texts:
This question is for all denominations. This opens the question wide up and is broad, but as a seeker of truth, I am curious to know what each denomination teaches and considers doctrine about this topic.

I was reading this morning in The Book of Mormon:

  Heleman 15:1
  And now, my beloved brethren, behold, I declare unto you
  that except ye shall repent your houses shall be left unto
  you desolate.

As I was thus pondering on this verse, I was reminded of Daniel's Abomination of Desolation as referenced in Matthew 24:

  Matthew 24:15
  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
  spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
  (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

I have had a question about the Abomination of Desolation for a couple years, and with that verse things have started to come to light, and I would like other viewpoints from my own. The only additional scripture I have found about the Abomination of Desolation is in the Doctrine and Covenants, which reads in part:

  D&C 88:85
  That their souls may escape the wrath of God, the desolation of
  abomination which awaits the wicked, both in this world and in
  the world to come...

The Abomination of Desolation is awaiting the wicked, as I read further in Daniel:

  Dan. 11:31
  And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the
  sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice,
  and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

and

  Dan. 12:11
  And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away,
  and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be
  a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

My conclusion from what I have read is, as one pollutes the sanctuary of strength, and replaces the daily sacrifice with abomination, the desolation comes upon the wicked. There is a similar question with great answers, but it doesn't fully answer my question.

Question: What is the sanctuary of strength and the daily sacrifice? By so knowing this, it will be easier to avoid bringing this upon myself.


texts: Did any Jesuit opponents of early Jansenism argue that Augustine was wrong on any points?

texts:
Cornelius Jansen is known as the intellectual father of Jansenism, a movement not unlike Calvinism in a few respects, like its emphasis on original sin and predestination.  Jansen's book, Augustinus (published 1640), focuses on the works of Augustine to argue for these doctrines.

Opponents to Jansenism didn't waste any time; Wikipedia indicates that Jesuits "designated" Nicolas Caussin and François Pinthereau to write anti-Jansenist works in the 1640s.  By the following decade, the movement had been condemned by the Pope.

Of course, Augustine was and is a highly regarded Christian theologian, though the Catholic church today recognizes that he was sometimes mistaken.  But I'd like to know if the anti-Jansenists were willing to make that admission, or if they focused their attack solely on Jansen's arguments.  So my question is:

Did the anti-Jansenist writings published before the papal condemnation ever directly say that Augustine was wrong on a particular point, or did they exclusively argue that Jansen and his followers had misused or misinterpreted Augustine?


texts: According to the Assembly of God, must a person love God to get into heaven, if he believes in Christ?

texts:
I was always taught, and my reading of the Bible (admittedly it has holes) tell me that the requirement to get into heaven is to accept Jesus as one's savior; that is, one must acknowledge one's status as a sinner, one must acknowledge Jesus is the Son of God, and one must accept the offer of grace and salvation through Jesus's shed blood.

I notice that in there, there is nothing about loving God, or even liking Him. Is there anything in the Bible that says we are actually required to love God to get into heaven? Or, like the begrudging taxpayer, can we avoid punishment from someone we're not endeared to simply by 'following the rules'?

I am looking for the Evangelical perspective on this, Assembly of God, if possible, with the scriptural basis for their view.


texts: Should praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private be out loud or silent?

texts:
For the laity, when praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private, is it more in keeping with tradition to you pray out loud or silently or does it matter?

Also, do you change the way you repeat antiphons and responses when praying in private or praying silently as opposed to praying out loud or singing/chanting it?


texts: Which English translation of the Bible does the Orthodox church use?

texts: By Orthodox I intend both the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox, and if there are any differences.


texts:
From what I understand there are many people from various denominations who imagine certain places on the earth are 'holier' than other places and that it is good to travel long distances to visit those places.  During the times of the reformation sometimes the travel might be difficult and that this might also be a means in part to show 'penance' for one's sins, not to mention opportunity of purchasing indulgences for the same purpose.

Pilgrimages seems quite contrary to the notions of the reformation. I wonder what the leaders of the reformation, specifically Martin Luther, thought about the idea of going on a pilgrimage.


texts: "Time Capsules" in the architectural plans of Catholic Churches and Cathedrals?

texts:
I found this article about a time capsule found in a Catholic Church in Singapore quite interesting: 173-year-old time capsule unearthed at Singapore's oldest Catholic church

  A 173-year-old time capsule and granite foundation stone of the country's oldest Catholic church have been unearthed, in what experts describe as a "rare discovery".

  Contractors found the hitherto missing capsule and foundation stone earlier this year while restoring the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd along Queen Street.

  The time capsule - possibly the oldest one found here - comprises publications such as a prayer booklet and newspapers from 1843, as well as 24 international 18th- and 19th-century coins and tokens. A foundation stone, or cornerstone, is the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation.

Does the Catholic Church have any regulations (rules, laws or norms) on placing a time capsule in the foundation of a church or cathedral? What may placed in such a time capsule?

As a bonus question: What is the oldest known recorded evidence of a time capsule ever been employed in the Catholic architecture of a church or cathedral?


texts: What was the justification of morality in Puritan Antinomianism?

texts:
As far as I know, Puritans were devout Calvinists. According to Theopedia, Antinomianism is associated with disobedience to the established authority, so it may be connected with the idea of lawlessness, immorality, or licentiousness. Was this term merely a pejorative adjective for people who disagreed with the established religious authority, like legalism? Or did the Puritan antinomians really have their own theology on justification before God, and if so, how did the Puritan antinomians thought they were justified? What was the purpose of God's moral laws then?

This question was previously posted on the History.SE, but it was closed for being off-topic. Hopefully, it's on-topic here.


texts: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - who is understood as the fourth person in the fire?

texts:
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who is understood as the fourth person in the fire?

In the third chapter of book of Daniel after King Nebicanesor throws Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace he sees four people in the furnace instead of three, who are talking with each other.

What is understand of who this person is? An angel, a Christophany?
What is the current Christian understanding of this?
How would a Jewish person in ancient times have understood this?
Is there any extra biblical Jewish sources/tradition naming the fourth person (such as a specific angel, etc)?


texts: What did Jesus quote Psalm 22: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

texts:
What is the correlation between these two scripture?
Why Jesus felt forsaken if he knew what was going on?
Why was it mentioned in Old Testament as well as New Testament(in two places)?

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You
so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning? (Psalm 22:1, NKJV)
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a
loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God,
My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46, NKJV)


texts: Why is saying Vespers on Holy Thursday and Good Friday discouraged?

texts:
According to my copy of ''The Divine Office'' (the UK/Australia edition of the Liturgy of the Hours/Roman Breviary), on Holy Thursday and Good Friday the saying of Vespers is discouraged:

  Evening Prayer is said only by those who do not attend the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper.
  Evening Prayer is said only by those who do not attend the Afternoon Liturgical Action of the Passion.

I don't understand why these offices are removed: can anyone explain it?

(The other omissions – compline on Easter Eve and the office of readings on Easter Day – are easier to understand: the Easter Vigil renders them unnecessary.)


texts: What are the differences/distinctive between the Anglican and Episcopal churches?

texts:
I've never been very sure what the difference is between the Anglican and Episcopal churches. Is it safe to assume that in core doctrines their doctrinal stance would be pretty similar, i.e. Christology, soteriology? The impression I get is that the Anglicans are more traditional (e.g. view of authority of the Bible) and Episcopal more "progressive" (forgive me for using a loaded term).

What would be the differences in terms of the following: doctrine, practice, polity, confessions/creeds?

Any other differences of note?


texts: Is using medication derived from tissue of aborted fetuses compatible with Catholic teaching?

texts:
Obviously no one should take any medical advice from StackExchange, but from a purely theological/canon-law perspective:
What does Catholic teaching or canon law say about using medicine developed from cells taken from an aborted fetus?  Is using such medication compatible with the teachings on human dignity and the origin of life?
Question inspired by a recent Guardian article on the drug Regeneron, headlined 'Covid drug given to Trump developed using cells derived from aborted fetus':

The stem cells used to develop the drug are known as HEK-293T cells, a line of cells used in laboratories. The cells were originally derived from an embryonic kidney after an elective abortion performed in the Netherlands in the 1970s.


texts: Are there any alternative / emergent views on John 10:22-ff?

texts:
I'm just wondering if there is any other way of looking at the whole "I and the father are one" issue, and all that is this hugely important passage of the Bible.

As per the comment, I'll spell it out. Traditionally and in most Biblical commentaries, the passage is Jesus telling those around him that he is God. To quote the ESV commentary:

  Jesus’ claim that I and the Father are one (i.e., one entity—the Gk.
  is neuter; cf. 5:17–18; 10:33–38) echoes the Shema, the basic
  confession of Judaism, whose first word in Deut. 6:4 is shema‘ (Hb.
  “hear”). Jesus’ words thus amount to a claim to deity.

What I'm interested in are other viewpoints. Anything from Panenthism (see 10:34) or otherwise (i.e. extending the idea of the Logos within Sufism). Anything from the Emergent Church group would also be great.


texts: According to Catholicism, does God actively cause suffering in Hell?

texts:
I was wondering what is the official ontological explanation of the Catholic Church in regard to human souls and fallen angles suffering in Hell. I do not know whether God actively punishes them with His absence or whether it's something else entirely.
Does the suffering in Hell come from not being able to bear God's presence? Or is Hell itself absence of God's presence? I don't know, though the first conclusion seems more logical to me, as God is omnipresent. Furthermore, God is Love, so I think that the suffering that comes from the free decision to turn away from Him is more plausible than God actively punishing sinners in Hell. After all, he is the just Judge, not a tormentor.
I hope that this speculation of mine is not heresy by Catholic standards. Thank you for your answers in advance.


texts: How are Supererogative acts even possible in Catholicism?

texts:
God, through each person of the Holy Trinity, the Prophets, the Saints, and his people set out what to do in order to enter the kingdom of heaven through the commandments, through the beatitudes, though lives worthy of imitation (in the case of Jesus and the Saints) and building the kingdom of God (e.g. as specified in Matthew 25).  Obviously the list is not exhaustive, but suffice to say, there are clear duties set, and reasons as to why these duties help build the kingdom of God.

Those who thoroughly practice the Catholic faith strive to go beyond the minimum duties through the forces of Grace. Striving for the minimum understandably does not help much for a relationship with God, and thus it makes sense to go beyond "what the instructor specifies" so to speak.

But if God, who is the perfect instructor, lays out what to do for us to become perfect and thus be able to enter the kingdom of heaven, why must we go beyond what a perfect omnipotent being guides us to do?  I am struggling to understand why Supererogation is a thing.  Aren't those who follow God's law, in both spirit and letter already desiring to become perfect? How can we go beyond what God commands?  How can one go beyond desiring to become perfect?

I feel I am missing something here, but I hope readers understand my logical conundrum here.


texts: What would happen if a priest venerated Santa Muerte in an RCC church?

texts:
In Mexico, the mix of native and Catholic religions has produced an interesting figure called Santa Muerte or literally, "Saint Death."  In many ways, the icons, statues, and venerations ascribed to her fit what many non-Catholics naively assume about veneration.

Furthermore, traditions like Our Lady of Lourdes and The Lady of Guadalupe suggest that new shrines and/or places of veneration can be incorporated into the church, and eventually become, if not canonical, at least typical.

To date, the Catholic church has taken no position on Santa Muerte.  The question is - what would it take for them to do so?  If a priest were to acknowledge her, would that be sufficient?  And how would the church change as a result?


texts: Did Thomas Aquinas rate masturbation as a greater sin than rape?

texts:
It is sometimes said that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that rape is a lesser sin than masturbation. Is this actually the case?
Here are two examples:

[In Aquinas's view], Because sins against nature were sins against God, they were considered more serious than sins against other people, such as adultery, seduction, and rape (John F. Schumaker, Religion and Mental Health [Oxford University Press US], 1992), 76). To make his point perfectly clear, Aquinas poses a question: are not rape and adultery worse than unnatural acts, since they harm other persons, while consensual sins against nature do not? The answer is unequivocal: the four non-procreative forms of sex are worse, since–though not harmful to others–they are sins directly against God himself as the creator of nature. According to this logic, rape, which may at least lead to pregnancy, becomes a less serious sin than masturbation (Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilisation, [Harvard University Press, 2006], 188).
"A practice opposed to the pattern set for us by nature" exceeds in wickedness the seduction of an innocent of the opposite sex, adultery, and rape (II-II 154:12) (Sex from Plato to Paglia, by Alan Soble [Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006], 1053).

What is the source of this notion, and is the statement true in context?  If it is, what led Aquinas to this conclusion?


texts: At what age could a man start bringing offerings for sin in ancient Israel to the priest?

texts: I just want to know if the scriptures or another source specify if little children or young man could offer sacrifices. Or if there was a minimum age for it. Only men? Grown up, men?


texts: Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles?

texts: I'm wondering if there are any passages/prophecies about salvation for the Gentile world in the Old Testament. If you know any, please share.


texts: From a Dogmatic Catholic perspective, what is the eternal destination of an unbaptized embryo?

texts:
This dogmatic statement from the Council of Trent makes it Crystal Clear that we inherit sin from Adam.

  If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that he lost for himself alone, and not for us also, the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost; or that he, defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema; inasmuch as he contradicts the apostle, who says: By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

The Inspired Author shows us that the infant is not an exception.

  Therefore behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. Psalms 51:5

Is there a infallible dogmatic statement from the Catholic Church addressing the eternal destination of the deceased Embryo as a result of his original sin?


texts: What is meant by the statement of Our Lady to St. Dominic according to the Catholic Church

texts: Some people say that Mary promised St. Dominic, "Whatever you ask in the Rosary will be granted."  According to the Church, is this statement an authentic quote, and if so, what is the teaching behind it?


texts: If Catholics have to be open to new life how can they practice Natural Family Planning?

texts:
I listened to a Christoper West audio recordings where he explains the theology of the body of JP2 writings.

He keeps on saying how important it is to be open to new life within the marital act(sex). Using contraception is prohibited because it violates the very act of love.

I noticed though among Catholics who practice NFP (natural family planning) that they solely use it to prevent new life. I'm talking about people who have no problem to conceive a child. I never hear them saying we are trying to conceive a baby. I only see the announcements how they 'again' got pregnant unexpectedly. Probably because they made a mistake in calculations or couldn't abstain.

My question is: Doesn't this set NFP to the same level as contraception? Does the child always need to be expected?

I know there is nothing wrong to have an unexpected baby or to postpone having a baby. Don't the couples' always trying to avoid pregnancy changing the meaning of NFP use? Didn't it become to be 'open to new life but always try to prevent it'?


texts: Why doesn't the Catholic church have prophets and apostles?

texts:
The New Testament often mentions the title/calling apostle and prophet. Why don't Catholics (the largest Christian denomination) use those titles/callings? Is it because they see some biblical basis for not using them?
In Ephesians 4 (KJV) it says:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

And in 1 Corinthians 12:28 it says:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.


texts: Who were the intended audience in the Epistle to Romans?

texts:
Romans 1:7 (ESV)

  To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

  Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who were the members of the Church in Rome? Where they

Jewish Christians?
Slaves?
Freedmen(slaves who gained freedom)?
Roman citizens(by birth or by paying the price)?

If the church in Rome was a compound of all kinds of people, who were the majority?


texts: According to Catholicism, why did the robbers strip the traveler to Jericho?

texts:
At Luke 10:30 (NRSVCE) we meet the traveler to Jericho who was saved by the Good Samaritan,  in a vivid narrative given by Jesus:

" Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.""

One is eager to know why Jesus made a mention of robbers stripping the traveler. They would have done it to search for hidden purses. Or, Jesus perhaps wanted to give a benefit of doubt to  the priest who would naturally  take the traveler  for naked and dead, therefore `double-unclean'. I therefore, wish to know the importance of Jesus' mention of the stripping and beating of the traveler to Jericho. Do the  teachings of Catholic Church say anything about it ?


texts: What is the biblical basis for God being omnipresent?

texts:
I believe that God is omnipresent, but what are some Bible verses that back this up?
Here are some counterarguments:

Exodus 3:16
"...I have surely visited you and seen what is being done to you in Egypt."
Genesis 28:12  And he dreamed: There was a ladder set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
28:13  And there was Jehovah, standing above it..."


texts: Is the Eucharist of non-Porvoo Lutheran church valid in the churches of Porvoo Communion?

texts:
Porvoo communion is the full Eucharistic communion of Lutheran churches of Northern Europe, but the Lutheran Church of Latvia is only observer in this communion. I understand that the Lutheran Church of Latvia does not recognize the Eucharist and Priesthood of Porvoo Communion (mainly because Porvoo communion admits woman to the priesthood and recognizes diversity in marriage), but what about the reverse order? Does Porvoo communion recognizes the Eucharist and Priesthood of Latvian Church? One can argue that the "stricter" character of the Latvia Church may make it "more sacred" and hence its sacraments should be recognized by the "less sacred" Churches (please, forgive me mentioning this somehow graphic and ironic argument). Or maybe Porvoo Communion is more open to the Christian practices and agrees to recognize the Eucharist even without reciprocal recognition?

I belong to the Church of Sweden and I have no possibility to attend the local Anglican Services (both Church of Sweden and Church of England belong to the Porvoo Communion) and there are no Church of Sweden Services but there are Latvian services. So - maybe I attend those Latvian services?

I know that this site is not for discussions about lifestyle and about righteousness, but my question is more judicial one - I am not arguing about superiority of one or other Church, I just wanted to know more about the practices and the documents of mentioned Churches concerning my question.

And just a note - I feel more comfortable with reformed Churches of Porvoo (than Catholic and more conservative Latvian Church), because Porvoo Churches are more open to the theological/rational research of their faith and this openness allows to adapt the true message of Jesus to the current state of the World. And yes - the current scientific and technological development has empowered people and the people should take advantage of this power and I feel that Reformed Churches are more willing to make practical works for the benefit of the society. Some unreformed Churches are not aware of this progress and are more willing to just pray and do nothing beyond what they have done forever. Reformed Churches are more energetic.


texts: How did the Church fathers of the first four centuries understand 2 Corinthians 5:21?

texts:
God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21, NET)

I'm interested in an overview of the understanding of the early Christians relating to the fact that Christ was made to be sin.


texts: Strange take on the Parable of the 10 talents - Kids book

texts:
I was recently reading to my children from a Bible storybook, which included the parable of the 10 Talents, specifically Luke 19:11-24 (roughly - it's very paraphrased).

After telling that the third man "made no money", this story said something like "The king was angry and greedy", then went on to say "Jesus was saying God's kingdom would be nothing like this."

I've never heard this interpretation before. Is there some actual scholarship behind it, or is this just a bad attempt to make a harsh story kid-friendly?

Update
Here are some specifics about the text. It starts with "Jesus taught the people in Jericho about earthly kingdoms through telling a story called a parable." It concludes with: "The third servant came forward, but hadn't made any more money. The king was angry and greedy. Jesus told the people this story because God's kingdom would be nothing like this man's kingdom."

This is the Deep Blue Bible Storybook by Abingdon Press - https://www.abingdonpress.com/product/9781501848612/


texts: How does sola fide doctrine reconcile with how much David talks about his own righteousness?

texts:
What is an overview of the statements made by prominent sola fide (faith alone) proponents in regards to David's proclamations of his own righteousness?
I presume that sola fide proponents believe that it is faith alone, not works of "righteousness", that makes us righteous before God. David appears to be touting his own goodness in these Psalms and others.

Psalm 7:8 ESV The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.
Psalm 18:20 ESV The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
Psalm 119:7 ESV I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.

The extra brain buster is how much more David seems to talk about his own sin.

Psalm 20:9 ESV Who can say, “I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin”?


texts: What is the significance of Mary treasuring and pondering in her heart?

texts:
In "the Christmas parts" in Luke Mary's reaction to many great occurrences is to treasure and ponder them in her heart.

Is there specific significance to this phrasing or is it simply to highlight Mary's humility?


texts: Question for those who hold to the immortality of the soul

texts:
These verses were used to teach conditionalism/ human souls are mortal. What is the “traditionalist” response to these verses.
(1 Timothy 6:16):
“who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”
(Ezekiel 18:20 ):
“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”


texts: Why did Jesus compare one born of the Spirit to the wind?

texts:
At John 3:8 (RSVCE) we see Jesus saying:

  "The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

I often wondered at the statement of Jesus that one would never know where the wind came from. The wind, in a common man's language is understood to be coming from ' east, west, south or north' and going in just the opposite direction. One seldom cares for the origin of wind, which even science finds difficult to trace. My question therefore is: what are the qualities that Jesus wanted to attribute to the one born of the Spirit while comparing him/her to the wind ? What are the views of the Catholic Church on the comparison?


texts: What denominations apply the doctrine Nuda Scriptura?

texts:
I have been hearing about the application of the doctrine of Nuda Scriptura, where the Bible is separated from all the traditional connotation or context of the Church. They reject creeds and confessions, having Scripture as the only theological resource.
But who are the ones who adhere to this doctrine? and on what grounds do they reject Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura?


texts: What is the view of reformed churches on the subject of ghosts? Do they exist or do they not? If they exist, what are they: demons or spirits of dead people or both?


texts: What does the Catholic Church require for a parent's name to appear on the child's baptism certificate?

texts: Does the pastor of a parish, or his representative, have the right in canon law to prevent a parent's name from appearing on the baptismal certificate of their child to be baptized for any reason, such as lack of having received  all the sacraments?


texts: Historical origins of the doctrine of God's self glorification

texts:
Within the Reformed tradition, it is a considered a fundamental principle of doctrine that the 'Chief End' of Man, of Creation and most importantly of God Himself is His own self glorification. We see this in the Westminster Catechism, throughout Calvin's Institutes and by so many within the Puritan tradition, e.g. Johnathan Edwards writing an entire essay on the subject; 'A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World '. In fact, one of the 'Solae' of the Reformation, 'Sola Deo Gloria' shows how central God's glory was in the minds of the reformers.

'Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.' - Westminster Catechism, Shorter

'And God had regard to it in this manner, as he had a supreme regard to himself, and value for his own infinite, internal glory.' - Jonathan Edwards, 'A Dissertation Concerning The End For Which God Created The World'.

'The meaning of all this is, that the world, which was made to display the glory of God, is its own creator' - Calvin's 'Institutes', Chapter 5.5. (Calvin is here referencing Virgil, but acknowledges the the world was created for the display of Gods glory).

'Zeal in Christianity is a burning desire to please God, to do His will, and to advance His glory in the world in every possible way' - J.C. Ryle,

This doctrine is so singular and remarkable that it can properly be described as the defining principle of Reformed theology. My question is, what are the pre-reformation precedents for this doctrine? I.e. do we see this teaching in the writings of Augustine, of the Schoolmen, in the Eastern church etc..? Although I can clearly see its Biblical precedent, it seems to be a question that was not explicitly addressed until the Reformation.


texts: Why don't young-earth creationists just explain things (usually considered as miracles) as miracles?

texts: I've observed some young-earth creationists attempt to link the worldwide flood of Noah's day with melting icebergs. While not critical of the science behind such an explanation, I would really like to know why young-earth creationists, in addition to a strictly literal approach, don't also leave any room for miracles in their explanations of things that are commonly regarded as miracles. Why don't they say at least "I don't know" instead of creating the faulty science?


texts: Was Emperor St. Justinian an Aphthartodocetist?

texts:
Ss. Eutychius of Constantinople and Anastasius of Antioch were deposed and exiled because they openly opposed Emperor St. Justinian's edict in 564 on Aphthartodocetism, the belief that Christ's body, from the incarnation, was incorruptible.

In the Hagiography of Eutychius of Constantinople we read:

  After the death of the holy Patriarch Menas, the Apostle Peter
  appeared in a vision to the emperor Justinian and, pointing his hand
  at Eutychius, said, 'Let him be made your bishop.' At the very
  beginning of his patriarchal service, St Eutychius convened the Fifth
  Ecumenical Council (553), at which the Fathers condemned the heresies
  cropping up and anathematized them. However, after several years a new
  heresy arose in the Church: Aphthartodocetism or imperishability which
  taught that the flesh of Christ, before His death on the Cross and
  Resurrection, was not capable of suffering. St Eutychius vigorously
  denounced this heresy, but the emperor Justinian himself inclined
  toward it, and turned his wrath upon the saint. By order of the
  emperor, soldiers seized the saint in the church, removed his
  patriarchal vestments, and sent him into exile to an Amasean monastery
  (565).

  Hagiography of Eutychius of Constantinople.

The surviving extant about that edict is preserved by Evagrius Scholasticus:

  At that time Justinian, abandoning the right road of doctrine, and
  following a path untrodden by the apostles and fathers, became
  entangled among thorns and briers; with which wishing to fill the
  Church also, he failed in his purpose, and thereby fulfilled the
  prediction of prophecy ; the Lord having secured the royal road with
  an unfailing fence, that murderers might not leap, as it were,
  upon a tottering wall or a broken hedge. Thus, at the time when John,
  named also Catelinus, was bishop of the elder Rome, after Vigilius;
  John from Seremis, of New Rome; Apollinaris, of Alexandria;
  Anastasius, of Theopolis, after Domninus; and Macarius, of Jerusalem,
  had been restored to his see; Justinian, after he had anathematized
  Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, issued what the Latins call an Edict,
  after the deposition of Eustochius, in which he termed the body of the
  Lord incorruptible and incapable of the natural and blameless
  passions; affirming that the Lord ate before his passion in the same
  manner as after his resurrection, his holy body having undergone no
  conversion or change from the time of its actual formation in the
  womb, not even in respect of the voluntary and natural passions, nor
  yet after the resurrection. To this, he proceeded to compel the
  bishops in all quarters to give their assent. However, they all
  professed to look to Anastasius, the bishop of Antioch, and thus
  avoided the first attack.

  Evagrius Scholasticus, Church History, 4:39, Departure of Justinian from Orthodoxy.

Fr. Asterios Gerostergios in his book Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saint, rejects the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism.

Eutychius himself later lapsed into the same heresy before renouncing it on his death bed. Was Justinian for a time temporarily fell into this aphthartodocetic heresy and repented shortly before his death bed similar to what happen to Eutychius latter? This question is not made to defame a holy and pious saint venerated by both Catholic and Orthodox. I ask this question to study a historical event in the Church history.


texts: How did the livestock of the Egyptians die twice?

texts:
Yesterday we were studying the ten plagues in Exodus. One of the things that confused us was this. Exodus 9:6 reads:

  6 And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died. [NIV]

This means, the Egyptians did not have any livestock left. But in verses 20 and 21 we read:

  20 Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside. 21 But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field.

Wait, which livestock? Wasn't the livestock already dead?

And in verse 25 we read that the livestock was indeed killed.

  25 Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.

So we discussed this, and thought well, maybe the ten plagues took place over a longer time so the Egyptians could restore their livestock. However this seems not really possible as Moses did die at 120 years old (Deuteronomy 34:7) where Moses was 80 years old (Exodus 7:7) when he was called by God.

What would be a good explanation for this conflict?


texts: Why do so many baptisms occur with regular clothes on and not swimwear?

texts:
Why do so many baptisms occur with regular clothes on, and not in a swimsuit?

On my visit to a Southern Baptist church, I saw a little girl get baptized by immersion. That was the only time when I saw a live presentation of a baptism. I was surprised that she didn't wear her swimsuit either, because I thought the wet clothing was going to feel very uncomfortable.

Apparently, that behavior is normal practice. I watched a couple of videos online of baptisms by immersion, and many of them involved getting your clothes all wet. When I say clothes, I mean clothes that you would normally wear casually, not for swimming.


texts: Parable of The Two Sons [Matthew 21:28-31]

texts:
It is a very powerful parable indeed but I am very curious about the first and the second son, their chronology. In many places in the bible, e.g. Romans 2:9-10 I perceive the Jews denoted as the first and the gentiles as the second which I see is close to the context when Jesus said in Matthew 19:30

Matthew 19:30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Romans 2:9-10 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

But in this parable, Matthew 21:28-31, The order is different, do you have any thoughts or ideas or even better has anyone been touched by the Holy Spirit on this parable?

Matthew 21:28-31
28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ 29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. 30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.


texts: What does the LDS church teach about what men and women did or do in the pre-existence?

texts:
I understand that the LDS Church believes that everyone existed in the spirit world prior to their conception in the womb in the physical world.

What specifically, though, does the pre-existence consist of?  As I recall, there is opportunity to live well and to live poorly in the pre-existence, and that has impact in this world.  What, then, does the LDS Church teach about this pre-existence, what it's like, and what tests a person must pass?


texts: How do Catholics explain Mary making sin offering 40 days after Jesus' birth?"

texts: The Bible reports that in accord with the requirement of the Mosaic Law, 40 days after Jesus’ birth Mary offered at the temple in Jerusalem a sin offering for purification from uncleanness. If she inherited no sin and imperfection from Adam why  would she have done this?—Luke 2:22-24; Lev. 12:1-8.


texts: Is there any biblical basis for the Church to depict Jesus as a European or some other ethnic race?

texts:
The reason I ask is that the Most Rev Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Church of England) was recently interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme and said that in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, the way the Western church portrays Jesus needs to be thought about again.  He suggested that a Middle Eastern looking Jesus is the most accurate.
The Daily Telegraph (Saturday 27 June 2020) reported that a spokesman for Westminster Abbey said: “The Dean and Chapter of Westminster have begun a conversation about the Abbey’s memorials and how we can better reflect the attitudes of our time.”
A photograph of the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral showed a distinctly European looking Christ nailed to a cross with a very European looking Mary and Apostle John on either side of him.
For Jesus to be accepted by the society into which he was born, he would have looked like them.  The Jewish community in which Jesus grew up did not doubt that Jesus was the son of Joseph, the carpenter:

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?  Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?” (Matthew 13:55)

Had Jesus been born with white skin, blond or light brown hair and blue eyes, eyebrows might have been raised!
Is there any biblical basis for the Western Church (Catholic or Protestant) to depict Jesus as a European or some other ethnic race?


texts: Which eschatological belief does Catholicism profess? Deem heretical?

texts: There are a variety of eschatological beliefs in Christianity, such as Premillennialism, Amillennialism, etc. Which eschatological belief does Catholicism profess, if any, and which eschatological belief(s) does Catholicism deem heretical, if any?


texts: Why did the apostle John call himself, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

texts:
John refers to himself, on at least four occasions, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? (John 13:23, 19:26, 21:7 & 21:20).

Why is this? It seems a bit arrogant, especially as Jesus loved the other disciples as well.


texts: Is a indulgence valid if granted the night before?

texts:
Say a person is granted indulgence after Saturday night mass, (which fulfilled the Sunday obligation). Does that mean he can not be granted indulgence the following morning?

I'm assuming an indulgence can only be granted once a day.


texts: Where can I find Patristic Commentary on the Golden Calf incident?

texts: Is there any extant pre-Schism (i.e. Before 1054 AD, when the Eastern and Western chueches anathematized each other) commentary on the golden calf incident of Exodus 32:1--6, and if so, where?


texts:
Recently, a good friend of mine posed the question:

  What (or who) is Satan and how do we know?

I answered him, saying that Satan is an evil angel because this is what I've been taught since I was a child. However, after further investigation (meaning looking through relevant portions of the Bible) I could not justify my claim. In fact, the only form that Satan is described as having, in my investigation, is the form of a dragon. So, that's my question:

What is the form of Satan? Is he/it a dragon, human, angel, something else, or is his/its form indeterminate? Please use scripture to support your answer, and thank you.


texts: How did Zipporah know that God was going to kill Moses?

texts:
How did Zipporah come to know that God was going to kill Moses?

  Exodus 4:24–25 (NASB)
  Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me."


texts: What is the source of the quote attributed to Origen, that "the soul has neither beginning nor end"?

texts:
Related answer: Is there any substance to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?

The following quote is widely attributed to Origen in books and on the internet  (e.g., here and here):

  The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.

It's sometimes attributed to Origen's De Principiis, but a simple text search of that work does not reveal this quote.

From the answer linked above, it's pretty clear that Origen taught at least some doctrine of preexistence of souls, but this quote is often used to say that Origen believed in full-blown reincarnation.

Where does this quote come from?  Is it actually in the writings of Origen? If not, when/where did it originate?

Note: Some might argue that the quote in this question is a fair summary of Origen's teaching.  That's irrelevant.  I'm interested in the origin of the quote itself, accounting for the possibility of minor differences due to translation into English from the original language. None of the "real" Origen quotes listed in the linked answer are anywhere close enough, in my opinion, to be considered the source of the quote in this question.


texts: According to Catholicism, is it unlawful to cause others to work on Sunday?

texts:
The Precepts of the Catholic Church say:

  You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor

There are already several discussions about what servile labor is, boiling down to things that are more work than recreation (I'm simplifying here).

Is it also unlawful to cause others to perform servile work? Examples might be eating out or shopping on Sunday.


texts: What do we know about the Council of Nicaea's ban of celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before Passover?

texts:
I was reading the wiki on Constantine the Great and was struck by this passage:

More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed. He enforced the council's prohibition against celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before the Jewish Passover, which marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition. From then on, the solar Julian Calendar was given precedence over the lunisolar Hebrew Calendar among the Christian churches of the Roman Empire.[232]

The footnote points to this source but it seems not to say anything about the "Lord's Supper" or Passover at all:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm
Was there such an edict and if so, where might it be documented?


texts: What is a brief history on the idea that the Pope is the Antichrist?

texts:
I am quite familiar with the Reformers' opposition to the Papacy, and many said the Pope is the Antichrist. What confuses me is this quote from that same page:

In calling the pope the "antichrist," the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the "antichrist" when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.

I was under the impression that the idea originated with the Reformers; however, it clearly did not. I would like a brief history of this idea up until the Reformers.


texts: Did the Jews think it was immoral to have leprosy?

texts:
He stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, “I want to. Be made clean.”
  Immediately the leprosy left him. He commanded him to tell no one, “But go your way, and show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing according to what Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.” (Luke 5:13-14)

This indicates that Jews (including Jesus) thought illness is a punishment for your sins. Is that true? It seems to exclude today's basic Christian understanding.


texts: Is there a registry of Book of Mormon Geography Theories?

texts:
Years ago I attended a presentation at an LDS chapel by a man who had recently retired from his position as the head of the geography department at the University of Calgary - Dr. Lynn Rosenvall.
Dr Rosenvall has an extensive Book of Mormon Geography theory.
All these years after hearing his presentation, there's one thing he said before he started that I particularly remembered. He said something like "when I registered my geography theory, I learned that there are [some really high number] of registered Book of Mormon geography theories".
That idea of there being a registry of these theories from which a person could see other registered theories caught my attention. From time to time I've opened up a Google search to try and find said registry - but I've never been able to find anything like that.
Does a registry of only Book of Mormon geography theories exist? Or did I possibly misunderstand Dr Rosenvall's comment?
I could see his comment just being some odd way of saying he made his theory public, or that he had to register with some kind of government organization in order to get permits for historical excavation and study in his theorized location - and within that registry he happened to see other Book of Mormon theories. However, I know nothing about all that. What I remember of his comment seemed pretty directed at the idea that there's some Book of Mormon only registry.


texts: Do a significant number of Biblical scholars presently support inerrancy?

texts:
Biblical inerrancy is such a hot topic of debate these days that there is at least one website directly devoted to defending it (DefendingInerrancy.com), and of course many multiple Christian Apologetics and Biblical Authority organizations (notably ones like CARM and Answers In Genesis).

Is there a resource showing a significant number of contemporary (e.g. focusing within the last 100-200 years to present day) Bible Scholars who support evangelical inerrancy of the Bible?

I would think infallibility comes naturally with inerrancy, but perhaps not for everyone. Any comments on this would be welcome, too. The same may go for Verbal Plenary Inspiration (see related Q&A list, below).

Here are a few notable scholars I found who (AFAIK) fit the bill (mostly resulting from brief online searches):

Dr. Terry Mortenson
Dr. Gleason Archer
Dr. Norman Geisler
Dr. John Gerstner

Here are a few possibly helpful/related StackExchange resources:

What is verbal plenary inspiration and to what texts does it apply?
Which hermeneutical approaches support a literal interpretation of the creation?
From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?
What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? (although, contrary to the accepted answer, elsewhere online I have seen Catholics describe Catholic Inerrancy as being very different from Christian Protestant Fundamental Inerrancy)


texts: How did Baptists in the southern US justify slavery as compatible with Christianity?

texts:
The wikipedia article on Slavery in the US states:

  Over the decades and with the growth of slavery throughout the South, Baptist and Methodist ministers gradually changed their messages to accommodate the institution. After 1830, white Southerners argued for the compatibility of Christianity and slavery, with a multitude of both Old and New Testament citations.

What verses, or other arguments, were made, particularly by Baptists at the time (to narrow the question), to support slavery, particularly as practices in the US, as an institution compatible with and/or condoned by Christianity?

I don't need an exhaustive list--I'm sure that would take tomes.  An overview of the matter is sufficient.


texts: What is the biblical basis for defining 'atonement’ as 'at-one-ment with Christ'?

texts:
I’m looking for answers from Protestant Trinitarians as this seems to be a fairly recent explanation, currently in vogue in some groups (mainly evangelical, I would suppose).
The basis for my query is the following scripture texts (all A.V.):

“And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Romans 5:11
“And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year
with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year
shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations : it is
most holy unto the Lord. …when they give an offering unto the Lord, to
make an atonement for your souls, and thou shalt take the atonement
money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint if for the service
of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto
the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your
souls.” Exodus 30:10 & 15-16
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to
you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul : for it is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:11

I note that modern translations use the word ‘atonement’ more frequently. However, I am not looking for simple agreement with what those texts say, or any subjective opinion as to what atonement means to individual Christians, but of what this one word, ‘atonement’ actually means, in context, and whether it could be misleading to say it means ‘at-one-ment’ (not least because that phrase of cobbled-together words explains nothing, in and of itself.)


texts:
What is the difference between Lutheran and Calvinist beliefs in the apostasy of the Church? Do Lutherans and Calvinists believe in the Great Apostasy belief like Mormons do?
B.H. Roberts, an LDS Seventy and LDS Church historian, in his introduction to the History of the Church, stated that the LDS Church is founded upon this very premise. He wrote,

Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
B. H. Roberts, the History of the Church, vol. 1, p. xl.


texts: What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization?

texts:
What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization in a denomination, say Presbyterianism?

This question can be reworded as "When churches assign names to themselves in this fashion 'First Presbyterian Church; Second Presbyterian Church; Third Presbyterian Church', are they accounting for the fact that there are other Presbyterian churches in the locality (regardless of the sub-denomination or organization name, evangelical or mainline) or that there may be other churches in the EXACT same sub-denomination under Presbyterianism and that one Presbyterian church chooses to name itself as a way to distinguish this Presbyterian church from that Presbyterian church?"


texts: How does the Catholic Church reconcile evolution with original sin?

texts:
According to Catholic doctrine:

all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam;
God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed.

If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one. Moreover, there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for, anything he had to free us from.

Now, my question is: How can the doctrine of ancestral sin be justified in view of the Darwinian theory of evolution?


texts: Why is wine associated with St John the Apostle?

texts:
In the Rituale Romanum of the Catholic Church one can find a blessing for wine which is reserved for the Feast of St John the Apostle (December 27).

Why does the Catholic Church associate this tradition with St John?

Occasionally artists show a snake or a dragon coming out of a chalice with St. John the Apostle.

El Greco: St. John the Evangelist, 1595-1604


texts:
In certain religions, women are considered as ritually impure during their menstrual cycles. They are asked not to participate in sacred rituals etc during those times.

Is it the same in Christianity? Are menstruating women considered ritually impure in Christianity?

Please cite from the Holy scriptures to prove your claims.


texts: Who assigned the gospel authors originally?

texts:
According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on.

I would like to know:

For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they? I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, who assigned them.

For example:

The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:

1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region.

2) X2 person or group, ...""

If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another.

The gospel according to Luke... ""

Please give sources, thank you!


texts: How do various Christian traditions view the expression "crossing over Jordan"?

texts:
John Bunyan's 'The Pilgrim’s Progress' (published 1678) makes reference to "crossing the River" in order to get to the Celestial City.  Chapter 20 mentions that only Enoch and Elijah did not have to cross the River.  FAITH is needed to make the crossing from this life to the next.

In Chapter 34 Christiana crosses the River, along with many other pilgrims.  All have been summoned to make the crossing.

My question is about the origins of the expression "crossing over Jordan" and whether this is commonly understood as an allegory of the believer passing over from this life to the next, or if it could mean something else.

I'm looking for source material/references to help me trace this expression and understand how various Christian traditions understand it.  Is “crossing over Jordan” a metaphor or a figure of speech for the believer passing from physical death to heaven?


texts: Are Catholics allowed to drink coconut water during the hour before they take communion?

texts:
I know they are not allowed to consume anything but water and medicine during the hour before they take communion.

  In addition to the fasts mentioned above, Roman Catholics must also observe the Eucharistic Fast, which involves taking nothing but water and medicines into the body for some time before receiving the Eucharist. - Eucharistic Fast (Wikipedia)

But my question is: Is coconut water considered water? Or does it have to be pure Dihydrogen Monoxide?


texts: Is the Old Testament a Jewish religous book and should it be discarded by Christians today? If not what does it add to Christians today?


texts:
The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a disputed passage, because different manuscripts have a different ending:

Some end at Mark 16:8
Some include Mark 16:9-20, like most Bible translations
Some include a shorter ending (NAB):

  And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter’s companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Some include the Freer Logion (NAB):

  And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and
  unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God
  to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does
  not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the
  truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’
  They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the
  years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw
  near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they
  might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might
  inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of
  righteousness. But….’

Many scholars have chosen the view that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition, while others support its authenticity. Most of my Bibles have at least a footnote noting that the passage is not found in all manuscripts, with some even suggesting that it's not an original part of Mark. I've yet to see a Bible translation that omits it.

For reference, an article on bible-researcher.com cites many commentaries on the passage, while the Wikipedia article has a good encyclopaedical overview of the matter.

This will not be easy to answer properly, but I ask:

Is Mark 16:9-20 original or a later addition?
Should it be in the Bible?


texts: Why do people say that God denounces the handicapped in the Bible?

texts:
I often hear people saying that God doesn't like the handicapped etc.

What evidence is there in the Bible that suggests this? Of course there must be somewhere in the Bible that either directly suggests this or insinuates it enough for people to come to this conclusion.

So what mentions are there in the Bible that are related to the handicapped - I'm mainly looking for negative quotes but the good won't go amiss.


texts: How much time did Jesus spend in Gethsemane?

texts:
In the four Gospels of the usual canon — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, — only two of them mention any measure of time:

  Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping.  He asked Peter, “So, couldn't you (all) stay awake with Me one hour?  […]”
  ― Matt. 26-40, HCSB

  Then He came and found them sleeping.  “Simon, are you sleeping?” He asked Peter.  “Couldn't you stay awake one hour?  […]”
  ― Mark 14-37, HCSB

In the narratives of those two books, he goes away to pray twice more.  In the book of Luke, only the final wakening of the disciples is described, and in the book of John their stay in the garden is mentioned but very briefly.
Estimating from the time of year — near the vernal equinox and on the summer side of it, — it could've been anywhere from a modern hour to half the night.

Do we have some more precise records which would indicate a timeframe there?
E.g. when he was arrested, or perhaps some non-canonized documents describing when they would've gone to the Mount of Olives?


texts: I am curious about the connection Jesus makes between fasting and New Wine. Many people relate it to the idea of appropriateness. It just strikes me as an odd comparison.


texts: What is the earliest indication of controversy regarding the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1?

texts: Historically, what are the earliest writings that indicate controversy or differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1?  This debate continues today between those who advocate the translation "the Word was God" against those who prefer "the Word was a god."


texts: Why did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, not in use in 1830?

texts:
Victorian era (1830-1900)

1830 was the beginning of the Victorian era. This literary period was short and volatile, in terms of thought and style; daring use of words and letters, pressing the bounds of literary tradition. It is very distinct (victorian).

Notable examples of the authors of this period would be;  Charles Dickens (1812-1870), Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Alfred Tennyson(Lord) (1809-1892), and many others whose works are as recognizable.

The only traces of Jacobean era English, at this time, were stylistic holdovers, like those seen in the poetic literature of Tennyson.

Meanwhile, in American literature, writers such as Emily Dickinson (1830-1886), had no such stylistic relics in their poetry, that I have come across. That is not to say that they did not exist.

Scriptural writings were, in their day, of necessity, written in the linguistic style of the translators; which to the reader of that day would appear non-stylistic, being, to them, of modern vernacular.

Why then was the Book of Mormon stylized, to match Jacobean era literature?

  http://www.victorianweb.org/vn/index.html  web. retrieved 1/7/17
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_literature web. retrieved 1/7/17


texts:
If so, then why were the Magi still labelled that way? Why call a believer a member of the pagan Zoroastrian religion? Or am I missing something here?

And by believers, I meant how the Magi believed in Yahweh BEFORE they saw the star of Bethlehem and arrived to baby Jesus's house.

  "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."-Matthew 2:1-6.


texts:
If Easter Sunday (First day of the week) is the day Jesus rose the dead, why is Good Friday the day we recognize as the day Jesus died? That wouldn't give 3 days and 3 nights in the grave like Jesus prophesied.

  For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:40)


texts:
Which denominations more or less explicitly reject prosperity theology?

As far as I understand, most Charismatics, and probably Pentecostals believe in prosperity theology. Right?

But it is rejected by Baptists, right? Or are there Baptists which believe in this doctrine?

I am writing a manuscript where I touch the question about reception of prosperity theology by various denominations and want to be sure I don't mis-attribute who agrees with this and who disagrees.


texts: Mark 5 Jesus encounter with the demons: what is their relationship to Jesus?

texts:
Reading in Mark 5:1-20 ...

  6 Catching sight of Jesus from a distance, he ran up and prostrated
  himself before him, 7 crying out in a loud voice, "What have you to do
  with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not
  torment me!"  8 (He had been saying to him, "Unclean spirit, come out
  of the man!")  9  He asked him, "What is your name?" He replied,
  "Legion is my name. There are many of us." 10 And he pleaded earnestly
  with him not to drive them away from that territory.  11  Now a large
  herd of swine  was feeding there on the hillside.  12 And they pleaded
  with him, "Send us into the swine. Let us enter them."  13  And he let
  them, and the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine. The herd
  of about two thousand rushed down a steep bank into the sea, where
  they were drowned.

The question that comes to mind for me is about the demons who possessed the man.   They didn’t defy Jesus, they instead begged him not to be sent away.

What is the relationship between these demons and Jesus, and why did Jesus oblige them and sent them into the pigs?


texts: Do any other denominations agree with the Jehovah Witnesses that Satan was cast to earth in 1914?

texts:
In my discussion with some Jehovah Witnesses, they claimed 1914 was the year referred to in revelation and that Satan came to earth. According to their belief, this is why from 1914 the world has never known peace: thus the world wars, famine escalated, and so on...

  Revelation 12:9-12

  9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
  Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out
  into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

  12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to
  the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down
  unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a
  short time

Are there other traditions that agree with this claim?

  1 October 1957 Watchtower: “Satan the Devil failed to prove his false accusation against the chief Son of God. ... That is why, when the kingdom was born in heaven in 1914 and war broke out in heaven and the victorious King Jesus Christ hurled Satan down from heaven to our earth, a loud voice in heaven said: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!” (Rev. 12:7-10) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957725?q=satan+1914&p=par


texts: Is holding hands and forming a circle around the altar during eucharistic prayer allowed?

texts:
We have a new priest in our parish who does things differently. Today in Mass he invited all children to form a circle around the altar with him and hold hands. I know that some priests do this while the Lord's Prayer but he did this during the whole eucharistic prayer. This action is really new to me and seems very unreasonable and unworthy towards the Holy Eucharist. So my question is: Does the Canon Law allow this?

Sorry for my poor English. Please feel free to ask if something is unclear.


texts: Does Mark 16:9-20 Prove the Bible is not the infallible word of God?

texts:
Regarding Mark 16:9-20: To my knowledge, most biblical scholars agree that the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark were added at a later date in order to give a more coherent finish to a seemingly abrupt gospel ending.

My question:

Are the last 12 verses of Mark an addition to the original manuscript, and if so, does this cast doubt upon the claim that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God?


texts: How did Noah prevent fresh water fish from dying when salt water inundated inland waterways during the claimed floods?  I'm not sure which Christian doctrines take the literalist position but what is their explanation for this aspect of the claim?


texts: According to Roman Catholic Church is it only via Jesus you can come in Heaven?

texts: Normally it has been said that you only enter Heaven by believing in Jesus. But can you say that that is absolutely and exclusive or do you have to leave an opening because we don't always knows the ways of God?


texts:
Follow up to this question: (If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C? (Trinity)

What qualifies the 3 entities of the Trinity as one?

Now that the concept of the Trinity is more comprehensible to me - that the Trinity is not one entity with three different aspects, but rather three entities with different personalities with a shared essence and relationship with each other (perichoresis)

There's a very minor yet SIGNIFICANT semantic nuance. My friends and I are human (human as in adjective, denoting our attributes), but we are not ONE human (human as in noun, an entity that possesses the quality of being human). My friends and I share the attribute of being human, but we are not one human.

If I for instance take three laptops of the same model, I could say that they are the same laptop, in the sense that they are the same model - created by the same manufacturer, share the same components and OS. However, we are still talking about three laptops, not one.

As such, Christians call the Son, the Father, the Holy Ghost God (God as in adjective, denoting the attributes of divinity to each respectively), but the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost wouldn't be ONE God, would they?
(Of course I understand Christians cannot proclaim to believe in three Gods, but is this logically consistent?)

Another analogy: Say I abolished the power hierarchy between all the Greek deities and gave them the same essence, but kept their specified roles and relationship with each other. I claim that they are one, but for all practical purposes they really are not "one". That's how I understand the Trinity

Then by which standard do we classify them as one? What is it that makes them out to be one? in which sense are they one? Is it the close-knit relationship they exhibit with each other?

This link shared in the comments conveys my understanding of the Trinity pretty well

If I may interject my personal opinion, I believe Christians are trying too hard to market this as monotheism. This may not be tritheism per se, but this is not monotheism either, the Trinity deserves its own theological category.

EDIT: The attached question is not the same as mine. The attached question merely seeks an explanation of the general concept of the Trinity, while I request people to directly address the question as to why/how the triune personalities of the Trinity constitute one God.


texts: What is the difference between a priest and a pastor?

texts: I'm writing a book and one character is Catholic and I'm not sure whether to use pastor or priest. And, one character gets possessed, yes I know that that's fictional, but would a Catholic "leader" perform an exorcism?


texts: Who could have written the Pastoral Epistles?

texts:
In my Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NSRV), a prologue states the Pastoral Epistles are psuedoepigraphical, not written by Paul. When comparing "The Letter of Romans or other letters attributed to Paul (according to scholars), 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy have a different voice and style than Romans or Philippians."

My questions are;

Does anyone have evidence for who might have written these epistles?
How should modern readers weigh Biblical texts that are in question?

I guess I'm saying Romans holds more weight for me than Timothy. Especially when some concepts seem inconsistent.


texts: How do Bible Literalists deal with trees older than the flood?

texts:
According to Answers in Genesis, the flood happened in approximately 2348 BC, which means it would've happened about 4360 years ago. Wikipedia has a list of the oldest individual trees known, of which three are older than 4360 years (one that was cut down was [at least] 4,844 years old).

The Flood clearly should've killed all of the trees that were around at the time. Yet, these trees were definitely around before the Flood happened. So, how do Bible Literalists deal with this issue? How do they explain the fact that we have trees older than the Flood?

Note: this is indirectly related to Young Earth Creationism as the calculated age of the Earth (about 6,016 years) depends on the date of creation.


texts: What is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God?

texts: What is an overview of the practices, doctrines, and goals of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God that distinguish it from other Evangelical and Pentecostal groups active in Latin America?


texts: How did the early Christians and Apostles Get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God?

texts:
How did the early Christians and Apostles get into the temple? Shouldn't they have been stoned by the Jews for preaching Jesus as God? Acts 2:46-47 reads:
"Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."
But how is it possible they could get into the temple every day? Wouldn't the Jews stone them to death for preaching Jesus as God? The Jews would have heavily outnumbered them, I don't understand how this could have happened. Why did they "enjoy the favor of all the people?" Wouldn't the people hate them for declaring that a man is God? Or at a minimum, wouldn't at least the Pharisees hate them?
I just don't understand how this could have happened. Even in 2021, if a Christian were to walk up to the wailing wall (the last remnants of the temple) and started declaring that Jesus is God, they would at a minimum be escorted away, but they might get worse treatment than that. Surely in 30 AD they would have been killed for this? Or at least permanently banned with the threat of death if they ever entered again?
Can anyone shed light on this issue? It makes me question how the Bible can be true, because logically this just doesn't make any sense at all at first glance. What am I missing?


texts: Do most Advent Christians hold to eternal security?

texts: Is there a predominant view among Advent Christian Church members (a.k.a First-day Adventists) regarding the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, sometimes called "eternal security"?


texts: Do Latter-day Saints believe Muhammad is a prophet?

texts: I read that the Latter-day Saints believe in Muhammad as prophet. How true is this and what does it mean for them?


texts: How does a baptismal certificate work? Why do you even need a certificate? Would other churches disqualify your baptism, or disallow you from participating in other sacraments, if you happen to lose your baptismal certificate? Do Christians keep them in safe places in their homes along with their birth certificates, passports, Visas, social security numbers, and other important documents?


texts:
After Cain kills Abel and God gives him protection, who is he being protected from?

Genesis 4:14

  Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your
  presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever
  finds me will kill me.


texts: Has there ever been a saint who has had their sainthood revoked due to falsification of their life details or the miracles leading to canonization?

texts: Has there ever been a person who has been canonized as a saint, but later had their sainthood revoked because irrefutable evidence came to light that the person was not the upstanding Christian that everyone thought (perhaps they were an unbeliever or a heretic) or the miracles that were associated with the saint's canonization were determined to be faked?


texts: What are Anglicans' opinion about Muhammad (founder of Islam)?

texts:
I heard from many Christians that they believe that Muhammad is a false prophet. Some other Christians believe he is prophet from God. What do Anglicans believe about Islam especially its founder? (EDIT - Here is viewpoints of Catholics, but I would like to know about Anglicans' opinions as well)

Thank you.


texts: In Christian mortalism, what sets apart people who have lived from people who didn't live?

texts:
According to Wikipedia, "christian mortalism" describes the idea that the soul is not immortal, but dies together with the body and rises in the resurrection. Proponents of this are Jehovahs Witnesses, some Lutherans, Seventh-Day adventists and some others. Since the soul is dead or dissolved after death, that means God recreates it for the resurrection, as a body that is dissolved would need to be recreated.
Since God is omniscient, not only does he know how each person would behave before they are born, this arguably also means that he knows how any potential person would have behaved if given the chance.
Then, what is the difference between someone actually having gone through life, now no longer existing after death except for in the mind of God, to a person never having existed except for in the mind of God?
In a sense this is asking what value the life-on-earth has, but I want to expand it in this sense to add the notion of how could God not grant resurrection to a person never having existed when that person is not fundamentally different from a person who has lived (both just existing in the mind of God after the latter person has died).


texts: According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible actually happened historically?

texts:
One of the things that have tested my faith is the question: Did the bible really happen? Was there really a "garden of Eden"? Was there a universal flood"

And perhaps more importantly, how important is it for the bible books to be accurate? If Genesis didn't really happen, what impact does it have on our faith?

Modern scientific research clearly shows that the creation story from the bible did not really happen.

According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible really happened historically?

What parts should we ready historically and what parts figuratively?


texts: Where does the belief that the Earth is relatively young (6000 years) come from?

texts: Some christians believe the Earth is only 6000 to 12,000 years old. Where does this age originate from?


texts: Is the Golden Rule really the Gold Standard?

texts:
Does the Golden Rule, often stated as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" originate from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus? If not where does it come from? If so how  was it originally used? How it is supposed to be applied today?

Consider a case where the thing somebody would want you to do for them is to sin. As a simple example, many people will lie to keep their friends out of trouble. They expect their friends to do the same for them. If the Golden Rule was the only rule employed between them, their sin would just continue to multiply. What's to prevent this?


texts: What is this icon that Putin touches/kisses at monument of St.Vladimir?

texts:
The Russian Federation (along with some other Slavic nations), recently celebrated the 1,030th anniversary of the Christianization of the Rus', which included a liturgy at the monument to Vladimir the Great near the Kremlin.

In this video (time- 23:45), President Putin (followed by the Patriarch) is seen bending forward and touching/kissing some icon/relic encased in a gilded box.

What exactly is this gilded box (or the item contained within it)?

Granted, since this event is also a tribute to St.Vladimir, I guess this is some relic associated with him? (I'm not entirely sure though.)


texts: Was Solomon interested in studying the Scriptures?

texts:
1 Kings 4:29-34 (NIV)

  God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of
  understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon’s
  wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the people of the East, and
  greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than anyone else,
  including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman, Kalkol and Darda, the
  sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. He
  spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and
  five. He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the
  hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds,
  reptiles and fish. From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s
  wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his
  wisdom.

Solomon was great indeed. Here I can at least see 4 different subjects where he is interested in; Literature, Poetry, Botany, Zoology . Great. But what about Theology! This makes me wonder, was Solomon interested in reading the Torah? The five books of Moses were already there and there are many interesting things in there. It might be possible that he revered the Torah so much that he never thought of studying it? There were also other books like Samuel, Judges, Ruth and others. He met with the God of Israel at least two times and God gave him wisdom and wealth, but still his wives could turn his heart after other gods.

Was Solomon interested in knowing God? Was he interested in studying the scriptures at all?


texts: What is an overview of different denominations' beliefs about how Jesus Christ performed miracles? (By the Holy Spirit or by something else?)

texts:
for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:8–11, NKJV)
But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. (John 16:7, NLT)

My understanding is that miracles are performed in men by the work of the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit did not come to Earth until after Jesus left. Knowing this, what do different churches have to say on this issue? Did Jesus have the Holy Spirit anyway as a result of being fully God or did he do miracles by another means?  What is an overview of beliefs on this subject?


texts: What are some good resources that explain the rational reasons behind the faith for a questioning Atheist?

texts:
I have been contemplating the existence of a god for years now, and have settled upon the idea as a remedy to the absurd. I would like to believe in God, but my mind is so apt to lean on reason that committing to the belief is difficult. So is there any sort of "jumping off" point where I can finally start to realize my faith?

P.S.: I do not mean the word 'absurd' in any sort of offensive context. I mean it solely in reference to the writings of Camus and Kierkegaard, where the absurd is a word describing the impeccable improbability and zaniness of human existence.


texts: In Jeremiah 12:7, who is the "Beloved of my Heart"?

texts:
I have forsaken My house, I have abandoned My inheritance; I have given the beloved of My soul Into the hand of her enemies. - Jeremiah 12:7

This Scripture portion is one of Jeremiah's confessions to the Lord. He mentions a Beloved. On reading through a reference Bible, it was suggested that it might mean Benjamin, as mentioned in Moses' prayer about the tribes of Israel.

Who or what exactly is the Beloved of my Soul Prophet Jeremiah mentions?


texts: Does God care about Denominational differences?

texts:
As a Protestant and Catholic household, we are aware of the differences between our two Denominations, but as Christians we are also well aware that we are bonded by a common belief that Jesus death and resurrection is the source of our salvation. We also believe that we will be together in Heaven.

For my part I feel that the God I love and serve would not turn her away at the Gates of Heaven simply because we chose to worship him in differing ceremonial settings, and I am sure she feels the same. We both serve the same YHWH Elohim.

To my feeble mind if  an all knowing God were concerned with this and if it had Eternal consequence, Jesus and God would have made that crystal clear in the Bible.

In my study the only Scripture in the King James version I find which even remotely addresses this is:

  1st Corinthians 3:5  through 13  Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

AS I read these Scriptures Paul is not saying, that any of these are wrong, as long as they are based upon the salvation provided by Jesus Christ. Please correct me if I have drawn an erroneous conclusion.

As far as the teachings of Jesus himself go, all I find is:

  John 4:21 through 24  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Again as I understand the Scriptures Jesus is not telling them that their worship is incorrect, but what is incorrect is that they need to worship God in their spirit and in truth. Again, if I have drawn an erroneous conclusion. Please let me know.

If my conclusions are correct God does not care about,  which church house you worship him in, only that you worship him in spirit and in truth.


texts: Is there a sect who adopt "salvation by works and exaltation by both: faith and works"?

texts: Is there a Sect or Tradition or Cult within Christianity adopts the following concept: salvation or justification by works, while exaltation or glorification by both: faith and works?.


texts: On what grounds was Arius refuted at the First Council of Nicaea?

texts:
What proof does anyone have that Christ was the same and identical as the one He called "Father" even when Christ himself said in John 14:10...

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

Yes, Jesus was the Son of God although He never Himself said as much; He said He was "the Son of Man" only (for, I believe, He was truly humble in nature). But how can men know exactly what Christ was without experiencing a gnosis of some kind? The very fact that they proclaimed to have known what exactly Christ was precludes any so-called "evidence" they put forth.

On the other hand, Constantine was a politician/stateman and a duplicitous pagan most of his life.  How could he and his associates possibly know what exactly Christ was and make an absolute statement that He was identical to the one He called "Father" and call the Arian/Arius view a heresy?


texts: Who learned that Abraham would even sacrifice his son in Genesis 22:11?

texts:
Most translations say that "Now I know that you fear God" and I refers to the angel in the previous verse.

But Open Theists say that God is learning, that "I" refers to God, but I don't see that in the translations.

Is there any evidence of this belief, that "I" refers to God, in the text?


texts: According to Jacobus Arminius's definition of free will, did Pharaoh have free will?

texts: Through the first chapters of Exodus up to the literal exodus, God kept telling Moses that he would harden Pharaoh's heart. Does this mean that Pharaoh didn't have (Jacobus Arminius definition of) free will?


texts: Do any Christian denominations consider it not sinful to commit suicide in order to donate organs? If so, why?

texts:
Here is my understanding of Christianity and the Bible's teaching on this question:

Suicide is bad.
Giving up your life to save someone is good.

So, if you commit suicide but at the same time donate your organs to save others, is that sinful or not?

Do any christian groups think this is not sinful? Why?


texts: Does the Anglican Church teach that faithful are immediately reunited with loved ones?

texts:
Watching the days of news coverage following the death of George HW Bush (41st President of the USA) has me asking for the Anglican Church’s view on what happens upon the death of a faithful member.

Many times during the past few days I have been moved by the words of his loved ones who speak of him at last reunited with his beloved wife Barbara and daughter Robin who preceded him in death.

Does the Anglican Church teach that dead loved ones are waiting in heaven to greet family members upon the moment of their death?

If so what is the biblical  basis for this belief?


texts:
Saints are present throughout the Bible. In my understanding, Protestant use of this word applies to all believers, which I understand is the New Testament (and OT?) meaning of the word.

In my limited understanding of Catholicism, it seems that the Roman Catholic church selects a subset of all believers and declares them to be saints.

Is this then to the exclusion of other believers, ie saying that not all believers are saints?


texts: What is replacement theology, and why do I hear it used with a negative connotation?

texts: Occasionally when discussing the modern nation of Israel I hear ideas accused of being "Replacement Theology".  What is Replacement Theology, and why is it almost always used in a negative light?


texts: What does Matthew 5:27-30 ("Cast off your eye/hand/etc") mean?

texts:
For reference, here's the text of Matthew 5:27-30:

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Does this mean literally? Aside from the obvious issue that you'd get locked up pretty fast for self-harm, I don't think anyone's limbs or eyes (or anything really) would survive very long under a literal interpretation of this...


texts: Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ?

texts:
In the United States, you've probably seen it.  Many Christians like to put a fish on their cars to show their faith.

What is the origin of this symbol?


texts: Do Catholics believe everything in the bible is true as written?

texts:
I thought I remember at some point learning that Catholics believed everything that was mentioned int he bible actually happened. Things like Noah actually having 2 of every animal on one ark, Jonah living inside of a whale, etc.

Is this true? Are there groups that believe things in the bible happened as written?


texts: Does Pope Francis want Catholics to pray both new prayers at the end of the Rosary or just one or the other?

texts:
So this question might be rather meaningless in a few months, but I figured I might as well ask here in case someone can parse the Pope's meaning

The Holy Father said:

  I am also providing two prayers to Our Lady that you can recite at the end of the Rosary, and that I myself will pray in the month of May, in spiritual union with all of you.  I include them with this letter so that they are available to everyone. - Letter on the Month of May - Full text, including prayers

I know lots of times there are prayers that go at the end of some offices where they're "pray this today and that the other day" and they don't give much more guidance.  It just doesn't make much sense to me to add two prayers to the end of a 20 minute mediation, why not just call it one long prayer?

Anyway, I'm guessing nobody knows the answer to this without asking the Pope, but if there's any similarity to other special prayers, that might answer the question too.


texts: Did the city of Nazareth exist in the time of Jesus?

texts:
The question stems from this video. Additionally, I would like to know any books, articles and other credible sources that deals with this question for further reading*. Thank you for your time.

* History is not my field. I am not experienced in discerning whether a source is credible or not.


texts: What was Paul's "revelation" (mentioned in Galatians 2:2)?

texts:
Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.  - Galatians 2:1-2, NASB

I am wondering what Paul's revelation was?  Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?


texts:
It might sound like a stupid question at first, because obviously humans and angels are quite different in many ways... but bear with me a moment.

In one of the answers to my question What does "in the image of God" mean?, the poster says:

  [M]ost Christians interpret it to mean that we share in the spiritual reality with the spiritual beings, and traits specific to God (spiritual traits, since God is Spirit) belong to man. Such things then do not belong to other creatures, which may or may not include the angels.

It then lists four specific traits that humans share with God:

  Ability to create
  Reason
  Having a 'spirit'
  Being able to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

This makes me wonder: How are humans and angels different, in essence?  Of these four traits, angels seem to clearly posses a spirit, and likely have reason.  Are they able to create? Are angels 'indwelt' by the Holy Spirit? (Is it possible for a non-physical being to be indwelt anyway?)

What other traits do angels and humans share, and how else do they differ?

To provide a doctrinal scope, let me say I'm seeking views from an evangelical protestant* view, although I would still entertain answers from other views so long as they are labeled so.

*I realize that even "evangelical" may be too broad on this topic, as even if I specified a very specific denomination, there are likely many views supported within the official view of the denomination--since this is probably not considered an essential tenant of any denomination's statement of faith.  So... I hope this doesn't make the question unanswerable.


texts: Why are there so many priests in the LDS Church?

texts:
I don't have any hard number, but in most other churches, usually there are only a few priests per church (if they have priests). In the LDS Church on the other hand, usually almost half of the congregation is priests.

So, why does the the LDS Church have so many more priests than other Churches per congregation?


texts: Does the Catholic church allow a previously divorced man to remarry?

texts: Suppose a Catholic guy marries a non-Catholic outside the Catholic church, then years later they divorce. Can that Catholic guy get married again to someone else (a Catholic female) in the Catholic church?


texts: What major views are there on the question of whether God shares moral responsibility for our deeds, good and bad?

texts:
I am looking for an overview of the major historical approaches to the following question/group of questions:

Since God has given us this body to do good or bad, then does he share at all in the praise or blame we incur for particular acts? And if he does, why is it that we are judged to heaven or hell based on those acts?

I realize the general philosophical nature of this question, but I assume that there will be a relatively small number of historically well-represented or well-supported approaches to the question. An overview of the top two or three approaches would suffice.