texts: Power, Authority and Sovereignty in the Character of God

texts:
It is held that God is All Powerful and has Supreme Authority over His creation and is Sovereign. I have long pondered on the relation of these three aspects of His Nature, and wonder: are any of these three more or less essential in the Nature of God?

If we look first at the example of Man: if he gets powerful enough, he can seize authority, and/or sovereignty. Also, if he has authority, he can amass power. But there are those with authority who lack imperium, and there are those with imperium that lack authority, and  nowadays we have so-called Sovereigns who lack both power and authority.

Concerning God there is none above Him in Power, and no power in any but by Him. And there is no Authority above Him, and no authority in any but by Him.

But can one of these two be considered more essential to His nature?
Can His power be thought to precede His authority?
Could His authority be thought to precede His power?
Could His sovereignty be considered the souce of His power and authority?

Has this matter been addressed in Classical scholarship?  If so, what were their different conclusions concerning this?


texts:
While the idea of Mechanical Inspiration -- that the very physical action of writing down the scriptures was guided or enacted by God through physical manipulation of the human writers -- is always listed for completeness as one of the ways the inspiration of the Scriptures could have been accomplished, I wonder if anyone actually holds that view.

Do any current groups identifying as Christian believe in this kind of inspiration? If so who and what evidence or reasoning do they cite?


texts: What denominations use gender-inclusive hymnology?

texts:
Recently, I was asked to substitute "souls" for "men" in the hymn, "Good Christian Men, Rejoice," in order to be more gender-inclusive. In this same congregation, I caused quite a stir by suggesting we sing "Onward Christian Soldiers," for much the same reason.

I was reading through "The Faith We Sing" (a Methodist hymnal) and seem to remember seeing several substitutions like this.

This seems to be more of a left-wing / right-wing thing, but I'm wondering if there are denomination stances. Specifically, what do Catholics, Presbyterians, and Lutherans do in this regard.

I'm also curious whether or not this type of hymnody exists in Mormon and JW churches, and how widespread the practice is there.


texts: Byzantine Chant vs. Gregorian Chant: What are the differences in goals as far as attitude and concepts between these two chanting styles

texts:
I'm NOT interested here in the difference in musical structure and rules here, per-say, between the Byzantine and Gregorian chanting styles.

What I'm more interested in is the difference between them in the goals of expression in each chanting tradition?

For example, what is Gregorian mode 1 trying to convey compared to Byzantine mode 1?

Or also, more generally, what is Gregorian Chant as a whole trying to accomplish compared to what Byzantine Chant?

When I say Byzantine Chant, I mean the Greek Byzantine Chanting tradition used by the Greek Orthodox Church on Mt. Athos and throughout the Churches in communion with Constantinople.

When I say Gregorian Chant, I mean the Gregorian Chanting tradition used by the Roman Catholic Church that is most often associated with Gregorian monastics.


texts: How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity?

texts:
How do the crusades impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality? What do these things mean to a person of faith?

The Crusades, from Wikipedia

  The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.

  Related Question:

  How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity?


texts:
I am a Christian....however I no longer believe in many of the celebrations....
Christmas....Easter.....these are indeed pagan holidays and I think even if the person does not pay tribute to Nimrod nor Ishtar/Easter openly the foundation of the worship of both are still present in these holiest of celebrations.  I'll go so far as to say that the deception runs throughout today's modern Christian church by leaders who are complicit in the deception at best just plain ignorant.
What should I do?  I imagine Messianic Jews know and practice the feasts set forth by Yahweh and know too that pagan practice runs throughout the Christian Church.


texts: According to Scripture, is sacrifice a requirement for salvation?

texts:
Regarding salvation, I was always under the impression a sacrifice had to be made (and as Christians we know Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for all sins), but looking through the Bible I see instances of God forgiving sins without requiring a sacrifice..

2 Chronicles 7:14 God forgave without a sacrifice. In Matthew 9:5 Jesus forgave without a sacrifice.

I'm used to hearing the judge analogy which states "A good judge can't dismiss sin, there has to be a punishment". According to Scripture, if God is righteous/a good judge, how can he forgive sins without a punishment/sacrifice?


texts: What is the Orthodox teaching about touching Jesus' body?

texts: I was reading answers to a question about Thomas touching Jesus. An answer came from an Orthodox person which said that Thomas was granted special permission to touch his body/wound. That person further said that it was why Jesus warned Mary Magdalene not to touch him. I would like to ask, from the orthodox perspective, who said touching Jesus was dangerous, and that Thomas was granted an exception. My question is: Is this also your position (Jesus granting exceptions) when the two women (Lazarus' sister and a prostitute) touched his feet while putting oil on them?


texts: How many authors wrote the Old and New Testament?

texts:
I know how many people wrote the Bible, that is, around 40. But what percent of that is Old Testament and what percent is New?

Note: I know I could spend half an hour looking through the lists to split them up but 1. Since this is not quickly answered anywhere, let's make it easier for people who want to know, and 2. Maybe someone here will know off the top of their head.


texts: What is the Christological difference between the early Church fathers and the Arians?

texts:
Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him.

There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology?

1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41.

2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458.

3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.


texts: What do Lutherans mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

texts: The Lutheran Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all understand it the same way. The Lutheran understanding differs significantly from the Orthodox and Catholic positions; could someone explain the Lutheran understanding of this doctrine?


texts: How do Roman Catholics understand salvation in light of Romans 3&4?

texts:
As far as I can understand it, Paul directly contradicts the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in Romans 3 & 4 (see verses 3:21-22, 3:28, 4:4-6 in particular, but I'm referring to the broad argument of the whole section).

How do Roman Catholics interpret what Paul is saying here?

For clarification, I understand that Catholic doctrine is nothing if not nuanced, and it's not accurate to just dismiss it as "works salvation". Salvation on that view is "by grace alone", but (as far as I understand) not "by faith alone" - rather, God gives us grace to perform the meritorious works that earn our salvation. It's the "faith alone" part that I think Paul is hammering home here.


texts: How do Young Earth Creationists account for civilisations with histories going back five thousand years or more?

texts: How do Young Earth Creationists account for the fact that some cultures have been continuously measuring the years for almost five millenia?


texts: How can a theistic evolutionist account for the origin of suffering and death?

texts:
Young-Earth creationists have an easy answer in Genesis 3: it’s all man’s fault, but this conflicts with the overwhelming consensus in several scientific fields.

Theistic evolutionists can accept that consensus, but they have a problem explaining how suffering and death arose in a world made by a benevolent, omnipotent creator, and pronounced by him to be “very good”, long before man came along to spoil things.

They only attempt I’ve seen is by Michael Lloyd in his ‘Cafe Theology’, where he suggests that, after Satan fell, he caused the problem, long before man came on the scene. But are there any other ideas?


texts: Since when have JWs said that United Nations will launch an attack on religion?

texts:
I was reading some publications at wol.jw.org about the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs pertaining to the end of the world, such as this article from which I quote below snippet:

  5 What yet unseen event will take place next? Paul stated: “Whenever
  it is that they are saying: ‘Peace and security!’ then sudden
  destruction is to be instantly upon them.” The first phase of this
  “sudden destruction” is the attack against “Babylon the Great,” the
  world empire of false religion, also known as “the harlot.” (Rev.
  17:5, 6, 15) That attack against all forms of false religion,
  including Christendom, is the start of the “great tribulation.” (Matt.
  24:21; 2 Thess. 2:8) For many, this event will come as a surprise.
  Why? Because up to that point, the harlot will confidently view
  herself as “a queen” who will “never see mourning.” But she will
  suddenly discover that she has miscalculated her chances of survival.
  She will be wiped out rather quickly, as if “in one day.”—Rev. 18:7,
  8.

  6 God’s Word identifies the harlot’s attacker as a “wild beast” with
  “ten horns.” A study of the book of Revelation shows that the wild
  beast refers to the United Nations (UN). “The ten horns” represent all
  present political powers that support this “scarlet-colored wild
  beast.”* (Rev. 17:3, 5, 11, 12) How devastating will the attack be?
  The nations of the UN will plunder the harlot’s wealth, expose her
  real character, devour her, and “completely burn her.” Her destruction
  will be final.

What I wanted to know is, is this some modern idea among Jehovah's Witnesses that United Nations will attack religion? Or since when have they believed that this is what those events in the book of Revelation refer to?


texts: Which NT books were written after the destruction of the temple?

texts:
The temple was destroyed sometime around AD 70.

Which New Testament books were written after that catastrophe?

Do these books comment at all on the destruction of the temple?


texts: According to Calvin, how can God be loving if he created people to go to hell?

texts: I struggle with John Calvin writing that God created people to go to the lake of fire (Institues, Volume 3, Chapter 21, Section 5). How could a loving, merciful, and gracious God create people so that they will burn forever in the lake of fire? It may be a sovereign act but I fail to see the love. I can understand punishment following the crime, but to create with the intention of suffering before the crime is difficult to comprehend.


texts: What is the biblical basis for the concept of being "slain in the spirit" and what exactly is it?

texts: Among charismatic Christians, I have occasionally heard the phrase "to be slain in the spirit."  I have not found any biblical reference to this phrase, so what is it to which this is referring and what is the biblical basis for it?


texts: According to Catholicism, is the Body of Christ the same as the Bride of Christ?

texts:
Are there any Catholic teaching that differentiates between the “Body of Christ” (Church) and the “Bride of Christ”?

Eve was taken from the Body of the First Adam, will the Bride of Christ be taken from the body (Church) of the Second Adam (Jesus Christ)?


texts: What kind of Christianity supports Zionism?

texts: I'm writing an essay about Christian Zionism, and I'm a bit unclear on the end-times beliefs of pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. I understand the basic timelines of both, but where does Jewish emigration to Israel fit in? At what point (and in which belief system) are Jews either supposed to convert to Christianity or be ruled by a tyrant?


texts: Were ALL 1st century Christians called “saints” by saints Paul, Jude, John etc, as they addressed all believers reading their NT writings as ‘saints’

texts:
My Q is concerned purely with how the NT seems to address all 1st century Christians as “saints” even while they were living. Of course, it also addresses martyred saints e.g. in Revelation 6:9-11: “the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held,” speaking from under Heaven’s altar. They must wait till the full number of their fellow-servants and brethren should be killed as had they. Revelation 20:4 also specifically mentions those who had been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God”, and that they had not received the mark of the beast”, therefore I am very happy to speak of martyred saints. My Q is about the NT use of the word translated “saints” when applied to living believers in the 1st century, and, by implication, to all believers thereafter.
The Greek word in question is ‘hagios’ and I consulted the Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament (Bagster, London, 9th ed. 1903). I ascertained that there are some 58 times in the NT where believers are addressed as “saints”, the vast majority still being alive at time of writing. But modern translations seem to use other words, such as “holy ones”, or “God’s people” or “the believers”, as well as “the saints”. There seems to be no consistency in modern translations, whereas the A.V. and other older translations seem to stick consistently to “the saints”. For example, Young’s Literal Translation, 1898 (YLT) reads, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, to all the saints who are in Ephesus, to the faithful in Christ Jesus… I also, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and the love to all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you…  the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints… ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints…” (Ephesians 1:1, 15, 18 & 2:19).
I ask about why other translations use words other than ‘saints’.  Does the Greek ‘hagios’ lend itself to a variety of meanings when it applies to living people (as opposed to objects or things, such as Jerusalem or covenants)?  I know that Catholics speak of “the Saints” (such as the Apostles) and wonder if their translations confine ‘hagios’ to them alone, in the Bible?  I seek the views of Catholics as I have a fair idea of the Protestant view, but I am NOT looking for anything about Canon Law – I seek a purely scriptural explanation about the scriptures themselves.


texts: What is the old covenant of Hebrews 8:6?

texts:
But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. ~ Hebrews 8:6 (NIV)

I realize that the short answer is probably "the Mosaic Covenant", but is this covenant the Hebrew vow to adhere to the entire Law, and God's promise to establish them as the chosen people, or is there more to it than I know (which isn't very much, frankly)?  Although I find many, many instances of "covenant" in the O.T., I can never really find a summation, or an entry I can point to and say, "Ah, there it is.  That is the covenant between God and the Jewish people."  Of course, I have been known to look right at something and not see it.

It also occurs to me that, according to the context in which the above quotation exists, the old covenant could be between the priesthood and God, because Hebrews 8 begins

1 We... have... a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.


texts: How does the "church" reconcile breaking the 2nd commandments religiously?

texts: I have been seeking after our Lord for many years now, I pray that the Holy Spirit amplify my faith and discerning of truth. Having researched for many years I find myself wondering how has the church fallen so far from truth when truth is found in the teaching of Yeshua? Yeshua says that the law is forever so no idols or graven images. Yet the amount of paintings of Jesus even the works of Leonardo, the masses of Jesus on the cross statues and paintings, the cross itself, the rosiery. These images, symbols and statues are idolized and given holy power. Also is the position of the "Vicar of Christ" not idolitry?....how is this practice reconciled in the church?


texts: The Jews were so offended after Stephen said that he saw Jesus "standing" at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55 that they stoned him. Why?

texts:
Jesus is pictured as "sitting" at the right hand of God, rather than standing, in most of the New Testament. But Stephen saw Jesus "standing" in Acts 7:55. Then in verse 58 they cast him out of the city and stoned him to death. Did he break a law or were they mad because Stephen was insinuating the fulfillment of a particular
prophecy?


texts: Origin of the adage, ‘He went to be with the LORD.’?

texts: This is a popular saying in Christian circles at funerals or when a person has recently died. Is there a biblical basis for this phrase?


texts: Are funerals a way to reduce the time of the dead in purgatory

texts:
I was reading an article on TVTropes and I've found this :

In a way, there's a "Person Needs Prayer Badly" in medieval European Catholicism... in order to go to Heaven (or reduced their time in purgatory) and join the Angels, the soul of the deceased needed to be prayed for. This led to the modern idea of the funeral, as well as other ideas.
It is still part of the Catholic beliefs, but you only pray for the soul in Purgatory as man has no role in deciding the salvation of souls.

According to current Catholic doctine, are funerals (and prayers) a way to "reduce" time of a soul in purgatory?


texts:
Has the term "born again" always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?

St. Irenaeus (202) wrote the following in 185, which many claim it refers to infant baptism:

  Irenaeus, c. A.D. 185:

  He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission … (Against Heresies II:22:4)

The article on infant baptism from this site claims that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians.

  Note here that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. That really didn't change until the time of the pietists in the 17th century.

Is there any historical evidence to support the contrary of this statement in the Early Church or the Church Fathers?


texts: How does the Trinitarian defend this argument from a JW?

texts:
Upon discussing the relationship of Father and Son (the Trinity) with a Jehovah's Witness today; they disagreed (of course) with the understanding that the Trinity doctrine holds the Father and Son as One, but separate.

They quoted that the bible teaches that husband and wife become "one" and that this should be the way we view the relationship between Father and Son.

My question is; what is the biblical basis of explaining this and thus defending the Trinitarian doctrine against this interpretation?   I am specifically interested in the argument of the husband and wife "oneness" thing posed to me today by JW's as an apparent way to explain the oneness of God thus opposing the Trinitarian viewpoint.


texts: How is the Book of Enoch ascribing all sins of fallen angels to Azazel not Scriptural?

texts:
A member by the name Jas 3.1 in his list of false doctrines against the Book of Enoch in "Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?" stated:

"Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural"

From a commentary on the Book of Enoch in a Wordpress blog article by the name Piper Michael, he mentioned that this doctrine with the name Azazel as scapegoat was mentioned in Leviticus chapter 16. So, I went to pull out the chapter from the BLB that mentioned about sacrificial offerings of two goats (Lev 16:7) in which " one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat." (Lev 16:8)

Then from the same BDB I clicked on for the Masoretic text and here's what I found:

  16:8  וְנָתַן אַהֲרֹן עַל־שְׁנֵי הַשְּׂעִירִם גֹּורָלֹות גֹּורָל אֶחָד לַיהוָה וְגֹורָל אֶחָד לַעֲזָאזֵֽל׃

Reading from right to left as the way of Hebrew language, the last word (just before the colon looking sign) is לַעֲזָאזֵֽל, which reads la-`aza'zel.

The prefix לַ is a preposition "for" and the "a" vowel is the definite article "the". Therefore the prefix "la" means "for the". The main word here is a masculine noun זָאזֵֽל `aza'zel *Strong's H5799 which according to Strong's Concordance means:

  entire removal, scapegoat
  refers to the goat used for sacrifice for the sins of the people

So, זָאזֵֽל `aza'zel or Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch for the fallen angel Azazel simply means a sacrificial scapegoat for the sins of the people. In the Book of Enoch, the fallen angel Azazel was a scapegoat for the sins of the rest of the fallen angels.

Leviticus 16:10 also mentioned that the scapegoat "shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. After completing the sacrificial ritual as commanded by Elohim, Lev 16:21 then stated:

  "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,
  and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
  all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head
  of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the
  wilderness:"

It seems to me that the doctrine of ascribing all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel as mentioned in the Book of Enoch has a corresponding basis in the Bible. So, how is this particular doctrine in the Book of Enoch not scriptural?


texts:
I just read this apparent quote from Pope Francis on faithreel.com (accessed October, 2014):

  Most churches agree with what Pope Francis has expressed in this
  opinion, “Many think Halloween is a simple carnival like celebration,
  it is not innocent. It is a small room leading to a much more
  dangerous one. There is always more evil rituals, sacrifices,
  defilements of cemeteries and stealing of sacred bones on Halloween.
  Taking part in Halloween is like being ritually initiated into the
  occult.”

Pretty strong words coming from the pope. Is this quote genuine? and if so, do all catholics agree with this? Is there an official stance taken by the catholic church against Halloween?


texts:
When reading Hebrews 5 I couldn't help but think of the Catholic Church and the position of pope.

Would Catholicism regard the role of pope as appointed/anointed to "act on behalf of men in relation to God" in comparison to Hebrews 5:1? Does the Catholic Church see the pope as fulfilling an earthly role of what the high priest did, outside of sacrifices.

  Hebrews 5:1
  For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (ESV<


texts: Was Voltaire's house being used by the biblical society?

texts: Is there any valid source for the claim that Voltaire' house has been used by the Bible Society? I heard this many times, but I've never read a valid source for it.


texts: What is the Catholic point of view towards animals?

texts:
The Bible says in Genesis 9:3

  Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Nowadays it is consider politically incorrect to defend the killing of animals even when its purpose is to feed us. Some people even think it is "bad" from us to kill an animal to eat it.

Many people complain about the way animals are treated before they are killed, like if they were "things" or some kind of "industrial" machinery.
They compare them with human beings sometimes and try to show how bad it is kill another animal, as if we were just animals as well, at the same level as them.

According to Catholicism, what should be our attitude be towards animals? Should we consider them only as "things god put on earth for us to use"? Or should we show some kind of respect to them in the way they are treated / killed ?


texts: How do non-Reformed Theologians interpret Romans 9:11-23?

texts:
Romans 9:11-23 is often used by Reformed Theologians to support the idea that God created part of the human race for salvation and the other part for damnation.

How do those who are not Reformed (i.e. Arminians but also non-Protestants) interpret these verses?


texts: Why is the The Nativity called "Christmas"?

texts:
Why was the the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus called "Christmas" and not some other feast day of Jesus?  There are lots of other feast days that have more or less fallen by the wayside etymologically speaking (Michaelmas, Candlemas, etc...), but Christmas has succeeded as the English name of the celebration.

There are several other feast days for Jesus and one, namely the Feast of the Baptism of Jesus, would seem more appropriate as Christmas. Nativimas seems like it would have been a more appropriate name for the holiday.


texts: Are the Seven Sorrows of Mary the seven pillars in Proverbs 9:1?

texts:
Proverbs 9:1 English Standard Version (ESV)

"Wisdom has built her house;
    she has hewn her seven pillars."

"HEWN" (Thesaurus)

Adj.    1.  hewn - cut or shaped with hard blows of a heavy cutting instrument like an ax or chisel; "a house built of hewn logs"; "rough-hewn stone"; "a path hewn through the underbrush"
hand-hewn
cut - fashioned or shaped by cutting; "a well-cut suit"; "cut diamonds"; "cut velvet"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

  The Seven Sorrows of Mary also correspond to the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

  1.The Prophecy of Simeon – Fear of the Lord (Mary is explicitly reminded of her sorrowful vocation: “a sword shall pierced thy soul”)

  2.The Flight into Egypt – Piety (Mary fulfills her duties toward Joseph and Jesus in a foreign land)

  3.The Loss of the Child Jesus in the Temple – Knowledge (Mary’s knowledge of Christ’s identity as the Son of God)

  4.Mary Meets Jesus on the Way to Calvary – Fortitude (Mary’s strength in seeing Christ in His Passion)

  5.Jesus Dies on the Cross – Counsel (Mary is the spiritual guide and counselor for all who seek her crucified Son)

  6.Mary Receives the Body of Jesus in Her Arms – Understanding (As Mary holds the dead body of her Son, she perceives His coming resurrection)

  7.The Body of Jesus is Placed in the Tomb – Wisdom (Christ is hidden but Mary’s soul continues to see Christ and communicate with Him)

  7 Sorrows of Mary and the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit

My question is, since the 7 Sorrows are equated to 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit, are the 7 pillars in Proverbs 9:1 corresponding to Mary's Immaculate Heart which is pierced by a sword of sorrows as depicted in Her images particularly Her Immaculate Heart with 7 swords pierced?

I'm looking for Catholic and Church Father Teaching that Mary's Seven Sorrows is the Seven Pillars mentioned in the Proverbs 9:1 and the "Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Mary" become "the house of the Holy Spirit" as prophesied in Isaiah 11:2 a perfect dwelling place/tent for the Holy Spirit.


texts:
Have there been respected theologians that offer the possibility that dinosaurs were on the earth at about the same time as Nephelim and were the offspring of demon angels defiling the other species and causing mutations in for example reptiles just as occured with the mutated  Nephilim?

One such theory I found intriguing is found at this link.
http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/2010/08/genetic-modification-of-humans-animals.html?m=1


texts: Why does the Catholic Church require miracles for someone to be canonized?

texts: Why does someone have to have a miracle (or two) attributed to them before they can  officially become a Saint? Why isn't clear evidence of a righteous lifestyle enough?


texts: Has Numbers 19:11-12 been considered when discussing why Jesus rose on the third day?

texts:
Has anyone ever considered Numbers 19:11-12 when discussing why Jesus resurrected on the third day and not another day?  I was reading my daily bible reading and this struck me during the reading.

Numbers 19:11-12

He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean:  but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law.  He always instructed those that he healed of leprosy to present themselves to the priests as called for in the law.  I suggest that if Jesus died then re-entered his body then he touched a dead body and would have had to have purified himself on the third day to fulfill the law.  He did instruct Mary not to touch him because he had not ascended to the Father.  Was this his way of purifying himself on the third day and not allowing Mary to be unclean if she touched him?


texts: Has the Catholic Church responded to the apparent implausibility of a census as described in Luke?

texts:
Over on History Stack Exchange, answers to the question Why would Jesus' parents travel to their birthplace for a Roman census? indicate that the scholarly consensus is that Luke is wrong in his descriptions of the census prior to Jesus' birth. Among their reasons are:

No Roman documents exist that indicate a census occurred for the entire Roman empire
Herod in Judaea, Quirinius in Syria, and Augustus in Rome did not rule at the same time
Requiring everyone to travel to one's ancestral home, especially one from 42 generations and 1,000 years before, is a logistical impossibility and we have no evidence that Roman censuses required this
Accounts of contemporary censuses, such as one in 104 A.D., required returning to their current residences (as opposed to being away on travel). Thus if censuses functioned similarly in Jesus' time, Mary and Joseph would have been legally obligated to remain in Nazareth rather than travel to Bethlehem.

Has the Catholic church provided an official response or explanation for the apparent implausibility of the census as described in the Gospel of Luke?


texts: Was there any case of a homosexual priest in the early Church and how did the Church handle that?

texts: Was there any case of a homosexual priest in the early Church and how did the Church handle that (if it occurred)?


texts: How do Catholics view physical and digital copies of the Bible?

texts:
When I was in high school (a mission school), our principal (an Italian theologian and priest) was disgusted with the small blue New Testament bibles! He would throw them out of the window if he caught you with one, saying, "What kind of Bibles are these?!"

Another time, I saw a pastor preaching on TV saying, "If you have got your bible hold it up!" People were holding up smart phones and tablets!

What I want to know is, according to Catholic authorities:

Are digital Bibles appropriate in the Church?
Is there a special way of handling the Bible? How it should be treated?


texts:
We all know how Judas sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. The thing is he hanged himself before Jesus died on the cross so he went to (supposedly) hell.

But after Jesus died on the cross he went to the underworld and preached there. Is it possible that Judas might have been redeemed there, or is it safe to presume that the only ones that Jesus preached to in the underworld were those who hadn't heard the gospel in their lifetime?

What church doctrines/beliefs are there on these issues? Are they even related?


texts: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe in Aerial Toll Houses?

texts:
In the Oration, St. Gregory of Nazianzus talked about “last baptism,” the baptism of eschatological fire, longer lasting and more painful than one’s penance for sins (Or. 39.19). Some Protestants have been using arguments from few Orthodox who refused to acknowledge any intermediary state for the departed. Claiming that such is a Gnostic idea which crept into Eastern Orthodoxy from Latin scholasticism and has no Apostolic foundation.

This question is not necessarily coincide with the controversy between Fr. Seraphim Rose and Fr. Lazar Puhalo but comment surrounding the dispute can be be included in the answer. In Eastern rites Catholicism we believe in Aerial Toll Houses, it's a consensus in our tradition but apparently this is not the case in Eastern Orthodoxy.


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

Preface: This question is not directed at a specific denomination.

Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?

Christians believe that God inspired humans to write the Bible.
But the fact is that humans have decided which writings should be included in the Bible and which should not.
So as society and civilization proceed, why haven't we shed some passages which aren't relevant anymore and why haven't we included some new writings which are particularly relevant to modern day Christianity?
For instance, I think many writings from St. Augustine and St. John Bosco should be included in the Bible.


texts: If Lucifer was top perfect creature, how could he fall? [Catholicism]

texts: Since God's creation is good/perfect, how could a creature as good/perfect as a top angel actually fall, according to Catholicism? What is the mechanism of corruption that can corrupt a perfect being? Since God is incorruptible, He is then still the absolute perfect, while any other creature with free will cannot be absolutely perfect. But then, what is the guarantee that humans or saint angels will not fall again, being already in heaven?


texts: What happens to unborn, unbaptized babies who die?

texts:
If we accept that unborn babies are human beings and not merely a non-human organism, and further we require baptism as a prerequisite for salvation (using it as justification for infant baptism)...

What happens to an unborn baby which never experiences live birth, and clearly can't have been baptized since it was not yet born?

Note: I'd be especially interested (but not exclusively so) in responses to this from Catholic theologians and/or apologists.


texts: Does everything - everything in our heart and every external event- happen according to God's plan? (Catholic)

texts:
I think everything - everything that takes place in our hearts, and everything that takes place externally - happens so according to God's plan. I don't think my opinion conflicts with our free will.

The catechism teaches that God's plan requires cooperation of his free creations, but it also teaches that "all are laid bare before his eyes, even the things that are yet to come to existence through the free action of his creatures".

I think that God had incorporated all our free actions and decisions (which we are responsible for) into his plan from the very beginning. Like, even Judas' betrayal was a part of God's plan (he clearly foresaw that Judas will betray Jesus from the beginning; and he permitted it to happen in keeping with his plan. It is Judas own downfall and it was his own decision that he will betray Jesus, but God incorporated this Judas' free will into his plan).

If something - however tiny or insignificant it can be - can happen unexpectedly outside of God's plan, how can Church be so sure that our final ultimate end will be achieved?

So my question is:
Is it correct to say that "everything - everything that takes place in our hearts and mind, and everything that takes place in external world - happens according to God's plan"?

Please answer according to Catholicism.


texts: What is the purpose of the rosary and why do some differ in the amount of beads they contain?

texts:
Should a Rosary be made of six or twelve beaded sections?

Does it symbolize something specific or is it simply an object created to reflect something in the Catholic religion?


texts: Who represented "the Lord" in Exodus 4:24-26, and what's the deal with the foreskin?

texts:
In Exodus 4:24-26:

  At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.)

I have 2 questions about these passages:

Who was the person referred to as "The LORD"? Was it The Holy Spirit Himself appearing in human form? Was it Jesus? Or someone else?
Why did the circumcision and touching of foreskin to Moses' feet apparently satisfy Him?


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol?

Most Christians agree that getting drunk is wrong, and there's even a question about getting tipsy.  But is it okay for Christians to consume alcohol at all?  I realize there are many views, and different (Christian) traditions and cultures have different takes on this question, so please provide Biblical (or other authoritative) evidence for your view.


texts:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3)

Paul talks about God blessing us in the "heavenly realms". What does that mean and why are we being blessed there instead of where we are?


texts: How much variation is in the Hebrew language of the Old Testament?

texts:
Is there a difference in the Hebrew between the earliest Old Testament books and the relatively newer books? In other words: are there linguistic differences (syntax, grammar, word usage) in older books like Job, when compared with more recent books like Isaiah?

I am particularly interested in this because of any light it might shed on our modern process of periodically updating our translations to keep pace with current usage of language. Languages are never static. The writing, editing and compiling of the Old Testament canon spans a vast window of time -- long enough for the language(s) it was written in to change dramatically. Do we have any reference points that show how much the language usage was updated during the various redacting processes that the various books went through?


texts: In Hebrews 1:10 Jesus is being addressed as the Creator which is God himself in Genesis

texts:
Hebrews 1 is a chapter that is addressed to the Son, which is Jesus himself. But one interesting verse addresses Jesus as the Creator, this is verse 10:
And,

    “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
        and the heavens are the work of your hands;

Throughout the Gospel book, the only Lord that was mentioned is Jesus. Moreover, the the title of the Hebrews 1 says it so.
Is this a strong evidence of the Trinitarian concept, that both Jesus and The Father IS God himself?
(Note i used the word "IS" not "ARE" cause the bible repeatedly mentions that there IS only one God but is infinitely complex and not that easy to grasp)
There is an non-Trinitarian answer here. I would like to know more about the Trinitarian concept on this matter.


texts: I am trying to find Moses’ age when he was standing before the Burning Bush before delivering the Israelites from slavery. Later in Scripture it says he was 80 years when he first spoke to Pharaoh. Does scripture give any idea how old he was before the Burning Bush, or he was also around 80 years old at that time?


texts: What Christian companies, today, have no name by which they are known?

texts:
In Revelation chapters one to three, there is a woman named Jezebel, whom Christ marks out as impenitent, Revelation 2:21; there is a sect, the Nicolaitans, whose deeds, Revelation 2:6, and doctrine, Revelation 2:15, Christ says he hates and he identifies them as being in both Ephesus and Pergamos; and there is a synagogue where falsely named 'Jews' meet whom Christ identifies in Philadelphia, Revelation 3:9, and he calls them liars.

But of the faithful, Christ mentions only one, in Pergamos - Antipas, who is deceased, a martyr, Revelation 2:13.

In these three chapters, He names no other individual and he names no other company by any communal name. He just states what town they are in.

If one wanted to go and meet them, one has no address (other than the town) and no description other than their characteristics - which he describes.

My question is - are there any towns in the world, today, where a company of Christians meet together, yet have no identifying 'label' (other than the name of Christ, of course) ?


texts:
For various reasons, I've always wondered how long Jacob and Rachel were married before her death.  Rachel's death (shortly after giving birth to Benjamin) is record in Genesis 35:16-18.  As a result I've always tried to guesstimate the length of their marriage from the age difference between Benjamin and his older brothers, but unless some details are hiding in the original Hebrew that are lost in translation, it doesn't seem to me that there are enough details in Genesis to have any real idea.

Is there anything I'm missing?  Are there any details that make it possible to estimate (with any accuracy) how long Jacob and Rachel were married before her death?


texts:
The phrase has been worded in different but equivalent ways. For example, the Wikipedia article titled In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas says:

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas (commonly translated as "unity in necessary things; freedom in doubtful things; love in all things" or more literally as "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity") is a Latin phrase.
[...]
The maxim is widely quoted in defence of theological and religious freedom, even though it raises the essential question of which things are necessary and which are doubtful or unnecessary. Despite those conflicts, the maxim mandates charity among all.

In  other words, Christians are called to be charitable and maintain unity with other Christians despite potential doctrinal differences, as long as a minimal set of fundamental essential beliefs are commonly shared. Therefore, it follows as a corollary that failure to accept one or more of the essential doctrines by one of the parties immediately warrants the rupture of the unity.
Question: How do Christians who adhere to the maxim “in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity” determine what is essential?


texts: Which is a greater sin - to eat meat on Good Friday or to spoil it

texts: I'd cooked 4 meals on Wednesday and left two for today, failing to take into account the fast. I'm not sure whether the meals will be safe to eat tomorrow. Which would be a greater sin - to eat them, or to let them become spoiled?


texts: Do any denominations take "turn the other cheek" as a literal command to be followed?

texts:
Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:39 NASB)

Do any denominations, historical or current, take this command literally? Which ones?


texts: Did Jesus preach One God and follow the commandments to the Jews, and another message to the Romans?

texts:
When reading the bible you read Jesus telling people to follow the commandments, whoever breaks even the least of the commandments will be in the lowest level in the kingdom.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/5-19-compare.html

  "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
  shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven:
  but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the
  kingdom of heaven."

He is preaching One God, and to follow the commandments.

Did his message fundamentally change after his death to the Romans?

How to you reconcile these 2 very different messages?


texts: When talking about the Trinity, what does "persons" mean?

texts: The triune God is defined as three persons equal in nature. What does "persons" mean in this statement? Can the word "persons" be replaced with "personalities" or "roles"?


texts:
I've Googled multiple ways/questions to get an answer, no luck!
I know they're symbols/metaphors, but exactly what's the meaning of these symbols/metaphors?

His eyes were blazing with flames.
(Does that mean he was mad?)

Sword comes out of his mouth.
(I don't have the slightest idea of what that can possibly mean)

He was wearing five crowns.
(Does that mean he had five heads?)etc.

Resource after resource, I've yet to receive the answers I'm looking for..
I know its probably because I'm not asking the right way.
Which influenced me to make "This" web-site my last option..
I'm trying my best not to get my account blocked because of not being able to ask questions properly..
But this is my last option, I can't take it anymore..
Can anyone help me understand these scriptures?

And I don't care what denomination the answer comes from.


texts: Can you explain this Free Will / Predestination illustration?

texts:
I've heard multiple preachers explain Free Will and Predestination with this illustration:

  Free Will and Predestination are like a door. The side of the door toward us says, "Free Will." Once you go through the door you turn around and see that the other side says, "Predestination."

Could someone that understands what this illustration means explain it to me?


texts: What is the Catholic belief concerning Deuteronomy 24:16

texts:
While preparing for a lesson this Sunday I came across Deuteronomy 24:16.

(KJV) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
(D-R) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every one shall die for his own sin.

This piqued my interest, so I looked into the Catholic Catechism.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

Does Deut. 24:16 suggest that no one but Adam and Eve can be held responsible for their action? or are children considered sinful at birth? or is baptism in Catholocism seen as something more pre-emptive than the immediate cleansing of past actions as other churches believe?  How does the Catholic Church reconsile Catechism 1250 with Deut. 24:16?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the belief that the soul/spirit continues after death?

texts:
What scriptural support is used to defend the belief that the soul/spirit of man continues on after death?  And how does that work with the fact that God made man "from dust you are and dust you will return"?

If the question is seen as "too broad" I am mainly interested in the Catholic and/or Anglican understandings.


texts: A Question Regarding the Relationship between God and Messiah

texts:
As for the Messiah, of him God says,

  And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them,
  even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their
  shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David
  prince among them; I the Lord have spoken. (Ezekiel 34:23-24)

In a related passage ...

  The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel
  together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed. (Psalm 2:2)

As indicated by the first verse, The Lord alone will be worshiped as God, while the Messiah, as the servant of God, lives with the people.

As indicated by the second verse, the Lord and the Messiah are mutually exclusive, and not the same being.

How is this apparent contradiction explained in the light of New Testament allusions to the Messiah's divinity?


texts: Why were Aaron and his son only ones eligible for being a Priest?

texts:
In ancient times, the only people who were offered a chance to become the priest were Aaron and his sons.

Would not this be unfair? There might have been people who were better suited for the position. It has been shown throughout the Bible that sons of people with the position of priest were not always good (Eli's sons, Samuel's sons, etc.).

What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of being the priest?


texts: Do any trinitarian Protestant traditions teach that anyone who denies the Trinity is necessarily unsaved?

texts:
The traditional understanding of the Trinity, "one God in three Persons," is a widespread belief within Christianity, but there are nonetheless many nontrinitarians who associate themselves with Christianity.

It's my understanding that the Trinity is an important doctrine for most of Protestantism.  My question, however, is if acceptance of it is always considered absolutely necessary to be saved.

Are there any trinitarian Protestant traditions that explicitly teach that anyone who denies the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily unsaved?

Note that I'm not looking for a tradition that won't let you become a member of their church if you are nontrinitarian.  I'm looking for one that says you are necessarily unsaved if you are nontrinitarian.  If such a tradition exists, which nontrinitarian beliefs (modalism, tritheism, etc.) are damning?


texts: What was St. Thomas Aquinas's view on the difference between punishment accorded to original sin and punishment accorded to individual sin?

texts:
Many different thinkers in Catholicism have proposed different theories regarding what original sin is compared to individual sin. From this, different theologians have thought that original sin incurs different punishment than individualistic sin.

I am reading St. Thomas Aquinas and it would seem to me that he believed original sin's punishment is an immediate loss of fullness, where 'human nature is left to itself, and deprived of original justice'. Does this punishment however equate to eternal damnation, or does eternal damnation follow as a consequential punishment to the fallen state of deprived justice? In other words, is the punishment of original sin equatable to death and subsequent orientations to sin and does specific punishment (being possibly eternal damnation, punishment in purgatory, etc) accorded to certain individuals, follow as a possible consequence if not prevented by grace?

Also, Aquinas notes the distinction between satisfactory punishment (punishment of a penitent nature serving the potential of merit) and penal punishment (punishment accorded legally to the individual to fulfill justice).

Would the punishment for original sin, if the previous suggestion that original sin's punishment is not an eternal damnation but rather only the 'loss of original justice', be of a satisfactory punishment nature (if such were to be possible through grace)? And if such is so, would the individual facing eternal damnation be of a penal punishment nature?


texts: How do Catholics in Japan celebrate the Feast of the Discovery of the Hidden Christians?

texts:
Most people know that March 17 is the Feast of St Patrick. But in Japan, the faithful celebrate the Feast of the Discovery of the Hidden Christians or Kakure Krishistans.

In 1614, all Catholic missionaries were expelled from Japanese soil. Fr. B. Petitjean arrived in Nagasaki, Japan in August 1864 and was able to construct a small Church. On March 17, 1865 he discovered that the Christian faith had survived in Japan for some 250 years without any missionaries (priests) to administer the sacraments!

Outside the celebration of the Mass for this feast, how do Japanese Catholics celebrate this feast?


texts: Do Catholics psychologists have a moral obligation to treat homosexuality as a perversion?

texts:
I was reading today about the Governor of New Jersey acting to ban "Gay Conversion Therapy", and wanted to know if this is just one more thing that Catholics would have a moral obligation to oppose.

The Catechism is clear in its stance, but vague in what it requires that people do when it says that the act is intrinsically disordered, but unjust discrimination is to be avoided.

So, to boil it down, is what the media calls Gay Conversion Therapy tantamount to unjust discrimination or is it a corporal work of mercy?


texts: When did the African-American population become Christian?

texts: As someone who's never been to the USA I might be making a completely wrong assumption, but from all the media, it seems that the majority of the African-American population were traditionally Christian. Knowing that most of their ancestors arrived as slaves from Africa, they could not have been Christians upon arrival(right?). Was there a revival or some other major event that brought them into Christianity?


texts: Why do most Christians eat pork when Deuteronomy says not to?

texts:
I am a Muslim. Pork is prohibited in my religion. I also think that it is prohibited in Christianity because of Deuteronomy chapter 14 verse 8. But why do most Christians eat pork? Is it a contradiction?

The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. - Deuteronomy 14:8


texts: Can a Catholic hold the position that some homosexual priests should be punished by the death penalty?

texts: Can Catholics hold the position that some homosexual (=any sexual relation to the other man) priests should be punished by the death penalty? (What about homosexuals in general?)


texts: Is a Roman Catholic ever permitted to take the Anglican Eucharist?

texts: According to the Catholic catechisms or canon law, is it ever canonically acceptable or lawful for a Roman Catholic to take of the Anglican communion?


texts: Who first divided the Bible's books into chapters?

texts: I've heard that the Bible's division into verses was made later than the division into chapters. So, whose translation firstly came up with this system of chapter divisions that we have today?


texts: Are other religions treated differently by any major branch of Christianity?

texts:
In Judaism, some religions are considered to be Avodah Zarah, and others are not. So, for example, if Christianity or certain of its denominations is Avodah Zarah, that has implications for Jews' interactions with those religions and with their places of worship.

Islam also distinguishes between religions which are Ahl-ul Kitab and ones which are not.

Does any major Christian tradition make similar distinctions, or does Christianity generally merely treat all non-Christian religions as non-Christian?


texts: Is there an established concensus meaning of Vicarious Atonement?

texts:
The term "Vicarious Atonement" is often used to refer to, or to something described as similar to, Penal Substitution or other understandings of Substitutionary atonement:

  The phrase 'vicarious atonement' is sometimes used as a synonym for 'penal substitution', and is also sometimes used to describe other, non-penal substitutionary, theories of atonement. [Wikipedia]

Is there an established definition of Vicarious Atonement, either as its own model or as another model, or is it simply a descriptive term sometimes used in relation to other model(s) when they involve Christ "Vicariously" doing anything for us?

For example, if I were to use the term as a description for a new model of atonement, would it cause confusion or be rejected because the term is "claimed" definitively as something else?

Or, another example, if I used the term by itself in an article would Christian theologians consistently understand it in a particular way?


texts: Was Satan/Lucifer the angel of music before his fall?

texts:
While I was searching in Youtube about music backmasking I found this video and there (a few minutes starting the video), the narrator says:

  [...] The angel [Lucifer] was head over the music in the Heaven.

After that, I made a quick Google search about [Satan was a singer] and I found a here that this cannot be answered.

I ask this because when I read the Bible - "DHH or "Dios Habla Hoy" Spanish version"- and checking the verses I cannot neither understand or think in a relation between Satan/Lucifer and music.

My question is: was Satan/Lucifer the angel of music before his fall?

I'm interested in a Roman Catholic response (or Vatican statement about this) but I want check other perspectives about this topic.


texts: Was it culturally acceptable for the sinful woman to enter the Pharisee's house to see Jesus?

texts:
This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable.

So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?


texts: Did church fathers ever deal with "Bible requires brutality" critics?

texts:
A recent question here caused some confusion, and increases my curiosity about this topic. Someone asked why people say Christians have disdain for the handicapped. (Apparent) practicing Christians responded with incredulity: who says that? The point is that such an idea doesn't appear to be taught anywhere today within circles of practicing Christians. Interestingly enough, the internet is full of claims made by non-Christians that Christianity necessarily requires disdain for the handicapped, or various cruelties or brutality. That's because activists have picked up a handful of verses that by themselves could point to some kind of "ethic" for cruelty.

My question is whether the church fathers (or any more recent prominent theologians) have specifically dealt with such criticism. For example, could I find an apologetic for this question, in say, a chapter of St. Augustine's City of God? A sermon by someone like Martin Luther that advocates feeding the poor is not what I'm looking for. I want to see rebuttals of the practice of objecting to Christianity on the basis of picking a handful of tough passages.


texts:
Does the salvation of a believer depend on the present state of her faith or are the different life transitions taken into account?

Suppose a believer leads a life of faith in Christ. At the end of her life she falls away for some reason, say persecution. Is she saved?

There are verses that seem to support both.

Only the end matters –

  Matt 24:13   But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
  saved.

The life matters –

  Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour
  of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have
  ministered to the saints, and do minister.

So is salvation a state function or a path function?


texts: Did Jesus ever directly say he would die as a voluntary sacrifice? If so, was it double sense?

texts:
I know evangelical literature like John 3:16:

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

says Jesus died to redeem mankind.  However, I suspect these are only later interpretations. Did Jesus himself ever say his death would be a sacrifice?

If so, would it have a double meaning in Greek?  In Czech, English and German, one could use the phrase "he died for humans' sins" in sense of "because of" - that is, his death was humanity's fault, the fault of the Romans who crucified him.

(I think I understand the evangelical message so I'm not asking how Christians see it today, so I'm not looking for a "stretch" of a Jesus quote, but rather a quote that is plain in meaning.)


texts: What does it mean to comment on scripture with scripture?

texts:
What does it mean to "comment on a verse with a verse" or "only scripture can explain scripture"? I see these kinds of comments popping up in comment threads that discuss the meaning of a verse.

What exactly does this mean, and how is it useful for resolving disputes? Can you cite examples of this where it makes the difference between two different understandings? Are there times when it is not the best or most relevant method? What is the alternative?


texts:
Sorry for asking a question kid in my Catechism class asked, but I didn't know the answer and she is an expert level 7th grader.

Why did God wrestle with Jacob if they're both good?
Was God actually trying to kill Jacob?
Was there some reason Jacob needed to be injured and was he seriously injured?


texts: What are illustrative examples of how the Sabbath can be broken according to Sabbatarian Christians?

texts:
I've always heard examples of how the Sabbath is not broken, for instance, doing good to others, healing people, etc. However, I noticed that I've never heard examples of the opposite (how the Sabbath can be broken).
What are illustrative examples of how the Sabbath can be broken according to Christians who hold to Sabbatarianism?


texts: Why is the line from Seth to Noah often called righteous?

texts:
The line of descendants from Seth to Noah is often called righteous, in comparison to Cain's descendants who are called evil. This comes up when discussing Methuselah who although he died in the year of the flood supposedly can't have died in the flood because he was righteous, and as an explanation of what it means when the 'sons of God' took the 'daughters of men' in Genesis 6.

But Genesis 6:9 says Noah was the only blameless person alive!

Is there any evidence in the Bible to say that the rest of his ancestors were righteous rather than just being sinful like everyone else? (Excluding Enoch of course.)


texts: What in Deuteronomy implies that God gave those laws through Moses and not directly?

texts:
According to the Catholic Church, what are the differences in the way the Mosaic/Deuteronomic Laws are given versus the Ten Commandments. I have been led to understand that there is a difference by some things I have heard, for instance the lack of a Theophany(?) in Deuteronomy - and that Jesus appears to upend many of the Deuteronomic standards in the New testament.

What are the differences between the Mosaic Law and the ten Commandments in terms of the circumstances of their being made binding?


texts: What is the biblical basis/justification for requiring a pastor be educated?

texts:
As a Baptist, while I don't know of any specific requirements for a pastor, it is generally accepted that a head pastor would have some sort of seminary education, be it a Masters or even a Doctorate degree. That is certainly the way that it has been at all of the churches I have attended in America.

I understand that the notion of a seminary, at least the sort of seminary that we have today, didn't exist when the Bible was written. But is there any biblical basis for requiring that a pastor or other leader have some level of training or education? I can appreciate the fact that people can serve in different ways regardless of their education or background, but in what ways does the Bible support the pastor or leader being educated?


texts: Do the theological virtues apply to mundane situations?

texts:
From my limited understanding of Catholic theology, the theological virtues (pistis, elpis, agape) apply to God and God's promises. That is, pistis is belief in the correctness of divine revelation, elpis is the hope of eternal life, and agape is love for God. The standard English translation (faith, hope, and love/charity) gives a somewhat broader impression, however. Are these virtues interpreted as applying to somewhat wordly things, as well?  Are they virtues in their common meanings?

For example:

Does pistis include faith in other human beings in the colloquial sense  (not exclusive of faith in God) ?
Does elpis include hope that God will save one from worldly temptation? From depression or disease? Hope that one will be physically saved from danger? Hope that one will be saved by "accident" or by other people (possibly interpreted as ultimately attributable to God)?
Does agape include a general love of humans for humanity? Charitable giving?


texts:
Does anyone have any more knowledge regarding Ezekiel's prophecy about Egypt becoming desolate for 40 years?
I know that Nebuchadnezzar ransacked much of Egypt and carried away booty as Ezekiel had stated, as well as the Egyptians being taken as captives by Nebuchadnezzar.
We know that Cyrus the Great deported the captives back to their original countries including Egypt, as what Ezekiel said; and that after the Egyptians returned Egypt became a lowly kingdom, as what Ezekiel had said.

Does anyone know how long the time span between Nebuchadnezzar taking the Egyptians as slaves to Cyrus releasing the Egyptians?  Was this 40 years, or a different time span?


texts: Is it appropriate to say that some denominations are more "extreme" than others?

texts:
I've been thinking about the actions of people under the guise of religions. It is clear to me that there are extremists in any religion, under any denomination, just as there are more liberal people. My question is whether it is appropriate to categorize certain religious denominations as "extreme" intrinsically, as opposed to merely the followers being extreme.

Are only people "extreme"? Or are there aspects of certain denominations that foster extremism in their followers by the nature of the views they preach?

If religious denominations can be weighed by differing amounts of extremism, are there any resources which list each denomination in order of "magnitudes of extremism"? Stated differently, if you agree that there are differences in "extremeness" among religious denominations, you must also (logically) agree that some are more extreme than others, and thus ultimately believe in one that is not extreme; i.e. the "true" base religious standpoint (whether it exists as a denomination today is irrelevant, you have to believe such a standpoint exists if you hold such a position).

Has there been any writing by Christian believers on this subject?


texts: Did Martin Luther ever remove books from the New Testament canon?

texts: Is it true that Luther removed James, Jude, and Revelation from the New Testament? If this is true then what were his reasons for doing so?


texts:
Are there any passages in the Holy Bible or any Catholic doctrine saying that it is a sin to be an atheist?

Please, don't refer to me any Biblical assertion where it is stated that you should follow God, but one that addresses people who don't follow any religion.


texts: Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?

texts:
The translators of most English Bible translations used the Hebrew Masoretic Text as their primary source for the Old Testament, though they will use the Septuagint and other texts to critically analyse the Hebrew text. (You can see evidence of this in footnotes that note that the Hebrew says one thing and the Greek says another.)

Are there any English Bible translations of both the OT and the NT whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?


texts: Can we tell when the Roman pontiff is speaking "EX CATHEDRA"?

texts:
A related question and answer here. Following the comment:

  That may seem clear to some, however the idea and language of
  infallibility has evolved over hundreds of year and has many nuances.
  Most experts will agree that Popes have spoken infallibly at least
  twice, but there is much debate about if and when there have been
  other times. Intention, language, form, authority and other objections
  are often raised. There is a nice intro here if you are interested

It seems to me that when a Pope speaks, there is no way to tell for sure whether he is speaking  "EX CATHEDRA", or issuing infallible statement without the benefit of hindsight. Heck, even with the benefit of hindsight, there are still debates as to whether a statement issued by a Pope is an infallible one or not. But I am not too sure of this point.

So, without having a crystal ball and being able to look into the future, can we tell, when a pope speaks, whether he is issuing "EX CATHEDRA"?


texts: What is the importance of reading the Bible personally in Catholicism?

texts:
What is the importance of reading the Bible in Catholicism?

Can a Catholic anticipate going to heaven by only attending the masses and going to Confession, but never read the Bible at home?

Does reading the Bible have the same importance as attending the mass?

Let's not discuss about the past here. I am interested in the present-day official teaching of the Roman Catholic church. I believe that nowadays there is a Bible in the house of every Catholic family.


texts: Does one have to admit to not being a virgin when preparing for a Catholic wedding?

texts: If - say as the result of a pre-cana course - the priest finds out one of the parties is not a virgin can the church then deny a marriage application? Does the priest have the liberty to ask? Does one have the liberty not to answer the question and still continue the pre-cana?


texts: Reformed perspective on "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28)

texts:
Acts 15 records the Council of Jerusalem, a meeting in about 50AD of early Church leaders regarding whether Gentiles could be Christians  without first becoming Jews. "After much discussion" (15:7) they decide to write a letter to say that converts need not follow the practices of Judaism. What interests me is the terms in which they describe the decision in their letter; verse 28 says (NIV):

  It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements.

On the face of it, this looks a little like the statement attributed to Bernard Montgomery, "God said, and I agree with him..."!

It could be that the text is simply giving emphasis to the determination of the apostles and elders to carry out what the Holy Spirit has indicated. But the way it's phrased, and the context of the meeting, seem to point to the church having authority in this moment; that there's something special about these people being gathered together, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives them the right to make the decision and send the letter. They are acting jointly with the Spirit in a way that goes beyond mere acquiescence.

I'm sure that Catholic and Orthodox readers would have no trouble at all here. However, I think that from a Reformed perspective it would be more difficult to admit special authority of this kind. When Calvin writes about later Church councils, for example, he seems to regard them as existing merely for practical "convenience" (Institutes 4.9.13), to elucidate the contents of Scripture, and always in a strictly subordinate role ("it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man", Institutes 4.9.1). How can that be squared with the "and to us" here in Acts?

In short, from a Reformed point of view, what is the point of mentioning "and to us", and what relationship do Reformed theologians envisage existing between the Spirit and the Church at this moment?


texts:
Ancient  imagery beasts used in Christian symbolisms?
We have all heard of unicorns!

The unicorn is a legendary creature that has been described since antiquity as a beast with a single large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. The unicorn was depicted in ancient seals of the Indus Valley Civilization and was mentioned by the ancient Greeks in accounts of natural history by various writers, including Ctesias, Strabo, Pliny the Younger, Aelian and Cosmas Indicopleustes. The Bible also describes an animal, the re'em, which some versions translate as unicorn.
Interpretations of the unicorn myth focus on the medieval lore of beguiled lovers, whereas some religious writers interpret the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ. The myths refer to a beast with one horn that can only be tamed by a virgin; subsequently, some writers translated this into an allegory for Christ's relationship with the Virgin Mary. Unicorn (Wikipedia)

A little while ago, I was watching the Harry Potter’s movies and made note that within the series, there are some strange and mythological beasts portrayed in the books/movies.
In particular there is the hippogryph and the phenix.
Now the phenix is used in medieval imagery to symbolize the the resurrection.

The phoenix symbolized renewal in general, as well as entities and concepts such as the Sun, time, the Roman Empire, Christ, Mary, and virginity.
The phoenix myth is also part of early Christian traditions. Some scholars have speculated that these early phoenix legends may have their origins in the bennu of Egyptian mythology. In the 19th century, scholastic suspicions appeared to be confirmed by the discovery that Egyptians in Heliopolis had venerated the bennu. However, the Egyptian sources regarding the bennu are often problematic and open to a variety of interpretations. Some of these sources may have actually been influenced by Greek notions of the phoenix, rather than the other way around.
The Old English Exeter Book contains an anonymous 677-line 9th-century alliterative poem consisting of a paraphrase and abbreviation of Lactantius, followed by an explication of the Phoenix as an allegory for the resurrection of Christ. - Phoenix (mythology)

Detail from the 12th-century Aberdeen Bestiary, featuring a phoenix.
As for the hippogryph, it used as a symbol of Christ’s two nature.

In Ancient Greek folklore, the hippogriff, or sometimes spelled hippogryph, is a legendary creature which has the front half of an eagle and the hind half of a horse.
In some traditions, the hippogriff is said to be the symbol of love, as its parents, the mare and griffin, are natural enemies. In other traditions, the hippogriff represents Christ's dual nature as both human and divine. - Hippogriff

Buckbeak the Hippogriff
Thus my question is as follows: What other ancient mythological beasts (if any) have been used in Christian imagery to express Christian beliefs through symbolism?
The more obscure and ancient the better!


texts: What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith?

texts:
In the 39 articles of faith, article 35 says the following:

  XXXV. Of the Homilies.  The Second Book of Homilies, the several
  titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly
  and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the
  former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward
  the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the
  Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of
  the people. (Articles of Religion)

It then goes on to list the name of the homilies.

What is "The Second Book of Homilies" that it is referring to?


texts: Is It Possible for a Penitent to Bypass a Refusal of Absolution and If So How?

texts: Sometimes priests will explicitly refuse to give absolution to the penitent, is it possible to bypass the refusal of a specific priest and be forgiven of the sins another way when this happens? Whether it is by ordinary or extraordinary means. I would like to hear of all methods, if any.


texts: How can it be said that Paul taught a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church given 2 Thessalonians chapter 2?

texts:
2 Thess 2:1-3: Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

Paul appears to be saying that "that day" (the day of the Lord's coming and our being gathered to him) will not come unless two conditions (the rebellion and the revelation of the lawless one) come first.  According to pre-tribulational rapture theory the rapture of the Church takes place well in advance of both of these conditions.  If he is writing to reassure his pre-trib rapture followers that the Second Coming of Christ (Day of the Lord) hasn't happened yet, why has he listed two conditions that they will not be around to witness?  Why not say, for instance, "The rapture comes first and you're still here aren't you?"


texts: Is Christianity continuing to grow worldwide?

texts: Is there continuing growth in Christianity around the world or has it stalled/declined?  I'm interested in worldwide stats rather than for individual countries.


texts: What is the meaning and origin of bridal veils in Christian weddings?

texts: Does the practice of brides wearing veils have its origin in either the Bible or Christian tradition? If so, where exactly did it originate and what is it supposed to symbolize?


texts: When did Joseph Smith first understand the doctrine of eternal progression?

texts:
Another question asked why Kolob is not mentioned in the New Testament.  In fact, the only reference is in the Book of Abraham.  Not even the Book of Mormon has any reference to it, as I understand.

This led to me to wonder when exactly Joseph Smith came to understand the doctrine of eternal progression along with identifying that there was a place called Kolob.  The Book of Abraham was purportedly translated in 1835, whereas the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.  So, was the doctrine of eternal progression something Joseph Smith learned from the Book of Abraham or was he already teaching that prior to the Book of Abraham translation?  Did the teaching originate as a revelation to Joseph Smith prior to 1835 or did it come in response to the translation of the Book of Abraham?


texts: In the Catholic Church, can archbishops excommunicate people?

texts:
I was reading an article in the November 2018 edition of "The Atlantic" on Óscar Romero and stumbled upon this strange sentence by Paul Elie while he's narrating the events of autumn of 1978.

  When the president of El Salvador failed to stop the murders of priests and laity, Romero excommunicated him.

By then, Romero was already archbishop of El Salvador.

This got me wondering: can archbishops excommunicate people?

I believed that excommunication occured either on automatic ground or after Papal intervention. What am I missing?


texts:
Background:  I am interested in learning more about numerology.  In this post I am specifically interested in the arguments used by those who reject this doctrine.

My current impression of what "numerology" is:  Certain numbers in scripture have special symbolic meaning.  Examples: "7 is the number of divine perfection", "6 is the number of man", etc.

What I am looking for:  I am sure there are "countless" examples in favor of this doctrine, but I am curious what the counterarguments are?  I am interested in maybe the top 3-5 counterarguments that a "non-numerologist" would use.

If there is no such thing as a "non-numerologist", or there are no counterarguments, please provide some sort of evidence or reference to this effect.  Thanks!


texts: Where does one draw the line between spritiual attack and spiritual defense?

texts:
I recently uploaded a picture to Facebook in the style of the KEEP CALM posters, which said "KEEP CALM, JESUS IS COMING". I knew before I posted it that I would likely receive spiritual attack from this, however it was something that I wanted to share, so I went ahead.

Pretty soon after this, I was involved in a debate between a Buddhist believer, and my best friend, who is an Atheist, who, from where I was concerned both seemed intent on attacking my faith trough argument that "there is no proof of Jesus", and claimed that even the picture I uploaded was offensive and meant for provoking spiritual attack. When I spoke of truth being a part of the spiritual armor, I was again attacked claiming that this was like "Islamic Jihad"...

I stated that the aim of uploading this picture was to share the love of Christ, regardless of their acceptance of it, and to be fair, if they didn't want to accept it, they could have just ignored it, right?

The debate is so far unresolved, but I feel angered, and disappointed that I have come under such scrutiny, in as far as I'm concerned, a spriritual conflict, which my best friend said: "didn't exist".

But just how far should I go to resolve this, and make my point clear? should I perhaps just walk away, and resolve this at least in my own mind, with prayer?


texts: How do Lutherans who accept apostolic succession trace theirs?

texts:
It appears some Lutherans claim apostolic succession.
How do they trace their apostolic succession?


texts: What are the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism?

texts:
In another question, @Daи excellently explained the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. But what are the differences between the Eastern Christianity itself, particularly between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism?

One difference is that they have different stance on Christology. But do they have other differences? Maybe like different rituals, or different theology?


texts: Similarities and differences between the priesthood of all believers and the LDS priesthood

texts:
In the LDS Church, all men and older boys are encouraged to obtain the priesthood. Women are also encouraged to receive ordinances in the temple, which Joseph Smith described as entering into an "order of the priesthood" (see 1). Lay men and women have duties similar to ministers in other churches.

This seems quite similar to the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" or "universal priesthood" practiced in other churches, in which it is believed that all believers have the priesthood. Its organization seems to be more informal than the priesthood in the LDS Church.

What are the similarities and differences between these two concepts?


texts: What are the minimum requirements for becoming pope?

texts:
If the conclave decided for whatever reason to choose a person who was not overwhelmingly qualified such as a cardinal or other prominent bishop, what requirements need that person have fulfilled to be eligible for election?

I assume they have to be Catholic obviously, but any other requirements?


texts: In what sense is the bible is "clear"/perspicuous?

texts:
What do protestants mean when they say that the bible is "clear"? I would assume that it would mean that people reading the Bible or any part of it generally come up with more or less the same idea of what it says, but that doesn't seem likely to be what protestants mean, because the different protestant cults regularly and consistently dream up radically different interpretations of the Bible as a whole and even different members of the same denomination rarely agree on the meaning of various passages.

I've heard people say that the bible is clear enough that anyone can read it and immediately understand the "Core doctrines", but this is demonstrably false: Protestants don't agree on core doctrines because they don't even agree on what the core doctrines are in the first place. Some people read it and conclude that baptismal regeneration and infant baptism is the go, some people read it and come up with transubstantiation, some people read it and come away denying the trinity, some people read it and think that all you need to do is believe in Jesus to be saved, while other people read it and reckon that you need to do works as well. Protestants say that the Core Doctrines are "salvation issues", but they can't even come to an agreement of what those salvation issues are.

I've heard people respond to this by saying something along the lines of "Scripture is clear, but we are sinful humans and our sin gets in the way of us understanding it", but to me that seems to just come across as a flat contradiction: If scripture is clear, then it should be so clear that our sin doesn't get in the way of us understanding it. However if sin still has the power to cloud our understanding of the bible, then the bible is not clear enough to cut through our sin, and is therefore for all intents and purposes not clear at all.

Taking all this into consideration, what does it mean for Scripture to be "Clear" and "Sufficient"?


texts:
While we usually refer to Exodus 20 as the Ten Commandments, and many versions of the Bible add the heading "The Ten Commandments", the phrase is not actually used there in the text of the Bible. (It does, however, appear later on, in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4). Also, while we know that the original ten commandments were written in stone, the commandments in Exodus 20 are not written in stone. This happens in Exodus 24:12.

How do we know that these were the Ten Commandments given that the "Ten Commandments" were not referenced as such until later on?

This question (and its accepted answer) nicely addresses the differences in interpretations of Exodus 20 as the Ten Commandments, but how can we be sure that the Ten Commandments are what's listed in Exodus 20?

Furthermore, I once heard it suggested that what's written in Exodus 20 - the "you shall not"s - are promises, not commandments. This makes sense, especially as there follow some instructions that definitely are commandments (Exodus 20:23 onwards) - "do not"s instead of "you shall not"s.

Why the difference in language ("you shall not / do not")?


texts: Are there any Catholic Audiobook sharing websites like Librivox?

texts:
Are there any Catholic audiobook websites like librivox, where christian volunteers from all over the world can read a catholic book, and upload the audiobook to share with all other christians?

"LibriVox volunteers read and record chapters of books in the public domain, and make them available for free on the Internet... All recordings... and are also donated into the public domain.

We record books in all languages.

You do not need any prior experience to volunteer for LibriVox, nor do you need to audition or send us samples. All you need is your voice, some free software, your computer, and maybe an inexpensive microphone."


texts: How do Christians understand the existence of God in relation to the scientific concept of energy?

texts:
In physics, the quantity of energy is the most fundamental aspect of existence.  All "entities" have a some sort of energy (either kinetic or potential) as an intrinsic aspect of their being.  Though people often use language that suggests that concepts or phenomena exist (e.g. "a signal propagates..."), such language is actually just short-hand for descriptions of a collection of entities.

The quantity, energy, is a measure of the ability of an entity to perform work on (i.e. to cause something to happen to) another entity.  Christians clearly believe that God causes things to happen.  Do Christians believe that the concept of energy (as understood by physics) can be applied to God?


texts: How is the Feast of the Shipwreck of St Paul celebrated in the domestic church, that is, within the Catholic family in Malta?

texts:
The Catholic Archdiocese of Malta celebrates the Feast of the Shipwreck of St Paul on February 10 each year.

I would like to know if the domestic church has any traditional ways of celebrating this feast within the family at Malta?


texts: What is the Catholic teaching on tattoos?

texts:
Leviticus 19:28

You will not gash your bodies when someone dies, and you will not
tattoo yourselves. I am Yahweh.

In this article: Pope Francis Gives His Blessing for Tattoos
and says:

There is nothing wrong with tattoos, Pope Francis told a group of
young people Monday, urging them to be open to cultural expressions of
“belonging.”

Pope's statement totally contradicts the Bible's verse.
What is the official Catholic teaching on getting tattoos of any kind?


texts: To the Calvinist, does Phillipians 1:29 mean that all the Philippians will go to heaven because all of them have already been elected?

texts:
Philippians 1:29

  For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe
  on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

My understanding :
1. The word "you" is all of the Philippians.
2. The speaker, in the Philippians point of view is already like God.
3. The speaker's sentence is the Word of God

So, what God say is "The ability of all the Philippians to believe Jesus and to suffer for His sake because it's given (in time, on date-X month-Y year-Z) because all the Philippians have been elected (before time, before the foundation of the world)."

My question (assuming my imagination is correct) :
Does the sentence in that verse indirectly mean that all the Philippians in that time will go to heaven?


texts: According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how many of the 144 000 have already been identified?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe1 that 144 000 of their number are different to the rest in that they will go to heaven, whereas the rest (presumably several million) will live on paradise Earth.

I'm wondering how near to complete they believe that they are now, eg 25%, 50%, 99%? And do they keep records on the 144 000 so that they can answer this exactly?

1 References: TRiG's answer and Wikipedia.


texts:
My understanding is that there are numerous prophecies from the OT which have been fulfilled over the years. (Ignoring any gray areas between "prophecy" and poetic passage of scripture.)

Aside from the book of Revelation, is there an outstanding list of pending prophecy? I.e. things which have been foretold which haven't come to fruition?


texts: Why was Zachariah punished while Mary was not?

texts:
The gospel of Luke states that when the angel Gabriel appeared to Zacharia and told him that his wife Elizabeth would conceive John the Baptist, Zacheria doubts the prophecy and so is temporarily struck dumb till the day John would be born.

However even Mary expresses doubt at Gabriel's word that she would conceive Jesus. Why then is Mary not punished for doubting God's word unlike Zachariah?


texts: What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood?

texts:
After the Flood abates, God reassures Noah that it was a one time event:

Genesis 9:13 (ESV)

  I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

The most obvious interpretation is that this is a rainbow, and that it was something new.  But rainbows are a physical consequence of having rain and sun.

God spells out the significance of the sight: the earth will not be flooded again.  But should we interpret this as an already-familiar sight being used as a reminder, or did He somehow change things then, and rainbows had not appeared before the Flood?  Or was it not actually a rainbow at all, but some other phenomenon with which we are no longer familiar?


texts:
New Testament scriptural passages with 'age':

  Matthew 12:31-33
  (RSVCE)
  31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
  but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And
  whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but
  whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in
  this age or in the age to come.

  Mark 10:29-31
  (RSVCE)
  29 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left
  house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands,
  for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold
  now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and
  children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come
  eternal life. 31 But many that are first will be last, and the last
  first.”

  Similarly, Luke 18:29-31
  (RSVCE).

  1 Corinthians 10:10-12
  (RSVCE)
  10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the
  Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they
  were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages
  has come. 12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take
  heed lest he fall.

  Ephesians 1:20-22
  (RSVCE)
  20 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead
  and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far
  above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every
  name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is
  to come; 22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made
  him the head over all things for the church,

  Hebrews 6:4-6
  (RSVCE)
  4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have
  once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have
  become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of
  the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then
  commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own
  account and hold him up to contempt.

In the Nicene Creed recited at Mass in the US there is born of the Father before all ages vs. eternally begotten of the Father cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Credo Chart. Does this mean that there was eternity, the Beginning, and then there is a succession of ages?

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, a line in Eucharistic Prayer III is now you never cease to gather a people to yourself while previously it was from age to age you gather a people to yourself perhaps suggesting that the latter conveyed a meaning that it wasn't meant to convey.

And finally, here is a mention of age by Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser in this context:

  He also wrote a remarkable work on the last book of the New Testament,
  the Revelation or the Apocalypse, which today is still held in high
  regard by Roman Catholics. He interpreted the book of the Apocalypse
  as follows: The seven stars and the seven candlesticks seen by St John
  signify seven periods of the history of the Church, from its foundation to its consummation at the final judgment. To these periods
  correspond the seven churches of Asia Minor, the seven days of the
  Mosaic record of creation, the seven ages before Christ, and the
  seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. Since, he claimed, all life is
  developed in seven stages, so God has fixed seven periods for
  regeneration.

Lactantius

"Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’" (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).

What is the Catholic understanding of 'age' in Scripture and in its Tradition?


texts: Why does Jesus say "Call no man your father upon the earth"

texts:
Possible Duplicates:
  Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9?
  What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?

  Matthew 23:9

  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father,
  which is in heaven.

In human life, it's usual to be attached to one's parents and for parents to be proud of their children (especially when they're young) to the point of vanity.

I'm a bit confused or rather conflicted by the message or intent of this line or am I interpreting it incorrectly?


texts: Why doesn't 1 Timothy 5:21 indicate that angels are part of the Godhead?

texts:
I was doing a little historical reading, and I read a little John Biddle (an English Unitarian).  He makes the argument that the phrase "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in the great commission (Matt 28:19) doesn't prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Persons in one God, since a similar phrase is used in scripture but saying "elect angels" rather than "Holy Ghost," and that nobody would dare suggest that angels are part of the Godhead:

  1 Timothy 5:21 (KJV) I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,...

(Despite his argument, I actually knew a guy at my last church who did argue that the angels are part of the Godhead, but that's neither here nor there.)

So my question is, how do orthodox Trinitarians explain the difference between the formula of "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" and why that formula is taken to mean that God subsists in three Persons, whereas the formula "God, Jesus Christ, Elect Angels" is not taken to mean that angels are Persons of the Godhead?