I was reading a National Geographic article about the recent restoration work done at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Israel in which the stone slab that covered the supposed resting place of Jesus was removed. According to the article, it went on to say: > ...it was first identified by Helena, mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in A.D. 326. I researched a bit more about Helena's visit to Jerusalem and came upon another article that had this to say about her visit: > The site was identified in the year 326, when the Emperor Constantine’s mother Helena went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in search of relics from the time of Christ. She asked the residents of Jerusalem where the site of Jesus’ tomb was, and they directed her to a spot where a pagan temple now stood. We might be justifiably sceptical that the people in Jerusalem at that time would have known where Jesus’ tomb once was and suspect that out of deference to the Emperor’s mother they pointed to some site. Read more: [#500 Excavating the Tomb of Jesus](http://www.reasonablefaith.org/excavating-the-tomb-of-jesus#ixzz4QDzpfrWk) **Does anyone know the source for this claim? Specifically want to research more on Helena asking residents of Jerusalem where the site of the tomb was.**

In referring to opponents of Penal Substitution theory , I'm referring specifically to those who view it as a ***false*** view of the Atonement, not merely that it is incomplete (*eg* those who hold to alternative theories of Atonement may assert their theories are more holistic, but will not necessarily deny that penal substitution is a contributing element within them). Consider: > ... the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. - Nahum 1:3b NIV > Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the Lord detests them both. - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3Dprov%252017%253A15%26version%3DNIV" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Proverbs 17:15 NIV <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> > Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. - Exodus 23:7 NIV If Christ doesn't bear the penalty or punishment for our sins by taking our guilt upon himself, where does the condemnation and punishment go? What is the specific mechanism by which, a sinner can be saved from their sins without making nonsense or lies of the preceding declarations?

>Everyone who is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up year after year to bow down to the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the feast of Booths. 17 Should any of the families of the earth not go up to Jerusalem to bow down to the King, the LORD of hosts, then there will be no rain for them. 18 And if the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, upon them will fall the plague, with which the LORD strikes the nations that do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the feast of Booths (Zech. 14:16-19, NABRE). How does this fit into the eschatological timeline, specifically of those who see the millennium as a symbol of the Christian age?

Consider a very powerful agent (call him John), who can perform every logically possible action, except for turning on my TV. Due to his nature, John just cannot do that. It seems to me that nobody would call John omnipotent, due to his inability to turn on my TV. Now consider God. According to what I've read about classical Christian theism, it is impossible for God to sin/do evil due to his good divine nature. So how is God omnipotent when John isn't? What is the relevant difference between the 2 cases? Consider another agent (call him Alex). Alex, unlike God, doesn't have a perfectly good nature, so he is able to sin and to do evil, in addition to everything that God can do. It seems like Alex is more omnipotent than God (he is able to perform actions that God cannot), which would make God not omnipotent, since nothing can be more omnipotent than an omnipotent being. I would really like to know then, according to classical Christian theism how come God is omnipotent, while John and Alex are not.

1 Cor 7:8 (ESV): > "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am" 1 Cor 7:32-34 (ESV): > "... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband." 1 Cor 7:38 (ESV): > "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better" **Here is the antinatalist implication of these verses.** If we follow Paul's advice and stay single and childless, then humanity would go extinct (because nobody will replenish the population). But the doctrine that argues for human extinction (antinatalism) is widely regarded by Christians to be a false one. The implication that the "ideal" scenario is the one where humans die out is an incredibly repugnant one. So my question is, **how can Christians interpret 1 Corinthians 7 to avoid all of these 3 implications below?** 1. it is better for humanity to go extinct 2. it is better to be single 3. it is better to be childless **Edit**: My question is different from [the proposed duplicate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74782/would-god-allow-all-of-humanity-to-be-celibate) , because the duplicate asks a general philosophical question, while my post asks a specific question about the interpretation specific Bible verses by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:8; 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 and 1 Corinthians 7:38).

St Paul, while referring to the need for a women to cover her head during worship says in 1 Cor 11:7 (NSRVCE): > For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. But then, we read in Gen 1: 27: > So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. One can hardly interpret the terms ‘humankind’ and ‘them’ as comprising only Adam and his male progeny . In fact they comprise both Adam, Eve and their progeny of both sexes. But then, why does St Paul give a different type of interpretation of Gen 1: 27, putting a limit to the concept of creation in God's image? Is he only referring to the physical appearance of man and woman for the purpose of supporting his teaching that woman should cover her head during worship ? In fact, he goes on to state in Verses 14 & 15: > Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. **My question therefore is**: According to Catholic scholars, is St Paul referring to physical appearance of man and woman when he tells of creation in God's image, in 1 Cor 11: 7?

The "quieting of concupiscence" (*remedium concupiscentiae*) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. *Casti Connubii* §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10 ([NKJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A10&version=NKJV)) : > Now to the married I command, **yet not I but the Lord**: A wife is not to depart from her husband In [verse 12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A12&version=NKJV) Paul writes: > But to the rest **I, not the Lord**, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. How do Evangelicals explain this in line with scripture inspired by God?

**According to Catholic theologians, why does St. Paul say that a husband is "divided" between pleasing his wife and pleasing God?** Can't a husband please God by pleasing his wife? Or is that what Paul meant? 1 Cor. 7:32 -33: > 32. But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. > 33. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (*weltlich geschefft*).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another: >For the unbelieving husband **is sanctified** by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife **is sanctified** by the believing husband… In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace? 1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)
2. *ibid.* p. 749n102: "*Von Ehesachen* WA 30.3: 205/12–14. *Traubüchlein*, WA 30.3:74/2."

Is, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 , the state of virginity more meritorious than that of marriage? Catholics think it is, and some (all?) Protestants think it is not. Why? For example, the Council of Trent says: > Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.

How could the writers of the Byzantine text type add to the text of the Bible with a pure heart? I understand there are almost no New Testament Byzantine texts before the year 300 A.D. The earliest Bible texts we have are the Alexandrian text type, each more minimalistic than the Byzantine. Why did the writers of Byzantine (or rather the Editors) add text even though it wasn't inspired, unlike the original text? Wouldn't God have Protected the original text?

Let's imagine a gay man which tries to be a good Catholic and who is trying to develop all the virtues except for 6th Commandment virtues that are related to his fate. And even then - he tries to adhere to the 6th Commandment as much as it possible, e.g. by committing to loving and monogamous relationships. We can also assume that he has read some theological articles which suggest discernment and care for his situation (there are some in the Catholic academic journal which I will not link here, because they can be offending and divisive for the general audience and which is just theology in the development, no surprises). My question is - can this man go to the confession and acknoweldge all the sins and be ready to do penance for all of them, except that he is not giving promise not to sin again in the matters of 6th Commandment. Can priest give at least a partial absolution to his man and nurture at least all the other spheres of his spiritual growth? Of course, partial absolution may be not much worth - i.e. - it still won't allow to participate in the Communion. But - from the other side - this can be step in the right direction and least partial holiness can be achieved. And the Salvator will take care of the remaining. What can the attitudes of priest can be? Of course, this man will have long life in parish and he will go to the Confession each month and again and again the priest will have to listen that there is part that is not being corrected and improved stubbornly and the absolution can not be given again. But still - maybe that is possible?

This question is addressed to non-trinitarian who believe that God is a single being and not made up of several beings. How do you come to terms with these truths as exposed in the book of Genesis. **1. God calls out other beings who are co-creators using the phrase us** ***Genesis 1:26*** >Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” The statement above means that the other beings who are being requested to create or make alongside God have the power or are able to create or make which makes them **co-creators**. **2. God acknowledges that mankind have become like him but uses the phrase us to refer to Himself** for a second time ***Genesis 3:5*** >For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Pay attention to the statement **be like God** in the verse above and compare to whats being said below. ***Genesis 3:22*** >And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” God is confirming that man has become like Him but confirms one more time that he is a plural entity by stating that **man has become like one of us**. In the previous verse the speaker uses the phrase **you will become like God**, but God uses the term **us** to refer to Himself which in some way proves trinitarianism as the true doctrine, how do non-trinitarians respond to these truths? This is because the **us** cannot refer to angels because angels cannot **form, make or create** man out of the dust otherwise fallen angels would have created man out of the elements of other planets since the breath of life originates only from God. >Creation is an act of God alone, by which, for his own glory, he brought into existence everything in the universe that never before existed.

I have been thinking lately how odd it is for God to give a Commandment to not kill, but then demand his followers to slay both animals and people, innocents even. It did not have any exceptions like "Thou shall not kill unless commanded to by me to.", just "Thou shall not kill". So I feel this is contradiction. Is this correct?

We read in Mk 12:41-42(KJV): > And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. There are also other occasions- both in NT and OT- where certain women are identified as widows without their introducing themselves as such. In the foregone days, widows in some societies were mandated to have a dress code, say white in colour, rough in texture and modest in appearance. It was more of a voluntary practice than of a compulsory requirement . My question is : According to Bible historians, did the widows of Israel have a mandatory or voluntary dress code ?

I came across information that this was done very recently by an Ethiopian church figure, engaging in Ecumenism.

Many Church traditions claim unbroken Apostolic succession such as Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and others. It seems as though there are gaps in the successions of some of these traditions where they are delineated. Can any Church tradition or denomination actually demonstrate unbroken Apostolic succession or are there gaps in every account making them all just claims with varying degrees of 'proof'?

From my studies, Scripture seems to make a very clear difference between the requirements of receiving the gift of salvation (by faith alone) and the requirements to enter the kingdom of God. **A. Biblically the only condition or requirement for salvation is FAITH.** 150x total in the New Testament we see that faith is the only requirement to be saved, justified, and have eternal life. (Examples: Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 36, 6:47, 5:24, Romans 10:9-10...) **B. Yet when you look at the requirements for entering the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven (one and the same) we have a list a various requirements such as:** 1. Born again (John 3:3-5) 2. Do the will of God (Matthew 7:21-23) 3. Be a disciple, follower of Jesus (Luke 9:57-62) 4. Live righteous, free from sin (Mark 9:43-47; Matt 18:6-9, 5:20, 21:31-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 5:5; Gal 5:19-21) 5. Be like a child (Matt 18:3-4, 19:14; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17) 6. Enter the narrow way (Luke 13:23-30; Matthew 7:13-14, 21) 7. Go through hardships & persecution (Mark 10:24; Acts 14:22; Matt 5:10, 20:20-21; 2 Thess 1:5; John 15:20) 8. Produce fruit (Matthew 21:43) 9. Be poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3) 10. Love God and people (James 2:5; Matthew 25:34-39) 11. Not with our physical bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50) When I researched this idea to find others who see and make this distinction, I did not find very many. Instead most think that salvation and entering the kingdom of God the same thing. The person who makes the distinction the clearest that I found is **Watchman Nee** in his work about "The Difference between the Kingdom of the Heavens and Eternal Life." I also see a correlation in Scripture between the list of requirements for being a disciple and to the list for entering the Kingdom of God. Salvation is by faith and is an entry point and then the invitation Jesus makes is to discipleship, which is about Lordship, and about entering the kingdom of God. There has been an ongoing debate about the distinction between salvation and Lordship known as “**Lordship Salvation**” vs “**Free Grace Theology**.” In short Lordship Salvation says that Jesus must be Lord to be Savior. Free Grace Theology says that Jesus can be your Savior without being your Lord, and that Lordship is a journey that starts after salvation. John MacArthur in his book *The Gospel According to Jesus * lays out the case for lordship salvation. Dr. Charles C. Bing in his book *Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response * and *Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship: How to Understand Some Difficult Bible Passages * lays out a case for distinguishing salvation and Lordship/discipleship. This debate was started earlier in 1959 in **Eternity Magazine** between “Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?" - a debate between John R. Stott and Everett F. Harrison But I don't see a lot of people making the distinction between salvation and the kingdom of God. **Can anyone help me with this or speak into this?** I'd love to find any and all books, articles, or resources that talk about this distinction and I would love your comments and answers on this topic. I am writing a book on this topic and am looking for a list of resources that mention the idea. Thank you!

The seat of the Bishop of Rome is called "the Holy See". What does "see" mean? Does it mean “Holy Sea”, as the word “see” could be an archaic spelling of the word “sea”. It would make sense, because there is an unholy sea in the Bible also, called “Lake of fire”. It sure sounds like “Holy Sea”, because it makes most sense language-wise.