In John 21:9-14, after His resurrection, Jesus prepares a meal of fish and bread for His disciples by the Sea of Galilee. This moment is both intimate and practical, showing Jesus serving His followers with a simple act of hospitality. Does this scene offer any theological or moral encouragement for Christians today to develop practical life skills like cooking and serving others, especially within the context of ministry, hospitality, or daily Christian living? How have different Christian traditions interpreted this act?

I'm curious how, in the context of spiritual teaching and leveraging scripture, religious leaders are balancing the value of the text with questions that scholarship has raised as to the authenticity and originality of various texts such as the Johannine comma, the woman caught in adultery, the end of Mark, etc. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

You will often hear people say things like, "The Psalms cover every human emotion and situation." There's even a John Calvin quote somewhere. And the "covering every emotions" part may be true. But something has bothered me about this type of statement for a while. Now, I certainly could be missing something, but as I have read the Psalms more lately it seems that it only addresses really two types of suffering: **a)** Attacks/false accusations from enemies and **b)** suffering caused by sin/iniquity. Many Psalms feature the general 'cry of the afflicted' but when the reason is given, it seems to always come down to the two forms I mentioned above. Here's a couple examples: - Psalm 103:3 speaks of "healing our diseases" but there is disagreement from commentators whether this is really referring to the "disease" of sin. - Psalm 34:18 "The Lord is near to the broken-hearted" might at first glance be read as anyone who is grieving or suffered a loss. However in Derek Kidner's commentary on the Psalms he asserts that this "broken-heartedness" is referring to those who are broken over their sins. What does this mean for us? Is this a theological lesson that these two forms of suffering are the only ones that matter? What about physical suffering not caused by sin or enemies? What about the death of a loved one? What about an unexpected job loss? It seems possible to read the testimony of the Psalms as teaching us that these things aren't really important.

My question arises from a preacher's Facebook post condemning the practice of being a "prayer squirrel" (i.e., getting distracted while praying). He offers the following as an example of what prayers by such a person might look like: > Dear God, heal brother James of ... i need a coffee, I wonder who will win the hockey game tonite ... God heal brother James of his heart condition, and Lord... sister Jennifer really could use a blessing from you because she ... I forgot to take out the roast for dinner ... the kids are late coming home from school ... bless sister Jennifer because she needs encouragement. Amen. In support of this being sinful, the preacher translates Colossians 4:2 thusly (emphasis added): > Devote yourselves to prayer **without distraction** as you pray Is this an accurate translation of Colossians 4:2? Does the verse prohibit being a "prayer squirrel"? While it certainly makes sense that we should be focused when praying, are we specifically commanded such by Colossians 4:2 or other verses, meaning that distraction while praying is sinful, or do verses such as Colossians 4:2 have a different application in mind?

All the Bible websites that I know of have updated their NIV Bibles to the 2011 version. I used to use biblestudytools.com to access the 1984 version, but it now looks like it also has been updated to the 2011 version. Can anyone point me to a site that still hosts the 1984 version? Or perhaps an eBook or other electronic means of accessing it? Whether free or for a price.

The current Roman Catholic definition of saint appears to be something like the following: > Most people use the word “saint” to refer to someone who is exceptionally good or “holy.” In the Catholic Church, however, a “saint” has a more specific meaning: someone who has led a life of “heroic virtue.” This definition includes the four “cardinal” virtues: prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice; as well as the “theological” virtues: faith, hope and charity. A saint displays these qualities in a consistent and exceptional way. When someone is proclaimed a saint by the pope – **which can happen only after death** – public devotion to the saint, called a “cultus,” is authorized for Catholics throughout the world. - Mathew Schmalz , Associate Professor of Religion, College of the Holy Cross Very many of Paul's New Testament letters are addressed to "the saints in" whatever region. Many English translations insert a phrase, "called (to be) saints" in some of the letters but not all of them; one example of each is offered below: > To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called *to be* saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Romans 1:7 > To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Colossians 1:2 Merely reading the greetings as they stand it appears that Paul either considered all believers to be saints or he considered them to be a category among living believers: Hence the phrases "and to the faithful" (Ephesians 1:1) and "with the bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1). Going by the current Catholic definition of saint, which indicates that the title is only conferred (by a Pope) upon the deceased, one would have to deduce that Paul is including dead people in his address. Since this cannot possibly be the case it must be assumed that the Catholic definition of saint has changed over time. I have two related questions: **1)** When did the Roman Catholic definition of saint change and restrict this nomenclature only to the dead when Paul clearly applies the title to the living?, **2)** Does this change or alter the way Paul's letters are read or does a modern Catholic ignore the Catholic definition when reading the New Testament? In other words, do modern Catholics parenthetically think something like "but not real saints" when reading these letters?

What does picking up your cross look like practically speaking for evangelicals? What does picking up your cross mean in every day life? ——————————— I’ve read the related questions to this verse >“And he who does not **take his cross** and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:38‬ ‭ But the responses are obscure and ambiguous and if applied practically I wouldn’t know what exactly to do. The answers are still relegated to the realm of abstract and conceptual theory. What is a working definition, or a practical definition, or a practical application for take (up) your cross in the evangelical circles. Please keep this a serious discussion, don’t include answers like getting married, the spouse being the cross, or being terminally ill, no one willingly takes on terminal illness, especially excruciatingly painful kinds. It needs to make sense to the text. ——————————————— Or in the same vein, if it won’t be misconstrued as a separate question, crucify the flesh. They both seem to be saying the same thing. >Gal 5:24  And those who belong to Christ Jesus have **crucified the flesh** with its passions and desires

There is a raging debate in the province of Quebec on the question "Does someone have the right to kill another because the first one is suffering?" There are more and more cases in the news that look like the following that arrived just yesterday. Here is a video of an example : http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Montreal/1305551527/ID=2213970096 Does the Bible tackle the issue? From an evangelical perspective how do I answer this question/issue? **Edit :** I'm looking to a way to answer a fellow Christian with little knowledge of the Bible, and a non-Christian as well. The question is not simply assisted suicide, but it's implied therapeutic relentlessness as well.

[This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16377/what-major-translations-of-the-bible-are-in-the-public-domain) establishes that most copyrighted translations have a fair use clause allowing for up to 500 verses to be used. [This question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/25814/can-i-project-more-than-500-verses-of-scripture-over-the-course-of-a-year-or-a) further clarifies that the 500 word limit is "reset" each week in the case of a pastor projecting verses onto a screen in a sermon. Well, what about a program or app that makes available daily readings (always conforming to the fair use clause in a given day) but which, over the course of the year will show more than 500 verses total. Is it reset each day? This feels like a use of the translation *in good faith*, but I don't know how a lawyer representing a profit-seeking company would see it. Depending on how the program is written, that could further by complicated if the program: 1. stores the entire translation in a database, or 2. allows users to access "daily readings" from days other than today What do you think?

I understand that my question pokes at a sensitive area, but being a nonreligious person in a largely Christian region, I find it extremely dissatisfying to leave such a core aspect of my neighbor's lifestyles to mystery. My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible? The Bible contains loads of information, some of it pleasant, some of it frightening, some of it seeming to be downright silly. For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing. I'm also fairly certain the Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennia. Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities. If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable? The aforementioned followers being of course, the Pope, translators (Monks, probably), Priests, but mostly everyday, normal Christians. Thanks.