Numbers 24:17 says: >*“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; he shall crush the skulls of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.”* This verse is commonly understood by some Christian traditions to be a Messianic prophecy pointing to Jesus Christ—with the “star” and “scepter” symbolizing His **divine authority** and **kingship**. However, the latter part of the verse includes a violent image: >*“he shall crush the skulls of Moab.”* According to those who believe Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy, how did he fulfill this part of the verse? This is because this verse was fulfilled in David who led his armies against the Moabites and conquered them, so how do they reconcile that?

Genesis 2:2 says God rested on the seventh day after finishing His work, and Hebrews 4:9–11 speaks of a Sabbath rest for the people of God. Meanwhile, Jesus says in John 9:4, *“We must work the works of Him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.”* How do these concepts relate? Is “rest” purely eschatological, or is there a present spiritual rest for believers? And how should this impact how we understand the timing and urgency of Christian labor?

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

Old Earth Creationists (OECs) interpret the "days" in Genesis 1 as representing long periods (e.g., millions of years) rather than literal 24-hour days, to align with scientific evidence for an ancient Earth. What scriptural passages and theological arguments do OECs use to support this non-literal interpretation?

According to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived for 930 years. From a biological standpoint, cell division is a key part of growth and aging. My question is: If Adam’s cells continued to divide over such a long lifespan, does that imply he may have experienced continuous physical growth, possibly resulting in a giant-like stature? I'm especially interested in whether young-Earth creationist or literalist interpretations of Genesis support the idea that Adam was physically much larger than modern humans, particularly in light of ancient environments that may have included large animals (e.g., dinosaurs). Or is it more likely that his size was similar to ours, and the long lifespan simply reflected slower aging without continuous physical growth?

>1 John 2:15 (ESV): "Do not love the world or the things in the world..." Many Christian teachings warn against loving "the world," often interpreted as a system opposed to God. But since the body is part of our earthly existence and shares in physical desires (e.g., lust of the flesh), is the body itself part of what Scripture refers to as "the world"? Or is the body viewed separately from the "world" that believers are warned against befriending? How do different theological traditions (e.g., Augustinian, Reformed, Orthodox, etc.) interpret the role of the body in this context?

[Full preterists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) believe that all prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, including those related to the final resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment. I have met some Protestant preterists who believe that their beliefs are in accord with the ecumenical creeds, despite language in the creeds that seems to imply that the Second Coming and other eschatological events are yet to come. Do any Roman Catholic or Protestant councils or creeds specifically state that full preterist beliefs are heretical?

On Catholic call-in-shows and even on this website, there are innumerable questions about the scandal caused by attending the weddings of people who aren't perfect angelic prototypical Catholics. One or both parties can be: 1. divorced 2. not-Catholic 3. fallen-away Catholics 4. didn't even realize one of the parties was baptized Catholic 4. living together 5. have children out of wedlock 6. currently pregnant 7. a known sinner Which of these should disturb a Catholic's conscience enough to prevent them from attending a marriage and how does proximity to the couple (maybe they're cousins that you don't know so well) affect the decision?

Many Catholic churches across the world have an image of a pelican with its chicks. The pelican is depicted as cutting its heart open with the beak, with blood dripping down. Understandably, it symbolises Christ. What was the source of this image? Was there any scriptural base, or was it a code, like the image of fish used by early Christians?

I’m doing some research about early Christianity, specifically looking into the circumstances of the divergence between Judaism and Christianity as two very distinct religions as we know them today. It seems Paul had a very remarkable role in shifting the Christian faith into a more Gentile and independent religion rather than enforcing Mosaic laws. Since Paul is considered the Apostle to the Gentiles, did Paul continue to consider himself a Jew after conversion?

I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C. and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth. So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood? In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood? Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.

I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title. **Giving Mary praise** I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right? So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us? **Intercession** When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you? I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.

How did the Catholic Church choose which Sacred Tradition is infallible when there are conflicting traditions, such as the Filioque controversy, especially considering that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession according to the Catholic Church?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#Christianity) says that formal schismatics are those who: > knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism. But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people? For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church. Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II? If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

The Bible teaches that we should seek truth and avoid falsehoods. However, when it comes to things like the shape of the earth, most Christians rely on information from governments or scientists, since none of us have personally verified it by traveling to space. If a Christian sincerely believes something that is false (like the earth being flat or round), before it has been revealed to them or verified firsthand, is that considered heresy, or just ignorance? At what point does holding a false belief cross into spiritual error? I'm especially interested in how this applies when the belief doesn’t directly affect one’s salvation or core doctrines. Is believing in a scientifically incorrect idea — even unknowingly — a form of heresy in the eyes of the Church or Scripture?

In confession do you have to state that you committed a mortal sin on a Sunday? Is this analogous to saying that you stole from a church rather than just stealing?

I'm interested in exploring a theological understanding of work from a Reformed perspective. Most of the literature I find tends to be sociological, especially Weberian, but I'm specifically looking for theological treatments grounded in the Reformed tradition. Ideally, I’d like recommendations that are not politically driven or overtly proselytizing, but instead focus on biblical and theological foundations for work, vocation, and labor in Reformed thought. What are some good books or authors to start with?

[Humbert of Silva Candida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_of_Silva_Candida) was an important medieval theologian, best known for his involvement in the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. He was also a vocal proponent of a number of views, such as papal authority and clerical celibacy. On this latter point, Everett Ferguson writes that he "said that sacraments administered by married clerics were invalid," and then continues: > Humbert's later work *Against the Simoniacs* in three books made a similar claim: Any cleric appointed to office by a layman, no matter how honestly, could not administer valid sacraments, a doctrine that revived the viewpoint of Donatism, which made the validity of sacraments depend on the status of the administrator. ([*Church History*, I, 19.V.B](https://books.google.com/books?id=mRQwAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT351)) This does sound like Donatism to me, but I don't see any indication on Wikipedia or elsewhere that Humbert's views actually violated Catholic dogma. In light of subsequent clarifications of the doctrines of the sacraments, are these views of Humbert's considered problematic in modern Catholicism?

### Nicene Beliefs Non Latter-day Saint Christians (also known as Nicene Christians) believe the following about God: - **There is only one God** > “We believe in one God...” — Nicene Creed, opening line - **God created everything in existence** > “…the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things > visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed, 381 version - **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** > “…begotten, not made…” (referring to the Son), and “the Lord and Giver > of Life” (referring to the Holy Spirit) — Nicene Creed - **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** > Implied throughout the Nicene Creed and formally defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople (381 CE) ### LDS Beliefs On the other hand, these core Nicene beliefs are **not** shared by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Indeed the LDS Church explicitly rejects these tenets: > **There is only one God** Latter-day Saints worship only God the Father through Jesus Christ, but they also believe in the existence of a plurality of Gods. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, and this divine plurality extends beyond them — faithful humans can and have also become exalted and become gods themselves: > “I will preach on the plurality of Gods… The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God created everything in existence** LDS theology holds that God organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter, rather than creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). Matter is considered co-eternal with God: > “The elements are eternal...” — Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 --- >> **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** LDS theology teaches that God is eternal, but not uncreated in the classical Christian sense. According to LDS theology, the LDS God was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood: > “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” — Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** Latter-day Saints reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in a Godhead of three distinct divine beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ (His Son), and the Holy Ghost. These are united in purpose but are not of one substance. > “Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as developed in the post–New Testament church.” — Gospel Topics: Godhead ### Question With these apparent fundamental differences in mind, do Nicene Christians believe that they worship the same god as Latter-day Saints? Or do they believe that the Nicene/Trinitarian God is ontologically different enough from the LDS God that they cannot be said to be the same being?

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?