[*Britannica* article on Calvinism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Calvinism) states > Calvin had certain approximate and attainable tests. He did not > require the experience of the new birth, which is so inward and > intangible, though to be sure later Calvinism moved away from him on > this point and agonized over the signs of election. For Calvin there > were three tests: the profession of faith; a rigorously disciplined > Christian deportment; and a love of the sacraments, which meant the > Lord’s Supper, since infant baptism was not to be repeated. Persons > who could meet these three tests could assume their election and stop > worrying If Christ chose Judas to be a disciple, and if Christ is part of the Trinitarian Godhead being all-knowing and omnipotent... According to Calvinism, how is it that Christ elected Judas Iscariot to discipleship, one of Christ's inner circle, only to be betrayed by him? Calvinists would say Jesus predetermined Judas election to the discipleship because the Bible records he chose him. Because God chose Judas, is not a disciple predetermined to be saved? What happened in this example?

I stumbled across the wikipedia article for a sedevacantist, schismatic Catholic group called the Palmarian Catholic Church which states that this group > has also declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith I don't really know whether I should be shocked, outraged, amused or curious, but I'll go with curious. Would anyone happen to know the theological justification for the dogma of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

Jesus is "fully God" & "fully man". Jesus (the man) is made up of body+spirit(+soul). Jesus (God) is a spirit. Which of these "natures" died for us, considering that: 1. Jesus (divine/God) does not die. So (divine) Jesus did not die. 2. The Soul+spirit of Jesus ("fully man") did not die. Our spirits do not "die" with our bodies & Jesus (man) was sinless (his soul was fine) 3. The body of Jesus ("fully man") is just a vessel/container without life of its own (when the "immortal" spirit is taken out). NOTES/EDITS: My question goes beyond just the issue of whether Jesus as a human can die and still be God. I "consider" the "two persons/natures" ("fully God" and "fully man") to understand not whether God can die, but even in what sense Jesus (fully man") died; given that his spirit and soul never died, and his physical (human) body never had a life of its own separate from the human spirit.

Many years ago I read that according to their records, it took the Temple two years to interview all the dead that were raised at the Crucifixion. Two of these people were rabbis or priests, a father and son who had both died within the previous six months, and were thus well known to the Temple staff. It then seemed to me this would be why Christianity would grow like wildfire, but I cannot find the source for this, and I have been looking for years. The Gospel of St. Mathew has this to say about those who rose from the dead on Good Friday. > Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; **and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.** Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. (Matthew 27: 50-54 ) Is anyone familiar with this interviewing story?

It is claimed that Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit are equals and each is God in their own right. But God (the father) gives orders to the other two and they DO HIS WILL. Nevertheless, Christianity seems to emphasise Jesus as the Key "person" in the "Godhead" in view of the roles he has. IS GOD THE FATHER RETIRED? WHAT IS HIS ROLE IN THE GENERAL SCHEME of things?

In the Roman-Catholic Church, the earliest writings that explicitly mention the seven sacraments come from Peter Lombard’s “Setences”. I am curious what are the earliest reference in Eastern-Orthodoxy towards these sacraments and if the Catholic Church had an influence in the development of these terms, on Estern-Orthodoxy.

We see St Paul telling the faithful in Romans 11:24 (NRSVCE): > For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. In terms of Botany, it is usually the refined plant's shoot that gets grafted on the wild plant (which is physically sturdy) so that it may grow up as healthy branch of the refined plant. For instance, shoot of rose-plant of big yellow-colored flower grafted on wild rose which otherwise produces white -colored small flowers, will grow up to produce yellow flowers. Was the method of grafting adopted in Biblical times different ? Or, was it that St Paul was not aware of the right method of grafting ? Or, was it possible that he wanted to bring home to the Romans a great spiritual truth at the cost of factual accuracy in day-to-day horticultural knowledge ? My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, does St Paul compromise his knowledge of horticulture in Romans 11:24 ?

I managed to find only this: > "Attention will first be given to certain Biblical statements which teach the true deity of Jesus Christ, but which are not given proper consideration by the sect. The passages will be quoted according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ own translation of the New Testament, The New World Translation. > 1. The Apostle Thomas addressed the risen Lord Jesus Christ with a confession of his deity when he said, “My Master 12 and my God!” (John > 20:28). If Jesus were not truly divine as God is divine, Thomas erred > seriously in thus adoring him as God. Furthermore, if his Apostle had > been in error, it is passing strange that Jesus made no effort to > correct him. In fact, Jesus is represented not only as accepting such > an open ascription of deity, 13 but as commending all those who share > Thomas’s faith (verse 29, “Jesus said to him: ‘Because you have seen > me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet > believe.’”)". ("The Jegovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical > and Theological Appraisal", 1953. > https://bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html) But this quote is very old. Can someone help me to find a newer one? Thank you in advance.

According to mainstream Christians, is it lawful for a born-again male Christian to wear an ear ring? The Bible seems to have warned against this practice through a letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth. *1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV)* > Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, **nor effeminate**, nor abusers of themselves with mankind It seems as if this is a warning to all male Christians to avoid effeminate habits which includes wearing ear rings and other behaviors associated with women, is that enough for male Christians who behave that way?

Many of the plagues God sent upon the Egyptians involved crazy miracles like turning the Nile into blood or turning sand into gnats. Are there any interpretations that say that the final curse (death of the firstborn) involved the firstborn sons of Egypt being transformed into cats? Is it possible to interpret the Hebrew verb "to slay" as "to turn into an animal"? It's not inconsistent with the rest of the plagues of Egypt, and the Egyptians were known for worshipping cats after all...

I was raised interdenominational. When I was little, I noticed that some people said Jesus was God, but others said he was the 'Son of God', aka a distinct person. I asked my mother about this, which was correct. She told me that some believed one, and some believed the other, but no one knew who was right. That's true interdenominational right there. Due to the conflicting messages, I ended up with a hybrid view. God and Jesus are distinct, but God and The Holy Spirit are one in the same. To me, Jesus was essentially a high-ranking divine being above angels, second only to God himself. He was divine, and very important, but he was not The Father. He was the sacrifice, and the intermediary between God and humans. I even recall reading an NDE once where a person claimed they saw Jesus debate their case with God, because Jesus knew one thing that God never could; what it was like to be human. Since then though, I've gotten the impression that this is rare. Mormons believe it I know, but people seem to treat this as odd, which always came across as weird to me. Recently I saw a video by The Cynical Historian talking about the history of the Unitarians. They believe that God and Jesus are distinct, but he seemed to talk about them like this was unique to them. Is this not as common as I was lead to believe? The people in my area who have some rather unorthodox beliefs. The prosperity gospel is popular even with sects that aren't normally associated with it. Despite living in a Christian community, I've never met a priest. All churches are fully independent with only a preacher leading the whole operation, even if most of them claim allegiance to one sect or the other. Also, the preacher of my first church may secretly have been a Mormon, seriously (he made a claim once I couldn't find in the bible anywhere, but years later I found out was a distinctly Mormon belief!) Has a poll ever been done? What is the history of the two positions? As for me, I had a lot of other far more odd beliefs than just that. Its clear I was never a run-of-the-mill Christian. Also, I haven't been Christian since my mid teens, so what do I know? Adult Christianity seriously comes across as odd to me. When I was little, it was just short stories and listening to a preacher talk about stuff I couldn't understand. Also, quite a few Christian videos on youtube come across as heretical to me! Such as one showing Jesus creating Adam rather than God.

If a husband seeks an annulment and it is denied, but the wife dies after the annulment is denied, is he then free to remarry in the Catholic Church?

In writing down her visions of the Creation and Fall of Man and of all Biblical events, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich mentions a Prophet Mountain from where she has seen Paradise, she writes. Is this a mountain in/near Jerusalem? Which mountain is or may be meant? She mentions Mount Olivet later on.

I was raised Christian, but abandoned my faith in my teens due to ridicule from atheists. I've tried multiple times to return in my adult life, but honestly I just couldn't accept what was required of me. If I became one of the local sects, I would have to become a homophobic Trump-supporting evangelical. I've been trying to read the bible for myself, so I can finally know for myself what it actually says. Its quite a lengthy text btw. However, would this really be enough for me to become Christian again? The main problem I've been having is I don't know what I would be allowed to do anymore. If you trust the internet, you're pretty much not allowed to do anything unless it constitutes worshiping god, seriously. I look up any question, from video games to Halloween, I just find extremist content saying its wrong. I realize I'll have to change, yes, but how to change? Besides, there's also the issue that I don't want to become a bigoted extremist. I know not all Christians are like that, but finding their opinions seems nigh impossible. As I've said, I look up anything on the internet I just find extremist content essentially claiming that you have to be an old-school puritan minus the dress.

Let's go through it and number the issues with the order of creation. Some issues are with science (I mark with an S), but others are actually apparent even to an ancient reader, within the text itself (I mark with a T) ## Day One 1(S). The Heavens and the Earth are created first. In science, though, Earth is a planet that seems to have been formed long after the sun and much of the Universe. In Genesis 1-5, we read that G-d created light on the first day, before the sun. This matches what we know from science (since the sun is a star that began to exist later). 2(T). However, "evening and morning" are happening without the sun and the moon. Did ancient Israelites believe that the light is not coming from the sun itself? ## Second Day In genesis 1-6 we read that the Raqiya (expanse?) was created, which separates waters below from the waters above. Then 7-10 we see the Yabasha (Dry Land) be created. 3(S). There does not seem to be any "firmament" so Raqiya could refer to an expanse of air, perhaps. Is this how ancient Israelites understood the "hydrologic cycle"? 4(T). Raqiya and Yabasha are named Heaven and Earth, but they were already mentioned in the first verse. So now they are finally made? The verb is "Yaase" when the Raqiya is being made the second time. And when the Dry Land is named Earth refers to something different than the first time. But the first time, Earth is being described as being formless. ## Third Day Plants appear, without the sun, on the third day. 5(S). How can plants exist without photosynthesis? Was there some kind of other mechanism by which plants could arise? Trees, for example, grow by sunlight from the atmosphere sequestering carbon after it is separated from the oxygen, and this carbon adds to the mass of the tree . 6(T). In Genesis 2, the plants have not yet even come up by day 6, so Rashi resolves this by saying they were under the ground. Perhaps they were not yet "made", but the verb is "Totze", the Earth "brought forth" the trees. ## Fourth Day Finally, the sun and the moon are made. And all the stars. 7(S). In science, the stars are massive (some much more massive than the sun), and many would predate the Sun and the Earth. ## Fifth Day Fish, great sea monsters, and Birds are created. ## Sixth Day Finally, all the beasts, cattle and creeping things of the Earth are created. 8(S) From the fossil record, it seems that birds were created after land animals. However, here we could have something really interesting, as birds trace their lineage to the dinosaurs, while the "modern" beasts and cattle are warm-blooded animals that perhaps appeared later. But we have fossils of warm-blooded animals 200 million years ago, while pterosaur fossils go back to 170 million years ago. Can someone please answer the S questions with respect to today's understanding, and T questions with respect to mainstream historical traditional understanding of the issues within the text?

When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, He gave them this model commonly known as the Lord's Prayer. > Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, **and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.** And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Mathew 6:9-13 ESV In it, we are to ask God to forgive our debts "as we also have forgiven our debtors". The parallel passage in Luke is similar, but specifically mentions forgiveness of sins: > And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, **and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.** And lead us not into temptation.” Luke 11:2-4 ESV I was discussing this with a couple friends last night, and one of them mentioned that we do not really want God to forgive us in the same manner that we forgive others, as that would be a much weaker, incomplete forgiveness. In fact, we would much rather pray, **"Father forgive us completely--wholly unlike how I am even able to forgive others."** I understand that we are encouraged to forgive others as completely as we can, but I also know my weakness in doing this. So, again, why are we taught to ask God only to forgive us in the manner that we forgive others? It seems we would want a much greater level of forgiveness--the kind of forgiveness that only God can give.

Inside this book (page 4): https://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Cure-Ars-John-Vianney/dp/089555240X one finds: First published (presumably by Burns & Oates) in 1930 as *Thoughts of the Curé D'Ars* I have tried to find a book with this title published in 1930 without success. I am also under the impression that Burns & Oates published this book in both French and English. Does anyone know if a copy of the aforesaid 1930 book is available somewhere online in either French or English? If so, where? If not, does someone know where a hard copy can be obtained? Thank you.

I have a question about the Assumption of Mary and 1 Timothy 6:16, I understand that Mary both Body and Soul are in heaven, like Christ, meaning her flesh is immortal and cannot die anymore. But Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:16 that *Jesus alone* is immortal, So how can we answer this? How can the Assumption of Mary fit with what Paul wrote to Timothy here? Main Question: How can Mary have immortal body in heaven when Paul said only Jesus alone hath immortality (Talking about the flesh). > "...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times > he shall shew, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and > Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which > no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power > everlasting." 1 Timothy 6:15-16 K.J.V.

The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an open question. The common scholarly opinion is that the author certainly wasn't Paul. Most modern Bible translations make no mention of the author, but some older ones such as the King James Version do: > Personally, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have written Heb 2:3-4. In his other letters, he always highlights himself as one of the apostles; here the writer has a very humble attitude and certainly doesn't count himself an apostle. > [**Hebrews 2:3-4 (KJV)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:3-4&version=KJV) > 3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; > 4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? Was Paul the author of Hebrews? What supports Pauline authorship?

What is the doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox Church related to non-Eastern Orthodox Christians having personal spiritual experiences? Do Eastern Orthodox Christians believe people not of their faith can experience God's spirit in a positive/uplifting way? Or is any spiritual experience of a non-Orthodox immediately suspected of prelest?