For example, if no Mass were celebrated worldwide this Sunday, what would happen? Is there any teaching in Catholicism about this? It doesn't necessarily have to be on a Sunday; it could be on a Friday, for instance. Thank you, I hope you can help me. Hail Mary!

Are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John related to the Old Covenant (Old Testament, Hebrew Bible) since the Testator (Jesus), who lived, preached, and performed miracles within it, had not yet died? Hebrews 9:16-17 King James Version > For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

1 Samuel 28:7-8 ESV *The Medium of Endor Raises the Spirit of Samuel* > Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a > medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants > said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at Endor.” > > So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and > two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, > “**Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name > to you**.” Luke 24:36-39 ESV *Disciples Mistake Jesus for a Spirit* > As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among > them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But **they were startled and > frightened and thought they saw a spirit**. And he said to them, “Why > are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands > and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For **a spirit does > not have flesh and bones as you see that I have**.” Matthew 12:43-45 ESV *Return of an Unclean Spirit* > “**When an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through > waterless places seeking rest, but finds none**. Then it says, ‘I will > return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the > house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it > **seven other spirits more evil than itself**, and they enter and dwell > there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So > also will it be with this evil generation.” The unclean spirits, demons, seek to possess a body and therefore torment people for control of their bodies to hurt themselves and others. Jesus cleansed people's souls by casting out the unclean spirits called "demons". 1. Are angels spirits which possess immortal bodies? 2. Are humans spirits which possess mortal bodies? 3. Are demons the unclean spirits of dead humans (and Nephilim) that find no rest after death? 4. Do the spirits of the righteous dead remain at rest until they are resurrected? 5. **Are unclean spirits or demons the ghosts of dead people instead of fallen angels, which have spiritual bodies? Is this why the demons, which have no bodies, seek to possess one?**

The source can be find here: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/who-saved/ >Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved? >No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27." How do they reconcile this viewpoint when the Bible teaches that people received/gain salvation by believing in Jesus Christ as their Savior centuries before the second coming of Jesus Christ? Romans 10:8-10, "But what does it say? "The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, vs9, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; vs10, for with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation."

So in the comments of this answer: [How do non-Open-Theists reason a basis for "Free will"?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101939/46521) The question: > "Why must it be that a choice that is known by God in advance is not > your own? [...]" – Dark Malthorp was raised. My position in general is that through God's exhaustive foreknowledge, the possible options one can choose will be reduced to one. To my knowledge (correct me if I am wrong with this assumption) this position corresponds with the position of Open-Theism. Therefore, I was wondering if there is an Open-Theist argumentation or explanation that can demonstrate this correlation between omniscience and determinism more precisely and concisely than my attempt in the comments. *God's foreknowledge*: God's knowledge of the future. It can logically be viewed as exhaustive (God knows absolutely everything, which is how I would define omniscience in regards to future), limited (God knows something/a lot but not everything), or non-existent (God knows nothing about the future. *predetermination*: This is the view that every action/decision of humans is already determined, meaning unchangeable regardless of the "illusion" or choice. This could also result in Fatalism . *accountability*: Is the possibility that humans can be justifiably punished for their actions.

The [scientific method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) involves developing theories about how reality operates by formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and conducting experiments to determine if the outcomes match the predictions. If the predictions fail, the scientist must revise their initial hypothesis based on the insights gleaned from the experimental results. Eventually, a robust scientific theory will reliably produce accurate predictions across a diverse range of experimental conditions. At the same time, Christianity postulates the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality with entities such as God, demons, angels, cherubim, spirits, souls, and phenomena like miracles, spiritual gifts, heaven, hell, etc. From a Christian perspective, can the supernatural be studied using the scientific method? Specifically, does Christianity propose any theories about the supernatural that generate predictions, and if so, can these predictions be tested through experimentation? In a sense, [parapsychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology) already claims to study the paranormal scientifically. However, [the scientific credibility of parapsychology is heavily contested](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/114014/66156) , and the field does not presuppose a Christian worldview. Instead, I am specifically interested in whether the supernatural dimension of reality, as understood within the Christian worldview, can be subjected to scientific investigation via experimentation and testing. And if not, why not?

(Follow-up to my recent question about the reappearance of premillennialism in modern times.) It is commonly claimed that the reason premillennialism disappeared following the time of Augustine was due to some kind of suppression by the institutions of the Church (e.g. "Chiliasm was suppressed by the dominant Catholic Church ", "By the beginning of the fourth century millennial teaching was, for the most part, extinguished throughout the Roman empire. For the next 1500 years pre-millennialism was rejected as heresy. ", "Both the theological and political atmosphere was against it "). As the answers to my other question demonstrate, the Catholic Church did not officially take a position on millenarianism until the 20th century. My question is about the basis for these claims of suppression of premillennialism by the Roman Church. **Between the time of Augustine and the Reformation, are there any examples of premillennialists being excluded from the Church on that basis, or of influential theologians calling premillennialism heretical?** To be clear about the scope I'm asking about, the time period begins with the publication of *City of God* in 426 and ends with the start of the Reformation in 1517. I am also not asking about people who held premillennialist views but were considered heretical for other reasons. If there are no such examples, a reputable citation for that claim would be appreciated.

1 Timothy 2:4 states that God wants everyone to be saved: > This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and > to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator > between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for > all people. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles. Furthermore Timothy possibly implies that Jesus also saves those who don't believe: > That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the > living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those > who believe. In Ezekiel 18:23 we read: > Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the > Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their > ways and live? Ezekiel 18:32 > For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign > LORD. Repent and live! Ezekiel 33:11 > Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take > no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from > their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, > people of Israel?' Here is my question: it is obvious that lots of people in the world have never heard the gospel. This includes pretty much everyone living in East Asia, Australia and the Americas in the year 50 AD. These people had NO CHANCE to hear the gospel. Yet the above verses all show that God desires all to be saved. Doesn't that logically imply that people can be saved without coming to believe in the Gospel? After all, you can't have all three statements being true: 1. God desires all people to be saved 2. The only way to get saved is hearing the gospel and accepting Jesus 3. Many people never heard the gospel. One of these must not be correct and I think it's #2.

Do we have any indication from original sources, or secondary sources, how many of the Bishops who participated at Nicaea I were married?

I want to ask my Seventh-Day Adventist friends about their view of the Trinity. I was listening this morning to one of your preachers. He said that EGW never refers to the Trinity but is adamant there are three Persons in the Godhead. To me, it sounded as if the speaker was not presenting the traditional Trinity doctrine. - The Eusebians (the so-called Arians) said that the three Persons are three Centers of consciousness (three distinct Minds or Wills). - In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, there is only one Being and only one Center of consciousness. Therefore, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, as RPC Hanson indicates, the term Person is inappropriate: > “In the place of this old but inadequate Trinitarian tradition the > champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > misleading word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as > God.” (Hanson ) I think I read somewhere that the SDA statement of beliefs says, "God is one and three." My question is: In what respect is He three and in what respect is He one? Specifically, is He three or one in terms of Consciousness (Mind, Will). - The Eusebians said 3. - Alexander and Athanasius said that the Logos is the Father's ONLY Logos and Wisdom. In other words, they taught one single Consciousness. - Modern Social Trinitarianism also argues for 3. The reason I prefer to refer to Consciousness is that all of the other terms are potentially understood differently by different people: - The Eusebians used ‘hypostasis’ for a distinct existing Reality, and therefore for a distinct existing Centre of Consciousness, but the traditional Trinity doctrine teaches one single Being, and therefore, one single Consciousness, in three hypostases. - As indicated, in the traditional trinity doctrine, ‘Person’ is often used mistakenly for the hypostases. - Ousia (substance, being) can potentially be a fairly clear term, for one Being implies one Consciousness, but I still prefer 'Consciousness' for clarity. So, I would really like to understand whether the SDA teaches one or three Consciousness. Response to CuriousDannii ----------------------- Below, CuriousDannii comments: > What does a "center" of consciousness mean? In the traditional > Trinitarian understanding, God has only one faculty of mind, which > could probably be said to act in three centers of thinking. Indeed, > distinguishing between "faculty" and "center" could be a quite helpful > way of explaining the traditional doctrine of God, but it's probably > not the way you are using "center" here. I would like to respond as follows: Ayres describes “three ‘**centres of consciousness**’” as “three potentially separable agents … the contents of whose ‘minds’ were distinct.” (LA, 296) Hanson refers to the modern theory of social trinitarianism as “the too popular modem theory that God is three persons in our modern sense, i.e. three **centres of consciousness**.” (RH, 737) One ‘Centre of consciousness’ is one ‘Faculty of mind’; one Mind and one Will. I also like the term ‘Faculty of mind’ but the one used by scholars is ‘Centre of consciousness’. With three “centres of consciousness” we have the potential of disagreement between them, and the unity between the Father, Son, and Spirit is one of will; not of substance. For example, when Jesus said, "Your will and not mine.” For me, that is evidence of two centres of consciousness being one in will. The benefit of this term is that the term “Person” is understood differently by different people. The Three in the traditional Trinity doctrine are sometimes mistakenly referred to as “Persons” but the Three are not “Persons” in the ordinary sense of that word. In the traditional Trinity doctrine, ‘God’ has only one faculty of mind and, therefore, is only one single “centre of consciousness.” People hide behind confusing terms like soldiers attacking from hiding a smokescreen. I am trying to use alternative and non-traditional terms that are generally well understood. Response to Bluephlame ---------------------- Below, in a comment, Bluephlame refers me to an atsjats document . Atsjats docs are always worth reading. Interestingly, this document admits that the SDA pioneers were not Trinitarians. Unfortunately, this article suffers from the assumption that there is only one Trinity doctrine. In fact, there are many different Trinity doctrines. See, for example, Dale Tuggy’s podcasts . Non-Trinitarians such as Samuel Clarke also refer to the Trinity, but then they mean a group of Three. That is why I always refer to the "traditional" Trinity doctrine to distinguish it from other types of Trinity doctrines. I find the quote from Fundamental Beliefs confusing. It talks about three "Persons," which implies three ‘Minds’, but then uses the singular pronoun "He" to refer to “God;” a unity of three co-eternal Persons. This implies one single ‘Mind’. So, my question remains, do you believe in three Minds or one Mind? When I put this question to an SDA professor, he said I must just believe. But how can I believe that which I do not understand? To whom do I pray?

In Genesis 3:13 (King James Version) we read that Eve was "beguiled": > And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. In this context, what does "beguiled" mean? I am not so much looking for a linguistic explanation. I have looked up the definition and etymology of the word "beguile" and see that there are many different meanings for the word (to charm; fascinate; to delude; influence by slyness; deceit, wile, fraud, ruse, trickery; sorcery, witchcraft). I really want to understand what it means that Eve was beguiled.

The source can be find here: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/who-saved/ >Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved? >No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27." How do they reconcile this viewpoint when the Bible teaches that people received/gain salvation by believing in Jesus Christ as their Savior centuries before the second coming of Jesus Christ? Romans 10:8-10, "But what does it say? "The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, vs9, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; vs10, for with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation."

This question is not asking about the specific Christology of any given early church writer. All I want to know is if any early church writer ever made a claim that calling Christ God is blasphemous. I’m aware any given writer would likely be outside orthodoxy, but that is not relevant to me. I just want to know if there was any such writer.

The Old Testament speaks of the עשרת הדברים in Deuteronomy 4:13, a phrase which is translated almost without exception to be the "Ten Commandments" (see here ). However, the word הדברים is never else translated as "commandments", and usually translated as "words" (see, for example, Deuteronomy 1:1 ). To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the OT do words that would be accurately translated as "Ten Commandments" appear. Historically, when was the wording "Ten Commandments" first used? Does a phrase similar to this (obviously not in English) appear in the New Testament anywhere, or is it of later origin (and if so, when was it coined)? Thank you!

What is the Orthodox exegesis of Philippians 2:6-11, in particular, the phrase "He emptied Himself?"

I know that the general answer to this question can be found easily. It was added to the Book in 1981, which is when Spencer W Kimball was the president of the Church. So it could probably be said that it was written under his direction - or something like that. However, I'm interested in more information than that. Also, although he did write at least one book I can think of , at that time President Kimball was having health problems which seem to me may have stopped him from doing much more than just approving writing work. I'm wondering if there's any specific information about who wrote the Introduction , who supervised the writing of it, or anything like that - or if it was just anonymously produced "by The Church".

This year (2024) we are right in the middle of 3 significant anniversaries related to St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis [launches three years of celebrations in his honor](https://www.ewtnvatican.com/articles/three-anniversaries-to-celebrate-thomas-aquinas-1258) : 700 years since canonization (July 18, 2023), 750 years since his death (March 7, 2024), and 800 years since his birth (2025). There are more than a dozen biographies written of St. Thomas Aquinas. **What is the latest scholarship on his birth date?** Most encyclopedias will only say ca. 1225 ([*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) and [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/)) , 1224/1225 ([*Britannica*](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Thomas-Aquinas)) . Here's what the [1912 *Catholic Encyclopedia* article](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) says: > From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274. But the above quote must have been based on scholarship that may have been superseded. **I'm looking for 2-3 proposed dates and the reasoning behind each, citing late 20th century scholarship up to today.**

Found on p. vii. in [*The Spiritual Man; or, the Spiritual Life Reduced to Its First Principles*](https://archive.org/details/thespiritualman00sainuoft/page/n5/mode/2up) , is the indication that this 384 page book is "VOLUME I"---suggesting, it would seem, that there is at least one additional volume somewhere. In fact, according to [*Post-Reformation Digital Library*](https://www.prdl.org/author_view.php?a_id=4332) , there is one in French published in 1646. QUESTION: Does the associated Volume II of this work exist in English; and if so, where may I find it? Thank you.

So I've been reading through Exodus a lot lately, and one of the things that stood out to me was the death of the firstborn of the animals during the final plague / strike. Now, the firstborn of the Hebrew people were redeemed by the blood of the year-old sheep & goats that was placed upon the door frame of their houses. However, there is no instruction to either take their animals into their homes or else to place blood along the enclosures for their animals (stables / barns / etc). So then, by what sign did the Destroyer know not to destroy them? What is the spiritual significance of this, if any? Let me know your thoughts :)

I'm trying to locate an online edition (*archive.org*, etc) of Martin Luther's Commentary on the book of Psalms, specifically the Weimar (WA) edition of Luther's works.