I have a third class relic from Blessed Carlo Acutis. If I touch that item to another item, does that item become a third class relic also?

Catholic tradition tells us that Jesus fell three times under the weight of the cross on His way to Calvary. I wish to know if any studies based on historical evidence have been conducted by Catholic Church on the dimensions and weight of the cross that Jesus bore. For instance, was the cross made of dry wood or out of freshly felled tree ?

1 Corinthians 10:9, "Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents." In context the Apostle Paul is referring to Israel at Verse 7, "And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play. (Exodus 32:4.) So why does the Apostle Paul "juxtapose" or contrast God the Father with Jesus Christ as being one and the same God? 1 Corinthians 8:6, "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we exist through Him."

In talking to Jehovah's Witnesses I found it difficult to discover what they believed on these three attributes: Omnipotent - God cannot be thwarted by the Devil, sin, sinners, or the world but is all-powerful in all things. Omniscient - God knows all things about all things, past, present and future, all the time. Nothing escapes his knowledge, including our thoughts & motives. Omnipresent - God is in all places, at all times, in the fullness of his being. It is not just a bit of God everywhere, but _all_ of God is everywhere _all the time_. So he does not need angels or anyone else to inform him of anything anywhere at any time. What is the Jehovah's Witness belief on these matters?

> **18** For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in > unrighteousness; > **19** Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. > **20** For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even > his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when "they are without excuse" does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved? The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing? A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book "Radical" by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature. But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all "without excuse" even if we have not heard about the gospel? **Is there another way the gospel can be presented?**

All my life, I've been massively confused about how there exists separate, seemingly incompatible and separate, "branches" of Christianity. I know about "protestant", "catholic" and then there's something else in the "main three" which I probably "should know" by heart but I simply don't. And then there's also things like Mormons ("Latter Day Saints") and many other minor "variants". I find Wikipedia and all other websites to be utterly exhausting to try to browse. They seem to always assume that you know most of what you're reading about, instead of having basically no knowledge and wanting to hear the most important elements of each "flavour" and preferably a short summary of why they are separate in the first place. It would be much simpler if there were just "Christians", "Muslims", "Jews", etc., but it's apparently not enough to be "Christian", because all the different groups of Christians will not approve of you unless you use their "variant". At least that's how I perceive things and how they must logically be if they are different branches. I mean, why would they exist if they all agreed to the same stuff anyway? Some (a lot, in fact) even say that Jesus was a Jew and thus Christianity in itself is branched out from Judaism? That seems like an important fact if true. It makes Christianity as a whole just some kind of "expansion pack" to the "main software product", to speak in computer jargon. I'm really just trying to get an overview by asking this question. If such a thing can be had. I find that the more basic my questions are, the more vague are the answers. In fact, I have never heard of any Christians who refer to the "protestant Bible" or "catholic Bible" -- it's always just "the Bible" (by which they mean the old and the new testaments combined, I assume) or "the good book" or "the holy word". Does the Bible in itself talk about and name these branches, or were they created much later, long after the Bible had been finished and spread? I also know that the Mormons have another "testament" added to the first two, but that's just about it. And I know there's a stereotype about Catholics making a lot of children, but that also seems to be a common cliché for Mormons as well. That's just about all I know, amazingly. (It's why I ask.)

I feel like many people have their own definition for what it means to be a Christian. To each person who sees this, do you believe you are a Christian? Why? What does it mean for you personally to be a Christian? Thank you!

Covenant theology generally regards God's covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant as the primary divine covenants. The priestly covenant Numbers 25 seems to go largely ignored. My knowledge comes mostly from the lectures of the covenant theology course of Reformed Theological Seminary (listening online, not attending) and it isn't mentioned. All that I found is a footnote in The Christ Of The Covenants saying the priestly covenant is just considered an extension of the Mosaic. Is there anything more to this or is the topic just not discussed?

I am looking for a scholar familiar with Baptist history to provide an introduction to the early history of the Baptists. In particular, I want to learn about the founding and early development stages of the Baptist denominations, including an explanation of the situation when the Southern Baptists separated from the Northern Baptists in the USA.

In the approbation given the 1854 edition of St. Alphonsus Liguori's [*Preparation for Death (or Considerations on the Eternal Maxims)*](https://ia803105.us.archive.org/20/items/preparationforde00ligu/preparationforde00ligu.pdf) one finds: QUESTION: Does anyone know the name of this cross? It seems neither to be an iron cross nor a maltese cross. I would like to know what it is called because I am hoping to reproduce it with LaTeX and make use of it in a current work of mine. Thank you.

I’ve attended several Masses at my local Catholic Church, but am not feeling fulfilled, and sometimes, it almost feels like I’m not even welcome. There is another Catholic Church one town away that I’m thinking about trying to attend. I’m wondering if this would be wrong because then I wouldn’t be supporting my local Catholic Church. Is it OK to join a Catholic Church in a different town than where I live?

Some Christians find it essential to validate their beliefs through personal experiences, as discussed in [*How crucial is it for Christians to 'gain a testimony' validating the truth of their beliefs?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99578/61679) . However, there are those who consider this approach objectionable, viewing it as a form of testing God. As one commenter said : > Seeking the type of testimony you describe is a form of putting God to the test. It is antithetical to the faith that saves. This faith is a gift from God as Scripture says. But we are all responsible for whether we believe the truth or reject it. So seeking the type of “testimony” you describe runs counter to what the Bible teaches. As for the other types of testimonies (about specific teachings), the Bible is all we need. Anything that runs counter to it is false no matter what feelings or signs you receive. Demons can grant feelings and work signs to mislead those who reject God’s Word. How is the pursuit of confirmatory experience reconciled with the principle of not putting God to the test? --- As for the biblical basis for not putting God to the test, although not suggested explicitly by the commenter, there is a question already on the site suggesting a few relevant passages: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/9090/61679 --- A question that is closely related to this discussion is [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) , as well as https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679

I think that the validity of the Gospel's account regarding the role of Pontius Pilate in the Crusifixion is contestable. One reason is Pilate's own account in Matthew 27:24: > So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a > riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the > crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it > yourselves.” According to the biblical accounts, Jews are condemned for promoting the execution of Jesus Christ on the cross. However, the Roman Empire was portrayed as the antagonist and Pilate was drawn as playing a good role in all this jazz just because Paul was interested in spreading Christianity all over Rome. - Is there historical evidence that Pilate stole money from the Holy Temple in Israel and invested that money in building an aqueduct? - What historical sources provide information about the money stolen by Pilate?

Why do cessationalists seem to especially target prophecy, tongues, and apostleship, as the manifestations of the Spirit that have ceased? Scripture states the manifestation of the Spirit comes in different forms: workings, gifts, services. This includes the 5-fold ministries, plus healing, administration, serving, leadership, words of knowledge, giving, etc. as well as prophecy and tongues, and nowhere does it say that any of them would or have ceased before our individual or unified perfection and fullness has been obtained, which has not occurred, and probably cannot happen in this age. On the contrary, the apostle Paul especially encourages prophecy and writes not to disallow even tongues. Why not claim all the manifestations of the Spirit have ceased including pastors and teachers vs. just the ones they are theologically or experientially biased against? Why not just say everyone can just read their Bibles for themselves and that is enough? I have yet to hear real Biblical evidence that the spiritual gifts have ceased or had a time-stamp on them in this age. Bible-believing Christians who take that position seem to selectively ignore verses that speak of spiritual gifts' ongoing importance, such as 1 Cor 12:4-7, 1 Cor 14:1,5,12,39-40, Ephesians 4:11-16 (with special emphasis on verse 13 word "UNTIL").

Can you tell me why is there 10 commandments for Christian's to follow but I was told by a JW neighbor when I asked about the sabbath being holy and meant that we stop doing all the other things we do like shopping on the remainder 6 days and that keeping the sabbath day holy meant besides worshiping that we need not shop nor allow others living with us do so, that I was told doesn't apply. Why is the sabbath only half adhered to?

To create more humans a member of the female sex has to copulate with a member of the male sex. The man's sperm fertilities the egg and an embryo develops in the females womb and this is natural. I do not know how each denomination interprets Mary's virgin birth within the Christian faith. If Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin how can this *not* be considered supernatural as well as in the realm of magic? But the Catholic Pope Francis said that the Christian God is not a magician. There are also examples of testimony that Jesus performed miracles outside of the natural order. I know I have asked [a similar question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101757/10672) about God's omnipotence but these testimonies come into conflict with the Catholic Church's position upon the power of God. My intention is not to criticize the Christian faith at all. On the other hand, these questions come out of respect for the existence of God. So are there denominations of the Christian Faith that still believe that God has unquestionable power?

The underlying issue/debate that I am having is the reconciliation of God's omniscience (the foreknowledge part in particular) with free will (or lack of it, resulting in Fatalism). In short: If God knows **everything**, including every future action I take before I was even born, how can I take responsibility for sin if I can't prove God wrong? For example: @telion's unborn daughter will lie on 12.12.2050 (I ask this on 02.06.2024 without even having a girlfriend). => If that future sin is known then it follows (at least for me) that this sin is predetermined. => This contradicts the idea of human responsibility for their sins and the free will God provides. It also means that God is responsible for all human sin, which is probably the wrong conclusion. One way to resolve this is to "redefine" the definition of God's omniscience or free will. This is why this question is a follow-up of this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101929/what-is-the-biblical-concept-idea-meaning-of-gods-omniscience My personal solution would be to say that God has knowledge of the future but this knowledge is limited in such a way, that human free will is possible. I recently came to know that this position actually has a name which is Open Theism . In the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83747/which-verses-in-the-bible-say-that-god-is-omniscient the [accepted answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83748/10672) features a defense against Open Theism that includes a lot of scripture, which comes to the conclusion that God has "exhaustive knowledge of the future". However, I either don't understand the actual solution that is provided to the problem of predetermination provided by this defense, or I am simply unconvinced. I think the reason for that is the definition of "free will" or as John Frame puts it: "uncaused actions". I don't think actions are uncaused but there is still a freedom of decision. Meaning if I have 2 options to choose from, then the "probability" of which one I will pick doesn't have to be 50/50. Let's say I have to decide which subject I should get a college degree in: Based on my interests, upbringing, and life goals, specific options are more likely than others so regardless of what I choose, the decision is not free of influence. Influence is not the same thing as predetermination, as I can choose to disregard a specific influence. **So how do I imagine the perspective of God on the future and free will?** I think it is similar to the perspective of the developer of the Game Detroit: Become Human . (To get a better feel for the concept behind the game, see [this video]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cLDDwLeJA); at 16.48 the player has to decide between lying or telling the truth.) In this game, the player plays through a story and is provided with various decisions that can greatly impact the overall storyline of the game. In this case, the developer knows and provides all possible options. So he is not particularly surprised by a specific event. The player in this case has limited free will, meaning he cannot decide to simply become a shopkeeper e.g., as that is not an option in the game. But the decisions provided to the player are free. I also think that based on God's almightiness, "forgetting" or "choosing to not know" which options people finally decide, should be in the realm of possibility. The competing view/analogy is that of a movie, where the viewer is "beyond time" from the perspectives of the characters in the movie (as I can fast forward, go back, or replay the movie). In this case, though, I argue that the characters in the movie, don't have actual free will, or at least the "free will" in that case is illusionary. So if I as a movie creator make a story where a person commits a sin, then I can hardly blame the character for it. So to summarize the question(s): - How do non-Open Theists argue for human free will? - How do non-Open Theists argue against predeterminism? - How do non-Open Theists finally conclude that humans are responsible for their sins?

The scripture does say that a person can deny the existence of God in their hearts, which I take to mean a ‘sincere disbelief’ not just the claim of disbelief: > 14 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” > They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; > there is none who does good. (Psalm 14 ESV) However, in many other places of scripture, it seems to declare that God’s basic nature is declared in a self-evident way. - Therefore is there such a thing as a real ‘pure atheist’ or is that just an imaginary person? - Is there anything in scripture that clarifies the tension between self-evident truth and the fool’s ability to deny that evidence? - To what degree is the denial possible? - Is there even such a thing as a real atheist?

For reference, here are the verses in question: Isaiah 42:8 >I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. John 17:22 >The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, Is there a difference between God's glory and the glory that Jesus gives? In Isaiah, does God mean that He gives His glory to no god/idol? How should these two passages be seen given the rest of Scripture?

LLMs (Large Language Models), the technology behind ChatGPT, BingChat, Gemini, Mistral AI, etc., is on the rise, and the current and future generations will use this technology as a primary technology. This prompts the question of what the official position of each denomination/church on the usage of LLM is. (Note: I am looking for the official position of each church and denomination, not personal opinion.)