Gabriel told Mary that her son would someday sit on the Throne of David, which of course, did not exist at that time. Christ now sits on His Father's Throne. When will Jesus sit on David's Throne? Does this assume a literal millennial reign on earth?

Christians are normally accused of damaging or being a threat to scientific development, but recently there are Theistic Christians, who believe that God used natural processes to create the universe, but is there a biblical basis for naturalism? (ie the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes

The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 9:5: > "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." If an individual loses all knowledge after death, would it not mean that they no longer know or understand the gospel? Consequently, wouldn't this imply that they cease to believe in the gospel? The Bible also says in Revelation 21:8: > "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Given this, I've been seeking scripture that suggests our spiritual nature continues to believe in the gospel even after death, but I've yet to find anything directly supporting this concept. I request an answer from the Baptist viewpoint.

So, originally, I was going to ask, why do Anglicans serve the bread first, then the wine. The answer, however, is that it really seems to be the order in Scripture, for as 1 Corinthians 11 says: >23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Thus, it is bread, then wine. Still, I keep thinking that way back in my Baptist days (its been 5 years now!) it was the other way - wine first, then bread. The question then is two-fold: 1. Are there any traditions that tend to go wine first (if so, which?) and, if that's the case 2. Why?

I would like to know if the Book of Enoch was dated around 3000 BC and what language did he speak and is there any carbon dating that was use on any book found? And where are the oldest Scripture of his writings kept?

According to Young Earth Creationists, other beliefs (particularly in Evolutionism) harm Christianity in various ways such as: - Making Death something other than the direct consequence of Sin - Distorting the redemptive role of Death¹ - Denying the special value of man as distinct from all other creatures - Reducing God's power I don't want to belabor the point, as I'm merely trying to show the existence of claims that a denial of YEC is detrimental to Christian theology. I also don't want to get into debates of whether belief in, or rejection of, YEC is beneficial or harmful to one's ability to *remain* in the faith. For this question, I am placing that explicitly out of bounds. (Likewise for arguments dealing with science, whether or not a belief is scientifically supported or affects one's view of science.) Rather, given the above YEC arguments, it would seem that a case can be made that any attack on YEC is an attack on Christianity itself, and that all such attacks are thus ultimately opposed to Christianity. Indeed, such arguments *have* been made by various YECs. Now... if such arguments can be sustained, they would be a powerful argument in favor of YEC. Therefore, I would like to explore the opposite side. According to non-YECs, **what are the theological detriments to belief in YEC?** ---- (¹ Death is the wages/consequence of Sin. Adam sinned ⇒ God killed an animal. God's people sinned ⇒ they sacrificed animals. Humans sinned ⇒ God sacrificed His Son. YECs argue that death before sin distorts this relation and reduces the atoning "value" of death. [This answer](/a/41819/53502) on another question may be helpful.)

Much of the background for this question comes from comments and answers to this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95127/47250 It appears that Roman Catholicism considers heresy at least capable of consideration as a capital crime which may rightfully deserve the death penalty. Here is part of a definition of heresy from *Catholic Encyclopedia* (1910) : > St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in > men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". > "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent > to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, > therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by > refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, > common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain > points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which > is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy > is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of > truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief > by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by > the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend > themselves to his own approval. An example of an heretic would be a man who was baptized into, catechized in, and confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and who later, with full knowledge and assent of will, actively rejects and openly refutes some necessary tenets of Catholic truth such as the Marian Dogmas . It is not that each and every heretic must be put to death (nor even should be put to death) nor is such a sentence to be carried out in lands where such an action is against civil law. In fact, the death penalty for heresy was most often carried out by secular authorities at the behest of the Catholic Church. While it is not any longer a common practice for heretics to be executed by the Catholic Church (the last heretic put to death was Cayetano Ripoll on 7/26/1826 for the crime of Deism) it has been made clear that if and when a heretic is lawfully put to death for the crime of heresy such an action is, according to Roman Catholicism, in accordance with the Divine Law and is not against the will of the Spirit. There is some interesting information in response to this question which makes it seem as though the Old Testament could be and has been used to justify the Church condemning heretics to death. Indeed, much Christian support for the death penalty is derived from the Old Covenant. This question is not about the death penalty in general nor it's Old Covenant foundation but specifically regards the death penalty for heresy and how it squares with the teachings of the New Testament. Using an example where the conviction of heresy is clear and uncontroversial and where the death penalty is rightfully carried out (the reader may insert whichever case they feel fits this bill: (partial list here ) where would a Roman Catholic find support for this action in the New Testament and where in the New Testament would they find confirmation that God's Spirit was not against such a thing?

My question stems from considering the content found in https://www.facebook.com/MiraclesTruth/photos/a.268944276778281/1277844892554876/?type=3 regarding an unnamed bishop and the correction given to him by the hand of Pope St. Pius X--- > As Pope, St. Pius X had to correct and reprimand several bishops and priests who had fallen into heresy or were flirting dangerously close to that edge. Some of the French prelates who supported the Sillon (a precursor to modern Liberation Theology) were particularly problematic. >One bishop who had been reprimanded continued to act against the Catholic Faith. Pope Pius X called him to Rome. When the bishop entered he made the customary genuflection before the Pope and waited to be acknowledged so he could rise. Pope Pius X remained busy at his desk ignoring the bishop for three quarters of an hour. This was a small penance which the saintly pontiff was imposing. >At last, Pope Pius raised his eyes and looked the bishop directly in the eyes, holding his gaze steady and stern. Without a word he rose and walked over to the kneeling figure. Then he greeted him: "Good morning, your Excellency." Before the Bishop could arise, Pope Pius X swiftly removed the zucchetto from the Bishop’s head and placed it on the edge of his desk. He then dismissed him, >"Have a good day, Father." >And that was the end of the meeting. No more words had to be spoken. QUESTION: Can a Catholic bishop be deprived of his ecclesiastical rank as bishop without being defrocked? If so, does (anyone know with certainty) if the manner in which the bishop's *zuchetto* was taken by the pope suggest that the former was no longer a bishop? Thank you.

In the 1905 papal encyclical (Acerbo Nimis) of Pope St. Pius X, one finds, for example: > 19. I. On every Sunday and holy day, with no exception, throughout the year, all parish priests and in general all those having the care of souls, shall instruct the boys and girls, for the space of an hour from the text of the Catechism on those things they must believe and do in order to attain salvation. - [*Acerbo Nimis*](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_15041905_acerbo-nimis.html) QUESTION: Has *Acerbo Nimis* been revoked; or is it (as it would seem) largely being ignored? In general, are papal encyclicals always in effect unless otherwise specified or revoked? Thank you.

What is the biblical basis for systematic Antinomianism, or, if you prefer, extreme Grace? I am looking for someone with first hand knowledge of its teachings who can justify this view. Wikipedia lists verses of the Bible which seem to counter it. A good answer will rebut those verses from an Antinomianist's perspective.

[John 10:22–24 (NIV)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+10%3A22-24&version=NIV) says: > **22** Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, > **23** and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. > **24** The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will > you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” Does the "Festival of Dedication" refer to Hanukkah? If so, does this mean that Jesus was present at the temple to celebrate Hanukkah?

We see Jesus telling the 12 disciples who are sent out to preach, in Matt 10:40-41 (NRSVCE): > Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; But elsewhere, we see Jesus leaving it to God's grace in deciding how each one should be rewarded in Heaven, through the analogy of laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:14-16): > "Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? So the last will be first, and the first will be last." Reading Matt 10 and Matt 20 together, one doubts if a person entering Heaven "reaps as he sows" (Gal 6:7) or is permitted to "reap what others had sown" (Jn 4:38). My question, therefore, is: According to Catholic scholars, is there a direct proportionality in the reward a person is likely to receive in Heaven vis-à-vis the good deeds he/she does on earth?

In the didache it says: > you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten. > https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm There currently is a judge in my state who claims that an old law commonly understood to be outlawing abortion only cover feticide instead of surgical abortion. Now, I'm not so interested in the merits of that particular argument, but was there ever a point in Christian history where Christians would have considered abortion and feticide to be separate things?

Does anyone have an apologetic response to this website? [The forged origins of the New Testament](https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm) Basically, here the author claims that Constantine gathered up all the manuscripts and burned all but a select group, and had Eusebius amalgamate the "'legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one', using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars" based on ideas behind Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus. **UPDATE:** Please note that related to the above my friend says that you can't even prove that Jesus existed, was crucified and rose again from the dead, so I mentioned the work of Josephus. His retort is that the works of Josephus have been corrupted. Does anyone know, is this true or not? When I search this site I don't find any information on the historical accuracy of Josephus (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20584/how-do-christian-theologians-view-and-or-use-jewish-commentators) .

Take for example Pelagianism, which was condemned as heresy at the Council of Carthage in 418 (disclaimer: I am not at all inclined to believe Pelagianism or attempting to discuss the specific doctrine, it's just the first example of heresy I thought of). As I understand, the council was Catholic. Does this mean only Catholics necessarily regard Pelagianism as heretical? Do Protestant churches tend to agree with Catholic declarations of heresy, and/or vice versa? Have there been any Protestant declarations of heresy equivalent to the various Councils? I realize that's several questions but they kind of sum to the main question I've asked.

> **Related:** > > - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms > - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7053/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-historical-premillennialism [Dispensational Premillennialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#Dispensational_premillennialism) is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a tribulation, then the millennium. (something like that. Disp. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above related question ) **What is the biblical basis for this belief?** Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages? If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.

[John 12:3-8](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012%3A3-8&version=NASB) : > 3 "Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, *said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. 7 Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. 8 For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.” What is the current day practical lesson of verse 8? > "For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me" Jesus is complimenting Mary for anointing his feet with expensive perfume, but how could we as modern day Christians worship Jesus in such an equivalent way?

From what I understand, the author, a conservative Rabbi, challenges the traditional Biblical view of God’s ‘OMNI’ attributes in his publication. If this is the case, is a God who is less than all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving worthy of our wholehearted trust and worship?”

I heard that if martyrs denied Christ when forced under the punishment of death, the sin would not count since it was not freely chosen. Basically, they wouldn't commit a mortal sin since the mortal sin requires freedom of choice. But some theologians disagree and supposedly they would still have to repent and confess their sin. What is the Catholic perspective on this? If it's not a sin why were the martyrs willing to die if denying wouldn't be even considered rejection of their faith under this circumstance?

I am one of those persons who don't like to say the Rosary. I have a reason for this: the ten Hail Marys. Many people say that the idea of saying Rosary is that you should repeat the ten Hail Marys without focusing on them. If this is so, then that says a lot about what people seem to think vocal prayer is all about. What they seem to say is that vocal prayer is a lot about repetition of words given to us by the Church rather than on focusing on what you are trying to express by the words. They seem to say that vocal prayer is just repetition of words while you meditate on something else than the meaning of the eords you are saying. What is the real purpose of vocal prayer?