As noted in this answer , the Jews had two ceremonies pertaining to marriage: 1. betrothal, "equivalent to our valid but not consummated marriage" (Llamera, O.P. p. 22), ≠ our engagement or future promise to marry 2. nuptials, solemnization of the marriage. Sts. Joseph & Mary did not consummate their marriage, as she was a perpetual virgin (and so was St. Joseph ); but did they have a nuptials, ceremony solemnizing their marriage, or do nuptials imply consummation ? If they did celebrate a nuptials ceremony, how many months after their betrothal did it occur?

Without going into the specifics of three days and three nights or some configuration, where and what did Jesus go and do between the time of His death/burial and His resurrection, if anything? We know that Apostles Creed says "[He] descended into hell" (or [*sheol*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol), [Abraham's bosom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham), [*hades*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades)), although see here . So, what happened? I'm looking for any of the following denominational points of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, other Protestants.

On the internet, one can find articles like 100 Reasons to Believe that God Does Not Exist written by atheists. Are there any articles/papers/books that, on contrary, compile a large number of arguments for why God exists? Something like "400 reasons to believe that God exists" or "78 arguments for Christianity"

According to the publisher description Oxford Oratory's 2024 edition of [*The Maxims and Saying of St. Philip Neri*](https://shop.oxfordoratory.org.uk/products/the-maxims-and-sayings-of-st-philip-neri) : > A collection of the spiritual advice of St Philip Neri, with a maxim for every day of the year. This collection was first prepared in Turin and translated into English by Fr Faber of the London Oratory in 1847. Fr Faber’s English edition is here reprinted by the Fathers of the Oxford Oratory in 2024. Not counting that publication, I have not been able to find any archived old books which contain these sayings (at least in English). What seems to be readily available are Internet postings, such as [*Wikisource*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_maxims_and_sayings_of_St_Philip_Neri) and [*Liturgia Latina*](http://www.liturgialatina.org/oratorian/maxims.htm) . QUESTION: Does anyone know where I may access a book which publishes these maxims and sayings (for each day of the year) dating from either the 19th century or the early twentieth century?

Was Mary married at the time of the Annunciation, or only "engaged" / betrothed?

In Revelation 13:1-3, the Beast is described as having seven heads, with one of them appearing to have a "deadly wound" that is later healed: **Revelation 13:1-3 (KJV)**: > *"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."* Later, in Revelation 17:9-10, the heads are identified as both mountains and kings: **Revelation 17:9-10 (KJV)**: > *"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space."* ### Question How do different Christian perspectives—historicist, futurist, and allegorical—interpret the meaning of these **seven heads**? - **What do the seven heads represent** (e.g., empires, kings, spiritual concepts)? - **What might the "deadly wound" and its healing symbolize** in each view? Finally, is there reason to believe this passage suggests there will be **seven iterations of Beast-like figures**, with the final one ("the other is not yet come") being *the* ultimate Beast? If this idea applies primarily to one group of interpretations (such as the futurist view), please explain. Looking for an overview of perspectives on the matter. Thank you in advance. God bless.

I have no idea about the exact population of the world that was judged during the time of Noah since they were a couple of generations from Adam but according to archaeological and anthropological perspectives, they were approximately thirty million people. > From an archaeological and anthropological perspective, human populations during this time were still relatively small. Around 3000 BCE, the global population is estimated to have been roughly 20–30 million people, based on studies of early agricultural societies in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, and China. If you get the ratio of the saved i.e. Noah's family to the ratio of the men who were doomed to die in the flood, then it is going to be something like: # 8:30000000 ~ 1:3750000 which meant that for every one righteous person saved: three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand wicked people received condemnation. Will that ratio stand on judgment day since the preacher **Ecclesiastes** speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit said these golden words regarding the connection between history and the future. *Ecclesiastes 1:9* >What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Which means that ratio is most likely to be retained even on judgment day because nothing is new under the sun?

Recently I had a conversation with a Roman Catholic about apostolic succession and the papacy and he brought up this verse: 1 Timothy 3:15 KJV >But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. My first understanding of this is that the pillar of truth being the church is the community of believers that come together in a spiritual sense rather than an earthly church institution. That is sound to me from what I've read from both the book of Concord and Luther's writings along with scriptural basis. Would this be the general consensus of the Lutheran doctrine for what the church is?, or am I missing something?

My understanding is that "Trinity" is not is not used in the Christian Bible to define the three hypostases: God, Christ, and Holy Spirit. What then is the historical origin of the Doctrine of the Trinity? Put another way, when and from whom did the word "Trinity" come about in relation to the hypostases? Is there a reason "Trinity" appears in the Christian lexicon rather than referring to the specific hypostasis?

There are infinitely many combinations of possible polytheisms (2 gods, 3 gods, 4 gods, etc). There are also polytheisms where gods perform different and often complementary functions. What makes Christian theism more likely to be true than all of the polytheistic alternatives? What specific characteristics show its superiority?

[This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/solo-Christian.html) from a Christian web site, has suggested that salvation is an individual decision and a relationship with God is an intensely personal decision. It also says obedience and surrender to the Holy Spirit are individual decisions that cannot be made for us by others. Here is another [article](https://www.gotquestions.org/personal-relationship-with-God.html) that says we can have a personal relationship with God the moment we realise our need for Him, admit we are sinners, and in faith “receive Jesus Christ as Saviour.” No mention of the Holy Spirit convicting us of the enormity of our sin so we realise our guilt and our hopelessness. No mention of this awareness leading us to heartfelt repentance. Is that all anybody has to do to be saved, simply decide to receive the gift? Does the Bible say that all a person has to do to be saved it to “accept” the “offer” of salvation, and that it is up to the individual to make that decision? It’s known as “easy-believism” – once we make the decision to accept what’s on offer then we become the children of God and receive the Holy Spirit “who will begin to work in our hearts.” Specifically, does the Bible say it’s up to the individual to either accept or reject salvation? Update from the Got Questions July Report: 9,016 persons (worldwide) have made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ (in July) by clicking on the G.Q. link which says "I have accepted Christ today". In order to present a balanced view, I post links to two Got Questions articles that clarify their views on belief in Christ https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-belief.html and the signs of saving faith https://www.gotquestions.org/signs-saving-faith.html **However, the main question still stands - what is the biblical basis for claiming that salvation is an individual decision?**

Roman Catholics claim to have any number of *relics* which are significant to the Christian faith, of which the [Shroud of Turin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin) is probably the best known. There also seem to be some strong arguments for the authenticity of the same. If, as they claim, the Orthodox church is the "true" church, why would God allow these (apparently genuine) relics to fall into the hands of those who have fallen away, rather than preserving them for the True Church? (I am looking primarily for Orthodox responses, though one might ask Protestants a similar question, as both believe the RCC to be in error. Also, whether the Shroud specifically is a genuine relic isn't the point as such, although "they aren't genuine relics" may be a possible *answer*.)

LOOKING FOR AN OVERVIEW FROM ALL CHRISTIAN POSITIONS. THANK YOU. If the *Day of the Lord* differs from the *Day of Jesus Christ* based on contextual distinctions (judgment vs. redemption), wouldn’t the same logic lend itself to suggest that titles like the *Son of Man*, *Son of God*, and *Lamb of God* refer to entirely different entities or personas? The pre-tribulational rapture perspective argues that terms like the *Day of the Lord* and the *Day of Jesus Christ* represent distinct events. From my understanding, this argument typically stems from the context of the passages within which the terms are used—the former is used in contexts of divine judgment, while the latter is associated with believers' hope and sanctification. **Day of the Lord** (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3) >”For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” **Day of Jesus Christ** (Philippians 1:6) >”Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” Could these differing emphases simply reflect varied aspects of the same event, tailored to the audience or message being conveyed? Consider how the New Testament employs diverse titles for Jesus. **Son of Man emphasizes the humanity of Jesus** (Matthew 8:20) >” And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” **Son of God highlights His divinity and unique relationship to the Father** (Matthew 16:16) >”Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” **Lamb of God conveys His role as the sacrificial savior** (John 1:29) >” The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” **King of Kings displays His sovereign authority over all of creation** (Revelation 17:4) >” These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings...” This very strategy is used throughout the Old Testament as well when God is given various names which highlight various aspects of his character and deeds he has done: **Jehovah-Jireh highlights God’s provisions when he provides a ram for Abraham** (Genesis 22:14) >” And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen” **Jehovah-Rapha displays God’s ability to heal** (Exodus 15:26) >”… for I am the LORD that healeth thee.” **Jehovah-Tsidkenu emphasizes God’s righteousness** (Jeremiah 23:6) >”In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.“ And these lists could go on and on, but the point remains. It would seem senseless to suggest that these titles are referring to separate entities in the Old or New Testament, as the Bible is clear on there being one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). Similarly, Scripture never seems to clearly indicate a distinction between these events, rather, we often see instances where both the redemption aspect (rapture) is directly tied to the destruction aspect (Christ’s judgment and wrath). Throughout Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians we see a connection of these two events - 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to carry over into Chapter 5 without evidence of a *new* event being discussed. Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 1 & 2 seem to do the same, connecting relief being granted in the moment Christ also destroys the wicked. This also occurs in Matthew 24 where Jesus seems to tie destruction of the wicked in the same event as gathering his elect. Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the *Day of the Lord* and the *Day of Jesus Christ* could very likely describe distinct facets of a singular event? The *Day of the Lord* might emphasize the cosmic judgment and upheaval accompanying Christ’s return, while the *Day of Jesus Christ* focuses on the fulfillment of believers’ salvation and reward. To argue otherwise risks imposing divisions not explicitly delineated in Scripture, much as insisting on separate entities for Jesus’ various titles would.

Is the House of Loreto (originally in Nazareth, but later miraculously transported to Loreto, Italy ) Sts. Mary & Joseph's house or Sts. Joachim & Anna's, or was it both of theirs? Did St. Joseph inherit the house from his in-laws?

Where did the Annunciation occur? In Sts. Joachim & Anna's home or in St. Joseph's home?

Is it obligated in Catholic or Orthodox churches to strike one's breast while making confession, during Mass and/or sacrament of Confession? How old is this tradition? When is its earliest documented practice? This picture shows an example of what I mean (notice the fist over the heart): There is also [a short Instagram video](https://www.instagram.com/cardinaltimothymdolan/reel/CxnhHpeL1SZ/) (of Cardinal Timothy Dolan), showing the meaning and how it is done.

Currently, the common practice of confession in the U.S. is... A person completes an examination of conscience, tells the priest how long it has been since their last confession, and then makes their confession, whereupon the priest absolves their sins and gives them a penance, usually to say a few Hail Marys or Our Fathers. In texts written by Catholic Saints, at times they talk about confession. Specifically St. Therese of Liseaux and [St. Gemma](http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/2010/08/similarities-between-st-therese-st.html) both mention their confessor in their autobiographies. Implying that they usually confessed to one specific priest, which is not a practice currently taught in U.S catholic schools. St. Francis de Sales also talks about making a general confession in his Introduction to the Devout Life, which he describes as confessing all of one's sins, from their entire life, to one confessor. Then keeping the same confessor, for subsequent confessions. He also describes a very detailed way of making a confession, including stating motives behind sins, etc... A detailed description of his writing on everyday confession can be found in this article: [On Confession](http://www.ccel.org/d/desales/devout_life.iv.xix.html) . Currently, Catholic Schools do not teach to go to one confessor. In fact they do not even mention the term "confessor", but rather "priest." Also, Catholic Schools do not teach to state one's motives, or to make a general confession, if switching confessors. It seems to me that, based on reading the texts of Saints, that Catholic confession has changed somewhat throughout the centuries. If it has not changed then these saints must be describing optional ways of confessing. My specific question is, has confession changed throughout the centuries, specifically since the 16th century, and if so how?

In an answer to another question , user SLM references an interpretive framework of Revelation from Hal Linsey that derives an interpretation of the overall structure of the book from 1:19. > > Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; Rev 1:19 > > **What was, what is, what will be.** This is the instruction about which to write. > > **What was** is chapter one wherein John describes what he sees. > > **What is** are the letters to the seven churches; that is, letters to the church age in chapters two and three. > > **What will be** is after the church age, since what is, is the church age. > > After this [literally after these things] I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. Rev 4:1 > > This is the rapture. > > After these things, the church age, the what is, ends at the rapture, the door in heaven open, a voice of the trumpet, calls to come up to heaven, to show what will be hereafter. Revelation now turns to the what will be, which is basically tribulation period. Churches are not mentioned again until the end at Rev. 22:16. This connects to a *futurist* reading of Revelation 4-21, which sees the prophecies as things to be fulfilled in the future. I have also heard the same argument (based on Rev.1:19) made by two different dispensationalist pastors, which they used to argue that the prophecies of Rev. 4-21 refer to future events, or even more strongly to argue that they are arranged in chronological order. I'm wondering how Revelation 12:1-5 fits into this framework, as I've only ever heard it interpreted as referring to the first coming of Christ (which especially makes sense because of the reference to Psalm 2 in Rev.12:5.). Obviously, that's an event which happened prior to the composition of the book, so it doesn't fit with a strictly futuristic reading of Rev.4-21. It also would demonstrate that the visions are *not* all in chronological order. So I am wondering whether: 1. There is an alternative, futurist interpretation of Rev.12:1-5 or 2. Futurists do not actually take *all* of Rev. 4-21 as future and/or do not take all of it as chronological.

Within the pre-tribulational view of the rapture, the doctrine of imminence suggests that Christ’s return (specifically the rapture portion of His return) could occur at any moment, meaning that nothing else must take place, prophetically speaking, prior to the rapture. This doctrine is often supported by passages throughout the New Testament, where the apostles exhort the early church to live with the expectation that they are on the cusp of Christ’s return. Many modern proponents hold to this view, and one that is often pointed to is John MacArthur. MacArthur explicitly argues for imminence in his article *[“Is Christ’s Return Imminent?”](https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A368/is-christs-return-imminent)* , citing passages that he believes demonstrate the early church lived with this belief of an imminent return. He begins by quoting **James 5:7-9**, as evidence of such a notion: > “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receives the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” Given the likely early date of James’ epistle, MacArthur argues that imminence was a belief from the earliest years after Christ’s ascension. He then quotes **1 Peter 4:7**, suggesting that Peter likewise shared this belief: > “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” This poses a problem, however, whether the Doctrine of Imminence, as MacArthur suggests, was true during Peter's own lifetime. ### The Foretelling of Peter’s Death In **John 21:18-19**, we find a prophecy from Jesus regarding Peter’s death: > “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” Here, Jesus foretells that Peter would grow old and ultimately die a martyr’s death. As verse 19 explicitly states, this prophecy was a declaration of Peter’s future manner of death, which church tradition later identified as crucifixion. ### Question Regarding the Doctrine of Imminence With all of this being said, could the traditional Doctrine of Imminence—suggesting that Christ’s return has been possible at any moment since His ascension— have been true during the early portions of church history, especially during Peter's lifetime? This view, as held by John MacArthur and others, seems difficult to reconcile with the clear indication in the Gospel of John that Jesus prophesied Peter would grow old and die as a martyr. If Christ had returned during Peter’s lifetime before his death, it would have rendered Jesus’ prophecy false. I suspect that some variants of the doctrine suggest it began at the completion of the book of Revelation, but from my understanding, the more traditional view holds that Christ’s return could occur at any moment since His ascension, which is where this post is focused. I anticipate responses that might suggest that perhaps Peter (or others) did not fully grasp or remember this prophecy. It could also be argued that John, writing his Gospel much later in life and likely after Peter’s martyrdom, was the only one who *knew* and, consequently, recorded this detail. However, even if this were the case, it would only mean the early church *thought* Christ’s return was imminent—it would not make imminence a factual reality for the early church as many suggest. Scripture quotes are KJV, thank you in advance for any input. God bless.

The Bible says > It is by grace that you are saved, by the means of faith. And it does not come from you, it is the gift of God’. (Eph 2:8). > So faith comes from what we hear, and what we hear comes from the word of Christ.’ (Rom 10:17). According to the passages of the Bible quoted (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:17), faith and grace are necessary for salvation. However, these passages also emphasize the importance of hearing the word of Christ. In this context, is it possible to be saved without having heard of Jesus? Can we be saved without having heard of Jesus?