I'm reading *St. Seraphim of Sarov: On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit (Conversation with Motovilov)* ([pdf](https://eeparchy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/05/ST.-SERAPHIM-OF-SAROV-ON-THE-ACQUISITION-OF-THE-HOLY-SPIRIT-Conversation-with-Motovilov-.pdf)) . For context: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_Sarov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Motovilov On pp. 5–6, Seraphim says (emphasis mine): > "Your Godliness deigns to think it a great happiness to talk to poor > Seraphim, believing that even he is not bereft of the grace of the > Lord. What then shall we say of the Lord Himself, the never-failing > source of every blessing both heavenly and earthly? Truly in prayer we > are granted to converse with Him, our all-gracious and life-giving God > and Savior Himself. **But even here we must pray only until God the > Holy Spirit descends on us in measures of His heavenly grace known to > Him**. **And when He deigns to visit us, we must stop praying**. Why > should we then pray to Him, 'Come and abide in us and cleanse us from > all impurity and save our souls, O Good One,' when He has already come > to us to save us, who trust in Him, and truly call on His holy Name, > that humbly and lovingly we may receive Him, the Comforter, in the > mansions of our souls, hungering and thirsting for His coming? > > "I will explain this point to your Godliness through an example. > **Imagine that you have invited me to pay you a visit, and at your invitation I come to have a talk with you**. But you continue to > invite me, saying: 'Come in, please. Do come in!' Then I should be > obliged to think: 'What is the matter with him? Is he out of his > mind?' > > "So it is with regard to our Lord God the Holy Spirit. That is why it > is said: Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the > nations. I will be exalted in the earth (Ps. 45:10). **That is, I > will appear and will continue to appear to everyone who believes in Me > and calls upon Me, and I will converse with him as once I conversed > with Adam in Paradise, with Abraham and Jacob and other servants of > Mine, with Moses and Job, and those like them.** > > Many explain that this stillness refers only to worldly matters; in > other words, that during prayerful converse with God you must 'be > still' with regard to worldly affairs. But I will tell you in the name > of God that not only is it necessary to be dead to them at prayer, but > **when by the omnipotent power of faith and prayer our Lord God the Holy** > **Spirit condescends to visit us, and comes to us in the plenitude of** > **His unutterable goodness**, we must be dead to prayer too. > > "The soul speaks and converses during prayer, **but at the descent of > the Holy Spirit** we must remain in complete silence, in order to hear > clearly and intelligibly all the words of eternal life which he will > then deign to communicate. Complete soberness of soul and spirit, and > chaste purity of body is required at the same time. The same demands > were made at Mount Horeb, when the Israelites were told not even to > touch their wives for three days before the appearance of God on Mount > Sinai. For our God is a fire which consumes everything unclean, and no > one who is defiled in body or spirit can enter into communion with > Him." As I understand it, Seraphim describes prayer as "inviting" the Holy Spirit, and teaches that when the Spirit "visits" in a special way, one should cease speaking (even cease verbal prayer) and attend in silence to what God communicates. This sounds mystical/contemplative, and also resembles some Pentecostal/charismatic language about experiencing the Spirit's presence. How do Protestants generally evaluate this kind of pursuit? Specifically: - Do Protestants believe Christians should *seek* special "visitations" or intensified experiences of the Holy Spirit during prayer, beyond the Spirit's ordinary indwelling? - Would Protestants agree with the idea that, when such a visitation occurs, one should stop speaking and listen in silence for communication from the Spirit? - Are there particular Protestant traditions (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal/charismatic) that would affirm or reject this, and on what biblical/theological grounds?

On page 145 of [*Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi*](https://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/items/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi.pdf) , we find the following sentence: >"IV. Fly from creatures, if thou desirest to possess creatures." QUESTION: What does St. Francis of Assisi mean by this quote? --- The context is: > ## FAVOURITE SENTENCES OF THE HOLY FATHER ST. FRANCIS.‡ > > - I. THESE are the weapons by which the chaste soul is overcome: looks, speeches, touches, embraces. > - II. He who retires into the desert avoids three combats: seeing, hearing, and detraction. > - III. Beloved, in this vale of misery may you possess nothing so fair and so delightful that your soul would be entirely occupied with it. > - IV. Fly from creatures, if thou desirest to possess creatures. > - V. Fly from the world, if thou wilt be pure. If thou art pure, the world does not delight thee.† > - VI. Fly, keep silence, and be quiet. > - VII. If thou excusest thyself, God will accuse thee; and if thou accusest thyself, God will excuse thee. > - VIII/ He is not perfectly good who cannot be good among the wicked. > - IX. Temptation, when it is not consented to, is matter for the exercise of virtue, > - X. Love makes all heavy things light, and all bitter things sweet. > - XI. The love of God is never idle. > - XII. Rich clothing and sumptuous dwellings, eating, drinking, sleep, and idleness, enervate men, and foster luxury. > - XIII. When I say 'Hail Mary,' the heavens smile, the angels rejoice, the world exults, hell trembles, the devils fly. > - XIV. As wax melts before the heat of the fire, and dust is scattered by the wind, so the whole army of the evil spirits is dispersed by the invocation of the holy Name of Mary. > - XV. Let every creature become more despicable to the heart, that the Creator may become more sweet. > > ‡ These *Sentences* were frequently used by St. Francis in instructing his Brethren. Some are his own, others are taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or composed according to their doctrine. > > † The play upon the words is lost in the translation. 'Fuge *mundum*, si vis esse *mundus*. Si tu es *mundus*, jam non delectat te *mundus*.'

Matthew 1:23 uses the word [G3933 - parthenos](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3933/kjv/tr/0-1/) . Thayer's Greek Lexicon says it can mean: - a virgin. - a marriageable maiden, or a young (married) woman. He is quoting Isaiah 7:14, which uses the word [H5959 - ʿalmâ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5959/kjv/wlc/0-1/) . This Hebrew word is defined as: - young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Almost all English translations render it as "virgin". Whether it's "virgin", "maid", "marriageable maiden", "newly married", or whatever, it really doesn't make much difference, as Matthew clearly provides the detail that *is* significant: - 1:18 "*with child of the Holy Ghost*". - 1:20 "*that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost*". It's obvious why the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox) would want "virgin" to be the translation, but why do any other Christian denominations care about it? --- # Note that this is not asking about the Roman/Orthodox position, nor is it asking for what the "correct" translation is. (Yes, I know it's bad form to shout like that, but too many people don't seem to notice it otherwise.) It is asking why *non-Catholic* denominations also seem to believe the "virgin" translation is important and significant. It is similar to, but not a duplicate of [*Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2414/why-was-it-necessary-for-mary-to-be-a-virgin) , as that was too broadly scoped, and was doctrinal rather than about translation.

In apocalyptic works, such as Revelation or the later chapters of Daniel, there is often vivid imagery meant to symbolize other things, especially real-world events (either historical or future). Given the cryptic nature of such passages, they are often the subject of many diverse and conflicting interpretations. One of the most famous such disputes is over the 1000-year period in Revelation 20, which most premillennialists and some postmillennialists take a literal duration of time for the described period, while others take the length of time as symbolic. **My question is whether there is precedent for a vision containing of a definite period of time, where the duration is clearly intended by the author to be taken nonliterally.** As far as I am aware, there is no passage in the biblical apocalyptic texts which mentions a definite period of time such that Christians *uncontroversially* interpret the duration nonliterally. However, I am largely unfamiliar with extra biblical apocalyptic literature. There is a lot of it preserved from the intertestamental period and first couple of centuries AD, but of this the only portions I read are the Septuagint's additions to Esther and the Shepherd of Hermas. **I am looking for any example of an apocalyptic book with these three properties:** 1. Has a definite period of time described in the vision, i.e. with a number and a clear unit, such as "1000 years" or "42 months", or whatever number and unit of time; 2. The intended meaning of that definite period of time is made explicit somewhere in the book. (If there is an alternative means by which the intended meaning could be clear and uncontested, that would also be acceptable); 3. The length of time of the real period of time does not correspond to the time period given in the vision. I am especially interested to see any example where there isn't a correspondence of one unit of time with another, such as days in the vision equally years in real life. (Such a book, of course, ought to be one which might be found in a Christian context, i.e. either written by Christians for Christians or originating from intertestamental Judaism.) Something that isn't a period of time being used for a period of time is not what I am looking for, such as the cows representing years in Genesis 41:3-4. However, it would be a valid example if a time interval were symbolic for something nontemporal, such as 7 years in the vision representing 7 cows in real life.

The Baltimore Catechism says: > "God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next." Many Catholics have this ingrained in their brains, even if they've forgotten the other 500 things in the Catechism. What do all other denominations who have catechisms (i.e. Westminster Catechism) consider the meaning of life to be in their catechisms?

In both the **Roman Catholic** and **Eastern Orthodox** traditions, the first seven Ecumenical Councils are regarded as being guided by the Holy Spirit, and their dogmatic definitions (the Creeds) are considered infallible. The Catholic catechism states: > *The **infallibility** promised to the Church **is also present in the body of bishops when**, together with Peter's successor, **they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.** When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." **This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself**.* The Eastern Orthodox view is the following: > *The Church venerates the **Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils** because Christ has established them as “lights upon the earth,” guiding us to the true Faith. “Adorned with the robe of truth,” the doctrine of the Fathers, based upon the preaching of the Apostles, has established one faith for the Church. The Ecumenical Councils, are the highest authority in the Church. **Such Councils**, **guided by** the grace of **the Holy Spirit**, and accepted by the Church, **are infallible**.* However, a direct comparison between the original Creed of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) reveals what appears to be a reversal of technical terminology.

The Anathema of "hypostasis"

The original 325 Creed concluded with a series of anathemas. The final clause states: > *"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not'... or that the > Son of God is of a different **hypostasis** (ὑποστάσεως) or substance > (οὐσίας)... the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes."* In 325, ***hypostasis*** was synonymous with ***ousia*** (essence). To claim the Son was a different hypostasis than the Father was a mark of Arianism. Yet, by the Council of 381, this anathema was removed, and "Orthodoxy" began to require the confession of three hypostases (the Cappadocian formula). ---------- If these Creeds are ***infallible*** and ***Spirit-led***, how do theologians address the following: - **The Problem of Reversal:** How can a document be "infallible" if a later council must remove an anathema and adopt the very terminology (***different hypostases***) that was previously condemned? - **The Problem of Anachronism:** If the definition of hypostasis was "refined" or changed in 381, then it seems anachronistic to read these later technical distinctions back into the 325 Council, or even into the Biblical text itself. Does this imply that "Orthodoxy" is a moving target of vocabulary rather than a static "deposit of faith"? I am looking for answers that cite reputable theologians regarding how the Church maintains the "immutability" of truth while essentially "correcting" or radically expanding its infallible formulas.

If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

The Book of Enoch mentions Gadreel as one of the Watchers, but the specific claim that Gadreel led Eve astray appears in 1 Enoch 69:6. Here's the passage from the Book of Enoch that mentions Gadreel: #### 1 Enoch 69:6 (from the Ethiopic text): >"And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men." This passage suggests that Gadreel was responsible for leading Eve astray, which contrasts with the Genesis account where the serpent is the one who tempts Eve. #### Context of the Passage - In 1 Enoch, the Watchers are fallen angels who descended to Earth and corrupted humanity. They taught forbidden knowledge to humans, including how to make weapons of war, astrology, and the "secrets" of the heavens. - The reference to Gadreel is part of a broader narrative that associates the Watchers with the downfall of humankind, which includes the temptation of Eve. This is a key divergence from the canonical Genesis story where it is explicitly the serpent (often identified with Satan) who deceives Eve. The role of Gadreel in this context highlights the Book of Enoch's unique interpretation of the fall, is this the reason why it was excluded from the Bible, as it conflicts with the established narrative in canonical texts.

If Moses was of the tribe of Levi from both parents Exodus 2:1-3, and he never lived in Judah/Judea, in what way was he a Jew/Judean G2453 or "Jewish"? I have an understanding based on crystal clear scripture, and I've been told it's a false interpretation, so I am here looking for actual experts who can offer sound scholarship. Any takers?

In my country, the dominant religion promotes astrology a lot. But I have heard that it is a sin in Christianity. I was very stressed lately and spent a lot of money on astrologers. I never got any reasonable answers. I have been in serious trouble earlier in life due to guidance by astrologers. The origins of astrology are extremely dubious! Why is astrology considered a sin in Christianity?

> Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the > Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God > said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” Genesis 3:1 > (NET) I'm wondering what precisely was Satan's motivation to deceive Eve into disobeying God. I'm assuming the answer is in the context provided in the previous two chapters of Genesis, for example: > Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our > likeness, **so they may rule** over the fish of the sea and the birds of > the air, over the cattle, and **over all the earth**, and over all the > creatures that move on the earth.” Genesis 1:26 (NET) I'm thinking it's mostly related to man's authority over the earth - perhaps Satan saw an opportunity to have his own domain, and to rule it using the authority God had delegated to man, thus he usurped their authority. But there's some problems with this: - The authority to rule over the earth was only given to mankind. Satan didn't have a physical, human body (he wasn't mankind), so how was he planning to wield this authority? - Since the Bible does not describe a rebellion of satan prior to Eden, I'm assuming that satan's attempt to deceive Eve was actually his first rebellion against God... So, as described in Ezekiel 28:13-19, satan already held a high rank in God's kingdom as a cherub before he rebelled. What was so enticing about having authority over tiny planet Earth in God's universe compared to being so close to Yahweh and already having a certain amount of delegated authority as a cherub? That doesn't make sense to me (to forfeit so much to gain what Adam and Eve had). If anyone has a similar or different take on **what exactly satan's primary motivation to deceive Eve was** I'm interested to read it and learn from it (please base your answer on Scripture references and not personal opinion). Also, in my two bullets points I was only sharing my current thoughts about it - don't feel the need to engage with them if they are not related to your answer.

I often have problems with the Apostle's Creed due to its inclusion of the resurrection of the body and the "virginity" of Mary - things that are (to my knowledge) debatable. I found another creed which is much more metaphorical in the small brochure in a prayer/Song book, but I forgot to photograph it. What (other) widely accepted creeds are there, that do not suppose Mary's virginity or bodily resurrection, and would it be acceptable to use them instead of the Apostle's Creed in a Lutheran church service in Germany?

The reason I ask is because we have already conceived. So at that point does it matter that it is not vaginal?

The Catholic Church has four Marian Dogmas and claims that the Church was guided and its teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit. CCC95 says, > It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. *Pastor aeternus* teaches that the Pope is guided by the charism of the Holy Spirit and upheld infallibility in proclaiming Church Dogma. > We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. — [Pastor aeternus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_aeternus) How come the Protestant and Christian denominations or Bible alone believers who oppose these Dogmas claim that they are also guided by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit that guided the Catholic Church in proclaiming the Marian Dogmass the same Holy Spirit that were inspiring Protestant and Christian denominations to oppose it? How can the Protestant defend themselves on this obvious contradiction, knowing fully that there are no Protestant pastors and believers who can claim infallibility in their scripture interpretations?

I’ve been considering the problem of divine hiddenness and the problem of evil, and I’ve have come up with a sort of war strategy explanation. We know that intellectual belief in God doesn’t necessarily make a person good, or “save” them. In fact, The bible makes it clear that demons, and the devil, intellectually believe in God; but they are in rebellion against God: making them enemies of God. This brings me to the problem of evil, where many people argue that if God were good: he would act differently. Implying that if God exists, he is not good (or he is weak) and that morally inclined humans know better than God. Implicit in the problem of evil is this form of rebellious misotheism and/or hubris where you believe that you know better than God. If God were to reveal himself to a person while they hold on to hubris, and/or misotheistic beliefs: he would likely create a rebellious human enemy, not a faithful believer. Taking this into consideration, we shouldn’t be surprised when God doesn’t reveal himself to people who reference philosophical issues like the problem of evil; I’m sure there are exceptions, but it seems to me that someone would have to show a willingness to drop any tendencies of hubris and/or misotheistic beliefs before they expect any sort of revelation from God.

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. **Esther 9:28** says the celebration of Purim will never end: > These days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every family, province, and city, and these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews, nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (*Summa Theologica* q. 35 a. 6 ), Ludwig Ott (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (*Mariology* pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others. Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism. She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches. She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass. There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God. In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7451/where-does-the-catholic-tradition-that-mary-did-not-have-pain-giving-birth-to-je?noredirect=1#comment225832_7451) , included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined . This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity. In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity. Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition. The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth. It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child. If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?