[Tefillin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin)1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done. Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5 (NIV) reads: > Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries1 wide and the tassels on their garments long. It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees. Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not? If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous? 1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)

I learned recently the name "mass" comes from the Latin "misa" which means dismissal. In the early church in Rome, the preparation portion of the mass could be attended by all, but then when it came time to sacrifice the Eucharist, all non-Catholics were dismissed. > To remain until the missa or dismissal of the catechumens, is easily changed into: to remain for, or during, the Missa of the Catechumens. When the discipline of the catechumens was done away with, and there was only the one connected service, it was called by the long-familiar name, Missa, or Mass. -- "The Latin Mass Explained", Msgr. George J. Moorman My question is what changed to allow non-Catholics to now attend the sacrifice portion of the mass? What were the original concerns that kept them out, and have these concerns been addressed in some way?

In general, Wisdom can be (and is, and was) identified as Jesus. However, there is this verse: > [**Proverbs 8:22 (NLT)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs%208:22&version=NLT) > 22 "The Lord formed me from the beginning, > before he created anything else." Hold on a moment...I thought God the Son wasn't created, having coexisted with God the Father since before time? How is the identity of Wisdom established as being that of the Son and how is Proverbs 8:22 handled? If it makes a difference, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant doctrines although Catholic or Orthodox doctrines would be interesting too.

Exodus 20:2-3 tells us: >*I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.* How do you reconcile this, the very first commandment given to Moses by God, with the idea that Jesus is God in human form? How is such a belief not a violation of the first commandment?

I asked catholic.chat this question already, and was unimpressed by the responses. Apparently the Cdl. Cupich gives for outlawing kneeling while receiving communion is that it is an act of Communal Worship to stand in line and receive communion while still standing, rather than stand in line and receive communion while kneeling (or before a communion rail shoulder to shoulder with your fellow (non-mortal) sinners). Catholic.chat said: > 1. **Posture of Unity**: Standing together as a congregation can symbolize a shared commitment and active participation in the worship experience. It visually represents the unity of the faithful as they approach the altar together, highlighting their collective identity as the Body of Christ. Kneeling, while also a posture of reverence, can sometimes create a more individual experience, as it may emphasize personal humility and devotion. > > 2. **Movement Together**: When the faithful stand and process forward to receive Communion, it emphasizes the communal journey of faith. This act of moving together in a line as one body can foster a sense of belonging and shared purpose. Kneeling, on the other hand, might not have the same dynamic of movement and collective action, as individuals may kneel at different times or in different ways. > > 3. **Joy and Celebration**: Standing can convey a sense of joy and celebration, which aligns with the nature of the Eucharist as a feast. This joyful aspect can enhance the communal atmosphere of the liturgy, inviting everyone to share in the experience together. Kneeling, while reverent, might evoke a more solemn or personal tone that could detract from the communal celebration. > >4. **Inclusivity**: Standing may also be more accessible for all members of the congregation, including those with physical limitations. This inclusivity can enhance the sense of community, ensuring that everyone can participate fully in the reception of Communion. Everything on this list could be argued that it is enhanced by kneeling while receiving communion. I know the Church is not a democracy, but it usually draws on the Natural Law for first principles and this is just seems completely backwards. It also seems like the Cardinal is stressing "Communion" as communion with the congregation over "Communion" as Communion with Christ. So, I can only assume there has to be a more striking and important reason for which we should overtly ban kneeling to receive Communion which strengthens our Communion with Christ or else this would be a patently evil move on the part of Cardinal Cupich, which I, or any Catholic, would be loathe to accuse him of. So why is standing considered more communal than kneeling?

In Luke 16:22-24 we read > The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to > Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where > he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus > by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and > send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, > because I am in agony in this fire.’ in which Jesus supports the notion that people go to Heaven or Hell soon after their death, what is reinforced in Luke 23:43 > And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in > Paradise.” Then the Apostles Creed of the Catholic Church says > He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead; > He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the > Father Almighty; from there He will come to judge the living and the > dead. Which suggests, on the contrary, that the judgment and destiny of the dead is pending until the second coming, which also contradicts the promise of “being in Paradise on the same day,” since Jesus spent the next three days in Hell. But the Catholic Church routinely invokes the intercession of saints in its prayers, starting with Mary herself Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. So, if the dead are already in Heaven or Hell, it means that they have already been judged, so who are left to be resurrected and judged? When are the dead judged?

Scripture tells us that God the Father is holy. We can say with certainty that God is Spirit, not human. Therefore, if God is holy And spirit, that makes Him The Holy Spirit. Why then would God need another Holy Spirit for Himself, if He is already The Holy Spirit?

Luke 1:31-32: > "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father." When greeted by the angel Gabriel, Mary was told she would give birth to the son of God and that his kingdom would know no end. Mary was not written to have been told that her baby was destined to be crucified since before his birth. She unknowingly killed her son the moment she gave birth to him; her sole purpose was to give life to a baby so he could be killed in the name of everybody else. There was nothing she could do to save him from the very beginning; Jesus was born doomed by God. If Mary was wholly unaware of the prophecy, did she know it wasn't her fault? She was responsible for Jesus as his mother, and from her perspective, he was killed under her care. Did Mary blame herself for her sons' death? I cannot understand the justification behind bringing so much pain to Mary for being the mother of the son of God. Long story short, **my question is whether or not Mary was aware of Jesus's destined crucifixion, and if not, why couldn't she know**?

I can't find any CSE questions about this religion, although I think it is linked to John the Baptist. There may be different spellings for the religion, and perhaps that's why I have been unable to find out how and when it originated and what the main beliefs are.

> John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. > > Colossians 1:16: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. > > Hebrews 1:8, 10: But about the Son he says, ... He also says, > “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. Revelation 3:14, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." These verses all say that it was Jesus or God the Son who created the universe. Isaiah 44:24 says: > Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE. According to [Unitarian theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Christology) Jesus Christ is a created being and He never preexisted His incarnation as a man. So explain how or why Jesus is identified as the Agent of creation according to the verses quoted?

Are the Jewish people the chosen and if so why?...My uneducated Grandmother always said the the Jewish people were the chosen because they were the only people who kept God's laws at that time..such as, feast of the tabernacle, fest of unlevened bread..etc..I am confused. If not born Jewish, are the rest Gentiles? And if the Jewish are the chosen people why are they blinded to the first coming of Christ?

Peter Enns was expelled from the Westminster Seminary due to this positions judged too liberal in his book *Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament* (2005). This article contains a comment of this affair, and provides "two reports authored by the conservative members of the Westminster faculty, in which they explain why Enns' views are in conflict with biblical and historic Christian teachings on the nature of Scripture." While Peter Enns views can still nonetheless be considered conservative (1 ), there is especially a passage where he expresses his views on Calvinism, which seem to me to be pretty compatible with the orthodox current of protestantism of which principle is to stick with the first reformers (Calvin, Luther) methods and thoughts. Here is the passage, from a long article on Calvinism published on Biologos: > In its best iterations, Calvinism is a “third way” that negotiates between the extremes of (1) a dismissal of Scripture as God’s word because of it obvious human dimension, and (2) a dismissal of the historical dimension of Scripture in an effort to protect its divine dimension. The first option is typically referred to as “liberalism” and the second as “fundamentalism.” That is a bit reductionistic as far as I am concerned, but those are the popularly accepted labels. > The Calvinist legacy, at least in principle, is well suited to avoid these extremes for one simple reason. It embraces the “incarnate” nature of Scripture, that it is God’s word but in human form. Scripture is a divine, inspired text, and also on every page bears the unmistakable, discernable, and wonderful stamp of the time and space bound human beings who by inspiration produced it. And this stamp is not to be observed theoretically nor as an unfortunate concession. Rather it is an affirmation that the human element of Scripture is worthy of the most careful and thoughtful reflection, with potentially important, theologically significant payoff. This is a distinctive and vital mark of the Calvinist legacy. From there, can Peter Enns still be considered an orthodox protestant?

God is supposed to be perfect. If the world is the work of a perfect god, it should be, as Leibniz argued, the best possible world. But it is not very difficult to imagine a better world than this. How is this argued from the point of view of classical theism?

From a personal Christian experience, it is as if God chooses those he will save by revealing Himself to those he deems worthy, this can be backed up by these examples from the Bible. 1. God reveals Himself to Abraham by having a direct conversation with him and ordering him to go to an unknown land. 2. God reveals Himself to Paul on his way to Damascus and engages him in a conversation like the previous case 3. Jesus calls the twelve and reveals his divine power to them through the miracles he performed 4. God reveals Himself to Moses via a burning bush 5. God reveals Himself to Samuel by calling him in his sleep 6. God reveals Himself to Elisha through the signs and wonders of Elijah 7. God reveals Himself to the parents of Samson and foretell his destiny 8. God reveals Himself to Jeremiah by telling him He knew him before he was formed in his mother's womb From all these Biblical stories, in addition to predestination, does God actually choose by revealing Himself to those he knew from the foundation of the world? *Ephesians 1:4* >According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. God already has the number, so does he specifically reveal Himself to individuals he would like added to the list above?

What is the overview of the Anglican understanding of who/what the 144000 are in Revelation 7:4? > After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. ([Revelation 7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+7&version=NIV) , NIV)

90% of Christians believe in pre-tribulation rapture. Nevertheless in Matthew 24 verses 15 to 31 we read: *when ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place .......... let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains ......... for then shall be **great tribulation** such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be .......... immediately **after the tribulation** of those days ......... shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven .......... and he shall send his angels .......... and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other...........* Is Matthew 24 verses 15 to 31 a proof of post-tribulation rapture because if the rapture happens before **the great tribulation** who will the angels gather *from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other* **after the great tribulation**?

There is a multitude of saints who came back to life minutes or hours after Jesus rose from the dead as the first born. Where did they go because I do not believe Jesus would let them die again after declaring victory over death to them when he descended to the heart of the earth. *Mathew 27:52-53* >And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. *Ephesians 4:7-8* >But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Paul is technically saying that Jesus led captivity captive or in simple terms, death became a slave of Jesus. So where did those people go because the fact that they could appear and disappear meant those were wearing heavenly bodies? **Edit:** We do not know the manner by which these saints were raised and hence we cannot know what the word **appeared** meant in that context but for me to **appear** is to **suddenly manifest visibly**. When scripture says an **an angel appeared to Mary, what is that to you?**

Jesus seemed to be focused on the destruction of Jerusalem when discussing end times. The Revelation clearly says these events would take place SOON. If we connect what Jesus said in the gospels to Revelation, it seems that the old “Adamic” creation, from Abel to Zechariah, was judged and done away with after the Resurrection. Jesus said he was the first born of the new creation. So it seems the end of the old creation culminated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Would this be an accurate interpretation of events?

**CLARIFICATION:** For those who believe there will be an event in the "end times" in which believers will be "taken up" to meet Jesus "in the clouds", and that there is yet to be a "Great Tribulation", I am curious which scriptures (primarily) are used to support the view that the rapture will happen prior to the tribulation, as opposed to after the tribulation. **REASON FOR THE QUESTION:** I am studying Matthew 24 in preparation for a sermon next Sunday, and came across the following passages (from the NASB): > "...the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and said to them...' (from v.3-4) > > "'...they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you... At that time many will fall away...'" (from v.9-10) > > "'For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.'" (v.21) > > "'But immediately after the tribulation of those days... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds... And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.'" (from v.29-31) Based on these passages, it sounds like the disciples asked what signs would indicate the "end of the age", and in response, Jesus described a "great tribulation" after which He would "come on the clouds" and "gather His elect". I am assuming that both "camps" (Pre-Trib. and Post-Trib.) would have an interpretation of this passage, but it got me thinking... if there was a "Rapture" before the great tribulation, why wouldn't Jesus just say something like "when you notice people disappearing, you'll know the end is here!" In other words, Jesus is answering their question, but seems to be glossing over the most obvious "sign of the end of the age", which happens before everything else (in the Pre-Trib view.) I haven't studied the Pre-Trib. vs. Post-Trib. debate extensively, and was wondering if someone could summarize the arguments from scripture in favor of the "Pre-Trib" view. (I am aware that any passage *can* be interpreted any number of ways, but I am specifically looking for the most clear and convincing passages that support this doctrine.) Thanks!

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