texts: How does open theology interpret 1 Peter 1:2?

texts:
How do followers of open theology (open theism)1 interpret 1 Peter 1:2 (KJV), in particular the emphasized part?

  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

In what sense was God's plan carried out according to his foreknowledge, in open theology? Note that it is foreknowledge that is in focus of my question.

According to Wikipedia there are four branches of open theism:

  Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ...
  Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable ...
  Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false ...
  Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain ...

So followers of either Nescience branch believes that while there is a definite future, God does not know it (either voluntarily or involuntarily). On the other hand, followers of either Omniscience branch believes that the future is not (fully) settled, but that God has perfect knowledge as far as it makes sense to talk about it.

Optimally, an answer would deal separately with each branch, or provide an answer that all branches support.

1 Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. (quoted from linked reference)


texts: How literally do you take and universally apply what Jesus said?

texts:
It seems like people take some Biblical passages word for word and live it, others not so much. I do not see many people giving their life away for Jesus or i.e. - Jesus said if you want to be perfect you must give away all your money...how come nobody does these things?

Matthew 19:21

  Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
  and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come,
  follow me."

or - do you think you can really walk on water if you wholeheartedly believe and do not doubt that you can. Matthew 14:29-30

or- "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."


texts:
Does this verse permit slavery on the Holy Bible?

  Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be
  punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be
  punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is
  their property.


texts: The Last Judgement: a civilized trial or a barbaric ordeal?

texts:
From the Book of Revelation I've got the idea that the Satan will be our prosecutor at the Last Judgement. I've got this idea by interpreting the word 'accuser' as 'prosecutor' in the context of the Book of Revelation.

So I can imagine the Last Judgement as a very civilized trial with a prosecutor and, perhaps, other things similar to what we have here on Earth in civilized countries.

But then the Book also says that at the Last Judgement "the deeds of everyone will be exposed". It can be thought then that no formal procedure is required at the Last Judgement and there will be no prosecutor nor anything.

So, then is it correct to understand that at the Last Judgement the Satan will be our prosecutor? Otherwise how I will even know what I am accused of??


texts: Would believing the coming again of the Son of Man has already happened be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

texts:
Some Christians hold that the Second Coming of Jesus is yet to come, and some hold it has already happened (certain kinds of preterism).
Would holding that Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:30, "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.") was prophesying an event that has already happened (say, associated with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple) be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?


texts: Was John Smyth, the earliest Baptist, influenced by the Anabaptists?

texts:
John Smyth, according to Bruce Shelley (CHPL, 308) and Wikipedia, was the first of the English Baptists.  An Anglican priest, he came to the conclusion that infant baptism was invalid and started a small Baptist congregation in 1609.

However, this group was not the first to come to this conclusion; the Anabaptists had been "rebaptizing" adults since at least the 1520s.  And it appears that John Smyth was a "general," not "particular," Baptist, meaning his theology did not closely align with that of Reformed theology – another similarity with Anabaptism.

So, my question is: was John Smyth's view of baptism influenced by the Anabaptist movement?  That is:

Do we have any evidence from the writings of Smyth or his close associates that indicate that he had read and agreed with any Anabaptist writings prior to 1609?
What is the scholarly consensus on the source of Smyth's views?  Was Anabaptism a factor?  Or was his shift in views on paedobaptism truly a result of independent Bible study?


texts: A Question Regarding the Variation of Doctrines within Christendom

texts:
All Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics) have access to the canonized 66 books of the OT and NT.

Putting that into perspective, why is there such a great amount of variation in doctrines, and consequently, so many denominations?

Furthermore, how should a new believer  in Christ be expected to choose from all these denominations without risking his/her eternal well-being?

For example,

Methodists, and several other denominations, believe that a person can lose his salvation whereas Baptists maintain that once a person saved, the person is always saved and cannot fall from grace.

Neither of the above viewpoints are affirmed or refuted directly by Scripture.

Another example,

Baptists do not practice infant Baptism giving the reason that the Bible has neither commanded nor exemplified infant Baptism as a practice in Christianity,  whereas Presbyterians baptize infants on the belief that the same is equivalent to the circumcision of Hebrew infants, showing that they have become a part of the covenant community.

Again, neither of the above viewpoints are affirmed or refuted directly by Scripture.


texts: At what point did the Israelites start being called Jews and more importantly, why? Answers can cite biblical and extra-biblical sources.


texts: Do Jehovah's Witnesses maintain 'secret' teachings?

texts:
I have heard that within the JW faith, there are additional teachings that converts do not learn until after some time has passed since their inclusion into that group or the convert achieves some level of merit within their organization.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses keep some of their teachings secret from the general public and from new converts to their faith?


texts: Are There Names for the Sundays in Eastertide?

texts:
I've done some digging and it seems that there may or may not be names for the individual names of the Sunday's in Eastertide. So the question is, are there names for each individual Sunday?
Thank you!


texts: Do Mary and the other saints know what we are praying for before we ask them?

texts:
Jesus explains that God knows what we need before we pray:

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
—Matthew 6:8 (NIV)

According to Catholicism, does the same apply for the saints? Do they know what we need before we ask them? Or do we have to actually ask them so that they are able to intercede on our behalf?


texts:
What does the biblical Jesus (as opposed to the historical Jesus) think he is?

a rabbi
the son of a carpenter
the child born in the house of David
the king of the Jews, about to be anointed with oil, to save Jerusalem from all oppression and be the light of the world
a pious Jewish man well-versed in the Hebrew scriptures at the time and carefully cites some sources from the Hebrew scriptures in order to serve his purpose and make himself seem credible, genuine, and sincere to his community
a traveler who wants anybody who has ears to hear to listen to him
a man holding a grudge against the Pharisees, even though one of the Pharisees shows hospitality by inviting him to his house
a prophet that foretells what shall happen to the Son of Man, which turns out to be him
his disciples seem to treat him like a teacher, a rabbi, and sometimes refer to him as "lord" (whether or not "Lord" is the correct translated term is another story)
complex relationship with his "Father"

Compared to modern Rabbinical Jewish mashiach, it is implied that Jesus presumably thought that he was the Jewish messiah, the King of the Jews. Wearing a crown of thorns and being labelled "King of the Jews" at his crucifixion and resurrection. Plus, some say that his resurrection really did happen in history. His resurrection seems to be most significant, because without it, he would be a dead messiah, and that means he would be no messiah.


texts: What Greek manuscripts were used for the KJV NT other than the Novum Instrumentum omne?

texts:
Erasmus famously only had 7 manuscripts on hand when he compiled the first edition of his "Novum Instrumentum omne".  However presumably as his text underwent several revisions after that, and then became the basis of the versions produced by Stephanus, Beza and the Elzavirs, and ultimately the KJV almost a century later, more scholarship was done and more manuscripts were brought in.

Or were they?  Is it possible to know how many (and even which) manuscripts were used by the Textus Receptus editors throughout the decades and ultimately served as the basis for the New Testament in the KJV?  Or does the KJV NT still primarily just rely on the the 7 manuscripts that Erasmus started with?


texts: What's the origin of this approach of trying to obtain meaning from the individual letters of Hebrew words?

texts:
In a recent question about the names of God, two answers from different people wrote that the letters of the Tetragrammaton by themselves give the meaning of:

The Hebrew letters mean “Behold the hand, Behold the nail”. YHWH is our salvation.
Yud. (A hand)
Heh. (Behold)
Waw. (A nail)
Heh. (Behold)

(From one answer, here's the other.)
Another now deleted answer says that the Hebrew word for 'ten' has these symbolic letter meanings:

The first character is the `ayin, ע, and symbolically means to see, eye, discern, or divine providence.
The second character is the Shin, ש, and symbolically means the tree of life, burning bush, God’s spirit, etc.
The third character is the Resh, ר, and symbolically means a humble or penitent man like he is bending over in prayer.

Now at first glance this seems to me to be pseudo-linguistic nonsense. Spoken language precedes written language, and the meanings of words aren't derived from their sounds or letters. These "meanings" also seem pretty speculative. They don't have the historical evidence that gematria has, and most aren't based on the historic origins of these letters (except for Yod and Ayin):

Waw/vav came from a glyph for 'mace'
Resh comes from a glyph for 'head' (and the word ראש still has that meaning!)
Shin apparently came from a glyph for 'tooth'

But even if the rest of these letters did have the symbolic meanings claimed about them, so what? It's just not how language works! Words have their own meanings, often distinct from the parts that make them up. We all know that 'awful' doesn't mean 'full of awe' in modern English, even if that was its historic origin.
So where has this approach to Hebrew come from?

Do any branches of Judaism support this approach?
What is its historic origin?
And lastly, is there a name for this theory?


texts: Should the Catholic rosary be recited in Latin or the vernacular language?

texts: Should the Catholic prayer be recited in Latin or the vernacular language? During recitation, should the Catholic recite by chanting the verses or by singing with a catchy melody? Is it a sin to use the wrong words or switch the order of the verses around? Is it a sin to recite without even understanding the words because the words and concepts might be above the prayer's own vocabulary, or would the young Catholic be taught the meaning and form of the words to avoid praying in vain (Matthew 6:7)?


texts: From a Calvinist perspective, if Adam refused the fruit what would happen to their descendants?

texts:
And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. Genesis 3:6

What would be the case for humanity if Adam refused the fruit after Eve decided to eat it?


texts:
According to the Catholic Church, can a tattoo be considered a sacramental?

I have a friend who is thinking about getting a tattoo on each shoulder, containing the image of the Medal of St. Benedict. There are several different blessings for this medal now. Any priest may bless the Medal of St. Benedict and some blessings have the word image in lieu of the word medal.

If a priest were to bless this image would it be considered a sacrament, according to the Catholic Church.

Although I am bring up the case of the Medal of St. Benedict, any other image in use in this question could hold also.

In the case of lack of official Catholic
Church teachings on this subject could a priest simply bless such holy images? Is there any Church prohibitions against this?

Are priests allowed to bless tattoos? After all there are also blessings for people in the Rituale Romanum!

Here follows the image of the  Medal of St. Benedict that my friend is considering.

St. Benedict Medal


texts: Is there a good overview of Christian denominations/churches and their mapping between countries

texts: There seem to be a confusingly large number of Christian churches (Catholic, Lutheran, baptists, evangelicals, Presbyterians). Could someone point me to a good overview that lists the mainstream ones, shows the main doctrinal differences, and also how they map between different countries. For example the German "Evangelische Kirche" seems quite different from the what in the US is called "evangelical".


texts: Were the friends of Job, who came to him when he was in pain, of another religion?

texts:
Friends came to Job during his pain and did stay with him for days and nights.
(Book of Job)

But who were they? Were they of the same religion and faith as Job?

God said that their advice was wrong and that Job should give an offering for their sins. That might tell us that they where of the same religion, but the Jews did also offer for the sins of the nations (70 nations), so not sure.

(In the Talmud it says they did travel from far away to meet Job.)


texts: Did a married couple live in fornication if annulled? (Catholic)

texts:
I read here point 33.

If a marriage is declared null, does it mean that the marriage never
existed?
Not exactly. It means it did not exist in the way the Church
says that marriages exist. A declaration of nullity does not deny that
a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship that
existed was not what the Church means by marriage.

If it never existed according to what the Church means by marriage does this make their previous "relationship" full of fornicating after the church declare the annulment? Does the annulment make their previous cohabitation full of fornications?


texts: Does Christianity claim itself to be the final revelation from God?

texts: Does Christianity claim to be the last true religion that will ever exist, or does it admit the possibility of being supplanted by a new revelation, like Judaism was with Christianity?


texts: Why do women have inferior rights in the Bible?

texts:
The Bible has many parts (in both the Old and New Testaments) that shows the inferior status of women.

Does this come from status in ancient times or does it have another basis?
Why do woman today have almost equal rights not only in society, but also within Christianity?

Some examples:

Burn the daughter (Leviticus 21:9, Genesis 38:24)
Rape the daughter (Judges 19:24-25)
Virgins worth (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
General female inferiority (I Corinthians 11:3, I Corinthians 11:8-9,  I Cor. 14:34-36,  I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)


texts:
Does the field of Neurotheology present a threat to Christianity?

Neurotheology is a field of science that tries to correlate brain states to spiritual experiences, such as speaking in tongues, prayer, and meditation.  Scientists' understanding of the brain is getting more and more detailed.  My question is, if it succeeds in correlating the two, does that threaten the Christian beliefs in God, spiritual beings, free will, human consciousness, etc.?  Or would it actually reinforce those concepts?


texts: Theologians who thought Christ incarnated primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity?

texts: Are there any theologians (Doctors or Fathers of the Church) who thought that, regardless whether Adam had sinned, Christ still would have incarnated, primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity?


texts:
A simple word search for "baptism" in the Old Testament turns up no matches. However by the time John the Baptist shows up on the scene and starts dunking people and calling it "for forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4) people seem to already have an understanding of what baptism is.

In fact, it seems there might have been other sorts of baptisms practiced at the time other than what John and later Jesus talked about. In particular the questions that pop up seem to be about who was doing the baptizing and on what authority. Nobody seems be too concerned about the act itself -- as if it was a well understood thing already.

Since the OT doesn't seem to speak of it and the NT jumps right in with everybody seeming to understand that such a practice exists (even if there is some question as to who/what/how/when), what happened in between the Testaments? Was baptism something that was done by anybody for any reason? If so by who and what for? Did the religious Jews of the time have such a practice?


texts: What does the Book with Seven Seals contains?

texts:
We know what happens when each of the seven seals are broken. But there's no more mention of this book once the seals are broken.

What does this book contain?
Does the Lamb actually read it's content?
What happens to it afterwards, once the seals are broken?

This is difficult to understand.


texts:
We are proud of our son for being able to write his name, and my wife was boasting that she helped him learn to write it.  Ultimately, we both know it's from God that he is able to learn this skill and my wife has the ability to teach him.
I know that pride and boasting in ourselves is not good (see verses below), but as long as we ultimately acknowledge God in our pride and boasting, is it acceptable to do this?
Jeremiah 9:23–24 (NIV)

    23 This is what the LORD says:

          “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom
          or the strong boast of their strength
          or the rich boast of their riches,
    24 but let the one who boasts boast about this:
          that they have the understanding to know me,
    that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
          justice and righteousness on earth,
           for in these I delight,”
                      declares the LORD.

James 4:6 (NIV)

    6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

           “God opposes the proud
           but shows favor to the humble.”


texts: Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means?

texts:
The motivation for this question basically comes from reading the discussion around the question Is it necessary to Biblically support arguments within discussions about Christianity? and a question at Philosophy Stack Exchange, Kierkegaard and the Tripartite Theory of Man in which the bipartite view (only mind and body) of man is distinguished from the tripartite view (spirit, soul and body).

In science, we know things through empirical methods, and in logic/mathematics, we know things through logical proofs. We use combinations of these methods to know various facts in daily life. Yet 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God..." and uses the phrase "spiritually discerned" in reference to the things of the Spirit of God. Now in the book "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee, which takes the tripartite view, there is reference made to "The Soul's Faculty of Intellect or Mind" (in Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 2), hence apparently making a connection between "mind" and "soul".

Hence all this leads to the obvious question: Are there true statements that inherently are unknowable by empirical means or logic and simply require "spiritual discernment"?

Perhaps the second question is: What is a man to do then?

Of course, I realize that this whole tripartite view might not even be widely accepted in the first place, nor might the book I mentioned be well-known. I myself do not claim expertise in all these matters. I'd just be happy to hear views and generate discussion. Thanks!


texts: Why does the throne in Daniel 7:9 have wheels and are they literally wheels?

texts:
Daniel 7:9

  He sat on a fiery throne with wheels of blazing fire.

There are also references to wheels in Ezekiel Chapter 10 (which may or may not be related).

Is there a significance to the throne having wheels?

Are they actually wheels?  Why are they on fire?

I read the Wikipedia article on Ophanim  and it almost led be to believe that these "wheels" were actually beings that enabled the thrones to move.


texts: Does Jesus call himself divine in the synoptic gospels?

texts:
John's Gospel teaches clearly that Jesus is divine.

  And he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:10)

The Jesus depicted by that Gospel appears to believe this.

  Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? (John 14:8-9).

Are there any places at all in the other three Gospels where Jesus claims divine status in this unambiguous fashion?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the prohibition of instruments in worship?

texts:
I understand that some Protestant churches prohibit the use of musical instruments in their worship services.  What is the specific biblical basis for this practice, or, if there is no specific biblical basis, what is the principle behind this practice?

Is it an issue of mixing musical instruments with vocal music?  Can they have one or the other, but not both?  Which churches follow this teaching?


texts: Spectrum of Interpretation on Great Flood

texts:
The Great Flood of Noah is a classic Bible story - and a contentious one. Many would argue that traditional or literal interpretations cannot be squared with modern scientific thinking - others reject that science.

I'm sure you also have an opinion. I'm primarily interested in knowing what the main streams of interpretation are. How, for example, do the major churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.) interpret this story — is there an official teaching? Beyond doctrinal arguments, what's the spectrum of belief in interpreting the Flood, and in reconciling it with later NT references and concepts of inerrancy?


texts: How do the Personal Ordinariates differ from Anglicanism?

texts:
In 2009 Pope Benedict published an Apostolic Constitution called Anglicanorum Coetibus providing for the creation of Personal Ordinariates  for Anglicans who wished to join the Roman Catholic Church.

This, it says, was to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral tradition of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church as a precious gift ... a treasure to be shared.

As far as I know there are now three of these Personal Ordinariates, one for Great Britain, one for North America and one for Australia and Japan.

In 1906 when some members of the Russian Orthodox Church formed an Eastern Rite
church, the Russian Greek Catholic Church, and asked Pope Pius IX what they needed to change in their Rite he said "nec plus, nec minus, nec altera" -  add nothing, subtract nothing, change nothing.

I understand that a different approach was adopted with the Anglican (ex-Angllican?) Ordinarates than with the Eastern Rite Churches, but how does the doctrine or practice differ in the Ordinariates from in the Church of England (for example)? What has been added, what has been taken away and what has been changed?

(I have looked at the Ordinariate website and can't find anything specific.)


texts: During Lutheran Confession, can the confessor refuse to absolve the sins of the penitent?

texts: During Lutheran Confession, can the confessor refuse to absolve the sins of the penitent, if he or she thinks that the penitent is not being sincere? What if the penitent is sincere but cannot resist laughing at the many things that he or she has to say and is ashamed of?


texts: In what way has belief in the Trinity decreased?

texts:
I have heard that over half of Protestants do not believe in an  earlier theological conception of the Trinity.

I have heard  that this is especially true of Evangelicals, and that they consider the older type of  belief to be Catholic in nature.

In what sense has personal belief in (this older Protestant conception of) the Trinity decreased? Why?

Note that I am not asking  whether Christians believe in the Trinity (most do), nor about Church doctrine, but about some sort of broad shift in belief. This poll  provides an example, though I am not asking for analysis of that poll but rather about what further knowledge people have on this.


texts: What is the breath of life spoken of in Genesis 2:7?

texts:
In Genesis chapter two verse seven God created man from the dust and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils;

  Genesis 2:7  KJV  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The original words used in the Hebrew were:

Breath:

נְשָׁמָה

  nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') n-f.

    a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal

  KJV: blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

and life:

חַי

  chay (khah'-ee) adj.

    alive
    (hence) raw (flesh)
    fresh (plant, water, year), strong
    (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively

  KJV: + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

Chay Is the same word used in 1Kings 17:17 which is just breath.

Since  נְשָׁמָה can also be interpreted as soul, could breath be a mistranslation in light of the second part of the verse "and man became a living soul".

Or is there some other explanation for the breath of life, such as oxygen absorption, which has been prove to be the case of a fetus in the womb?

Please make you answer as Biblical as possible.

Thank you.

If you want to down vote any of my questions or answers that is fine, but at least be courteous enough to tell me what is unacceptable about my question or answer. Otherwise I must assume you really don't have a reason and are just a mean person.


texts: Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God?

texts:
While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He literally claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God).

Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God?

OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.


texts: Are Paul's letters to be taken as God's word?

texts:
Sometimes, as I read the bible or listen to a speaker in church, I can't help but feel that while Paul's letters are full of well-grounded Christian wisdom and advice, they can also contain what seems to me like Paul's human opinions, as opposed to God's own word. I do believe Paul is a true apostle, spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and an important figure, but he's also just a human man, right?

For me, as a Christian, I would never question or disagree with the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible, no matter how challenging they are, or unpopular they can be in mainstream society. Really, I 100% accept them as the direct word of God, as part of His New Covenant.

But Jesus did not talk about every topic. While answers to the questions that really matter can be found in Jesus' words, the answers to every possible question cannot. And so, I often see an individual, or a church, or a whole denomination establish doctrines and views on certain topics solely by studying the words written by Paul (or other New Testament authors). But how can they be certain in these views, if it's Paul's word they are reading and not God's? How is it any different to reading the words of any other human being, past or present, and using them to form their doctrines?

I've come across the view that Paul's letters are God's word because in 2 Peter 3:14-16, they are referred to as Scripture. But that just begs the same question - who gave Peter the authority to define such a thing? He's human too.

I've also come across the view that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was an act of validation by God of Paul's authority, and so Paul's letters can be seen a validated by God, and so practically God's own words. But surely that's an opinion - a supposition, not an unequivocal fact.

Some also say that Paul's letters were validated as God's word by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. But again, those guys were humans.

Some just have the faith that God must have intervened in the process of compiling The Bible over the centuries, and so we should assume everything in it is validated as God's own word. But again, Jesus never stated this, it's not a Commandment - it's a human supposition.

When I read Jesus' words in the Gospels, I believe I am reading the unquestionable Word of God.
When I read a Christian book by a modern author, I do so appreciating and learning from the wisdom and advice contained within, but I feel entitled to disagree (or at least not entirely agree) with any of the content.

So my question (and struggle) really is: when I read Paul's letters, should I treat them as (1) or (2) above?


texts: What does "holy thing" refer to in Leviticus?

texts:
In Leviticus 22:10 (and mentioned in a few other verses too) it says "...shall not eat of a holy thing..."

What does "holy thing" refer to?


texts: How did Matthew conclude that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus?

texts:
The verse reads: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Matthew quotes it in Matthew 1:23, with it's fulfillment in Jesus' birth.

But when we read the context in Isaiah 7:1-17, we find that the sign is in reference to God telling King Ahaz that the Assyrians will come against Israel, and the 7:14 sign is to indicate something about when it will happen. 7:8-9 tells us that Ephraim will be broken in 65 years; 7:15-16 tells us that something will happen while the child of 7:14 is still young.

In what way can this passage of scripture be likened to Jesus' situation so that it reasonably applies to him? Since Matthew believes Jesus is the Christ, and this passage refers to Jesus, I am asking for answers from likeminded writers as to how this passage can apply. Perhaps Matthew had a similar point of view in mind.

Here are the verses:

Isa 7:1-9

  And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham,
  the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and
  Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to
  war against it, but could not prevail against it.

  And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with
  Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the
  trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

  Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and
  Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in
  the highway of the fuller's field;

  And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be
  fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the
  fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

  Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil
  counsel against thee, saying,

  Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach
  therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of
  Tabeal:

  Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to
  pass.

  For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin;
  and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it
  be not a people.

  And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is
  Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
  established.

Isa 7:10-17

  Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

  Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in
  the height above.

  But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

  And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for
  you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
  shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil,
  and choose the good.

  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
  good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
  kings.

  The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy
  father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim
  departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.


texts: Okay so I was looking around on google for some answers about where some of the demon names that are "Biblical" came from, and I came across the Testament of Solomon. It isn't in the Bible from what I can tell. (It may be, if so, can I have some references?). It is an account of how Solomon enslaved demons using Michael's ring and made them rebuild the temple. There's something about all of this that just feels off. Does anyone know if its considered true by the majority or if its just considered untrue?


texts: How many distinct Biblical canons are there?

texts:
I've noticed recently on this site there is a push to enforce the rule that, in one's questions, one ought to state "which Bible" one is interested in learning about—whether that is the "Catholic Bible", "Protestant Bible", "Mormon Bible", etc.

Although I knew there were many translations of "the" Bible, I didn't realize that the various denominations of Christianity were using different books.  Sure, there must be appreciable overlap among them, but there must also be appreciable differences, too, for this rule to be in place.

So, questions in this vein might be:

How many different Bibles do experts tend to agree there are?
How do they differ? (provide a summary or key differences)
In what ways do those differences matter to the adherents to those denominations?

By the way, I would not count The Book of Mormon as "part of" the Mormon Bible; I would see it as its own book in that denomination (but maybe that is wrongheaded in the Mormon tradition?).


texts: How did Eastern Orthodoxy view mental illness before modern times?

texts:
In Eastern-Orthodoxy, in the medieval times like the Byzantine Empire, Russian Empire. etc.
How did the Church and the priest saw people who today we know suffer from mental illness like bipolar, schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.?
What this seen as a spiritual problem? Possibly demonic activity or demonic possession? How was it treated?


texts: Early 90s Jungle themed christian childrens Musical

texts:
There was a popular Jungle themed christian children's musical, in the early 90's.

It centered on a young lion cub worried about growing up and becoming King (not Lion King).

It had several fun characters in it, including one that liked to play tennis on Tuesdays (English accent).

Does anyone know the name of this musical, and maybe who wrote it or performed it so I can find it?


texts: Where does the Bible say along the lines of, "The weakest saint is stronger than the strongest demon?"

texts: This is definitely a biblical concept, and have heard similar to it I thought. But, when asked to find this by another, I am having little luck.


texts: What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs?

texts: Archaeology has found many dinosaur fossils.  Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of dinosaurs?


texts: Are there any other books, divined by God, regarding Christianity?

texts: To my understanding, the bible is divinely inspired by God? However is this the only book that has been inspired or developed through this method? Are there other books equivalent or near equal to the bible in regards to Christianity?


texts: How, according to the Catholic Church, can God order genocide even though the Church has declared such a situation impossible?

texts:
Quoting Veritatis Splendor:

  Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. (...) The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide, (...)"

Veritatis Splendor, 80

So I believe that we can say that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, genocide can never be ordered to be carried out by God and committing it is always evil.

Still, in the Bible we have examples of GodMoses (see comments) ordering His believers to commit genocide:

  But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites - as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God.

Deuteronomy 20, 16-18

This most obviously satisfies the definition of genocide, as stated by the United Nations:

  Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; (...)"

OFFICE OF THE UN SPECIAL ADVISER ON THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE (OSAPG)

There seems to be incongruity in Catholic teaching here. How does the Church explain the fact that while it declares it impossible for God to order genocide, such an order from God seems to be described in the Bible?


texts:
I'm coming at this from the evangelical reform side of salvation. For the evangelical, salvation is made for us by Jesus on the cross. There is nothing else we can add to make us more saved, or less saved (I know those who believe in losing your salvation). So my hope is in the fact that Jesus paid for me, and that God raised him from the dead.

But from my understanding, Roman Catholics believe that salvation must be earned, although Jesus made the way possible. If there is a part involve from me in my salvation, I find it hard to believe where is the hope in all of it.

Could someone explain to me how they see the hope in the Roman faith?

EDIT
I want to extend an apology if this question has insulted anyone. I tried to asked it in a way that was neutral, trying to understand my catholics friends. Since there were many sincere catholic on this site I though I would get a to answer to this genuine question.

So here again I ask your forgiveness if I offended anyone. It was not my intention in any way.


texts: What are the differences between Catholic and Episcopal saints?

texts: The title says it all, really.  What is the difference between Catholic and Episcopal saints?


texts:
The Bible calls Jesus our mediator:

Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (Romans 8:34, ESV)
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5, ESV)
Consequently, he [Jesus] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25, ESV)

Trinitarians believe that Jesus intercedes with the Father on our behalf. He can do this because he is a distinct person, and he is the only competent mediator because only God can truly mediate with himself.
Modalism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "different modes or aspects of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three coeternal persons within the Godhead." (Wikipedia)
If God is not multiple people, how can Jesus intercede with the father? How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator?


texts:
BBC News reports here that the Church of England's Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, retires on 7 June 2020. The news report is dated 1 October 2018, which 15 months' notice.

This seems very long, even for such a senior post in the Church of England. Why would an Archbishop give such long notice of retirement?


texts: Does the LDS discuss the issue of LDS children "playing Sacrament"?

texts:
In the LDS faith, the Sacrament (most analogous to the Eucharist in other Christian faiths) is a very sacred ordinance performed weekly as part of Sacrament Meeting:

  Partaking of the sacrament is a witness to God that the remembrance of
  His Son will extend beyond the short time of that sacred ordinance.

  Source

To further stress the sacred nature of this ordinance:

  The ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most
  sacred and important meeting in the Church.

  Source

Given how sacred the ordinance is, it seems given that children shouldn't be permitted to "play" Sacrament.  For example, constructing their own version of the sacrament from bread and water in the kitchen and then serving to themselves.

However, understanding that young children often imitate things they encounter (these are young children we are talking about here, ages 2, 4, and 5), and that they clearly are not intending any disrespect or irreverence, it could also be looked at as a form of reverence in itself that they want to administer and partake of it as part of their play.  Also, it is something they look forward to each week and there is concern that putting the kibosh on it during playtime at home may suck the fun and excitement out of it.  Children can be particularly susceptible to shaming and guilting, and that does not seem appropriate.  However it does seem important to teach them to respect the ordinance.

Is there anything in LDS teaching that addresses this issue, or is it a matter left entirely to the judgment of parents?


texts:
Do Catholics believe that people can be saved without hearing the name of Christ?

I came across this while listening to John MacArthur on Catholicism, and Billy Graham

What do Catholics believe is essential to salvation?


texts:
The Exsultet or Exultet is a beautiful Latin hymn for the Easter vigil. There are a few different versions. Part of the ceremony involves lighting the Paschal candle, and the text thanks the bees who produced the wax:

Alitur enim liquantibus ceris, quas in substantiam pretiosiae huius lampadis apis mater eduxit.
For [the candle] is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.1

The candle is also called "the work of bees and of your servants' hands" in another part of the text.
Of course it is nice to recognize the contribution of the bees. But this feels like a bit of a digression in a hymn which is otherwise all about God. Is there some reason why bees are specifically mentioned?
1. English rendering from the International Commission for English in the Liturgy, 2010.


texts:
Is it a sacrilege to take communion in hand?
In the Old mass, Catholics receive communion by kneeling down and receive the Holy Eucharist in tongue. In the new mass, this has been changed, Catholics no longer kneel down and take communion in tongue. Catholics believe that the “real presence of our Lord” is in the bread and wine and therefore it is only appropriate to behave in a such manner of reverence that is due to Him. According to tradition and teaching, the priest is the only one allowed to hold the body of Christ because his hands were consecrated.

Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8

The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)

This method [on the tongue] must be retained.
Memoriale Domini - Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.
Pope John Paul II - Dominicae Cenae, 11

It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.
Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9.

My question is more about worship and reverence. How do we behave in God’s presence? Yes, we are all dirty rags I know. Like for example in dining, do we use our licking fingers or use fork and knives? Do we exercise ethics and right conduct?


texts: Matt 15: What penalty for not washing hands?

texts:
In Matthew 15:2, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of Jesus of not properly washing their hands before eating.

  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do
  not wash their hands when they eat.”

What, if any, penalty or punishment could the disciples have incurred from the Pharisees had Jesus not refuted this accusation?


texts: How did Pascal reconcile his wager with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalms 50?

texts:
I'm not asking about a justification or an attack on Pascal's Wager.

I'm just curious how/if Blaise Pascal, being an intelligent and analytical fellow, reconciled his famous gambit with 2 Corinthians 9:7 and Psalm 50 in which we are effectively instructed not to give out of compulsion?

I presume many here are more versed in his writings than I am.

UPDATE: To expand a bit on what discrepancy I see, Pascal deduced that belief was a logical choice based on the risk of infinite loss. Yet a "faith" predicated on fear of loss is hardly the sort which interests God.
I paraphrase the verses referenced that God doesn't want "risk averse" faith.
Indeed, Kierkegaard seems to come by the opposite approach as Pascal: that faith does and should involve chosen risks.


texts:
I have seen the Ten Commandments movie from the 1950’s and the Pharaoh has a son which grows up with Moses. This Phaorah dies and his son becomes the King/Phaorah. So Moses approaches this Pharaoh..well his stepbrother!
The 1990’s version with Ben Kingsley also seemingly depicts The Pharaoh as being his stepbrother too who also hates him.
Another version with Dougray Scott doesn't make his stepbrother Pharaoh, but he seemingly grows up with him and is a friend?? (Am not 100% positive the character was meant to be a brother)..I didn't like that version very much. This guy later dies in the Red Sea parting. I can't confirm the brotherhood in the last two movies. Because the made up parts can be quite..unusual.

Is there any evidence Moses had an Egyptian stepbrother in Egypt? Where did this movie tradition start? I honestly thought Moses had an Egyptian stepbrother because of the movies.


texts:
The word/term "trinity" is never used in the Bible. However, most Christians believe that God exists as three persons in one God-head.

This question has two parts:

What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?
Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God together - and what are they?


texts: What is the concept of predestination?  Are there different denominations that believe in predestination but have differences in what they believe about it?  If so, what are the differences?


texts: How many non-decalogue commandments from the Old Testament are still morally binding for Christians?

texts: Many denominations believe that Christians should obey the ten commandments (also known as the decalogue), which can be found in Exodus 20:1-17. However, there are 613 commandments in the Old Testament, not just 10. Moreover, Jesus himself claimed in Matthew 22:36-40 that the two greatest commandments are not part of the decalogue. In other words, Jesus endorsed the observance of two non-decalogue commandments. This makes me wonder: how many of the 603 non-decalogue commandments are still morally binding for Christians today? I know that the two greatest commandments definitely are, but are there others?


texts: Are there any American Christian denominations that refer to the days of the week by alternate names?

texts:
At this time of year Bible and Christianity fora are full of posts hinting that Christians who celebrate Christmas are guilty of paganism because it coincides with some pagan holiday celebrated in antiquity.

Given the same line of reasoning, do any (presumably very conservative) Christian denominations in the United States refer to any of the days of the week with alternate names?  Wednesday, for example, is named after the Norse god Odin; Thursday, after Thor; etc.

I believe that the original name days in Latin referred to the days of the week by number, with Monday being the second day (secunda), etc.  This custom persists in Portuguese, with Monday through Friday being referred to by ordinal numbers (Segunda-feira, Terça-feira, ... Sexta-feira).

I know that it seems rather fanatical, but are there some denominations that, in order to avoid saying something roughly equivalent to "We're having a Bible study on Thor's day", have come up with alternate names for some days of the week?


texts:
Why is the ritual of baptism needed (by "ritual of baptism" here I mean the physical act of being immersed in or sprinkled with water)? Why just acts of prayer and oral confession not enough?

I am interested in an overview of how this matter is explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantism.


texts: How is "abstain from things strangled" not contradictory to "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man"?

texts:
The following words from the Lord seem to imply that men can eat all kinds of food:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man (KJV, Matthew 15:11)
Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or
unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What
God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (KJV, Аcts 10:14-15)

However, the Apostles' words addressed to the believers from among Gentiles seem to be not so liberal when it comes to food:

...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled (KJV, Аcts 15:29)
As touching the Gentiles which
believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such
thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to
idols, and from blood, and from strangled (KJV, Аcts 21:25)

So, what the Lord said and what the Apostles wrote to the Gentile believers seem to be a bit contradicting. How are they not a contradiction? I am sure there should be an explanation here.


texts:
This is a simple question but it's making me confused.

In Genesis 1:3 God created light.

In Genesis 1:5 "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

In 1:16 "Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also."
What I'm confused about is that, in 1:5 evenings were already happening. But only in 1:16 He created the Sun and the Moon. Was God regulating by Himself the light on Earth, then left us with the Sun and the Moon?

Can someone explain?, sorry if the question it's silly.
God bless us all :-)


texts: Do Protestant catechisms teach that man is created by and for God, and God always draws man to himself?

texts:
I'm looking for a comparable Protestant teaching, and hopefully the scriptural reference it's based on, for this point within the Catholic catechism.

  The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself.
  CCC, n. 1


texts: Does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant have implications re: "once saved, always saved"?

texts:
My question is coming from a Protestant / Evangelical perspective.

I've always been taught that once one is saved, nothing and no one can snatch him from the Father's hand. That is to say, one cannot lose one's salvation. Now, we know from the parable of the seeds that there are those who come enthusiastically to Christ and then gradually lose interest as the cares of the world 'choke out' their initial interest. That case is pretty clear cut; These people were never saved to begin with.

But the parable of the Unforgiving Servant is different. In this story, the master (God) grants the servant (us) full forgiveness. But the servant's hardness of heart towards those in his debt leads the master to revoke the forgiveness He previously provided, and hand that servant over to be tortured (hell) until the servant's debt is paid in full (for eternity presumably, since our debt to God can never be paid via our own work).

This parable is a bit bewildering to me, to be completely honest. This doesn't appear to be a case of a man who was offered salvation and then demonstrated his rejection of that offer through his lack of good works (i.e. a forgiving attitude toward his peers). Instead, this appears to be a man who had earnestly repented, received salvation, stumbled immediately out of the gate in the sanctification department, and then had the offer of salvation completely revoked as a result.

GotQuestions, which I typically turn to for information on parables, doesn't seem to address the issue at all. So I'll ask the question here: Does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant have implications re: "once saved, always saved" ?

I'm looking for an answer from those who hold the view of "Once Saved, Always Saved" or are familiar with it.


texts: Which Christians refuse vaccinations on religious grounds?

texts:
There are reports of a measles outbreak in a Christian school in British Columbia, Canada. News reports speak of this as a community with "traditionally low vaccination rates" and say that many parents do not vaccinate their children on religious grounds.

I'm unaware of any Christian group that prohibits vaccinations, or any line of theological reasoning that would lead to an issue with vaccinations. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything. Even Amish and Old Order Mennonites appear to go along with vaccinations.

Who are the groups that take this stand, and what is their theological reasoning?


texts: According to Catholicism and/ or Protestantism, how many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?

texts: How many times was Jesus of Nazareth, whether pre-incarnate or incarnate, begotten?


texts:
Have there been any attempt in Christianity to draw a set of rules or principles on how the Bible must be interpreted? For example, I know some Christians take the words of the Lord literally that He spoke of the loaf of bread during the supper: "This is my body", however, they don't go as far as to take His other similar words literally like "I am the door of the sheep", "I am the bread which came down from heaven" or "I am the vine, ye are the branches". So, there must be some rule or at least some explanation on why some words in the Bible should be taken literally and others not.

There are also some similar words that seem to be meant to be taken only literally: "I am the Son of God", "I am the resurrection, and the life", "I am the way, the truth, and the life".

So, have there been any set of rules established anywhere in Christianity? Have such an attempt been made? I guess, the answer is yes. Then, if the answer is positive, is it possible to present such rules here in general? If they really differ greatly depending on the branch of Christianity, please, specify on behave of which such branch you are saying.


texts: At what time did the scourging at the pillar take place on Good Friday?

texts:
I have read some of the post on the accounts that took place between the time of the last supper through the crucifixion hour including the trials.
what time would the scourging at the pillar taken place?


texts: Why does any Archbishop get to decide if alligator is okay for Lent?

texts:
NPR ran an interesting piece about the saga of whether or not Catholics could eat alligator on Fridays during Lent.  According to the story, an alligator merchant by the name of Jim Piculas advocated in a letter to Archibishop Gregory Aymond for permission to consider alligator as seafood, and thus exempt from the prohibition on Friday meat consumption.

Now, aside from the giggles on the matter, what authority does the Archbishop of New Orleans have to set out the orthopractic model of Catholic belief in New Orleans?  I understand that the Bishop of Rome has the authority, when speaking ex cathedra, to promulugate doctrine - but I've never heard that other Bishops have this right.

In declaring a reptile equivalent to a fish, the Archbishop seems to have made a fairly significant theological interpretation.  What gives him the authority to do so?


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand the essential nature of hell, and how does it differ from that of Seventh-day Adventists?

texts:
Earlier this week, I was talking to a friend, more arguing really, and the subject of hell came up. And he said something that got me thinking. He said "There's no hell as many of us believe it. There's no eternal fire as we're told. There is only death for those who sin." And he went on to quote Romans 6:23,

  The wages of sin is death (ESV).

So that got me thinking and for the past few days I've been troubled. Like if God really loves us why would He subject us to that kind of torture for all eternity? I mean, isn't He the same God that gave His son to die for us? Isn't He the gracious and the merciful and the forgiving God that stuck with the hard headed Israelites in the desert for forty years?

Now considering my friend is of Jehovah's Witness background, is it possible that that is what they believe hell to be? And how different is it from what the Seventh-day Adventists believe it to be?


texts: How did Martin Luther's views on Free Will differ from those of Erasmus?

texts: I understand that Martin Luther believed in the redemption of the will to serve God as part of  God's redemptive work. Can someone clarify how this differed from Erasmus' viewpoint? I know I could figure this out through self-research, but I'm looking for an abridged version.


texts: Seeking source of a Calvin quote regarding wine in communion

texts:
In my denomination (Free Methodist) and a number of other protestant denominations, grape juice is used for communion rather than wine.  There is (of course) a longstanding back-and-forth between Christian denominations when it comes to alcohol in general, but the question of wine vs. grape juice in the context of communion is what interests me here.

Specifically, a few years ago I was listening to a radio talk show where the guests were discussing this issue.  One of guests stated that John Calvin had once recommended wine as the only appropriate drink for communion, because -- unlike grape juice -- wine combines sweetness and bitterness, which makes a more effective metaphor for the sweetness and bitterness of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

I've spent some time trying to search out the original source of this quote but had no luck.  Can anyone point me to where it comes from?  (Assuming, of course, that the guest on the radio show had his facts straight.)


texts: What is the oldest historical evidence of the Sabbath commandment?

texts: What does history say about the practice of keeping the Sabbath holy? What is the oldest historical evidence of this commandment? Can we find evidence of Sabbath keeping prior to the Israelites and/or in other cultures?


texts: Why did Jesus say to his accusers "You are gods"?

texts:
John 10

  33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
  but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
  God.

  34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
  gods?

Why does Jesus mention to the people that are stoning him, that they are Gods?

Does that bring them up to the same level as Him (Christ)?


texts: Did Jesus actually ever say "if you don't believe in me you will go to hell"?

texts:
I just finished a five-part series on the History Channel: "The Bible". They did a fantastic job with it. However,  I noticed that Jesus did not appear to condemn those who did not believe in Him, and I had never really thought about that before.

Did Jesus ever actually say, "If you don't believe in me you will go to hell"?

I understand that when His disciples asked, "What is the way?" He said, "No one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). However, there is context here. It does not appear to be a blanket statement. For example, He obviously didn't mean it for some kid living in Ireland at that same exact night of the Last Supper.

Jesus did say, "Blessed are those who believe in me" (John 20:29), but He did not say there that you are damned to hell if you don't. So did the TV series leave something out? Or where did fallen man come up with this?


texts:
Some people believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version English-speakers should be using, as it is the only inspired translation.  (This is referred to as "KJV-onlyism.")
Basically, the KJV-only position is that:

The Bible is God's word

God promises to preserve His word

E.G., Psalm 12:7 (read this article)

This preservation is accomplished via a perfect translation (one per language)

The KJV is His perfect, preserved translation in the English language

The reason other English Bibles differ from the KJV is because those other Bibles have been tainted by sin and error

What are the main counterarguments to this view?
I am specifically looking for answers which would be convincing to an English-speaking Protestant with a high view of Scripture.


texts: What KJV publishers today include the "Translators to the reader"?

texts:
Are there any publishers of the KJV Bibles today that include not just the epistle dedicatory, but also the "translators to the reader", which is 10 or so pages long? There are a few publishers that produce really nice KJV Bibles which include the epistle dedicatory, but not the translators message to the reader.

[ update ]
This is a few samples of what I'm referring to
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/kj_account.htm

http://www.pitt.edu/~hunter3/KJVbible/Preface.html

[ update 2 ]
Also, as far as comparing KJV publishers, here is one comparison that lists separately, the Dedicatory and the "Translators to the Reader"
https://evangelicalbible.com/bibles/allan/allan-longprimer/

I know of one other publisher so far, Trinitarian Bible Society that I think includes the Translators message to the reader.

[ update 3 ]
The reason for my interest in this and desire to have a KJV Bible with it included, is there is a wealth of history in these few pages (about 10-4 or so)

The 1611 version (notice the epistle dedicatory and the seperate "translators to the reader")
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php

https://library.osu.edu/innovation-projects/omeka/exhibits/show/the-king-james-bible/sidebars/the-translators-preface-to-the


texts: Did John Wesley plagiarize Matthew Henry...?

texts:
I was consulting some commentaries on Exodus 4:24-26 and noticed that John Wesley's Notes on this passage appear to be taken, in some cases word for word, from Matthew Henry's commentary. Is there a legitimate relation between these two texts? Or perhaps intellectual property rights were not as well understood in John Wesley's day...? I've put the passage that appears to be plagiarized below.

Wesley's notes:

  "It seems the sin of Moses, was neglecting to circumcise his son,
  which perhaps was the effect of his being unequally yoked with a
  Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, and Moses so of her.
  The Lord met him, and, probably, by a sword in an angel's hand, sought
  to kill him - This was a great change. Very lately God was conversing
  with him as a friend, and now coming forth against him as an enemy. In
  this case of necessity Zipporah herself circumcised the child without
  delay; whether with passionate words, expressing the dislike of the
  ordinance itself, or at least the administration of it to so young a
  child."

  Notes on the Second Book of Moses Called Exodus

Henry's Commentary:

  "1.The sin of Moses, which was neglecting to circumcise his son. This
  was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite,
  who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of
  her. […] .2. God’s displeasure against him. He met him, and, probably
  by a sword in an angel’s hand, sought to kill him. This was a great
  change; very lately God was conversing with him, and lodging a trust
  in him, as a friend; and now he is coming forth against him as an
  enemy. [...] 3. The speedy performance of the duty for the neglect of
  which God had now a controversy with him. His son must be circumcised;
  Moses is unable to circumcise him; therefore, in this case of
  necessity, Zipporah does it, whether with passionate words (expressing
  her dislike of the ordinance itself, or at least the administration of
  it to so young a child, and in a journey)

  Exodus 4


texts: Why is the Bible divided into Old Testament and New Testament?

texts:
All the Bible I have seen (Catholic and Protestant) have the books in the Bible divided into two groups - Old Testament and New Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title "The Old Testament" which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title "The New Testament" indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament. I have also seen some Christians holding a small Bible having only the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs as an addition. I wonder why do we have this division. I'm also perplexed by the use of the terms "Old" and "New". I need some historical and theological background to help me understand this division.

When did this division happen?
Why did they make this division?
Does this division bear any significant importance?
Can we simply divide the Bible as "Books written before Christ" and "Books written after Christ"?
Was the use of the terms 'Old' and 'New' accidental or intentional?
Is this division necessary?
Is there any Bible that doesn't have this division?


texts: Where does this famous St. Augustine quote about the repentant thief come from?

texts:
There is a very famous quote in French Catholic circles that would be translated as something like:

  No, I had not studied the Scriptures, but Jesus looked at me on the
  cross and, in his gaze, I understood everything!

Most pages in French don't give the reference and the little bit of Latin that I know has not been very helpful in search the complete works of Augustine in Latin. Does anyone have an idea of where this quote might come from? Thanks and God bless!


texts: Which traditions practice paedocommunion?

texts:
What specific traditions (or denominations inside a tradition) currently practice paedocommunion?

Are there any that practice paedocommunion but not paedobaptism?
Are there any that historically practiced it but have given it up?

I am specifically interested in the treatment of infants, not children.


texts: What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Liturgical POV)

texts:
I've already asked this to get a non-liturgical point of view and now I would like to see an answer from a liturgical Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox view.

Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way.

However, it has been argued that these external forms have passed away and that all (or nearly all) that remains is the inward truth. Given the fact that Christ has come to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17) and that He has brought an end to the sacrificial system as it was (Hbr 9:23ff arguably implying an end to all the surrounding ritual as well), what biblical basis is there for keeping ceremony and ritual? This would apply both in the worship service and outside, for things like weddings and the like.


texts: What is the origin of the Devil's red pointy costume and pitchfork?

texts:
So, biblically, Satan comes as "an angel of light." and yet, in the popular imagitation, he is usually wearing a red costume with a pointy tail, a sharp beard, and a pitchfork.

When and how did this characterization develop?


texts: What was the most likely method of crucifixion that was used on Jesus?

texts:
I'm writing a novel that is meant to be as historically accurate as possible. I haven't gotten that far yet, but I know that Jesus' crucifixion will eventually occur and since the novel revolves around his disciples' perspectives of Jesus and his death, what would be the most likely method of crucifixion that the Romans used on Jesus?

I read an article from Biblical Archaeology on the subject, and it seems to indicate that many crucifixions were performed with bound hands tied backward to the transverse cross-bar, and the feet nailed to the upright with one long nail.

Paul and Peter both referred to a tree that Jesus was crucified on, although I have read that the 'tree' refers to the wood and not an actual tree. Could it be possible that a crossbar was attached to a tree, and the feet were nailed to the tree itself?

The Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus was hung with his hands above his head on a 'torture stake.' Is there any validity to such a statement?

Then there is the conventionally thought-of method of hanging the criminal to it by their feet and hands via tying or nailing.


texts: What's the proof for the existence of Angels as well as angelic hierarchy?

texts: It's said that most influential medieval work on angelic order was written by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. How much authority do his works still hold and what's the metaphysical foundation and necessity for the existence of Angels?


texts: Do some Christian churches worship the saints and/or angels?

texts:
When the disciple John falls down on his knees to worship an angel, the angel immediately urges him to stop because he is just like John, a servant of God, who worships God alone.

8 It is I, John, who heard and saw these things, and when I heard and saw them I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the message of this book. Worship God.” (NABRE)
8 καὶ ἐγὼ Ἰωάννης ὁ βλέπων ταῦτα καὶ ἀκούων καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσα καὶ ἔβλεψα ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ δεικνύοντός μοι ταῦτα 9 καὶ λέγει μοι, Ὅρα μή σύνδουλός σου γάρ εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον (TR, 1550)

It seems like the doctrines of many Christian churches (Orthodox, Catholic, etc.) are replete with saint/angel worship.  Is that accurate? Do some Christians worship angels and/or saints?


texts: What is the name of this disciple of Jesus in the English language?

texts: What is the English name of St. Pathrose who is a disciple of Jesus in the Malayalam liturgy?


texts: According to Reformed churches, is the trinity a finalized doctrine?

texts:
From 325 AD at the Council of Nicea up to about the 8th century, councils have been held to determine the correct nature of God. It was eventually decided that the bible reveals a triune god- one god existing as three divine persons. Although shrouded in mystery and containing contradictions that are labeled "beyond our human comprehension", the trinity doctrine has been the most popular Christology for centuries. According to the Westminister Confession of Faith:

  “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

Suppose I work my way up the ranks to become a respected and exalted member of the church. One day, I have a divine revelation that Wisdom is not merely personified in the bible, but is the fourth person of the Quadrilateral god. Of course, my idea would have many critics. They may say "Proverbs 8:22–30 says Wisdom was brought forth, so it cannot be the eternal god", to which I'd reply "Wisdom is eternally brought-forth through the eternal generation" or something.

I would show that Wisdom is described as a person that can speak, think, and that Jesus even says she has her own children. I could even quote Theophilus of Antioch to show that I'm not the only one who believes Wisdom is a divine person of God.

Anyways, my question isn't about whether the Quadinity is true.

Is the trinity a completed doctrine and too sacred to be reformulated, or do Reformed churches allow alternative ideas to be presented and considered?


texts:
So, Popes sin too. (At least, I assume they do.)

Presumably, they confess their sin and do penance.  Who hears his confession?

Is it an office that rotates, or one individual?  And, does the Pope select that person, or is he selected for the Pope? And finally, clearly the confession would be protected by the seal of the confessional, but, is there a recorded instance of it being broken?  Surely the secrets would have been tempting to give out...


texts: Perpetual virginity of Mary: why did Mary see "not knowing man" as an obstacle to the conception of Jesus?

texts:
It seems rather incontrovertable from the logic (Luke 1):

You will concieve and bear a son
How shall this be, since I know not man

That Mary sees it as impossible to conceive, specifically because she does not have intercourse with anyone. Meaning the present condition, her virginity, which precludes conception, is seen as not going to change (to allow the conception and make the objection meaningless and invalid).

Question

For those who deny that Mary ever intended to remain a virgin her whole life, how is this refuted?

Thanks in advance.


texts: Are the people involved in killing Jesus innocent

texts: Are the people in the bible innocent of killing Jesus if the crucifiction was already prophisized. Would God need people to play certain roles like judas to help fulfill his prophesy. If judas was needed to help fulfill the crucifiction of Christ,wouldn't that make him a forced traitor?someone would have to play the role of a traitor. If there was no crucifiction there would be no salvation.


texts: What verses in the Bible indicate that Apostles expected Christ to come back very soon?

texts:
I heard somewhere that it is possible that the 12 Apostles, right after Christ's ascension, believed that His return would happen very soon, that is, even during their lifetime. What evidence do we have in the Bible that might indicate that kind of thinking on the part of the Apostles?

I've looked up the Wikipedia article on Second Coming, but it only quotes the words spoken by Jesus Himself about His second coming to happen soon.

As for the Apostles, it only quotes these words by John:

  "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist
  is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know
  that it is the last hour" (1st John 2:18)

What other verses in the Bible may indicate that the Apostles expected the Lord to be back very soon?


texts: When was the actual Transfiguration of Christ?

texts: I can only find one reference online, which is before Lent. Is there multiple dates? or one definite one?


texts: Did the apostles teach ideas about God the Father that were contrary to the teachings of first century Judaism?

texts:
Early Christianity surely inherited theology from Judaism.  In particular, at least some of God's characteristics as taught by Judaism.  After all, Jesus and the apostles were Jews. Did they ever teach against the theology of Judaism at the time? In other words, are there parts of first-century Jewish theology they didn't inherit, and instead replaced with contrary beliefs?

The apostles wouldn't believe things that aren't from the Torah, nor things that were against the Torah, right? The Jews didn't teach polytheism, for example. Where can I find empirical evidence that shows they knew and understood the teachings of first century Judaism? It's useful to know if the teachings of the early church contradicted the nature of God according to the existing teachings of Judaism.

I'm looking for evidence that, aside perhaps from their beliefs about Jesus, the apostles weren't otherwise heretical in their beliefs about God, in the context of Judaism of that time (so, God is God as presented by the Torah).


texts: What is the textual evidence from the Bible that the resurrection for believers happens in stages (a Dispensationalist View)?

texts:
On a separate post, the question about who populates the Millennium   brought this question to mind.
The belief is that Christ rose first, then believers, whether dead or living at the time of the rapture will receive their immortal bodies.  Next, martyrs of the tribulation period would be resurrected to immortality to live through the Millenium, and finally, all others will be resurrected or receive immortality at the Great White Throne.
At the Great White Throne, believers would be resurrected to or granted access to eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth, because their names are recorded in the book of life, while unbelievers would be resurrected to eternal damnation in the lake of fire, along with the antichrist, false prophet, Satan and all of the demons.
The relationship to the original question about the Millennium was with regard to some people dying "young" at 100 years old during that period, and who those mortals would be if all saints received immortality before the Millennium began, and unbelievers will have perished, according to Revelation 19:

He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave,[d] both small and great.”


texts: What differences are there between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of the sacrament of marriage?

texts:
I read somewhere a couple of years ago that Eastern Orthodox believe marriages contracted on earth, remain in place in heaven (however it is impossible to get married once you arrive in heaven). Whereas Catholics believe that marriages are dissolved at death and everyone in heaven is single.

I also heard that Eastern Orthodox allow divorce, but I don't understand how that fits with the "eternal marriage that persists even after death" theology I described above.

Is my understanding of catholic and orthodox marriages correct? More generally, what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of marriage?


texts: Can an adult be Baptized if they are not Catholic

texts: I believe in Jesus but I am not Catholic. Can I still be Baptized?


texts:
When was the Biblical canon formalised and finalised? 397, 419 or a different date?

Do different branches of Christianity state that the canon was formalised at different times?

Are there branches that have altered their canon in recent times?


texts: What happened to the main disciples after Pentecost?

texts:
We know that Jesus commanded his disciples to go to make disciples of all nations and to spread the word to the entire world (Matthew 28:19), but we know little of what happened to the twelve disciples. We have some record about them in the Book of Acts, but it is not recorded where they lived, if they founded a community or not, where and how they died...

Is there any historical evidence as to what happened to the twelve disciples? I'm restricting this question to Peter, John and James who can be regarded as the main disciples.

There are some legends regarding the disciples, although I don't know how historically accurate they are:

John lived and died in Ephesus
James preached in the actual territory of Spain
Peter went to Rome where he was also martyred

Are these legends true?


texts: How does the Catholic Magisterium advise the married laity to defend the institution of marriage?

texts:
Does the Catholic Church have any practical advice for its adherents on ways to exemplify the ideal she sets of marriage between one man and one woman?

Barring any specific discussion of same-sex relationships, what does the Church want us married folks to do as witnesses of Christ's love?


texts: Where did Jesus' belief in the devil come from?

texts: In Jn 8:44, Jesus tells some people that their father is the devil. I have read that in Judaism there is no devil, so I was wondering where did Jesus' belief in the devil come from.


texts: What is the story behind a monk’s tonsure?

texts: As the title asks:  What is the significance of this particular haircut (the tonsure), why is it associated with monks and what is the history behind it?


texts:
I have grappled with this for some  time.

As the forerunner of Christ, John the baptist was baptising people, preparing them for the coming of Christ. After Christ came, he was baptised and commanded his disciples to baptise converts in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is believed that baptism is a physical washing of our sins (that may be wrong) and Paul said it symbolizes our being dead and buried with him and also risen.

I have this belief that after Jesus died and shed his blood, his blood does the work of washing sins away, so baptism is no longer necessary.

I still believe in the "being dead and buried with him...."


texts:
In Exodus 34:13, Deuteronomy 7:5, Deuteronomy 12:3, God states laws against idolatry, and God says to cut down or burn groves:

  Exodus 34:13 KJV
  But ye shall destroy their altars, break their
  images, and cut down their groves:

  Deuteronomy 7:5 KJV
  But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall
  destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their
  groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

  Deuteronomy 12:3 KJV
  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break
  their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down
  the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of
  that place.

Some kings, fighting against idolatry, accomplished that commandment, like Hezekiah
:

  2 Kings 18:4 KJV
  He removed the high places, and brake the images,
  and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that
  Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn
  incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

In my native language (portuguese), "grove" is translated as a "forest". So I thought: What's the problem with some trees? What's related to idolatry on groves?

Using strong, the "grove" word is H842 (happy; asherah (or Astarte) a Phoenician goddess; also an image of the same). God was fighting the idolatry about that goddess?


texts: Did Luther really use bar tunes for his hymns?

texts: The title sums it up: I often hear it said during the debates on liturgy and music styles that are appropriate for worship that even Luther used common bar tunes (equivalent to days pop songs) for his hymns. Is this true?


texts: How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins"?

texts:
Many Christians believe that Jesus died to appease the anger of God. One reason for this is 1 John 2:2, which says:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου.

Propitiation basically means to appease the wrath of a god through an offering. How did Swedenborg translate ἱλασμός and interpret 1 John 2:2?


texts: Is this true that before the Quinisext Council it was not allowed to draw Jesus on icons in the form of a man?

texts: Is this true that only at the Quinisext Council it was allowed to draw Jesus on icons as a man, and that before that time Jesus was only depicted on icons as a fish or a lamb? I've looked up the article on the Quinisext Council at the Wikipedia, but it doesn't say anything about that.


texts: According to Reformed theology, what is an infant's first sin?

texts:
From what I understand, every human that has ever lived is "born into sin", which means we all carry a "sin nature". Saul says:

  "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

This means even little cute babies. If I'm not mistaken, most churches believe life begins at conception (which I have no problem with), so that means as soon as a baby is conceived, they are sinners before God.

Just to clarify, I'm not looking for answers from those that hold to the "age of accountability". If anyone believes in this, please leave a comment and I'll ask a separate question.

My question is...

What is the first sin an infant (or fetus) commits?

I've considered that this may be too broad of a question, but since infants can only do about 10 things (lay down, babble, drink milk, poop, etc), it shouldn't be hard to pinpoint that one thing that causes the infant to be a sinner deserving to have it's flesh burned forever and ever in agony.


texts: Who first came up with the "four attributes of Scripture"?

texts:
There's a lot written about the "four attributes of Scripture", meaning it's "Sufficient, Necessary, Authoritative and Perspicuous". On the other hand, most sources (like this one) seem to attribute this concept to "tradition".
I'm pretty sure it comes from a reformed background, but which theologian came up first with this notion?
I've read it's related to the concept of Sola Scripture and it's often presented by the acronym SCAN.
This article from a seminar
This article from TGC
This article from Evangelical Focus
This article from a missionary that quotes Kevin DeYoung
This article even quotes two books on this subject, one from Timothy Ward and other from Wayne Grudem


texts: Why Jeremiah 10:5 was changed from palm trees to scarecrows

texts:
So, I was interested in reading Jeremiah 10:1-5 as it referred to Christmas trees. I found the comparison is very striking in the King James Version. As I was looking into this, however, I noticed that some other bible translations compared the tree to a scarecrows in a cucumber field, which I found very odd.

When and why was this changed?

My other question is in regards to the first sentence of Jer 10:5. I get the first part, "They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not:", but I don't understand the second part "they must needs be born because they cannot go". What does this mean and how does it relate to a palm tree?


texts: How was Solomon considered one of the wisest?

texts:
According to Deuteronomy 17:14-17, there are a couple of rules a king should follow. From the NKJV:

  14 “When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

Which roughly boils down to:

he must be chosen by the LORD
he can not be a foreigner
he must not acquire a great number of horses for himself
he must not return his people to Egypt
he must not have multiple wives
he must not acquire a lot of silver and gold

Solomon, a king considered among the wisest man in the Old Testament, appears to have violated at least 3 of those rules.

He had an awful lot of wives (700 plus 300 concubines, 1 Kings 11).
He had an awful lot of horses (40.000 stalls of horses (1 Kings 4) of which only 4.000 for military purposes (2 Chronicles 9).
He had an awful lot of gold (666 talents of gold each year, 1 Kings 10).

And still, he's considered one of wisest man in the history of Israel.

The rules of Deuteronomy are old. Solomon must've known them (Deuteronomy 17:18-20 is quite explicit about this). So how is a man like that considered one of the wisest if he's led astray by his women for which he is explicitly warned every day of his kingship? Even, Israel was torn apart by the sins of Salomon (1 Kings 11).

Still, In Luke 11, Jesus is considered greater than Solomon. Jesus being greater than anyone isn't a surprise, but Solomon being mentioned here as the next-best-thing despite his foolishness is.

How was Solomon still considered in such a high regard during the time of Jesus, a point at which I expect the Israelites to know of Solomon's foolishness?

I'm explicitly looking for a protestant-bible point-of-view.


texts: According to Reformed Theology, why did the 70 Jewish translators include the Apocrypha?

texts:
I read at carm.org:

  Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
  This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired
  Scriptures were, and they never accepted the Apocrypha.

From the sentence above, my English understanding is that
no Jews (including Jesus, the apostles and the rest of the Jews) accepted the books of

Tobit or Tobias
Judith
Esther with additions
1 and 2 Maccabees
Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach or Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Daniel with additions
1 Esdras
3 and 4 Maccabees
Psalm 151
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalms of Solomon

This list is from Wikipedia on the Septuagint.

What I don't understand is as follows:

  The Translation of the Seventy', derives from the story recorded in
  the Letter of Aristeas that the Septuagint was translated at the
  request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by 70 Jewish
  scholars (or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each
  of the Twelve Tribes of Israel).  Source ibid.

My question:

According to Reformed theology, why did the 70 Jewish scholars include the list above (the Apocrypha), "bundling" them together with the non-apocrypha into one book and then call this one book Scripture - while they themselves never accepted the list?


texts: Why does Justin Martyr say that those who are unworthy of seeing God will become imprisoned in animal bodies?

texts:
In Dialogue with Trypho, an early Christian text, Justin Martyr and a Jew named Trypho discuss the nature of the soul and its interaction with God. After talking a bit about if animals could see God and if that was any different than humans, this conversation happens (translation taken from here):

[Trypho asked,] "'What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?'
"'I cannot tell,' I [Justin Martyr] answered.
"'And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?' said he.
"'They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.'

This seems like a really bizarre conclusion to me, yet Trypho seems to take it in stride, moving on to his next argument. Why would Justin Martyr assert that those who see God and yet were unworthy would become imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild animals? Was this a commonly held belief in his lifetime (in the years A.D. 100–165)?


texts:
If Jesus really loves everyone, why does Jesus show no mercy on the non believers?

Matthew 7:21-23:

Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven.
Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord.
They will say, "We preached in your name, and in your name we force out demons and
worked many miracles."  But I will tell them, "I will have nothing to do with you!
Get out of my sight, you evil people!"

Since this question is on hold due to opinion base, I'll attempt to form it more not opinion base.  Matthew 7:21-23 has always disturbed me.  Why does this passage warn and state the response from Jesus to the individuals who confront him with mercy?  The quotes could be left out and the passage could just be:

Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven.
Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord.

Is this due to translation from the old testament to the new testament?


texts:
If a person has not committed a mortal sin and is living in a state of grace, is it possible for that person to be possessed by a demon?

What is the Catholic Church's teaching on demonic possession and how to prevent it?


texts: Contradiction between God's mercy being greater than ours and Jesus' harsh words about who will end up in hell

texts:
We believe that God is supremely good and merciful, far more than we are. At the same time, I see in myself that I would not condemn anyone to hell, even villains like Hitler and Stalin. Perhaps I’d have them spend a long time being purged and making up their faults, but at the end I’d let them into eternal happiness, assuming they want to be there, of course. The only case when someone would be “sent” to hell is if he simply wants to be there and is not willing to change his mind, even upon seeing the entire truth about all reality.

Then, if I feel this way, is it possible to imagine that the good God would be less merciful than this, and not somehow even more? Yet, various passages in the Bible (including Jesus' words in NT) as well as the traditional teaching of the Church suggest just that. That it’s not just total evildoers, people entirely corrupted, ones who would obstinately prefer eternal solitude to eternal connectedness - who go to hell. It seems that it’s also people who slipped up through weakness, who followed their sense of good even when knowing the Church teaches otherwise, or who were not watchful enough.

How to understand this? How to truly love and trust God in Whom there appears to be such a contradiction?

Note: I'm writing this question from a Catholic perspective.


texts: Can a priest act on a confession of molestation?

texts:
What, if any, ability does a priest or bishop have in order to stop a brother priest who has confessed to molestation of minors, according to Canon Law?
Very often I hear, and am personally aware of local priests, being re-assigned; so presumably some action can be taken in response to a confession like this. What can a priest do without breaking the seal of the sacrament? What is the strongest action he can take to stop the molester?