If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?

I know a lot of people who claim to be Christian but practice Yoga. I always thought (and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) seems to back me up on this) that Yoga was about meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism. Is practicing Yoga a sin since you're actually following another religion? Or is it possible to practice Yoga in a Christian manner? Also, if you are able to practice Yoga in a Christian manner, is there a conflict with that and the problem with [the weaker brother](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9-12&version=NIV) ? Specifically, I'm seeking a [mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) viewpoint on this. I suspect that they will all be the same, but if they differ, let me know so that I can refine the scope.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

In *Systematic Theology* chapter 3 "The Canon of Scripture", Wayne Grudem says > It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). (This is on page 59 in the 1st edition.) What does he mean by this? He is certainly not unaware of the Council of Carthage (397), because he cites this just 5 pages later for its decision on the NT canon. However, the Council of Carthage's Old Testament canon includes all of the Apocrypha found in modern Catholic Bibles (except Baruch). Is this an oversight on Grudem's part? Or is there some qualitative difference between the decision of the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent that makes the latter an official declaration while the former not? *Note:* Grudem also does not mention the Council of Rome (382) anywhere that I can find, which was the first council to discuss the canon, and included the Apocrypha as canonical. However, if Grudem is following the scholarship which regards the canon list of the *Decretum Gelasianum* not to be genuinely derived from the Council of Rome, then he would have no reason to mention it. Under that view, there is no direct evidence of the Council of Rome's decisions on the canon.

Paul refers to the gift of spirit that Timothy had in both I and II Timothy. > KJV 2 Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. What gift did Timothy have? Was he afraid to use it? The verse that immediately follows the verse above seems to suggest this. > KJV 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. From the following verse, I can gather: 1. The gift that would be received by Timothy was foretold (given by prophecy) 2. It was given by Laying on of Hands (Paul's hands by first verse quoted) > KJV 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Paul refers to a prophecy about Timothy > **1 Tim 1:18-19 ESV** Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the **prophecies once made about you**, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Which prophecy is he talking about?

Ordinarily, I would go to Wikipedia for this sort of question, but unfortunately the information therein is paltry. It is clear that Luther consistently believed in Mary as *Theotokos*, as this continues to be the normal belief of all branches of Protestantism till the modern day. This answer on another question indicates, but without adequate citations, that Luther's views on the Immaculate Conception changed over time. I have seen this from other sources as well, but nothing very clear. **I am looking for an overview of how his views on Mary, especially the sinlessness and/or immaculate conception, may have changed over the course of his career.** *Note: I have researched this question a bit myself. I have had a lot of difficulty sorting through polemics (from both sides) to find accurate information. Some verified references to primary sources would be most helpful.*

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

**Did the Blessed Virgin Mary teach the boy Jesus the Divine Mysteries and taught him how to pray?** At the Annunciation, it was believed that Archangel Gabriel arrived while Mary was praying and studying scriptures. > According to various Christian and Islamic traditions, the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive a son, Jesus. While the canonical gospels (Luke 1:26–38) describe the event, known as the Annunciation, they do not specify Mary's exact activity when Gabriel appeared. The detail that Mary was praying or studying comes from later apocryphal and patristic sources, such as the Protoevangelium of James, which influenced artistic and theological depictions of the event over time . > > In these traditions: > > The Protoevangelium of James: This second-century text mentions Mary was working on a veil for the Temple when she first heard a voice, then saw Gabriel. > > **Later Patristic Writings:** Other early Christian writers expanded on the narrative,***sometimes placing Mary in a moment of intense prayer or deep study of scripture,*** emphasizing her piety and devotion when the divine messenger arrived. > > Obviously, Jesus from birth to childhood lived in a House of Prayer, and learn how to pray and taught of divine mysteries from His beloved Mother, who learned the scriptures and mysteries thru meditation and contemplation. > > **I am looking for writings based on Church traditions and extra-biblical writings, showing Mary teaching the child Jesus how to pray and explaining the scriptures and mysteries of God's Kingdom, and perhaps Mary narrate to baby Jesus the mysteries of annunciation, incarnation and His divine mission as Messiah.** As Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and power, so, in no way Jesus learn scriptures, the mysteries and His redemptive mission at a younf age, without the Theotokos telling or teaching Him this subject. Also, the young Jesus at twelve, despite showing above wisdom from the Elders in the Tempole, still needs to grow in wisdom and stature, not by Himself, not by Jesus Alone, but thru submission and obedience to His parents. > **The Boy Jesus at the Temple** …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52***And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature***, and in favor with God and man.

Are there ancient writers that mentions halos/nimbus: from 1-8 century? 1. How was the halo adopted in the church? And what is its historicity? 2. I read from some sources that in the beginning it was reserved only for the Lord but in later time it was depicted on saints. 3. Did anyone wrote anything about it? Thanks in advance. ........................................................................... **UPDATE** I found only this - > “Marcus Servius Honoratus (Servius the Grammarian), a Roman grammarian of the late 4th century, > in his commentary on Virgil's works defines the Nimbus as a "divine > cloud" ("nimbo effulgens: nube divina, est enim fulgidum lumen quo > deorum capita cinguntur. Sic etiam pingi solet" - Servianorum in > Vergilii Carmina commentariorum / Ed. E. K. Rand. Lancaster, 1946. > Vol. 2. P. 471). The Latin theologian Isidore of Seville in his > Etymologies mentioned the Nimbus as a radiance around the heads of > angels (Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2).” https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2577657.html **The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636 AD?):** > **The light that is depicted as being around the heads of angels is > called a nimbus,** although a nimbus is also the dense part of a cloud > (nubis). 3.Ahood (capitulum) is commonly called a capitulare. This is > also called a cappa (i.e. another word for ‘hood,’ or perhaps > ‘kerchief’), because it has two tips like the letter kappa, or because > it is an ornament for the head (caput). >**(Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2)** **(Page 404 in the pdf)** https://sfponline.org/Uploads/2002/st%20isidore%20in%20english.pdf ------------------------------- Are there maybe church fathers that talk about it or other persons besides from Marcus Servius Honoratus and Isidore of Seville? Additional information about the halo. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112600/do-the-catholic-orthodox-believe-that-the-halo-is-apostolic-unwritten-traditio

Charity admits degrees (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in *On Love and Charity* and *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 24 a. 4 - a. 10 ). Has any theologian explained if it is possible to measure one's degree of charity? If so, how can it be measured?

Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants? I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway) I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong. >That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed Wikipedia - Sirach I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ. --- I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.

In Revelation 7:3-4, God seals His servants before the tribulation begins. Since pre-tribulationists believe the rapture occurs before the tribulation, how do you interpret the sealing of God’s servants? Does this sealing take place before or after the rapture, and how does it align with the pre-tribulation timeline of Christ’s return?

During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up: 1. If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob? So that he could repent and be able to be blessed? 2. When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the "wrestling", asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go? 3. If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a "big deal" the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?

When does Christmas officially end in Eastern Catholic rites? cf. related: "When is the end of the Christmas season for Latin Rite Catholics? "

So I've been thinking of visiting other churches to see how they do their worship, and so on. And I kind of came across the question that if I go to a church such as a Catholic parish that doesn't recognize me as being able to take communion but I still need to take my communion, how do I go about that? Shall I bring my own bread or what? I want to respect what they believe but also want to stay true to what I believe.

In many of King David's *Psalms* , he seems to harbor a vengeful attitude toward his, Israel's, or God's enemies: Psalms 6:11: > Let all my enemies be ashamed, and be very much troubled: let them be turned back, and be ashamed very speedily. Psalms 24:3: > Neither let my enemies laugh at me: for none of them that wait on thee shall be confounded. Psalms 24:4: > Let all them be confounded that act unjust things without cause. Shew, O Lord, thy ways to me, and teach me thy paths. Psalms 34:4: > Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek after my soul. Let them be turned back and be confounded that devise evil against me. Psalms 34:26: > Let them blush: and be ashamed together, who rejoice at my evils. Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me. Psalms 39:15: > Let them be confounded and ashamed together, that seek after my soul to take it away. Let them be turned backward and be ashamed that desire evils to me. Psalms 68:7: > Let not them be ashamed for me, who look for thee, O Lord, the Lord of hosts. Let them not be confounded on my account, who seek thee, O God of Israel. Psalms 69:3: > Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek my soul: Psalms 70:13: > Let them be confounded and come to nothing that detract my soul; let them be covered with confusion and blame that seek my hurt. Psalms 82:18: > Let them be ashamed and troubled for ever and ever: and let them be confounded and perish. Psalms 96:7: > Let them be all confounded that adore graven things, and that glory in their idols. Adore him, all you his angels: Psalms 108:28: > They will curse and thou wilt bless: let them that rise up against me be confounded: but thy servant shall rejoice. Psalms 128:5: > Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Sion. What have Catholic commentators on the *Psalms* said about these verses? Is this vengeful attitude of King David sinful or justified? Or does King David in fact desire the conversion of his enemies?

**IMPORTANT NOTE:** The OP is not looking to justify the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rather, the OP is looking for passages, significant bible passages that explicitly prove that "Mary is a sinner", meaning Mary had committed sins. This is in no way a duplicate question as commented. If Luther, Zwingli and Calvin who uphold the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary were still alive, during the proclamation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception, I'm pretty sure, the three of them will also embraced this Truth even the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, like what they did to the Dogma of Theotokos and Perpetual Virginity. Sad to say, the Modern Day Protestant and the Bible Alone Believers that I normally encounter in the social media, are simply drinking the shallow arguments, citing this two shallow passages. >"All have sinned." - Romans 3:23 and > "“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:10-12 In CSE, I've seen a lot of good exegesis, but when it comes to this two passages, they seem to become an elementary student or even a kindergarten in giving a thorough exegesis on this particular verse. Romans 3:10-12 can easily be refuted by God Himself in Job 1:1 >There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And this man was blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil. -Job 1:1 The "All have sinned", can easily be debunk by the Doctrine of Original Sin, as the word "sinned" here pointed to "actual sin", on which no Protestant, Modern Day Protestant and all Bible Alone Believers can justify against the Blessed Virgin Mary. Proof? Lets simply ask them a direct question. *What is the nature of sin committed by Mary and when? Please cite bible passages, and you wil see that none of them can cite a single verse, and they will simple go back to Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:10-12.* **In view of the above, I am looking for any wise Protestant and Bible Alone Believers here in CSE to cite significant verses aside from Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:1-12, to support their stance that Mary is a sinner.** Of course, I forgot the Magnificat... >My spirit rejoices in God my savior.." Careful to cite this passage, as Mary claimed to be saved already in this particular passage even before Jesus offered His life on the Cross. So, in this particular passage, the Savior of Mary is God the Father and not Jesus per se, and God the Father is outside of time, and can apply the merit of Christ in whatever ways He deemed appropriate according to His Divine Plan.

I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.

With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question: According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?