For the beginnings of an explanation regarding the correlation between Holy Mass and the Book of Revelation, one may see Scott Hahn's article here: [*The Apocalyptic Mass*](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-apocalyptic-mass) . The same author also has published a book called "The Lamb's Supper (The Mass Explained as Heaven on Earth)." The book is described here: [*The Lamb's Supper*](https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591) . The said book is written in a very popular style and it uses a lot of personal pronouns. I am hoping to obtain, if such exists, a much more rigorous theological treatise on the subject. QUESTION: Does anyone know of any much older books or theological treatises written perhaps by any of the ancient Fathers or Catholic Saints which have attempted to explain the connection between the Catholic Mass and the biblical Book of Revelation?

It is a win-win situation if Hell is destroyed. So what about praying to God to destory Hell so that all Mankind will enter paradise. So is it wrong to pray to God to remove the Hell and judgement and pray to God to give highest paradise for all human kind?

Recently I learned that there are those who teach the pre-existence of human souls. What is the biblical understanding of the pre-existence of the human soul? Is there any biblical basis for this belief?

One of the implications of the [New Perspective on Paul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul) (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in [Galatians 2:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+2%3A16&version=ESV) , for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law. This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation. One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law. For example, [Romans 3:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+3%3A20&version=ESV) : > For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV) Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise. But to me an even stronger passage appears to be [Galatians 3:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+3%3A10&version=ESV) : > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV) Here, quoting [Leviticus 18:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A5&version=ESV) , Paul's use of "*all* things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to *some*, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc. Thus, the question: **How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?**

According to [*Britannica*](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Apostolic-Father) : > *Apostolic Father*, any of the Greek Christian writers, several unknown, who were authors of early Christian works dating primarily from the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Their works are the principal source for information about Christianity during the two or three generations following the Apostles.... > The Apostolic Fathers include St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, Hermas, St. Barnabas, Papias, and the anonymous authors of the Didachē (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), Letter to Diognetus, Letter of Barnabas, and Martyrdom of Polycarp. In Matt. 16:18 (D-R), it is written: > And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. QUESTION: What did the (or at least some of) the Apostolic Fathers have to say about the meaning of "the gates of hell" in this verse? *Remark:* I may be wrong, but Matt. 16:18 might be the only place where "gates of hell" is directly mentioned in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, however, it (or something very much like it) is found on multiple occasions e.g., (from the *Douay-Rheims*): > I said: In the midst of my days I shall go to the gates of hell: I sought for the residue of my years. *(Is. 38:10)* --- with the gloss adding: *"Hell": Sheol, or Hades, the region of the dead.* > Their soul abhorred all manner of meat: and they drew nigh even to the gates of death. *(Ps. 107:18; see also verses 10, 14)* > Have mercy on me, O Lord: see my humiliation which I suffer from my enemies. Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may declare all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion. *(Ps. 9:14-15)* Thank you.

Judas Iscariot committed suicide when he realized the evil that he had done. > Matthew 27:3-5 (KJV) > > **3** Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, >
**4** Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. >
**5** And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. The passage in Matthew shows that Judas hanged himself, but Acts 1 says something else: > Acts 1:18-19 (KJV) > > **18** Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. >
**19** And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Are these two passages contradictory? How did Judas die?

This question states: >Lucifer and God both have a son. I was un-aware of this belief. Minor googling shows that it may be a belief, but it isn't very clear as there looks to be lots of fiction sources-in that people write books with a Satan/Lucifer character with son/relationship. Where does this belief stem from? Do any denominations teach this? How could Satan even have a son, as my understanding is that he does not have a physical body (or is this a spirit/demon only son)?

**No Christian can claim that the fact they believe or have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour is a full-proof barrier against committing sin going forward.** Many discussions I have encountered on this forum take the view that Old Testament animal sacrifices and repentance were inneffectual and would not reduce the propensity to sin (they had become routine, repetitive, and "religious"). **If faith/belief in Jesus doesn’t stop one from sinning again, in what way is it better than or different from Old Testament animal sacrifice coupled with repentance?** **Many great men and women of the Old Testament times are recorded in scripture as having highly intimate and powerful relationships with God; so it can not be true that it was impossible to have a personal relationship with God under the belief system of those times.** If even Christians who have accepted Jesus as their personal saviour can fall into sin and repent; **is the advantage of the "new regime" only in the fact that we don't have to spend money buying sacrificial animals?**

The idea that Christ is of one divino-human nature.

We know from the Bible that fornication is a sin: > **Acts 15:20** But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. > > **1st Corinthians 6:18** Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. > > **1st Corinthians 7:2** Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. > > **1st Thessalonians 4:3** For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: At present, the Catholic Church believes that [premarital sex is fornication](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2353) : > 2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young. But has this always been the case? According to [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7687/62012) : > Fornication has changed its meaning since 1611, so reading its definition in a modern English dictionary does little good. In 1611, fornication meant prostitution (as abundantly proven ad infinitum on the "goldenrule" website) and was a perfect translation of "porneia", which is the activity of porné, or prostitutes. So a key question here is how has the word fornication changed its meaning in the course of history. Is there any evidence to support the theory that perhaps at some point in its history, fornication did not mean premarital sex for the Catholic Church?

I'm wondering where the doctrine of the trinity comes from, and I've only found that it stems from both Hellenistic philosophy (Platonism through Philo and Origen) and Babylonian polytheism (Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz). It doesn't make sense for a triune god to be monotheistic. Has anyone else ever questioned its origins and come to a different understanding? Please let me know. I am specifically looking for instances of it in the Tanakh. (I am not looking for verses that have scribal errors)

I was debating with my Muslim friend on the immorality of Mohammad marrying Aisesha at an incredibly young age (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134), in which he responded that nowhere in the Bible does it give an age of consent or when someone reaches adulthood. Are there any Bible verses which give an age of consent or tell us when someone reaches adulthood?

## Background The Hebrew bible and New Testament make numerous references to the concept of marriage (Exodus 21:10; Genesis 2:24) and even include stories involving weddings such as the famous Wedding at Cana . The NT also includes numerous commands for married couples such as Ephesians 5:22-33. However neither the Hebrew bible nor NT define what is involved in getting married, or what constitutes a wedding. In contrast, Jewish laws of *kiddushin* describe three ways a marriage can occur: sexual intercourse, a legal document, or the exchange of money . ## Question How have Protestants as *Sola Scriptura* proponents defined the boundaries of acceptable weddings without a corresponding biblical definition? Do they rely wholly on the state? How do they define when a couple is religiously considered married?

Of late, it has become a rule rather than exception to celebrate Holy Mass along with the Sacrament of Matrimony, in many places. It is beneficial on Sundays for the invitees who may come from far off places. But, with back-to-back Services to cater to increased number of the faithful, many churches do not allow marriage on Sundays. That puts additional burden on weekdays on churches which may have to accommodate too many number of weddings combined with Holy Mass, each running into hours. Moreover, with inter-faith marriages increasing in frequency, it becomes a matter of worry for the Celebrant to ' convince' non-Catholics (and sometimes Non-Christians) who come forward to receive Holy Communion. It is also not clear if the Holy Mass can be interluded with the prayers of Sacrament of Matrimony, with the Celebrant digressing from the Missal here and there to insert prayers ' suitable to the special occasion' My question is : What are the rules of Catholic Church on celebration of Holy Mass along with the administration of Sacrament of Matrimony ?

Dreams & visions - how do Christians discern between genuine dreams & visions from God and false dreams & visions from a different source (flesh, enemy)? Are there any denominations that teach how to tell the difference between the two? ___ Relevant passages: > 16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: > > 17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, **and your young men shall see visions**, **and your old men shall dream dreams**; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 20 the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ > > (Acts 2:16-21 ESV)​ > 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. **The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure**.” (Daniel 2:45 ESV) > 10 **And when Paul had seen the vision**, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16:10 ESV)

According to [*Index of Prohibited Books*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum) , all of the works of Thomas Hobbes were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in the year 1649. Thomas Hobbes wrote many more books after 1649, including his magum opos, *Leviathan,* which was published in 1651. (Hobbes died in 1679.) QUESTION: Does the aforementioned list really contain *all* of the works of Hobbes, or just those, perhaps, that were published by 1649? Is it possible that when the list displayed by the above Wiki link indicates "all books," it really means the author himself; e.g., *David Hume* who died after the year of of his books were banned? In the case of Hobbes, I am most interested in determining whether or not his *Leviathan* was actually banned. Thank you.

Can anyone confirm wether this hadith is sahih or not, if so wouldn't it be very similar to the 7 year covenant of the antichrist with the Jews that's mentioned in Daniel 9:27 "4.5 Al- Mahdi’s Treaty With Romans According to various Islamic theological sources, al-Mahdi is said to be one who will initiate Islam’s fourth and final treaty between the “Romans” and the Muslims. Al-Mahdi will make this treaty for a period of seven years! In a Hadith, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “There will be four peace agreements between you and the Romans. The fourth will be mediated through a person who will be from the progeny of Hazrat Aaron (the brother of Moses) and will be upheld for seven years. The people asked, “O Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who will be the Imam (leader) of the people at that time?” The Prophet said: “He will be from my progeny and will be exactly forty years of age. His face will shine like a star” (Tabarani, as related by Hadrat Abu Umamah, as quoted by Zubair Ali,2004, p. 43).It appears that the period of this seven year peace agreement will likewise be the period of the Mahdi’s reign."

John 14:6: Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me..” **A Jewish professor that I know argues that this statement is true for all prophets concerning the people they were sent to. That a critical misunderstanding has led Christians to imagine the statement is only true for Jesus. He asserts that Noah was the way, the truth, and the life for his people. Those who didn't believe in him perished in the flood.** In the same way, he says Moses was the way, the truth, and the life for the Israelites when he was their leader/prophet (he cites the passover and says any family that refused to obey Moses would have lost a firstborn). According to him, Jesus cannot be *the way*, *the truth*, and *the life* for the people of Noah and Moses when those people were not obligated to believe in him. He cites Hebrews 1:1: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways" He also cites Jeremiah 21:8; Malachi 2:6-7; Malachi 2:8-9; Proverbs 12:28; Proverbs 19:23; and Proverbs 11:19 as evidence that those who followed the prophets were righteous, and the right way of life. How do I rebut this, with references and wisdom?

I've been looking more and more into the Church of later day saints. I'm obviously not a member, but I am curious about them all the same. My question is about how it appears as if the majority of their answers regarding the first vision* or their angel Moroni are sourced from those entities themselves. Edit: *The first vision as far as I know was experienced only by Joseph Smith. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91367/how-do-christians-discern-between-genuine-dreams-visions-from-god-and-false-dr I saw this answer regarding how the LDS are supposed to determine if a vision, angel, etc is from good or evil. And I agree that if the original source was valid, it would all be okay. But from my understanding all the sources listed by the LDS answer are in and of themselves from the beliefs delivered by Moroni or aligned with them in new teachings. How does an LDS believer know these teachings are valid in the first place and not trick? (Or is this the faith part?) Edit: For clarity, I'm not asking for the current teachings of the LDS, I'm asking how is the basis of the LDS faith confirmed as "divine" before their teachings confirmed it? For example: An angel gives you a special book, the book says the angel is definitely not evil. (A proves B, B proves A) How do you prove the source is valid without using the source's own claim?

Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even after marrying Joseph. It would seem that Joseph and Mary, at their betrothal, had likely expected to have, and anticipated having marital relations with each other in marriage. So, according to Roman Catholic teaching, when and how did Mary and Joseph learn that marital relations would be denied them? Did they just never desire that, or did they specifically have to battle the temptation? It admittedly seems strange to me that this would be withheld from them. Is it even right to say they were not supposed to have marital relations? Or should it be said that they never even desired that?