texts: Why is the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism so different from the Westminster Confession opening statement?

texts:
The former is based on the latter, being drawn up by a special Assembly convened in London in 1643, to be a Catechism for the Christian Church in England, Scotland and Ireland. It was adopted by the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland in 1648 as a means of Christian instruction. Here is how a 1981 Presbyterian Church of Australia words question and answer No. 1 –

  “What is the chief purpose for which man is made? The chief purpose
  for which man is made is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
  Scripture: 1 Cor 10:31; Rom 11:36; Ps 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24; Rev
  7:17.”

Yet in “The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes”, the first declaration is all about God revealing himself through his works of creation and providence, but primarily through written Scripture, so to declare his will to the Church as his former ways of revealing his will to his people have ceased (Heb 1:1-2).

The Shorter Catechism No. 2 appears to make the link:

  “What rule has God given to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him?
  The Word of God, which consists of the Scriptures of the Old and New
  Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy
  him. Scripture: Gal 1:8-9; Isa 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; 2 Tim 3:15-17.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 opens up with,

  “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own
  glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down
  in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
  Scripture…”.

Yet, ironically, the previous Study Class question is asked, “How do Protestants sometimes subordinate the authority of Scripture to men?” and I wonder if the first Shorter Catechism exemplifies this fault.

Thus my question is, why would man be made the object of the first question, not God and his written word? Is there something intrinsically wrong with the first Shorter Catechism question and answer?


texts: Nowhere in the Bible are angels feminine.  If angels are messengers from God, why do these messengers always manifest themselves as masculine?  Is it because they assume the gender of their Divine dispatcher?


texts: What is the meaning of "overshadowed" by the power of the most High in Luke 1:35?

texts:
We read in Luke 1:35 that "the power of the most High will overshadow" Mary. Some interpret this as the Holy Spirit will overshadow the Virgin Mary.

The greeting of the angel already reveals the state of soul of the Virgin Mary, that  it was 'full of grace'.

A Few Questions:

If a person is 'overshadowed' would that mean all her actions are inspired and are to be considered the works of the Holy Spirit?—or what is the significance of word "overshadowed" and its meaning in the life of the chosen Mother of our Messiah?
Is there any other Biblical character or event where the word 'overshadow'
is used in the Bible?
Does this overshadowing apply only to the soul, or to both the body and the soul?
Are inspiration and overshadowing the same action of the Holy Spirit in the person?


texts:
As I grew up, I was accustomed to referring to a cardinal by inserting his title between his first and last names. Thus, for example, I was confirmed by the then-archbishop of St. Louis, John Cardinal Carberry. This was distinct from the usage in the case of an archbishop (so, for example, the next archbishop of St. Louis, Archbishop John May).

More recent usage that I've seen indicates that this usage seems to have been discontinued, or at least fallen out of favor.. The official biography of the current archbishop of Newark refers to him as "Joseph Cardinal Tobin". But other carefully written sources such as the American Catholic magazine Crux or the political journal The American Conservative use the phrasing "Cardinal Joseph Tobin".

Is there a usage preferred or designated by the Vatican or a more local group of bishops? Or does it depend on a given style book?


texts: Why would God permit divorce because of Israel's "hardness of heart"?

texts:
When questioned about divorce, Jesus refers to the Mosaic law and explains why God allowed divorce certificates in the first place.

  Mark 10:2-9 ESV And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The certificate of divorce reference is, I'm assuming, from Deuteronomy 24.

This seems like an unusual thing for God to do: to explicitly allow something because of Israel's stubbornness. Certainly God hates divorce as much as other relational sins but he didn't tell Moses to give allowances for other things like fighting or idolatry.

Why would God permit a certificate of divorce because of Israel's stubbornness and not allow certificates for other wrongs? What makes divorce worthy of this? Is there additional context or statements regarding this in the bible?


texts:
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Whenever I debate someone about Bible literal-ism they usually mention Psalm 137:9 KJV.  Based on the Protestant doctrine, how can I handle this?


texts: What theological statement would be made if the Creeds preceded the homily?

texts:
In both the Anglican and Catholic Mass, the Liturgy of the Word (aka reading the lessons), begins with Scripture, includes a Homily, and then concludes with the recitation of one of the Creeds.  Following the Liturgy of the Word, the Prayers of the People begin. This seems fairly consistent across many of the liturgical traditions.  This order also helps to de-emphasize the sermon, emphasizing instead the Eucharist as the highlight of the service.

But, as a old-Baptist, I have to admit, this kind of annoys me. :)

In a Baptist liturgy, the sermon does take a more central place.  Furthermore, the crux of the service - the emphasized highlight so to speak - is typically that sequence in which the sermon concludes forcefully, the preacher gives an altar call, and then everybody sings a song while someone "comes forward" after having made "a decision."  (Okay, number of times someone has actually come down the aisle after making a spontaneous decision - Negilible - but that's the theory at least.)

Anyways, what I've always liked about the Baptist model is that the "altar call & song" provides a space in which the congregation can meditate on the message, internalizing and applying what was said.  Something about singing an old hymn that you know by heart (you don't introduce a new song in that slot!) somehow seems to provide more of a space for reflection to me than saying a creed.

Now, the prayers of the people can also also afford that space (since the LEM is reading) - but there's still that Creed that sticks out like a sore thumb to me.  So naturally, I wonder, why not say the Creed before we read the Word.

It would seem to me that saying the Creed before the Lessons and the Homily would signal an agreement of some kind - that we believe this Truth, and are therefore ready to be instructed in the Word of the Lord.

The question is, am I opening up a theological can of worms in altering the order of the mass?  Is there an unintentional theological statement that would be made in changing this?  Would such a thing be allowed in a Catholic service? (Episcopalians wouldn't care, so I ask about the Catholics).  In short - what effect would altering this order have on the theological construct of the order of worship?


texts: What was God the Father like, when he was a man?

texts:
According to the LDS doctrine of exaltation, God the Father was born and lived and died, and then was exhalted to Godhood by his God, in the same way that Jesus was exalted by the Father.

Is there any passage in the Mormon Scriptures or writing by Mormon teachers that discusses the life and character of the Father before he was exalted?


texts: Is there a doctrinally supported name for a designated "home prayer space" in the RCC?

texts:
Some Catholics set up "prayer stations" in their homes, placing crucifixes, candles, and sometimes a few small saint statues for their particular devotions. In doing so, they create a special place for the family to offer their prayer. But, they often call these stations a family altar, or home altar, or sometimes a shrine.

However, in Roman Catholicism, a Christian altar is "a table upon which the eucharistic sacrifice is celebrated ..."

And a shrine is "a church or other sacred place to which numerous members of the faithful make pilgrimage for a special reason of piety, with the approval of the local ordinary." (Or the bishops in the case of a national shrine, or the Holy See in the case of an international one).

Within the scope of Roman Catholic doctrine, then, is it permissible to call these home prayer-centers altars or shrines of any sort? If not, what terms have been used by Roman Catholic Officials or Documents to refer to such a space in the home?


texts: How does the Bible describe the gender roles?

texts:
Although the question could go all over the place I am looking to know how evangelicals define the role of a man and of a woman from the Bible.

What are the verses they use? Is there a short description of the different roles?


texts: Does a Christian who commits sins against Christian doctrine and commandments still remain Christian?

texts:
What is the position of the Christian denominations about whether a person who commits sins and lives un-Christian lifestyle, yet believes he is Christian, still remains Christian?

This question is motivated by the claim by user H3br3wHamm3r81 that a Christian who killed 10 people is not a Christian any more.

Per his request, this is a transcript of the relevant dialogue that occurred between us in another thread:

H3br3wHamm3r81's post:

  History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called "Christians" killed Jews in the name of Christ, realized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly.

My comment in response to H3br3wHamm3r81's post:

  "reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all" I think a question already appeared here whether people who claim to be Christians and commit sins remain Christians. I think the answer was positive. –Alixx

H3br3wHamm3r81's comment in response to my comment:

  So, X says, "I'm a Christian," and then he goes out and murders ten people." He's a Christian because he said so? I can hardly accept that. But, Anixx, I have answered and will let it rest. You're more than welcome to change your vote if a better answer comes along. God bless. – H3br3wHamm3r81

I personally thought that to be a Christian one only has to believe in Christ and that there are no sinless Christians, and that to achieve salvation of the soul one has to sincerely repent.

So who is more correct? Do Christians who sin remain Christians?


texts:
What is the role of free will in Thomistic predestination?

My understanding of Thomist teachings:

people have free will to do what they want
everyone gets sufficient amount of grace (Sufficient for what, if they will go to hell as they live a sinful life.)
God just chooses some for salvation (predestines them), gives them a special amount of grace (efficacious grace) and these will go to Heaven
the others (who got sufficient amount of grace) are reprobates who go to hell

I do not see any real connection between free will and grace - I suppose there is no. Thus, I do not understand how God chooses whom to provide efficacious grace and how this can be aligned with a loving God (e.g. what if he chooses killers etc. for salvation).


texts: According to Mormonism, is the Black race cursed and if so what does that imply?

texts:
I was wondering, since I've heard this a lot and I've done some research about it. I'd like to know what Mormons, at least contemporary Mormons, have to say about this.

  Keeping in mind documents like these which I will quote to avoid
  needless opposition :

  "Cain was cursed with dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes,
  and those spirits wh are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born
  through his lineage."
  (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 102)

  "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no
  circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the
  Almighty" (Mormon Doctrine, 10th printing, pages 527-528)

  "The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to
  them... Negros are not equal with other races where the receipt of
  certain spiritual blessings are concerned."(Bruce R. McConkie:
  Highlights From His Life & Teachings. Horn, Denis B.(2000))

I will now UPDATE the preface because the previous quotes were seemingly not enough to avoid needless opposition. I am not doing this to simply mock, I am doing this to get a satisfactory answer meaning truth.

Quotes from MORMON PROPHETS that are considered to be
infallible teachings of the LDS, or supposedly so, we shall see.

  Because of [Cain's] wickedness he became the father of an inferior
  race...the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity
  inherited was the black skin. (Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, the way
  of perfection p. 101, 107)

  Some classes of the human family...are black, uncouth, uncomely,
  disagreable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of
  nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed
  upon mankinnd. The first man who committed the odious crime of killing
  one of his bretheren will be cursed... the Lord put a mark upon Cain
  which is the flat nose and black skin.

  Shall I tell you the law of God in regards to the African race? If the
  white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed
  of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. **This
  shall always be so.

  (2nd Prophet of the LDS Church, Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses," Vol. 7, Pages 290 & 291)

  The intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has
  heretofore been most repugnant to most normal minded people... There
  is a growing tendency...toward the breaking down of the race barriers
  in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does
  not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church
  doctrine.  (8th Prophet of the LDS Church, George Albert Smith, letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947, quoted in Lester E. Bush, Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview, p. 42)

Here are some links :

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blacks.htm

http://apostake.com/phicholmedici/racist-quotes-by-the-prophets/

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blackintermarriage.htm

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Racial_statements_by_Church_leaders

Please, if somehow the LDS's official Church teaching has changed, explain in your answer the difference between the old theology and the new theology, that is a prerequisit to get your answer validated, thank you in advance.


texts:
It is common for Protestant doctrinal statements to say that good works are the fruits of faith. For example:

  We confess that good works are necessary fruits of faith in the life of a Christian and that they proceed from a renewed heart that is thankful to God for His mercy and love. Although there is no human cooperation in the matter of one’s conversion and justification, there is a cooperation on the part of the regenerate Christian in his or her life of sanctification. Good works do not earn or contribute to one’s salvation, but they naturally flow from the living faith which is present in the hearts of those who have already been saved by God’s grace alone. ("We Believe, Teach and Confess," Evangelical Lutheran Synod, italics added)

And:

  Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit. (The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, italics added)

What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?

Please note that I am not asking whether good works are necessary for salvation, whether people of faith should do good works, and so on. Nor am I asking for the biblical basis of good works being a result of being saved, flowing from Christ, and so on.

I am asking specifically for the biblical basis of the belief that good works are the fruits of faith, the result of faith, flow from faith, and similar formulations.

Does the Bible anywhere state this clearly? If not, what Bible passages are quoted by Protestant churches and major Protestant theologians to support this belief, and how do they interpret those passages to support it?


texts: What is the biblical argument for forgiveness ruling out punishment for grievous crimes?

texts: It seems to me that most Christians today think that forgiveness of grievous crimes implies lack of punishment of the criminal. To my knowledge (by far complete, to be sure) of the New Testament, nowhere is this outrageous idea to be found. So, my question is: Is there any part of the Bible where it is said or from where it might be implied that this would be God's wish for how us mortals should treat criminals? To be clear, I want to emphasize, I'm not talking about petty "crimes" like bad-mouthing, insults, even cheating. The Bible is clear about these. I'm talking about (mass) murder, (mass) rape, pedophilia. Forgiveness, definitely. But also punishment suitable for the crime, why not?


texts: Where are the tombs of Jesus' original 12 Apostles

texts:
I would like a list of the twelve Apostles, correlated with their most probable burial location. I understand that many reliquaries containing parts of their bodies were distributed throughout Christendom, but if there is a "primary" burial location for each, I would like to see it.

Additionally, I would like to know the date associated with each burial location, and I understand that it may have been established well after the death of the Apostles in question. I'm not seeking to see if each site is in fact "the" actual location, so much as to understand where I could visit any particular shrine.

(1) Is there any information on the possible tombs, i.e. not the cenotaphs if any, of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? I have seen and visited other tombs of other christian historical figures.
2) how far does this go in time? That is, which known tomb would be the oldest?


texts: Can protestant churches join the Eastern Orthodox Church?

texts: What would a church (say a mainline protestant evangelical church) have to believe and do in order to come under Eastern Orthodox Church?


texts: Has a study been done on the "Power of Prayer"?

texts: Has a controlled, scientific study of the "Power of Prayer", ever been performed? Can one, or two, of the results be breafly explained?


texts: Can English people go to Greek Orthodox churches in England?

texts:
I have been a non-churchgoing Christian now for a couple of years and have really taken Christian values to heart. I have so far learned how sinning was bringing me to a bad place and now I feel in love with humanity again.

I decided I wanted to go to the Orthodox Christian Church but have been terrified of even speaking to them. I have lingering rejection issues from childhood.

The reason I like this Church is not only the Orthodox values, but I feel it would be interesting to worship with Greeks as I already know the alphabet and it might help me to get a fresh perspective on things.

Do Greek Orthodox churches in England welcome and accept English attendees?


texts: Why is blasphemy against the Son or Father forgiven but blasphemy against the Spirit isn't forgiven?

texts:
Matthew 12:31–32 (RSV)
  31  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32  And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

If the Trinity is real then how come whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven but whoever speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven? Aren't the Son, Father and Spirit equal to God? So is speaking against one speaking against all three?


texts: When we pray, does Jesus hear us? Is there a direct point of contact or is it received by all three persons of the trinity simultaneously?


texts: Was any early martyr of the Church sawn in two, as mentioned in Hebrews?

texts:
In Hebrews 11:35–37 the author writes:

  ...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.  They were stoned to death, they were sawn in two, they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented—  of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

The narrative "sawn in two" sounds too cruel a punishment to be meted out to a human being. Does the Catholic tradition speak of any martyr who was given that punishment? Or, was St Paul using a figurative expression in order to suggest something else? What is the Catholic Church's view on the punishment of 'sawn in two' as used by the writer of Hebrews?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the Catholic and Eastern doctrines of the Assumption of Mary?

texts:
Catholic doctrine asserts that Mary the Mother of Jesus was not only without sin and ever-virgin, but that she also ascended into Heaven. Some Eastern traditions hold that she even died, then was raised on the third day.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church States, in paragraph 974:

  The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of His Body.

From Wikipedia:

  Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come.

What is the biblical basis for this doctrine?


texts: Does the triune God have will by nature, or by persons?

texts:
Given the triune God, one nature and three persons, do they experience their will in their singular nature or in their separate persons?  That is, do they share one will, or does each have a separate will which is in perfect harmony with the others?

What have published commentaries said on this subject?


texts: How was the Catholic Easter calendar established, despite this passage?

texts:
Matthew 12:40
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If Jesus said he would be three days and three nights, why are the events of his death and resurrection commemorated on Friday afternoon and Sunday morning, a span of one day and two nights; specifically, how were the memorial services for those events established?
Note that I'm not asking for the teachings on when the events of that week happened, but how the Easter weekend masses were established and why they occur when they do among the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and about the differences among the two.


texts: Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church

texts:
I was told by my Russian Orthodox friends on several occasions that according to their beliefs only members of the Orthodox Church are Christians. (For example, they pointed out that my statement that most people in the United States were Christians was incorrect because most people in the United States were Protestants and not Christians.) They claimed that according to the Russian Orthodox Doctrine:

  A Christian is a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Nicene Creed).
  The Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

  Consequently, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot say that a
  Catholic or a Protestant is a Christian (it would be a sin to do so; as it would be a sin to say that a pagan deity is God).

Is it true that members of non-Orthodox churches are not Christians according to the Russian Orthodox Doctrine? Is it a sin to call them Christians according to Russian Orthodox doctrine?


texts: Did Judas Iscariot know that Jesus would be killed when he turned Jesus over to the Pharisees?

texts:
The scriptures show that Judas betrayed Jesus, but did he positively know what the outcome was to be? Even the apostles did not understand fully what Jesus was trying to teach them.

References: Luke 22:3,4 | Acts 1:6,7


texts: Do JW teach that Luke 23:43 was corrupted? On what basis?

texts:
If I recall correctly, in a past conversation with some Jehovah Witnesses, to prove that there is no life after death, I gathered from them that  these words of the LORD on the cross in Luke 23:43 (RSVCE):

  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

were at a certain time corrupted and originally, the promise of the LORD read as below:

  43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

Meaning that the good thief would be with the LORD not that Good Friday, but sometime in the future, perhaps at the resurrection of the just.

If it is true the JW teach and witness to this, what is the basis of their claim that the current rendering of the LORD's words is a corruption?


texts: Does the Bible suggest that there would be a literal apostasy of the early Christian church?

texts:
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Acts 20:29 I interpret them to mean that there would be a literal apostasy of the early Christian church or is there another meaning to them that I am missing?

  2 Thessalonians 2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

  Acts 20:29: For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.


texts: What does the Catholic Church mean when it says In-vitro Fertilization separates the procreative act from procreation?

texts:
In a Catholic Theology class, we were taught that IVF is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) It separates procreation from the procreative act and 2) Spare embryos are destroyed in the process.

Question 1: I get #2, but I don't really get #1. I don't really see the point of mentioning #1 in this context.

#2 is already sufficient to reject IVF right? I actually find this really annoying. It's actually like this in Wikipedia too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation#Religious_response

Question 2: Suppose there was a way to separate procreation from the procreative act while embryos were not destroyed in the process. For simplicity, let's say there are no bad side effects to doing such and focus solely on the separation of procreation from the procreative act. What is "wrong" with that?

Oh sorry. I was unclear. Why is procreation without the procreative act wrong if say couples are either a) unable to perform the procreative act, b) unable to procreate while performing the procreative act or c) have a sufficiently long history of not procreating while performing the procreative act? Also, in the first place, why would anyone want to have biological babies without sex? Isn't it usually the other way around? If they would want bb w/o sex, then most probably they CAN'T have bb w/ sex...I think?


texts: If your the cathedral parish of your diocese has burned down, is the feast day of the patron saint still a solemnity?

texts:
I was listening to the latest episode of the Catholic Man Show where they were saying that in your diocese the feast day for the patron saint of your cathedral parish is a solemnity.

He told us that actually is St. Patrick is not a solemnity. It's a Memorial or, but what we are saying is that in New York, because the cathedral is St Patrick's. It is because the cathedral was named after Saint Patrick, the feast of St. Patrick in that diocese, isn't it? Yeah. It is elevated to solemnity just like st. Patrick's day in Sand Springs is elevated from a feast day.

Well, my diocese's cathedral church burned down in 2005 and they haven't rebuilt it yet.  So does that leave us without a patron saint for which to celebrate a solemnity on on or is the Bishop supposed to appoint a "floating holiday" or something like that?


texts: Who are the two witnesses in the book of Revelation?

texts: I have read tidbits about the two witnesses in the book of revelation. What I don't know is whether or not these are Angels, or Humans and what their purpose is.


texts: Is it wrong to say Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

texts:
Is it wrong to say that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy spirit is God.

With this is mind, is it wrong to say Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

From what I understand, Jesus existed eternally correct?  And Jesus is God and didn't come into being when he was sent on Earth.

There was a group called the marcionites that argued that there are 2 Gods because the God of the OT and the NT are just too different like:

In the OT is says God is One, and that he is not a man.


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses hold a "commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ"?

texts:
For the last several years, I have received mailings from Jehovah's Witnesses that say the following:

Lo invitamos a acompañarnos a la Conmemoración anual de la muerete de Jesuscristo. Este es el día, la hora y el lugar donde se celebrará:
(My translation) We invite you to join us in the annual commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ. This is the day, the time and the place where it will be held:

It then gives the address of a local Jehovah's Witnesses church and the time of a service, which is on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But nowhere in the pamphlet does it mention those two days, the resurrection of Jesus, or anything else that's related to it.
Why would Jehovah's Witnesses hold a "commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ" on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter when other Christian denominations do not? And is it noteworthy that this pamphlet doesn't mention the resurrection of Jesus on the following day?


texts: Under what circumstances, if any, can audio assistive technology be used in confession?

texts:
This recent answer mentions that it is not permitted to use the internet or cellular communications in (private) confession. It also mentions a story of a certain catacomb with particular acoustics that allowed the priest and parishioner to be widely separated.
Now, the answer (and in a sense, its related question) is dealing with desirable separation (e.g. for health reasons) between the priest and parishioner, which obviously raises a potential issue of them being able to hear each other.
I understand why that digital networks are not allowed because they allow for the possibility that the audio might be intercepted, thus breaking the seal of secrecy that is supposed to exist. (Side question: are confessionals ever swept for bugs? ) However, this leaves me wondering, would a closed circuit system be acceptable? I'm thinking something like a microphone on each side connected to a speaker on the other. (Probably through an amp, but the amp would not be connected to anything else other than power. Thus, the chance of the audio being "intercepted" somehow not be appreciably increased. The simplest version of this, I suppose, would be some sort of closed-circuit telephone system such as what's seen on TV when someone is talking to an inmate.)
p.s. Peter Turner raises an interesting point, which is that one would think the answer to the above would be the same as whether or not a person using electronic hearing aids can partake in confession. I would rather expect there exists an official ruling on that, but I also wonder if that has been extended to other systems such as I discuss above and/or if there is a broader ruling on this general subject outlining what is and is not permissible.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, whom does Jesus refer to as the “ruler of this world” in Jn 16:11?

texts:
We read in Jn 16:7-11 (NRSVCE), the pre-crucifixion message of Jesus to his disciples:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.   And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:   about sin, because they do not believe in me;   about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer;   about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned."

In some versions, like the NIV, we find the phrase 'prince of this world' in place of 'ruler'.
A prince is subordinate to the king and is required to seek permission of the throne before executing something. But a ruler, in the general sense, has powers of his own and is not ordinarily subordinate to anyone. Now, in texts like Job, we see the Devil seeking permission from God before undertaking some activity according to his own will, which in a way equates him to a prince, though an evil one.
My question therefore is, according to the Catholic Church, whom does Jesus refer to as “ruler of this world” in Jn 16:11 and what is the interpretation of said term?


texts: Is the philosophy of René Girard compatible with mainline Christianity?

texts:
Rene Girard is a French historian and philosopher. The premise of his works is summarized by Wikipedia:

  mimetic desire: all of our desires are borrowed from other people;
  mimetic rivalry: all conflict originates in mimetic desire;
  the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human
  evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry;
  the Bible reveals the three previous ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.

Now, that is a super high level overview of his thoughts. I realize you can go down the rabbit hole with the third point as far evolution and origin of religion goes. However, I am more interest in his work as it relates to Gospels. If anyone has any more in depth knowledge of his work, I'd like to know how orthodox his theories are in relationship with what is taught in most mainline seminaries or theology programs today (or even if his work taught or touched on at all).


texts: According to Catholicism, does God create new angels?

texts:
In Judaism there are many Rabbis that preach that we (humans) can create an angel, and some say God creates angels out of a river of fire in heaven, and they worship him.

Does the Catholic Church have something to say about this, since it not only adheres to the scripture, but also to tradition?


texts: Why was the significance of Jesus' upcoming betrayal hidden from His disciples?

texts:
Luke 9:43b-45 (NLT)

  Jesus Again Predicts His Death

  While everyone was marveling at everything he was doing, Jesus said to his disciples, 44 “Listen to me and remember what I say. The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies.” 45 But they didn’t know what he meant. Its significance was hidden from them, so they couldn’t understand it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

Why?

Was the significance "actively" hidden from the disciples in the sense that they were prevented from understanding, or is this a more "passive" sort, as in the disciples just didn't get what Jesus was saying? If the former, why was the significance of Jesus' statement obscured, and if the latter, why didn't Jesus clarify the matter? Either way, what was the point of keeping the disciples from understanding the significance of Jesus' soon-to-be betrayal?

I'd most appreciate writings from the early church fathers, but exegesis is also welcome.


texts: Will we theoretically be able to sin in Heaven?

texts:
The Bible tells us that there will be no sin in Heaven
. Also, most christians agree that there will be free will in Heaven.

So we will be in a sinless state with free will. However, Adam and Eve were both in this state but eventually sinned. Couldn't this happen again in Heaven?

My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us into sinning, like it happened in the garden of Eden.

I would like to get some perspectives on the matter, the better if based on Biblical verses. Thanks.


texts: Is seeing nudity a sin in Roman Catholicism?

texts: If someone saw a nude image ad once on the internet, would that be considered sin in the Catholic church? What about  a nude painting at an art gallery? Is it a mortal sin to see these? Or should one talk to their parish priest about the matter?


texts: When is the first documented case of making a confession to a priest?

texts: When is the first documented case of a Christian making a confession of his sin to the priest/bishop/elder with a purpose of having it remitted?


texts: What might the Bible mean by "marital unfaithfulness," other than adultery?

texts:
I know that divorce is frowned upon by God. There are exceptions to this, abuse being one of them, along with adultery.

However, when one reads through the Bible, "marital unfaithfulness" gets thrown into the mix. I have run across items referring to this aspect from Matthew here: "What is the exception clause?" Another with several translations is on biblehub.com. So it looks like there are two separate entries: Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

Would "marital unfaithfulness" encompass emotional abandonment? I do not refer to one of the partners having an emotional affair, but more along the lines of just not being there for their spouse emotionally.

Or does this fall more along the lines of abuse, and does God see emotional abuse as he does physical abuse, as wrong?


texts: Does anyone else believe that our natural deaths are not the punishment for sin? Id always thought it odd that if our natural deaths were the punishment for sin, then why would God raise everyone for judgment Hebs 9:27 resulting in some dying again? Rev 20:6,13-15. Especially as we're told that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23,32. Maybe Adam and Eve were created mortal? It's been suggested that Adam and Eve did not receive the immediate punishment for their sin ("in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die") because God killed an animal/animals instead, and covered them with the skins to show that their sin had been 'covered'. So according to this idea, their nature did not fall but remained the same. However the thing that did change was their relationship with God and from then on the Devil was their master, as they had chosen him over God - and he has had sway as "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 16:11) ever since. It is true I believe, that the Bible does not say that Adam and Eves nature 'fell', or refer to human nature as having 'fallen'. I could say more. But I'd like to hear thought through comments on what I've already said. I'm no longer certain of what I believe, myself! I'm looking for answers to consider.


texts: Are there any Christian congregations that follow the example of 1 Cor 14:24-25 to win unbelievers for Christ?

texts:
In 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, Paul teaches an extremely effective way to win souls for Christ, when an unbeliever or outsider steps for the first time into a Spirit-filled congregation:

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. [ESV]

Are there any Christian congregations that follow this example?


texts: Which Christian sects promote faith healing?

texts: Although it may difficult to cite all the sects, what are some major Christian sects that promote "faith healing"?


texts:
There are children born ill, blind or have heart or mental issues etc.

But can an illness be a result of a sin:

If a child is born ill, is it possible because of the parents' sins ?
If someone becomes ill, is it because of his sins ?

John 9

  9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

  3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this
  happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Why the disciples asked him this question ?

What is the christian view in this matter ?

Update:

These passages might show a relation between sin and diseases/illness:

When Abraham hid the fact that Sarai is his wife:

Genesis 12:17

  17 But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai.

What God said to Israel:

Exodus 15:26

  26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”

Deuteronomy 7:12-16

  12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. 13 He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. 14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

Deuteronomy 28:15 and Deuteronomy 28:20-24

  15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: ...

  20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

Deuteronomy 28:58-60

  58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.


texts: Do Unitarians believe in the same number of books? Do they reject certain verses?

texts:
I'm trying to understand how Unitarians view the Bible and specifically the NT.

Do Unitarians generally believe in the same # of books as Catholics/Protestants?

Do they simply re-interpret verses in the NT or do they reject certain verses?

Is their view of Paul any different, or again re-interpreting his statements?


texts: Do any denominations read Matthew 24:5 as meaning believers in Christ using his good name to deceive many?

texts:
Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:5, KJV)

This statement when commented on is usually understood as others coming and convincing people that they themselves are Christ. I have found no other interpretation for this statement.

What irks me is that Christ states that many come in his name.  Another example of this is how we are baptized in his name (Acts 2:38).

To clarify my question I will use the method of explanation provided by Susan below.

Scripture: "So many have come in my name."

This can be taken two ways:

It can be taken as:

To come in Jesus' authority, in the same manner Peter suggests a person should be baptized (Acts 2:38).

Or as:

I (person speaking the first person) am the Christ (and shall deceive many).

In many Protestant eschatological systems, secret Rapture enthusiasts tend to associate this verse as a false Christ proclaiming to be in fact Christ.

However, it may indicate people who are believers coming with a presumed authority, perhaps or perhaps not recognized by God, and spreading a false Gospel that leads others into deception.

Are there any denominations that see this statement as referring not to someone claiming to be Christ, but coming as a believer in Christ and using his good name to deceive many?


texts: How is "their angels always behold the Father in heaven" a warning?

texts:
Matthew 18:10

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto
  you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my
  Father which is in heaven.

Jesus was talking about not offending the little ones who believe in Him. Then He gives this cryptic statement as an added incentive to beware.

In what sense is this statement a warning to his disciples? Clicking on the link will give you fuller context of the quote. Any Protestant and Catholic perspective is welcome.


texts: Should Jewish Christians not work on Saturday or Sunday?

texts:
I am Jewish, and this presents additional issues for me if I am considering Christianity, that non Jewish Christians don't have. For example, as far as I understand the Catholic Church has held that the covenant with the Jews has never been revoked

http://www.jcrelations.net/The_covenant_has_never_been_revoked.2250.0.html
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.560784

I mean if you read your own Bible, you can see a very strong case for believing that the Covenant Israel had with God was binding for ever and on all of their descendants - which includes Jews today:

http://biblelaw101.com/Home/Questions%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20God.htm

So Jews are instructed to rest on the "Sabbath day". And it is indisputable that throughout the entire time of Jewish History, that was the 7th day. Genesis talks about God resting on the 7th day. Yet, the Ecumenical councilat Nicaea ultimately proclaimed that Christians' sabbath should be on the 1st day of the week - which we call Sunday in English.

So what's a Jew supposed to do? When they are a Christian, that is! In your answer, please tell us what your denomination is and what position it holds on the matter.

PS: If your answer includes saying that the Covenant with Israel has been superceded, then please explain how exactly we are supposed to read the verses in biblelaw101.com above


texts: According to Calvinists, Luke 22:8 what date did it happen?

texts:
Luke 22

  (7)Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb
  had to be sacrificed.  (8)Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go
  and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

From the info of verse 7, so when Jesus say "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover" I guess it happen in the time where the Jewish people either are preparing a lamb to be sacrificed (sacrificed in the same day) or even maybe some of the Jews are already sacrificing the lamb when Jesus say that.

Assuming my guessing is correct, the question is :
What date that event happen ?
13 Nissan ? 14 Nissan ? or 15 Nissan ?

The Catholic opinion is sought here.

The Lutheran opinion is sought here.


texts: Reformed View of Titus 2:11 and Irresistible Grace

texts:
Titus 2:11 says

  For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men...

How does this fit with Irresistible Grace? From my understanding of Irresistible Grace, when God's grace that brings salvation appears to someone, they cannot resist and they are saved (whether against their will, or that the are unable to resist and their will is changed so it is their will, may not be relevant)

I have consulted ESV Global Commentary, Matthew Henry Commentary, and Calvin's commentary for the verse, but have found nothing concerning this doctrine.

How is this passage understood along with Irresistible Grace?


texts: Are devotional materials in Slavic-speaking Orthodox countries typically translated today?

texts:
When rereading the Russian classic The Way of the Pilgrim, I was somewhat surprised to come across a passage which implied that a pocket copy of the Gospels intended for personal devotional reading was in Church Slavonic rather than Russian. This got me wondering what the contemporary practice of the Russian Orthodox church and other churches which use the Church Slavonic liturgy is. Specifically, which of the following are likely to be in Church Slavonic, and which are likely to be translated into a modern version of the local language?

Bibles for personal reading
Memorized, customary prayers like the Our Father and It Is Truly Meet
Prayer books, psalters, akathists, and other things intended for private prayer but not typically memorized
Saints' lives, the Philokalia, the patericon, and other educational books

(I'm not aware of any Slavic-speaking Orthodox community that uses a contemporary language for the liturgy itself, but I'd be curious if there is an exception to that.)


texts: Christian response(s) to disaster survival, or Christian self-defense

texts:
Every year, "end times" and apocalyptic films, books, and articles are produced in both the wider popular culture, and in religious contexts. In almost every post-disaster scenario as typically portrayed in media productions, riots, mobs, and an every-man-for-himself setting is typically envisaged.

As Christians, we know God will take care of us and that whatever happens is for His glory.

For those of us who are married or have children, we have been entrusted, as husbands, to care for our wives, and, as parents, to guard, train, and raise our children in a God-honoring way.

From another question, I believe it has been established that a Christian is free to serve in the military to the limit of their conscience (ie, the Bible neither proscribes, nor prescribes the activity).

Just before He was betrayed, Jesus told his disciples to make sure they had swords to bring with them (they had two).

In the broader context of scripture, what should make up a Christian response to self-defense, and of defending the defenseless?

What passages of the Bible support (or preclude) such action? and to what limit (if any) is that action to not exceed?


texts: What is the significance of Ehud being left-handed?

texts:
In Judges 3 we find an interesting story about Israel's left-handed assassin and his hit on Moab's obese king, Eglon.

  Judges 3:15-22 ESV Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man. The people of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab. And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes. And he presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man. And when Ehud had finished presenting the tribute, he sent away the people who carried the tribute. But he himself turned back at the idols near Gilgal and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he commanded, “Silence.” And all his attendants went out from his presence. And Ehud came to him as he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat. And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not pull the sword out of his belly; and the dung came out.

Is there a historical/cultural/spiritual/sensible reason we're explicitly told he was left-handed? It doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to the outcome.


texts: Why did the early Christian church stop building and worshiping in temples?

texts:
The use of temples was central during the Old and New Testaments. Christ himself even cleansed the temple by throwing out the money changers who were defiling his Fathers house. John 2:16 Why did that practice stop?

  16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.


texts: Does Christianity allow eating pork and horse meat, which even though it is prohibited by the Jewish Law?

texts: I am a Malaysian Muslim and am very curious about Christian diets. I've heard that Christianity prohibited eating Pork and Horse Meat but why do my Presbyterian classmates always eat both Pork and Horse Meat food for their lunch at my school?  As a Muslim, I eat Horse meat since it was allowed in Islam but my Presbyterian Christian classmates have ask a bit of my horse meat burger patty lunch food a few month ago. I also have warm them because I really respect my friend's religious beliefs, and said "this horse meat lah you Christian cannot eat kan?" but they did tell me Christianity allowed everything. So I'm curious about this.


texts: Who is the speaker and who is "him" in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist?

texts:
Daniel 11:1 New American Standard Bible In the first year of
Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for
him.

In my own interpretation, the speaker is Jesus and the "him" is an angel named Michael.
From the internet I know that the Seventh-day Adventist holds that Michael = Jesus (or vice versa, Jesus = Michael). Hence, my interpretation is wrong in the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists.
I've already tried to search in the internet to find out how Seventh-day Adventists interpret Daniel 11:1... but I can't find one. I did find some articles about Daniel 11 from (I think) the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists, but it either starts from Daniel 11:2 or Daniel 11 as a whole.
So I put my question here.


texts: What does the parable of the "goodman of the house" mean?

texts:
What are some possible explanations or correlations from scripture about the goodman who should not have let the thief break in?

  But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what
  watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have
  suffered his house to be broken up. - Matthew 24:43

This short parable is in between verses speaking about waiting and watching for Jesus return.


texts: Is "Rapture" mentioned in the Book of Revelation?

texts:
In 1st Thessalonians Paul describes the Rapture:
1Th 4:13 through 17   KJV

13  But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Do any Denominations hold a consensus as to where in the Book of Revelation, this "Rapture" spoken by Paul is mentioned?


texts: According to premillenial view, What is the point of the Millenium reign?

texts:
Here's my understanding:

Some people believe during the tribulation. They make into the 1000 year reign.

During this reign, there is peace on earth.

At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is released. Some of the descendants of the believers follow Satan.

There is a final battle.

Satan loses.

There is final judgment.

New Jerusalem arrives.

Now, what is the point of the 1000 year reign here? Is it to prove that Christ can do something that Satan could never do (i.e. real world peace?)


texts: What is the Catholic interpretation of Sirach 42:14?

texts: "Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace." - Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) 42:14, RSV.


texts: Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy in maintaining the faith?

texts:
Is it a high time that we need to impart the young Christians (children) a comprehensive knowledge of all the doctrines of Christianity, or do we tend to raise them as unconvinced Christians susceptible to falter in their faith?
When a child with an analyzing mind is made to follow a Christian religion but is not made aware of the profound facts about the various beliefs/doctrines of the religion during the catechism classes, he tends to become an unconvinced Christian. When he starts seeking answers to these unconvinced claims from whichever source he finds, he is faced with answers, which sometimes are diametrically opposite to each other, answers that are in confirmation of his belief as well as against it. In absence of right guidance at the time of his growth, some of these young Christians end up in accepting those answers are against the Christian teachings.
Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy of adapting to the changed world and change the techniques, to ensure the maintenance of the faith in economically advanced countries?


texts:
God seems to favor the number seven and I'm not sure why. Is there a reason, or is this just His favorite number?

You'll notice that God not only uses the number seven, but multiplies other numbers by seven as well. Please provide scripture and let me know if there are other numbers that God uses.


texts: What does the Bible say about the appearance of angels?

texts:
In Christian art, angels are often depicted as winged human-like creatures. However, I'm curious if there is any justification for this in the Bible? I've sometimes heard that there isn't, so that's why I'm asking you as experts in the field.

Are there any descriptions of the appearance of angels in the Bible?

Is there any Biblical reason to assume that angels look like the ones in the picture on the left rather than the picture on the right?


texts: Did the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith ever explain why they thought God could not be the author of sin?

texts:
Ch3 of the W.C.of F. says "neither is God the author of sin".

One can make something which is entirely different from oneself. e.g. if someone makes a cake they do not become a cake themselves.
  If God had a holy motive why Jesus alone should fulfil the Law {total obedience} then God might have a holy motive to withhold from man the grace to obey His Law/command.
   I can find no place where the writers of the W.C.of F. tried to justify the statement "neither is God the author of sin". Did they ever try to justify it?


texts: Did early Christians believe the world was about to end?

texts:
Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who
  will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His
  kingdom. (Matthew 16:28, NIV)

Edit: adding another verse in order to make sense of the answer linked below.

  Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until
  all these things have happened. (Mark 13:30, NIV)

End of edit

One interpretation of this is that Jesus believed the end of the world would happen within a few decades. If that's what Jesus meant, was it a new suggestion or were there precedents? What evidence is there that Christians in the first century subscribed to this belief?

Other interpretations have been suggested, like the ones summarised in this answer:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4310/45084

What are the earliest sources we have for such interpretations?

What sources show us how ideas about the apocalypse changed over the course of the first hundred years or so of Christianity?

I'd sort of expect there to have been a big crisis in the religion when it started to become clear that the first generation was all dead and the end of the world hadn't come, but as far as I can gather that didn't really happen. There were new sects and theological disputes as the faith spread, but the date of the apocalypse doesn't seem to have been a central factor. Is that right?


texts:
Without infant Baptism, do Protestants have godparents?

Furthermore, are there any traditions common to most Protestant denominations concerning who should see to it that a child is raised in the Faith in lieu of the parents?


texts: Is there a formal statement or opinion in the Catholic Church regarding martial arts?

texts:
I have two kids. We don't do contact sports, but some of our friends are involved in American football or hockey, and there's plenty of contact, but it seems like a game. Indeed over the course of my life, such sports have tended towards more game less violence through tweaking their rules. Wrestling seems definitively like a contest not based on violence. Boxing I have no defense for, but it's not part of my question.

I just witnessed my son's friend's dojo, and the weaponry and actions of the participants sickened me. Now it's possible I'm being a pansy, and the CCC allows for self defense, but it sure seemed the participants were leaving communion in their actions.

So, is there a formal statement regarding martial arts within Catholicism? Is there a line in which crossed one has sinned?


texts: Were (at least some) Babylonians (at least somewhat) righteous?

texts:
The book of Jonah tells the story of Jonah, God's most reluctant prophet. Commanded to preach to the Babylonians of Nineveh, he headed in the opposite direction, south, took a ship, which encountered the storm, was thrown off the ship to save it, and was "rescued" (swallowed) by a whale, and later regurgitated. It took this much to make him go to NIneveh and preach to its "Babylonians."

Once he was there, it was arguably the "easiest" conversion in the Bible, at least of a whole city. Nineveh repented en masse, and was spared destruction by God. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jonah%203&version=KJ21

Does this mean that the Babylonians were at least somewhat righteous? It seems that while they sinned a lot, quite a few of their leaders and people, including Nebuchadnezzar had concepts of right and wrong. Could the Israelis have fallen so far that when God delivered them into captivity of the Babylonians that it actually represented an "upgrade?"


texts: Has the Church of England responded on the latest comment of its "Head"?

texts:
In a brief speech recorded on first April and televised on the fifth, the "Head" of the Church of England (that is to say its professed "Head" Queen Elizabeth II) mentioned 'prayer and meditation' but did not specify to whom prayer should be addressed in the present global crisis.

Since prayer has become critical, with the Prime Minister of the UK now in intensive care, has any comment arisen from the Church of England which might guide would-be praying citizens as to the direction of their petitions ?

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's 'coronavirus' speech

Edit (upon comment): The title of 'Head' (which I deliberately put in quotation marks) is that commonly used, for example see the recent headline in the Daily Telegraph 'the Queen's role as the Head of the Church of England'. The repeal of the Act of Supremacy, 1534, and its subsequent revamping in 1558 (with the substitution of 'Governor' for 'Head') is treated by many as a mere technicality which they (such as the Daily Telegraph) choose to ignore.


texts: What is/are the Hebrew/Aramaic word(s) for "devil" in The Passion of the Christ movie?

texts:
What is the word used for "devil" in Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" during the scene where Christ is interrogated by the Sanhedrin? The word "devil" appears in the English subtitles three times in this scene as a couple of characters give testimony against Christ. It sounds to me like they're saying "sha-dai-ah."

When I search for what I'm hearing I find El Shaddai, which is the Hebrew word for "God Almighty," not "devil."

I know that the dialog of this film is in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. I can distinguish the Latin dialog from the rest, but I can't distinguish between the Aramaic and Hebrew. I think that Hebrew is used during the Sanhedrin scene.


texts:
My question is pretty straightforward: Do Calvinists believe they know whether they are saved?

This might seem like a strange question at first glance, so let me explain why I'm asking. From what I understand, Calvinism teaches that the "elect" will persevere, and that it is impossible for the "elect" to fall away, but that only God knows who the "elect" are. The "elect" Christians are truly born-again, while all other Christians are not. So if a Christian "falls away", they were never really saved to begin with, despite their own assertions and the assessments of others who knew the person. In other words, let's say you know a guy who you would swear up and down was saved. You see him doing all the right stuff, saying all the right stuff; he's an integral part of the church; you see God working in his life, leading him, etc. Then he "falls away". The Calvinist position (as I understand it) is that regardless of all that stuff you saw in his life, that person was never really saved to begin with.

It seems to me that this theology leaves the Calvinist uncertain about whether any individual is right with God. You might have an educated guess, but you don't really ever know for sure whether a person is saved (including yourself.) If the person ever "fell away" you'd have to go back and say "I was wrong; they were never really saved to begin with". Is this correct?

PLEASE NOTE! I am looking for answers from the perspective of Calvinism -- not partial Calvinism. By that I mean 5-point Calvinism. Please do not give me your personal opinion as a "partial Calvinist" or "Calminian" or "4-point Calvinist", etc. I'm looking for quotes from guys like John Piper (I'll count him as a 5-point Calvinist for the sake of this question) and others with his devotion to Calvinism.


texts: What is the English monarch's current relationship to the Church of England?

texts:
I was recently on a tour in London, where one of the tourists asked the guide whether the Queen is still the head of the Church of England, to which the guide replied “Yes.”

However, Wikipedia claims that the head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, which position is currently held by Justin Welby.

So, what is the monarch’s official relationship to the Church of England, if there is any (other than simple parishioner)?


texts: Why is our physical world so different from spiritual?

texts:
I read this comment from one of the answers:

  As we are only mortal flesh, we are not capable of understanding the
  unique nature of God. Jesus also many times found it difficult to
  explain about God and Heavenly things. It's like trying to explain how
  a computer works to the elderly people who are not familiar with it.
  Once I tried to explain how a computer works to my father, it was
  impossible and I gave up.

My question is: According to the Roman Catholic Church why is our world so different from the spiritual one and how that difference servers Gods plan for us? Our life in this physical world should serve as a gateway to the spiritual realm after we die but if it's so different how that can serve the purpose.


texts: Is it to say: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved" heretical?

texts:
Unfortunately, we can hear some lay Catholics (sometimes even a bishop) say that: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved". It seems obvious that the statement is untrue, however, is it a heretical statement? And would for example bishop who persists in this error becomes a formal heretic?

We know that the Church condemned the following proposition:

  If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious
  men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a
  restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious
  men, let him be anathema.

It seems that corollary of this statement is:

Corollary: Punishments of impious men will never end.

Imagine now that the statement: "We can have reasonable hope that all will be saved" is true. However, if the hope were to be reasonable, then the object of hope should be really possible, namely, it should be really possible that all are saved. But if all were saved, then the previous corollary would really be attributing some property to an empty set and then the condemnation would be vacuously true. But the opposite of the corollary would also be true (because we can attribute anything to an empty set, see a previous link to "Vacuous truth") in that case. Therefore, the case where all are saved seems logically inconsistent if we want to say that condemnation can not be empty.

Edit. My question is not duplicate. I am not searching an answer to a viewpoint on universal salvation, but I explicitly deny that as untrue. I am searching for what kind (degree) of error is to hold universal salvation (or rather, that "we can have reasonable hope that all will be saved").


texts: Why do some Christians (Coptic orthodox and catholic) kiss the priest's hand?

texts:
Considering kissing priest's hand is a christianity learning, where did this learning came from?

Considering kissing priest's hand is a custom
Where did this custom came from, Why it is wide spreading ?
What is it's historical story ?


texts: Was the Apostle John's exile a major hardship?

texts: From what I understand, tradition says that the Disciple John was exiled to the Island of Patmos. Would this have been an inconvenience or a major hardship?


texts: What is a "human act" in Catholic moral theology?

texts: What is a "human act" in Catholic moral theology, and how does it relate to "full consent of the will" which is one of the conditions for a mortal sin?


texts: What is the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Pentecostals?

texts: What are the dogmatic differences between Jehovah's Witness Churches and Pentecostal Churches? Until recently I thought both churches were one and the same in beliefs.


texts: When did the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) adopt the doctrine of the Trinity?

texts:
The Community of Christ–formerly known as the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS)–is a schism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). They separated from the main body of the church after Joseph Smith's death, believing that the line of prophetic succession should follow Smith's bloodline.

Since then, they have made many fundamental changes to their doctrine, the most surprising change being that they now believe in the doctrine of the trinity.

Joseph Smith saw God the father and the Son standing side by side.

  I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all
  description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me,
  calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved
  Son. Hear Him! (Joseph Smith History 1:17)

Joseph Smith clearly taught that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost were individual beings, and that both the Father and Christ had bodies of flesh and bone (see D&C 130:22).

To this day the Community of Christ identifies Joseph Smith as their founder. (see Community of Christ: History), and just prior to his martyrdom, Joseph Smith was quoted saying:

  "I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the
  subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been
  preached by the Elders for fifteen years." (Joseph Smith, June 16,
  1844).

At what point did the RLDS abandon the most fundamental doctrine of the restoration and adopt the trinity?


texts: What is the Catholic understanding of "the thousand-year reign of Christ and his people"?

texts:
What is the Catholic understanding of the thousand-year reign of Christ and his people?

What is the Catholic biblical interpretation and what have the Church Fathers said on the matter?


texts: To whom do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the "Keys to the Kingdom" were given by Jesus?

texts:
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind
  on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth
  shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

This is the main verse that Papal Supremacy (the final authority of the Pope to bind or loose) rests upon.  The Roman Church's interpretation of the contextual significance of this verse obviously differs from that of Orthodoxy.

The footnote of the New American Bible says the following about this verse:

  The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably
  drawn from Is 22:15–25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master
  of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he
  authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Mt 22:22). Whatever you
  bind…loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature
  of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to
  the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of
  authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of
  excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that
  of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing.
  In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Mt
  18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing,
  but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of
  excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the
  kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church
  on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection
  between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of
  heaven.

This is one of the most (if not the most) divisive doctrines concerning the relationship between East and West.

It seems pretty clear to me, as the Catholic interpretive footnote denotes above, that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter, which implies that Peter is specifically given the "Keys to the Kingdom" (a.k.a. the final authority to bind and loose, a.k.a. Papal Supremacy).

To my knowledge, Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Catholicism concerning Peter's authority by teaching that:

A. Peter and his successors hold the highly dignified position of "first among equals" and not "Supreme Pontiff."

B. Infallibility rests not in the Chair of Peter, but in the decrees and canons of ecumenical councils only.

C. The doctrine of papal supremacy derives from the gradual usurpation of jurisdictional authority - emerging definitively around the 8th and 9th cent. and reaching its full implementation with the 1054AD schism which was immediately followed by the Crusades.

Who do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the "Keys to the Kingdom" where given to by Jesus?

I am specifically interested in answers from strictly an Orthodox standpoint.


texts: What is the earliest name ascribed to the book of Revelation?

texts:
I was teaching Catechism last night, going over 'Revelation'.  I asked, "what's revelation?" and one girl answered, "It's the last book in the Bible". and I was like, "um yeah..." Well I wanted to say, it's also the entire Bible and I was kind of stumbling over my words there.

What I was wondering was, what was the Revelation/Apocalypse of John originally called?

Eusebius called it the 'so-called Apocalypse of John', but if it was 'so-called' then what else might have it been called and when did it begin to go by the name 'Revelation'?


texts:
One of the most common responses that Christians make is to say the word "amen". Here's an example from a Mass:

Priest:  May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.

What does this expression mean?


texts: What's the Biblical basis for "all Christians will be together in heaven some day"?

texts:
Christians often say that "some day we will all be together in heaven." I'm wondering if this idea comes from scripture.

The closest I can think of is the end of Revelation, which discusses a "new earth" on which the "new Jerusalem" descends. If you take this apocalyptic vision as having a symbolic city (representing the complete Church) coming down from a literal heaven, I suppose you could argue logically that the completed church must have been together in heaven prior to descending. But I really doubt if the saying comes from an interpretation as complex as that!

Am I overlooking something simple? Does the Bible teach elsewhere that all Christians will be together in heaven some day?

I'm looking for "orthodox", protestant perspectives argued from the standard (66 book) canon.


texts:
Genesis 1:26:

  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Does this mean humans look like God, complete with hands, feet, and sexual organs?  Or is it referring to something else?


texts: How is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' different from being 'politically correct'?

texts: Paul says in Romans that we should 'Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone'. (Romans 12:17. NIV). However, I would certainly not characterize Paul as being 'politically correct' by any stretch of the imagination.  It made me wonder they sound like the same thing, so how is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' so different from being 'politically correct'?


texts: What is the difference between Apollinarianism and Eutychianism?

texts: Both Apollinaris and Eutychius believed in one divine subject Christology that the only and whole person of Christ is a divine person, the Logos. Not a divine-humane person. Their Christology were condemned at Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), respectively. Apollinaris teaches that the Logos supplant the rational faculty of Christ not another man. While Eutychius teaches that the flesh of Christ belongs to the Logos and not another man. So that both teach the Logos, a divine person is the only divine subject. How then one in principle manner differentiate their Christology from one another?


texts:
From reading Job 35:10 and Ps. 77:6 we understand that night is used to represent trials, a period of distress, trouble.

Then, in the Gospel of John, we can read 7 mentions of night, starting from when Nicodemus comes to Jesus (John 3).

What can we infer from this?


texts: Was casting out of demons done in the Old Testament by any Prophets or was it started in the New Testament?


texts: Can a Christian choose to walk away from his or her salvation?

texts:
There is a plethora of verses that say that people can not cause a saved Christian to lose his salvation, such as

  John 10:29 (NLT)

  29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.

However, this does not exclude the possibility of a Christian choosing to turn away from God, as in

  Hebrews 6:4-6 (NLT)

  4 For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come— 6 and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.

So, my question is: is it possible for a saved Christian to choose to walk away from Christ and thus lose their salvation?

Related:

Do parts of Hebrews 3 and 4 imply that saved Christians can become unsaved?
Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical? [closed]
How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

While this question is rather similar to others, I think it's focused enough to not count as a duplicate. In particular, this one is focused on the ability or inability of the Christian to choose, not so much whether losing one's salvation is possible.


texts:
How do Modalists interpret John 14:28?

  You heard me say to you, I am going away, and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28, ESV)


texts: What is meant by "atheism is a religion"?

texts:
I have heard this statement used by Christians. Atheists counter that the lack of belief isn't a religion or belief system. Is there a logical justification for the charge that atheism is a religion?

I'm looking for more than just appropriately defining the terms to make the sentence technically correct.


texts: What evidence is there to support Deuteronomy being written during the reign of King Josiah?

texts:
I was reading an article today, and the author claimed that King Josiah sponsored the writing of Deuteronomy. Here's the exact quote:

  In the seventh century BCE, when the Old Testament’s book of Deuteronomy was written under the sponsorship of King Josiah in Jerusalem, the high bar was set for veneration of the book. Josiah used the scrolls written by his ‘deuteronomists’ to solidify a covenant between the Jewish people and God – and, in an inspired act of political strategy, to legitimise his legacy and claim to the land.

Here's the original article.

What evidence is there, both biblical and extrabiblical, to support the claim that Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Law, was written during the reign of King Josiah?


texts: Did Martin Luther compose his own Bible?  I have seen claims to this effect.  By this I believe the claimants meant a Bible that differed from recognized, standard forms, rather than translation into German.


texts: Did Prophet Jeremiah's soul pre-exist his conception in human form?

texts:
At Jeremiah 1: 4-5 we see the prophet speaking of his call:

  Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,
   “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
  and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Do the words of the Lord indicate that the soul of Jeremiah had existed even before he was conceived by his mother? Or, are they only meant to be  a figurative expression? How do the teachings of Catholic Church explain the words of God to Jeremiah?


texts: According to Protestant trinitarians, what is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ?

texts:
What is the significance of the father-son relationship between God and Christ in the Trinity? Non-trinitarians believe that Christ is literally the son of God, but that doesn't quite work with the Trinity. Why is Christ called the Son if he isn't God's son but is God himself?

The doctrinal and biblical basis for the Trinity has been discussed here and here. I'm not looking for biblical support of the Trinity itself. This question carries with it the basic premise that the doctrine of the Trinity is true.


texts:
There are some that teach that Christ was married (usually to Mary Magdalene), yet there are others that teach that Christ was not married.

Does the Bible teach anything about Christ or His mission that would make it very unlikely that he was married?

Is there anything in the culture of Jesus' time that would shed light on the subject?

Note:

I am not looking for traditions passed down (statements by Popes, Apocryphal writings, etc), but those would certainly be acceptable (and interesting) to quote as secondary sources.

I am more interested in direct Bible verses or customs of Jesus' time that would give an indication one way or another.

As far as I know, none of the Apostles or other writers taught either case directly.


texts: To what do the seven churches of Revelation refer?

texts:
I have heard of the Seven Church Ages interpretation of the seven churches of Revelation, specifically that each church identified there also represents ages of the church since that time.  I've also heard people specify that we are now in the Laodicean church age, as we look around and see the church "rich, increased with goods, having need of nothing."

Yet, this appears to me to possibly be true of some elements of the church in America, but I can't see how the church in Iran or Vietnam would ever come to the same conclusion.

So, I see three possibilities, of which one or more may be true.

The churches in Revelation are just churches that existed at that time.
They not only refer to churches that existed then, but are symbolic of church ages
They not only refer to churches that existed then, but are representative of churches that have existed in different places since then.

Am I missing any possibilities?  What reasons are there to support each interpretation?


texts: If "Elohim" can refer to angels and demons, then does Jesus being called "God" really prove anything?

texts: In arguing for the Trinity, I mentioned that Jesus was called God (Theos in Greek). The rebuttal was that Theos in the Greek is equivalent to Elohim, which can refer to angels, demons, or just about any spiritual including God. Is there a good refutation to that argument?


texts:
Question: Did the Catholic Church infallibly define that we can demonstrate with certainty the existence of God with the light of natural reason only?

Thanks for any help.


texts: Do Protestants think of Mary as the "Mother of All Peoples"?

texts:
I recently ran across a photo of a statue of Mary with her arms outstretched horizontally and the caption "Mother of All Peoples." A Google search reveals that this title is derived from a similar title, Lady of the Nations, associated with a Dutch visionary in the 1930s. See
The Lady of All Nations.
I'm curious to know to what extent "all peoples" or "all nations" who are not Catholic accept Mary as "mother." For example, what do various Protestant denominations teach about Mary's role, if any, in God's plan for human salvation? Are there any Protestant groups who look to Mary in the role of companion or advocate?


texts: According to LDS teaching, why should we worship this God?

texts:
This question discusses the LDS teaching that

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19,

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Joseph Smith himself said:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373

From LDS.org:

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971:

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

So, in summary:

God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in his own creation.
The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one.
All Gods have endured this process.

My question is:
If God was once a man who had a God of his own, then from a Mormon perspective, why don't we worship the God of that previous Earth who created the man that is now our God, and who therefore is the God of our God, instead the God who created the Earth we inhabit? In other words, is the Creator of our Creator not also worthy of our worship?

Edit re. close vote due to duplicate question: I'm not asking about monotheism or polytheism, or asking Mormons to reconcile the claim with monotheism. I'm simply asking why we are directed to worship this God in particular, and not the God who created the Earth from which he was exalted. These are clearly very different questions.


texts: How does the doctrine of Papal Infallibility account for Peter's error?

texts:
I understand that the Catholic Churches teaches the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.  How does that account for the Scripture that references Peter's error?

  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
  stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating
  with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated
  himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews
  acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led
  astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not
  in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them
  all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew,
  how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"  Galatians 2:11-14
  (ESV)


texts: Are Christians bound to the laws of their country?

texts:
Clearly not all governments are based on Christian principles. Should Christians be bound to obey the civil laws of their respective countries (states, cities, whatever) even if they disagree with the basis for the laws?

Please answer in general about how Christians fit into civil law and worldly authority structures, but feel free to use specific examples if they help to clarify. For example, do we have to pay fines, obey speed limits or submit to curfews?


texts: What are the origins and history of shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing, fainting and similar manifestations in Christianity?

texts:
I'm interested in learning about the origins and evolution throughout Church history of manifestations such as shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing or fainting attributed to the Holy Spirit (i.e., not due to a diagnosed medical condition). For further context, I posted a related question asking for the neurological and psychological causes of these manifestations on Psychology.SE. Feel free to check it out.
For illustrative purposes, here are two testimonials about these manifestations that were recorded in 1995 during the first few months after the beginning of the Brownsville Revival:

Brownsville Revival - Alison Ward Testimony - August 18, 1995
Amy Elizabeth Ward Mercy Seat Alison Ward Brownsville Revival Pensacola FL

I understand that events such as the Toronto Blessing (1994) and the Brownsville Revival (1995) have played a very influential role in promoting these manifestations the last two or three decades, but, what about the past? Were these relatively recent events pioneer regarding these manifestations or can we find older records of similar manifestations in Church history? What are the oldest records?

Update: according to Wikipedia the oldest records of these manifestations in Protestantism would pertain to the First Great Awakening that took place in the 18th century. However, it would seem very strange to me if there were no records prior to that. Is it truly the case that there are no records of these manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and that they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward? If so, why?


texts: Why are the first five books of the old testament named differently in some translations?

texts:
In my (norwegian) Bible, the first five books are titled the first through fifth books of Moses, instead of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc., which appear to be the common English names. The names of the remaining books are straightforward translations from the English names, so it seems like there's something special about the first five books.

Is there any reason for this difference? Are the first five books also named differently in other languages/translations?


texts: What is an overview of Christian arguments against the "unconscious violinist" analogy used to support abortion in the case of rape?

texts:
I was originally looking for any Christian Church that is against abortion in the case of rape that has also responded to the scenario below or something similar to it. I was instead advised to revise my question into something like:

  What is an overview of Christian arguments made against the Thomson
  paper's support for abortion in the case of rape?

"A Defense of Abortion" (Thomson):

  You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with
  an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been
  found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers
  has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
  alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped
  you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged
  into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from
  his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he
  will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment,
  and can safely be unplugged from you.

It is said later that:

  Critics of Thomson's argument generally grant the permissibility of
  unplugging the violinist, but seek to block the inference that
  abortion is permissible by arguing that there are morally relevant
  differences between the violinist scenario and typical cases of
  abortion.

But it is unsourced. :(

To make my intentions clear, the above is an analogy for a female being raped and impregnated by a male. Some churches claim that the female is obliged to carry the child to birth if medically practical because the child is innocent of his/her father's sins, has a right to life, etc etc etc.

(Assume ideal conditions such as medical complications not being present so the mother and child are healthy, the mother can give birth, the mother and the father are not close relatives, a proper hospital is available and can be afforded, an adoption agency is available etc etc etc)

So do those arguments apply to the violinist too? What are the "morally relevant differences" ? I understand that Thomson was defending abortion in non-rape cases, but let us consider only rape cases.

What's the difference? Why are women responsible for carrying a child, who she did not consent to carrying, to birth but people are not responsible for caring for a violinist who they were attached to without consent?

I am not saying women are not responsible, but if they are, it looks like everyone is responsible for the violinist.


texts: Why does the Battle Hymn of the Republic say Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"?

texts:
A seldom-quoted stanza of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" says

  In the beauty of the lillies Christ was born across the sea
  with a beauty in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
  As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
  while God is marching on.

My question is, what does it mean when it says that Jesus was born "in the beauty of the lillies"?  I thought the story was that he was born in a manger, not among lillies.  Is there any reference to lillies in the Biblical description of Jesus' birth?

Or does the "in" mean "with", i.e. is it saying that Jesus was as beautiful as a lily when he was born?  That could be a reference to the line in the Bible about how King Solomon was not arrayed so finely as the lillies of the field.