Why does God allow monetary restitution (20 shekels of silver) for Sin Offering? I thought that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of the blood.

Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?

One of the arguments in favor of the traditional date of December 25 being the actual date of Jesus birth is that of church tradition. Of course, it's possible that the early church just picked a date connected with the winter solstice to celebrate the birthday of Jesus. The scholar Ray Butterworth points out how the Queen's Birthday, is celebrated on the second Saturday in June in the UK, and the Monday before May 25 in Canada, regardless of her actual birthday. However, it is plausible (perhaps even probable) that Mary, the mother of Jesus, might have spoken to the disciples in the early faith communities about the specific symmetrical period and days of Jesus' conception and birth. While one might argue that was improbable that there was a perfect symmetrical time of 9 months between the conception of Jesus and his birth, C.S. Lewis made a compelling observation: > You must develop a nose like a bloodhound for those steps in the > argument which depend not on historical and linguistic knowledge but > on the concealed assumption that miracles are impossible, improbable, > or improper. And this means that you must really re-educate yourself: > must work hard and consistently to eradicate from your mind the whole > type of thought in which we have all been brought up. (Miracles) A good discussion on stackexchange on the matter of whether it was appropriate for Jews to celebrate birthdays can be found here. The quote from Rabbi Mendy Kaminker, in support of Jews celebrating birthdays, is particularly relevant. The first century philosopher Plutarch writes: > ...they are those that tell us that, as the Greeks are used to > allegorize Kronos (or Saturn) into chronos (time), … Lucian of Samosata (AD 120-180) describes the festivities of *Saturnalia/Chronos*, as seven day event. Marcus Valerius Martialis in his also speaks of the *Saturnalia* being a seven day event (Epigrams, 72, Book XIV). These authors wrote prior to when the *Sol Invictus* was highlighted and celebrated as a Roman holiday in the fourth century. Changes to the Roman calendar moved the climax of *Saturnalia/Chronos* to December 25th, around the time of the date of the winter solstice. So, if December 25th was the birthday of Jesus that Mary shared with the disciples, it may very likely be a type of double entendre when the Apostle Paul writes: > ...when the fullness of time (chronos) had come, God sent forth his Son, > born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the > law,... (Galatians 4) In other words, the primal origins of Christmas can be found in a rebranding of *Saturnalia/Chronos* in line with longings of a mythical golden age coming in Jesus in terms of both time (*chronos*) and spatial (literal) history. In scanning the internet I have come across multiple references to Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: > We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the > 25th of December shall happen. - Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. > Hospinian, De origine Festorum Chirstianorum. The problem is that I can't find the original source for this quote. Has it been lost in history? If so, what are some plausible reasons on how this might have happened? In researching the background to the quote from Theophilus, the evidence so far indicates that this quote seems to be based on a fictional account created in Ireland around 600 AD. For example, see this recent research by Roger Pearse. In another line of tradition, McClellan notes that Chrysostom around 407 A.D. (Hom. in diem, natal, ii Col. 351) writes: > It is not yet ten years since this day (December 25) was made known. > Even so, it is now just as seriously observed as if it has come to us > form the the beginning...It is very plain, according to the > evangelist, that Christ was born during the first census, and in Rome > it is possible for any one to deduce, with the aid of the public > archives, when this came about. From persons who have an intimate > knowledge of the records and who still live there and who have kept > the day in accordance with an age long tradition have recently given > us this information. (McClellan, p. 407) Could a large section of the church in those days have forgotten the date of Jesus' birth so easily? If so what are some plausible explanations? Was Chrysostom somewhat limited in his information from other areas? For example, he writes in another place that the charismatic gifts ceased. Yet, other church fathers attest to their continuance. An argument for Clement (150–215 AD) of Alexandria (Stromateis 1.21.145) saying that some hold to December 25th as Jesus' birthday can be found here. The author argues that Clement's 25th day of Pachon should be interpreted along the lines how, "When viewed through the prism of the Athenian calendar, we find that the traditional date of December 25 comes forth quite naturally." Another site, here , argues that Clement held to January 6th as the birthdate of Jesus: > Can we pinpoint the date of Jesus' birth? Various ancient sources lead > us to the answer. Clement of Alexandria (again, about AD 200) says, > "From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus ...are, in all, a hundred > and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days." If we suppose that > he is using the Roman calendar, we deduce that Clement set Christ's > birth on 18 November 3 BC. But it is highly doubtful that this date, > affirmed by no other ancient source, is the one he so confidently > espouses. We arrive at a different date if we suppose that Clement, a > resident of Egypt, is using the Egyptian calendar without > intercalation. Measuring backward from Commodus' death an interval of > 194 years (each exactly 365 days), one month (thirty days), and > thirteen days brings us to 6 January 2 BC. There is also a mentioning of the December 25th by Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel (dated 202 A.D.). The quote itself, along with a textual critical approach on the reliability of this reference, can be found here. The total references, included above, push the earliest testimony of the church fathers to the date of Jesus birth on December 25th to the late 2nd century and early 3rd century. A related question can be found here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/45948/what-is-the-earliest-historical-testimony-of-the-celebration-of-the-nativity-of/45949

[The biblical description](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans#Biblical_versions) of the origin of the Samaritans is that they were moved into Samaria as part of the forced population transfer by the Assyrians after their conquest of the Kingdom of Israel. The Samaritans themselves hold that they descend from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient Samaria, and split theologically at the time of the biblical priest Eli and who remained after the Assyrian deportations. [Modern genetic studies](https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20077) support the Samaritan narrative that they descend from indigenous Israelites: > Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. What do the large Christian organisations such as the Catholic Church teach about the origins of the Samaritans?

I have read somewhere, not as a doctrinal statement but as a speculation that is not incompatible with basic Chrisian doctrine that some thinkers suggest that God created the physical universe to demonstrate to angelic (and demonic) beings what happens when created beings try living apart from God. The idea is suggested by the passages in 1 Peter 1:12 (even angels desire to look into these things) and Ephesians 3:10 (His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms). I can't locate any reference to this idea now. Can someone help me identify the name of this idea, find a reference for it, and then explain this idea more?

There is an idea in Judaism that there is/was a messiah for every generation. I have heard some people muse that it was Christ in the Garden, and so I float the idea that during the timeline in which a Messiah was needed, is it possible that Christ has come before, either as: - Just an observer. - A messiah not realized. - A messiah who failed his initial goal. And by "Possible" I mean, does the Catholic Catechism explicitly or implicitly (but apodictically) rules these ideas out as blasphemous or heretical?

Is a Catholic morally obliged to defend his reputation (against, e.g., calumny, detraction, etc.)? If so, how is he to go about defending his reputation?

While answering another question , a comment perplexed me and I cannot quite understand it. > "It was not Christ 'fulfilling the law' that saved, but him bearing the punishment for sin we all deserve, in our stead. So God's righteous punishment for sin was borne by Christ though he was sinless. **It wasn't his Passion. It was his faith unto death.**" **Which Christian faiths teach that**1 it was not the "fulfillment of the Law" & "Passion of Christ" that saved us, but instead Jesus' Faith? That is... God's Faith in God, saved us. 1**(The bolded phrase above is my Primary Question, i.e. which denomination/faiths and with what reasoning)** To my understanding God does not have Faith. Perhaps there is an alternative definition of "Faith" being used here that I am unaware of? (*Alternative thought, that might explain my confusion*) Even the faith tag on this site [says]((https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tags/faith/info)) : "Faith: Belief, trust, and loyalty **towards God**, Jesus, and the Christian religion." I've been unable to find anything online or in reference sources, because all "hits" when searching the term "God+Faith" give results about how humans should have faith in God. Not about how God has Faith.

I have encountered a guy online who insists that Christ no longer has human flesh or a human body. Sometimes he seems to say that Christ no longer has a human nature but I haven't been able to pin him down on that. This doesn't sound like any of the major heresies I'm familiar with from the first five centuries of the church and I'm wondering if it has a name; I haven't been able to find one for this and would like to research it -- and having a name would help. For what it's worth, one of his arguments is that the phrase "in the days of His flesh" in Hebrews indicates that Christ no longer has flesh. edit: This guy affirms that salvation was achieved on the Cross, and agrees that physical existence is good, but seems to regard Christ's human body as a sort of temporary tool for accomplishing redemption and thus no longer necessary. He also gives the impression that having a human body in heaven would be degrading.

This obviously varies massively between denominations and even within denominations. I am trying to assess what percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis absolutely literally (six-day creation within the last 10,000 years, Noah's global flood, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc.) as opposed to allegorically.

On The Patristics Project website there is [a blog post entitled "Patristic Universalism"](https://www.patristics.co/patristic-universalism/) , which provides quotes from twelve of the ancient Christian writers popularly known as the Church Fathers, regarding how they, among others, "either believed in the universal restoration of all things, or stated things with Universalist implications." The post goes into some definitions of universalism although this, I think, is best elucidated by references in the post's section "The Universalist Majority," which says: > In the work “De Asceticis,” St Basil allegedly states, “The mass of > men say there is to be an end to punishment and to those who are > punished.” St Augustine concurs by allegedly saying, “There are very > many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not > believe in endless torments.” The last section of the post is titled "The Divine Liturgy," towards the end of which its author offers the following (with my own emphasis [and footnote]). > Personally, I do not identify as a Universalist, so I do not want > people to get the impression I am trying to sell it, as I am merely > presenting the objective patristic data... I have my own reasons for > disagreeing... I would probably be much more zealous in my rejection > of universalism, if it were not for the liturgy making a hypocrite out > of me. I say evil people who reject God will not be saved, yet I pray > for the salvation of those same evil people who reject God even after > they die. **I have heard that there are even monks on Mount Athos who > pray for the devil.** Is it any wonder why Fr. Sergius Bulgakov✭ > arrived at such a place? Like Moses, it is the heart of love that > persistently seeks to *change God’s mind* (so to speak) to actually > give people precisely what they *don’t* deserve (Exo 32:14). This > Mosaic prayer is constantly uttered unto God by the saints on behalf > of all humanity. The two Church Fathers who are most famous (at least in the modern era) for having been universalists, namely Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, are incidentally also the ones known for having espoused the idea that not only all humanity was or would be saved by/through Christ, but that the devil and evil spirits/entities/demons in general, as *logikoi*, i.e. rational beings, are likewise beneficiaries of this aspect of God's grace. That being as radical as it appears to be when compared to the majority of Christian tradition over the course of history, I had never before encountered the yet more radical idea of praying ***for*** the devil, presumably for his salvation(?). (I don't see what other reason there could be to do this, at least as far as the most mainstream Christian views of the devil and his role are concerned.) As far as I have read, neither Origen nor Gregory mention such an idea. In the modern era there are both children and adults who have given the question serious enough thought to ask authority figures about it, based on the commandments and doctrine of loving and praying for one's enemies, as I discovered on [Billy Graham's website](https://billygraham.org/answer/should-we-pray-for-satan-so-hell-change-his-evil-ways/) , the [Catholic Answers website](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/should-i-pray-for-the-devil) and the [Answers in Genesis website](https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/satan/feedback-should-we-pray-for-satan/) . I tried to contact the cited blogger for more information on my Question but have received no response, and my research on it turned up just one hit, from the St Andrew Greek Orthodox Church in South Bend, IN, USA. It has a website with a page entitled "Satan and Demons," written by the parish's priest, the Rev. Fr. George D. Konstantopoulos, Protopresbyter, who says: > It is said that Saint Paisios used to pray for the Devil, until one > day Saint Paisios saw him laughing in a distance from his cell and I > think ridiculing the Geronda (Elder). From that day Saint Paisios > stopped praying for the repentance of the Devil, since **he understood > that it was futile** [*emphasis in original*]. Paisios of Mt Athos was a Greek Orthodox ascetic (1924–1994) who spent a good chunk of his life on Mt Athos. This is the only other reference that I have found to a monk from that mountain praying for the devil, and it is the only place I have seen this story told about Paisios. Similarly to the conclusion arrived at by the paragraph which tells the story, the aforementioned websites pretty much roundly denounce the very thought of praying for the devil, for essentially the same reason. It seems to be across the board regardless of whether the specific Christian tradition in view is Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant, none of which is surprising. But how obscure is this idea or practice, considering that, as early as Origen (200s AD), and Gregory of Nyssa (300s AD), there were Christians who did *not* dismiss out of hand the concept that the devil would or could be saved (along with all of humanity)? Is Paisios the only Mt Athos monk who ever prayed for the devil? Are there other Christians elsewhere who have gone beyond mere inquisitiveness regarding this (see the websites above) and thought to do the same in an overt manner or an "official" capacity? ---------- ✭ Sergius/Sergey Bulgakov (1871-1944) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher and economist who apparently believed in universal reconciliation or was quite hopeful about it being the destiny of humankind.

We read in Jn 19:33-34( KJV): > But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. Possible physiological reasons for the flow of blood and water include the phenomenon where the physical toll of the crucifixion and scourging caused a buildup of fluid around Jesus' heart and lungs. Going back to OT, we see in Lev 5:9: > And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering. Traditionally, the water from Jesus' pierced heart is taken as an indication that he had no blood left in the body . (A number of prayers contain the statement that Jesus shed blood to the last drop in order to atone for the sins of mankind ). In fact, John the Evangelist's narration appears to have been made with the purpose of substantiating that Jesus in deed was dead on the cross. Traditional teachings perhaps put together both the Leviticus instructions on draining of the sacrificial animal/ bird of all its blood, as well as Jn 19:34 to conclude that Jesus had shed blood to the last drop on the cross. My question is: How do Bible scholars interpret Jn 19:34 ? Inputs from experts of any denomination are welcome.

Is there clear evidence of how old was Rebecca when she married Isaac? The different options from the Jews perspective is varied: - Some sources have 3 years old and sent with a wet nurse - Around 10 years - Around 12-14 years Rebecca’s birth seems to have taken place after Isaac's sacrifice at Mount Moriah and was around the death of Abraham's wife Sarah.

This question is asked on the day that the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanna, the celebration of the new year, begins in 2024. The institution of the holiday is found in the Book of Leviticus, chapter 33: > 23 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 24 “Speak to the people of > Israel, saying, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, > you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with > blast of trumpets, a holy convocation. 25 You shall not do any > ordinary work, and you shall present a food offering to the Lord.” The gospels depict Jesus as participating in several Jewish holidays but not this one, as far as I know. Based on the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers, does this holiday figure in early Christian tradition?

When the New Testament was written1, were the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John already considered Scripture? 1 Acts - Revelation. Obviously there is overlap in when these were written (they are not included in the NT in chronological order), but were the known Gospels considered Scripture?

I understand the blood and flesh are symbolic, to some, but still, the same spiritual implications are there, I presume. Life is in the blood/it is sacred, do not consume it, Jesus' blood is a gazillion times more so, definitely drink it? Is it a contradiction?

We have in Matthew 1 the Genealogy of Jesus. Though Israel followed a patriarchal lineage, the names of five women find a place in the Genealogy. They are: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. Of course, Mary, being the Blessed Virgin Mother of Jesus, is an indispensable figure in the Genealogy. But, what is the relevance of the mentions of the other four women? Is the significance the result of a common attribute, or is it specific to each?

Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common names in the time of Jesus? If not, what were their real names and why were they changed?

I discussed with a friend about the absolute minimum required to have a mass, and I found it particularly difficult to find documentation about these requirements. The obvious one (for me at least) is a priest, or someone allowed to perform a mass. We were not clear about anything else, my friend also mentioned that a priest always wears a stole when proceeding to sacraments. Is there a documented **minimal** set of elements and people required for a mass to be held? EDIT following the comments: I was hoping for a document that states something along the lines of *"in order for a mass to be licit, it must be performed by XXX and YYY, ZZZ must be used"*.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul states the Gospel that saves: that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. I have heard multiple versions of this when people teach people how to be saved, often in these two ways: 1. believe Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again so you could be saved (no mention of the third day, just that he rose again) 2. believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again so you could be saved. Notice how the third day was not mentioned, nor the burial in the second one. Why are they omitted? If one believes in either of those two for salvation, are they still unsaved? Romans 6 seems to claim that Jesus was buried so we could be saved, too. Why would Jesus wanna make us believe in a timeframe to be saved? Yes, we should believe it, but do we have to believe the 3rd day part to BE saved?