’

  21 “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.”

  23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen 25 as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven. [NLT]

Does bible say anything about the choice of the new Apostle? What did Matthias have that Judas did not? Does the Bible explain this?


texts: What is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms?

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that God is neither man nor woman.

  CCC 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man
  nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the
  difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man
  and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those
  of a mother and those of a father and husband.

What therefore is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms?


texts: What does John Wesley mean by this phrase?

texts:
In one of his last letters to Wilberforce, John Wesley wrote in 1791:

Dear Sir,
Unless the divine power has raised you to be as Athanasius contra Mundum, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing the inexcreble villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and the devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O, be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.
...
That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things, is the prayer of, dear sir,
Your affectionate servant, John Wesley

Q. In this letter what is the meaning and significance of the phrase 'Athanasius contra Mundum' in the context of his (and Wilberforces) anti-slavery crusade?


texts: Do Christians have the authority to forgive sin?

texts:
Catholic doctrines of Penance teach that if a priest forgives the sin of a parishioner, then that sin is forgiven by God as well- the sacrament of Penance is effective, and not just ceremonial. Likewise, the doctrines on excommunication from the church say that if a person is damned by the church, the anathema is effective. A common phrase in the Gopels (cf. John 20, Mark 18) is What is loosed is loosed, and what is bound is bound.

What denominations or Christian groups other than the Roman Catholic Church teach specifically that a Christian can or cannot forgive the sins of another person?

If a particular denomination teaches that they can do, do the doctrines of the denomination distinguish between the members of the Church that are able to perform this ministry and those that are not?


texts: How do we explain the flood happening on 2348 BC with Pyramid and Chinese that's been around long before that?

texts:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37222/are-there-continuous-lines-of-cultural-records-throughout-the-period-of-the-bibl

According to calculations, the flood must have happened on 2348 BC more or less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

The problem is, I bet many chinese, Indians, and egyptian will protests.

They've been around in their place far longer than 2348 BC.

The Pyramid of Giza is 2589 BC


texts:
Many churches take up tithes and offerings in the middle of a service, and many have an offeratory or music during that time of the service. I'm curious as to the history of this practice. It seems it is without Old Testament precedence, since in the Old Testament the offering box was located at the entrance to the Temple and thus presumably (though I do not actually know this) there was no special tithe/offering time, but a place. I'm also guessing that it did not originate during the first few centuries of church history, during which time the church was quite hunted and not much institutionalized (at least compared to later)—though I do not actually know that either; it's just a guess. So if I had to guess I would say it must have emerged several hundred years after the coming of Christ—but that's would purely be a guess.

What is the history of offertories? When was this practice introduced? How has it developed or changed since then, if at all? Has there been any debate about its validity or importance? Who has promoted it and who, if anyone, has opposed it?


texts: How did Thomas Aquinas view grace as opposed to the church fathers?

texts: I talked to a teacher at a theological seminary here in Sweden today, and we discussed the nature of grace: Fulfillment of natural potential or completely otherworldly? His idea was that with Thomas Aquinas (and probably "et al" in his era) there was a change in how grace is viewed: It became detached from our natural potential and God's work in creation. can anyone weigh in on this?


texts: Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce?

texts:
This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid, considering the Philippines doesn't have divorce?

Example:
Let's say there's this Catholic couple married in the Catholic church and married in some state. Then one member of the two members of the couple discovers something that, for the sake of argument, would definitely render the marriage invalid:

Suppose this hypothetical something would be definitely be accepted as grounds for annulment in both church annulment and state annulment.

Suppose further that the member can definitely prove that hypothetical something beyond reasonable doubt in, again, both church and said state.

Can said member get a church annulment regardless of state annulment or divorce existence, proceedings or results? Please cite sources.

I don't see why the church would care if I'm state married, state annulled or state divorced if I could prove invalidity of my church marriage.
Related questions:
Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?
Why do Filipino Catholics have a harder time to get a church annulment?

Context:
Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha says 'A copy of the divorce decree', but the article seems to be directed to Catholics who are civilly divorced and not civilly annulled and still church married.

Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha also says in Myths and Truths that

Myth: 'A person’s divorce does not have to be final in order to apply for a declaration of nullity.'

Truth: 'To petition for a declaration of nullity you need to be civilly divorced. The Church presumes that all marriages are valid until proven otherwise and hopes that a couple in a troubled marriage will work at reconciliation.'

Elaboration:

To clarify: I get that state annulment (all the more for state divorce) is not a sufficient condition. My question is whether or not a state annulment (or divorce) is a necessary condition.

One thing that comes to mind is ecclesiastical judicial economy. Without a state annulment, perhaps the church can simply claim being too busy to even entertain your claim. I completely understand if the queues are long, but I mean, as long as the queues as exist. Anyway, if such is the case,  please cite a source.

Consider people who get married only in church but not in state, say, Antarctica or Mars. If the church in fact REQUIRES a state to marry people, please cite source.

Then again, it could be that I don't have a state annulment, not because my state marriage is valid, but because state divorce is cheaper.

Consider that I can't afford either a state annulment or state divorce.

Consider variations in state annulment laws. Then it would be possible that, say, for a Japanese Catholic and a Swedish Catholic with identical cases that the Japanese Catholic wouldn't be entertained because Japan doesn't recognise a certain thing as grounds for annulment while both Sweden and the Catholic church do, I think. Oh wait, the Japanese Catholic could always get a state divorce.

Consider places where there are no such possibilities of divorce such as the Philippines where annulments cost around USD$2,853. So, German Catholics in identical situations as Filipino Catholics would get entertained by the church because Germany has divorce, it seems. Also, the Philippines  is a third world country. Good luck obtaining that can kind of money for the sake of a religious procedure. I didn't realise the church was charging that kind of money for its sacraments (I guess annulment is part of the sacrament of marriage).


texts: Why didn't Protestants argue for traditional marriage by natural reason?

texts:
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Homosexual couples can get married in all US States and that these marriages are legally equal to the Traditional model of marriage, one man and one woman. Prior to all this I saw many Christians arguing against the redefinition of marriage, but almost solely used their faith and the Bible as their basis.

There are arguments against the idea of homosexual marriages being not equal to heterosexual ones. They more or less revolve around the idea that the reproductive system is the only part of the human body that needs a complementary body to unite with to complete and achieve its end (or purpose). Any other union that cannot complete the system and therefore possibly achieve the purpose of sex is inherently incomplete.

My question is this: Why didn't Christians argue this way? I am Catholic and I have seen my own church reason this way. Why did Protestants not use this, as this could carry weight in a secular court?


texts: When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith?

texts: When and how did Martin Luther arrive at the justification by faith teaching? Was it something that he came up with as a result of his stance against the indulgences and later against the Pope, or did he arrive at this teaching even prior to those events?


texts: What is the difference between man's soul and spirit?

texts:
It is easy to recognize the body as the physical matter that makes up a person.  The body is clearly distinct from the soul and spirit in several ways:

The body is visible to others.  (When I see you, I am seeing your body.)
The body is recognizable by others.  (I know who you are when I look at you.)
The body has a beginning and an end.  (Our bodies experience conception/birth and death/decay.)
The body directly interacts with the rest of creation.  (We touch, eat, move things around, etc.)

Are there similar comparisons that help describe the distinction between the soul and spirit?  I'm specifically interested in the viewpoints of those who believe in the tripartite nature of man, that is, that the body, soul, and spirit are the three distinct components of a person.


texts: How is it possible to be saved through "grace alone" if you have to be baptized to be saved?

texts: If salvation is by grace alone, no works necessary, then why did Jesus say to Nicodemus "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5).  That sounds like baptism to me, and baptism sounds like "doing something" (aka "works").


texts: What's the name of this doctrine and (when) did the Eastern Orthodox Church condemn it?

texts:
"God is merciful and He wants all people to be saved, thus, all the humans, even the worst ones, having fully redeemed themselves from their wrongdoings by spending some adequate time in the hell, will finally make it to the paradise..."

What's the official name of this doctrine? I heard something like "optimistic eschatology", but I am not sure.

And also, I heard that the Eastern Orthodox Church has condemned this doctrine as a heresy. If it's true, when and where (on which counsel) did this take place?


texts:
I've been to a Catholic Church very few times in my adult life.  It's a very different experience than the protestant Churches I'm used to.

In most of the Protestant Churches, there is generally a time of singing/praise/worship, followed by some general announcements for members (The Lady's Missionary meeting will be meeting on Monday night at Liz's house, for example), followed by a prayer, then a sermon on a particular topic, more singing, and a prayer.  In most Baptist Churches, there's an altar call just before the final prayer.

The Catholic Church also seems to have a very set format, and it doesn't seem to vary much, but that's probably an outsider's perception.  I'm interested to know what the standard format it, and also, what things are the same every week, and were there is variation.

To give an example, in all the activities in the Protestant Churches I described, each and every one of those activities vary. The sermon is different every week.  The Hymns vary (in our Church they are chosen because the doctrine in the Hymn is directly relevant to the sermon message)  The format stays the same, but the contents seem different.

In the Catholic Church, however, it seems to be much less flexible. I do not mean this to be disrespectful, but it seems that everyone knows when to stand, when to kneel, when to sit, and there's usually a time when the Priest says one thing and everyone else responds in unison.  ("Peace be with you"  - "and also with you" being the easiest to remember.)  I get the impression that this part of the service is the same week after week.

So, in short, could someone post a general format something like:

Opening prayer - varies
Other activity - standard part of the Mass, always part of the Mass, doesn't change

Even better would be each item listed with the correct Catholic terminology with a layman's or potestnt synonym... Like

Eucharist (communion/Lords Supper)

Or if I'm just perceiving things incorrectly, correct my misunderstanding.


texts: Is there a significant difference between salvation by faith with works and salvation by faith and works?

texts:
I used to think that sola fide meant salvation by faith irrespective of works. Then I started reading about it and realized it means salvation by faith with works.

Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life. -- Martin Luther
We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. -- Martin Luther

In my view, its a very subtle and insignificant distinction from salvation by faith and works. Take a look at these pictures:

As far as I can tell, both doctrinal traditions will save the exact same group of people.
Am I correct? Is the difference inconsequential? If so, why is so much effort put forth to distinguish the two?


texts:
What sources could one appeal to if trying to argue if a doctrine was or was not consistent with fundamentalism?

The question What is fundamentalism? identifies the historical source and some of the main characteristics of fundamentalism. I am more interested in the current usage of the word an identifying when to label something as fundamentalist and when to use a different label.

There seems to be a lot of overlap beftween the scope of fundamentalist and that of other labels. The media these days bandies the word around* in a way that is generally derogitory, but it isn't exactly clear why. Sometimes it seem to refer to a very specific group as if it were a denomination. Other times it seems to mean just a general theological bent. One minute it is used to pigeon hole far out groups like Westboro Baptist Church, other times it seems to encompass most of mainstream Christianity.

Hoes does this wide ranging usage affect how Christians use the word for themselves? Particularly among those who take this label on themselves, do they refer to any authority or standard in order to do so? Is there an official authority on when one is a fundamentalist and not just somebody who holds most of the same beliefs?

For example, in the Reformed tradition there are specific creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and identifying yourself as Reformed is commonly understood to that place you somewhere close to to these creeds. What sources would a fundamentalist turn to to show that their beliefs were or were not consistent with the way they label themselves?

*  "Evangelical" and "conservative" are viable contenders in the race for meaningless labels.


texts: A Catholic priest must take a vow of celibacy (i.e. unmarried) and thus expected to remain continent (i.e. abstain from sex) so as not to commit a fornication. Is a priest permitted to adopt a child, given that it does not break this vow? Would it matter if they were the only surviving relative of the child?


texts: In which Christian groups is "prosperity theology" derogatory?

texts:
What Christian denomination(s) believe(s) that "prosperity theology" is derogatory, and why? What are the justifications against prosperity theology?

I know that some neo-Pentecostal churches preach prosperity theology, and they preach it, considering the socioeconomic status of their members, providing social services and stuff like that. Doesn't Jesus want Christians to be happy and healthy?


texts: Why baptise or christen a child multiple times?

texts:
I'm researching my family tree and I'm currently investigating ancestors who lived in England in the 18th and 19th centuries (1700-1899). Many of these people were born before birth registrations were mandatory, so I have to rely on church records. I'm finding a lot of children who were baptised or christened on one date, then had a second ceremony six to eighteen months later, sometimes in the same town, sometimes in a neighbouring town.

I don't fully trust the records to tell the difference between christening and baptism. I'm not a Christian myself, so I only have a vague idea of the difference between them. It's my understanding that a child would have to be christened before being baptised, but the records sometimes show this in the other order. The two girls in one family were christened 10 miles away from where the family lived, but all the boys and all the baptisms were done in the local town.

Why would you have multiple christening/baptism ceremonies for the same child? Why wait up to 18 months? Why would you have them done in different town churches (assuming the family hadn't moved)? Would gender have come into it?


texts: According to Catholicism, can someone sin in Heaven?

texts: I know that  Christians who die still imperfectly purified must, according to Catholic teaching, pass through a state of purification known as purgatory before entering heaven. But does this automatically mean that after purification no one can sin anymore in Heaven?


texts: What is the justification for reciting creeds in public worship according to the regulative principle?

texts:
Some churches which hold to the regulative principle of worship (RPW) insist that recitation of creeds or portions of confessions or catechisms by the congregation is an important act in the public worship of God. Other churches who hold that principle do not consider such recitation lawful. Given that the principle has a "guilty until proven innocent" structure, how do those who hold to the principle and believe in confessional recitation demonstrate that God requires confessional recitation (since that is the condition demanded by that principle)?

Note: this question is about a disagreement among those who hold to the RPW. I'm not interested in this question in hearing about why the RPW is wrong, or why confessional recitation ought to be done in some other worship paradigm. Please refrain from answering unless you understand the RPW.


texts: Why is Satan commonly believed to rule in hell?

texts:
Satan (Devil, Lucifer and all these not exactly the same meaning names) is often told to rule in hell, tormenting the damned souls and so on, while in the Bible I could not find anything more than the fact of putting him there. Basing only on the Bible I'd rather assume that he is as punished there together with human sinners.

Where does the idea of Satan as the ruler of hell and punisher of the souls come from and is it an official doctrine (in either Catholic or Protestant Churches)?


texts: According to Catholicism, why did the Blessed Virgin Mary, who intended to remain a virgin, marry St. Joseph?


texts: Did any actual Puritan congregations impose scarlet letters on adulterers?

texts:
Nathaniel Hawthorne's (fictional)  book, the Scarlet Letter, in my opinion, has seared a characterization in people's minds that Puritans were dour, hypocritical, legalistic, and shame-driven Christians. Having read many of the actual writings of the Puritans, this characterization seems completely foreign, almost to the point of thinking that Hawthorne was deliberately inventing a horrible community so he could drag the Puritans down.

Are there any real historical examples of scarlet letters (figuratively or literally) on sinners for their sins?

It is hard to imagine that the religious movement that produced Richard Baxter (himself a notorious drunk before conversion), Hugh Binning, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, or Jeremiah Boroughs would be associated with something as antithetical to their doctrine as the public shaming of notorious sinners as a form of penance.


texts: How do we know Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception?

texts:
Luke 1:26-26:

  26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*.

What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception?

*This question is not asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.


texts: Know any Bible verses on 'faith,' 'knowledge' or what it means to 'believe'?

texts:
I was assigned to present a paper on epistemology, which is the philosophy of truth, knowledge and belief, and to convey it on the terms of my judgment. I am blessed to have a professor who encourages his students to freely express their opinion, and this is what I intend to do.

Do you know any good verses on 'faith' and 'knowledge' and what it means to 'believe?'

Thank you!

Ava


texts: When the Bible says "forever," how can we tell it really means forever?

texts:
For instance, it is clear that God wanted the Sabbath laws to continue forever, based on these passages:

  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe
  the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant
  (Exodus 31:16).

  Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually,
  being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant
  (Leviticus 24:8).

  It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your
  souls, by a statute for ever (Leviticus 16:31).

  And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from
  one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me,
  saith the LORD (Isaiah 66:23).

And yet systems in the OT do come to an end. Look at these two passages:

  And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the
  bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a
  perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons
  (Exodus 29:9).

We know from Hebrews 7:11-12 that Aaron’s office has been shut down:

  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under
  it the people received the law,) what further need was there that
  another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be
  called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed,
  there is made of necessity a change also of the law (Hebrews 7:11-12).

Perhaps the words for perpetual and related words actually mean "a very long time," and not forever. Perhaps they are to be understood in a colloquial sense like when we say, "It took forever for the bus to get here," and they are not to be taken literally.

There are people in Christianity who believe that we should follow the Law because it continues forever, even though it has been fulfilled in Christ and put aside, according to the book of Hebrews and other books.

Under which conditions, or on what basis, are we to understand when the Bible really means forever when it uses such words?


texts: What is the biblical basis for Antinomianism or extreme Grace?

texts:
What is the biblical basis for systematic Antinomianism, or, if you prefer, extreme Grace?

I am looking for someone with first hand knowledge of its teachings who can justify this view. Wikipedia lists verses of the Bible which seem to counter it. A good answer will  rebut those verses from an Antinomianist's perspective.


texts:
I've got the idea from somewhere that Mormons aren't allowed to be freemasons. Is this true? If so, what is the reasoning?

I think I've heard allegations of similarity between Freemasonry and some Mormon temple activities (neither familiar to me). How are such claims answered by the LDS church?

Related: How is Freemasonry related to Christianity?


texts: Is "You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself" a form of antinomianism?

texts:
The second great commandment, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself," is often turned into "You cannot love your neighbour unless you love yourself." Is this a form of antinomianism? If not, how would you classify it?

I'm thinking along the lines of "I must love myself before I can love my neighbour, so I'll concentrate on loving myself; and when I feel that I love myself enough, I can start to think about loving my neighbour."

Edit:

Please note that I am not suggesting that it is improper to love one's self (in the sense of taking care of one's legitimate needs). A man who truly hates himself is of little use to anyone.


texts: What is the religion of the Midian people?

texts:
In Exodus, Moses leaves Egypt and lives with the people in Midian for a few years (Exodus 2:15). I'm wondering what Moses' religious environment was like while he was living there. I know his father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Midian, but what does that mean? Was this some Godly priesthood? I don't seem to remember pre-Aaronic references to a priesthood in the Bible... was he priest of some pagan religion then? Some Islamic people believe he was a prophet, is this so?

Neither Moses nor God seemed to regard him as a member of the nation of Israel, as the Hebrew people were all enslaved in Egypt at the time. Also, the people of Midian didn't join in the exodus, and I'm assuming this means they were definitely separate from Israel, and not lead to the "promise land." Jethro, however, did come to visit and give practical leadership advice, so obviously Moses held him in high esteem...

Any thoughts?


texts: In Jerusalem around 600BC, who was Laban?

texts:
The Book of Mormon speaks of an influential person in Jerusalem named Laban who was the keeper of the record of the Jews, and had power to command at least 50 men (see 1 Nephi 3:31).

  "Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my
  forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass." (1 Nephi 3:1-27)

We know Laban was a man of some degree of power and influence in Jerusalem, that he had servants, and a treasury, and kept the genealogy of the Jews in his treasury, but it apparently wasn't beneath him to go out and get black-out drunk in the streets (see 1 Nephi 4:7-8).

Who was Laban? What position did he hold in Jewish society?


texts: Is there modern evidence that the Sun stood still?

texts:
Has anyone presented tangible, astronomical evidence of a disruption we can see today that is claimed to be caused by the Sun/Moon "stopping" roughly 3500ish years ago as it says in Joshua 10? Has any prominent figure made any scientific observations that would point to some Sun/Moon stopping event?

  Joshua 10:12-14 ESV At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel.

I am assuming a literal interpretation of this passage--that the Sun and Moon somehow "stopped", be it miraculous or God just timing it perfectly or otherwise.

Related: Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?. I'm looking for an example of a scientist saying "this is my evidence for it" rather than "these are all the ways it could happened."


texts: When someone converts to Christianity and is "reborn in Christ," is it the body or the soul that is reborn, or both?

texts:
I understand this question can be approached from different denominational positions, depending on how one interprets John 3:3-5.

Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of
God unless they are born again." "How can someone be born when they
are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time
into their mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "Very truly I
tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of
water and the Spirit."
— Gospel of John, chapter 3, verses 3–5, NIV


texts: Are there or have there been Christian healing ministries that have documented healing cases with supporting medical records?

texts:
Christian healing ministries abound. A quick search on any search engine can lead to lots of ministries that claim to be able to heal the sick, as well as testimonials of people who claim to have received healing of some ailment during a healing crusade, or because someone prayed for them, etc. I'm not questioning the sincerity of all people nor claiming that everyone is lying, on the contrary, I truly believe that a significant percentage of the testimonies out there must be genuine, in the sense that people are telling the truth when they share their personal experiences of healing.
That said, I'm still curious to know if any Christian healing ministry out there has undertaken the effort of documenting at least some of their healings, by keeping copies of the medical records of the healed person and the results of a subsequent medical examination confirming that the person is completely healed. Has a Christian healing ministry ever done that?

Responding to concerns raised in the comments:
By healing ministry I mean either an individual or a group of people who claim to have the gift of healing or to have been called by God to heal the sick as an active occupation. However, for the sake of getting answers, other medically documented cases of healing occurred in similar circumstances are acceptable too, such as:

A holy place where people are commonly reported to get miraculously healed.
Someone who gets prayed for (and healed) by someone else and has the medical records to prove it (in this case the healed person is the one with the evidence, not the healing ministry, but that's fine).
And any other situation that is close to what I'm looking for that I may be overlooking.


texts: Does the pope get paid for being the pope?

texts: I just started wondering after seeing the white smoke, did the cardinal just receive a raise when he became the pope? What's his salary if he is paid.


texts: How do Sola Fide adherents interpret 1 Corinthians 13:2?

texts:
1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (KJV)

  1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
  2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
  3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Those verses are commonly interpreted to mean that charity is also necessary for salvation, even "though I have all faith." That interpretation opposes the doctrine of Sola Fide. How then do Sola Fide adherents interpret this passage?