This question lies at the intersection of spirituality and exegesis. If we assume that the Holy Spirit guides Christians in understanding scripture and that Young-Earth Creationism is true, what prevents the Holy Spirit from leading all Christians to interpret the book of Genesis literally? If a Christian is deeply connected with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, akin to figures like the Apostle Paul or the Apostle John (which I'm envisioning here as role models), and if they diligently study the Scriptures, seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, does this inevitably result in a literal interpretation of Genesis? In such a scenario, would rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis indicate a lack of spirituality from a Young-Earth Creationist standpoint?

Has any Church Father compared the priest, deacon, and subdeacon in a Solemn High Mass to the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity? Solemn High Mass with the priest, deacon, and subdeacon at the altar:

This question (and two related sub-questions) is directed towards **those who believe that the Bible is inspired but not inerrant**. I understand inerrant to simply mean "without error". "Inspired" tends to have more nuances in it's meaning and so a valid answer should include a short definitional statement describing "inspired" as well as one regarding "inerrant" if it is taken differently. If the Bible is not inerrant, i.e. if it contains errors, and yet is inspired by God does this not mean that the errors are inspired? 1) How and why would God inspire error without being deceptive or fallible? 2) Without an inspired and inerrant listing of Biblical error, how can one reliably discern Biblical error and should one make the effort if the error is inspired?

I currently came across some question regarding the name of the Father in the Trinity, God the creator. I have seen that a lot of people use the tetragrammaton YHWH especially in the case of Judaism, but I also have come across Jehovah and I have others claim the name of the father to be Yahweh. I understand that this is more Judaism focused but I think it deeply should concern us Christians partially because I have come across people all over the internet using the name of the Father to make really outlandish, blasphemous and heretical claims as to the origins of Christianity and Judaism and I personally feel very strongly about it because it not only changes how people look at Christianity and Judaism as a faith but also because it is outright disrespectful for the Abrahamic faiths in general. And so because I want clarity on this subject I want to know if as a Christian, one should attribute the name of the Father as Jehovah or Yahweh? Because the tetragrammaton יהוה keeps the vowels hidden, but again I think it matters because people are associating different agendas to the name of the Father. Edit: For added context as to what the claims that had been made by people is when I came across people and scholars saying that Yahweh was an ancient Canaanite God among a pantheon of gods and even saying he had a goddess wife and in this case I definitely think it matters because what in the world is happening here. People are trying to discredit the authenticity of the Abrahamic faith. I personally think this is blasphemous and actually an attack at someone's faith and believe.

Why are there a priest, deacon, and subdeacon at a High Mass? Why not just a priest and deacon? Or just a priest?

I was reading an article online about the riches the templars stole from the temple of Solomon, the templars were **suposedly** looking for the **Ark of Covenant** which is written in scripture that when taken to the **battlefield** could **wipe out entire armies**. But then they never found the ark of covenant because it was lost alongside the tablets given to Moses after the Babylonians invaded the promised land. Had the tempars succeeded in finding it, do you think if they could have taken it to the battlefield, it would have wiped out entire armies? You can read about the templar digging up riches from the temple from this site

I was studying various views on the Eucharist, and I found the view of Consubstantiation very interesting. I would like to know what arguments are used to defend this position. -------------------------------------- **Consubstantiation** >Consubstantiation is a Christian theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) describes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It holds that during the sacrament, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. It was part of the doctrines of Lollardy, {1} and considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. It was later championed by Edward Pusey of the Oxford Movement, and is therefore held by many high church Anglicans. The Irvingian Churches (such as the New Apostolic Church) adhere to consubstantiation as the explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Wikipedia - Consubstantiation

At Matthew 27: 19 we see the advice given to Pilate by his wife during the trial of Jesus: > While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him. Had Pilate acceeded to the advice his wife, Jesus could not have accomplished His Mission. Was it possible that the dream of Pilate's wife had been induced by The Enemy? What is the take of Catholic Church on the dream of Pilate's wife?

The Son only has to exist if Man needed to saved, He is not inherent by any means. Likewise, a similar argument can be made for the Holy Ghost. How, then, can all three Persons of the Trinity be uncreated, inherent in God's nature, yet work out perfectly in order for His plan of grace? I am looking for a trinitarian, Bible-based answer, although Catholic tradition or papal statements may be included as way of explanation.

'In the begining God created the heavens and the earth, now the earth was formless'(Gen 1:1). The Hebrew text does not say 'now' but the earth 'she became' formless, the same word used when Lot's wife 'became' a pillar of salt. This is when satan was banished to the earth for his pride. Which is why only the light was good on day one and nothing was good on day two until the earth came out of the water on day three. All God could see on day two, in the water, was satan and his fallen followers. Since God chose to take 6 days to perfect the planet for mankind why did He choose the same planet? Does this mean we have more to do than just worship God?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light -Genesis 1:3 KJV The almighty God gets what he desires and what he wants is good indeed. I believe there's a ultimate goal for humanity (as a whole) to achieve and humanity will reach that point eventually. It's just the road and (not the destination) that bothers me. The unbearable amount of suffering and grief that one experiences during his life **is not fair**, for example; when Gaza war started I saw a video clip of a dad taking his little daughter's severed body parts which was in a plastic bag to a ruined hospital, desperate, maybe he was hoping he can get his daughter back? Humanity doesn't have a clue what he's doing, no one is born with a PhD, we all do terrible terrible mistakes and not many have the chance to learn why they should turn the other cheek. So this thoughts always left me with this question; - Was it necessary to let humans go down this path? What important part are we going to play in this "scenario" of God's creation that made our poor souls worthy of suffering? And no we did not choose the path of destruction and death, we went that way because we did not knew the ultimate consequences of our actions, If Adam TRULY knew that he's going to cast out of heaven or what not being in heaven is like, would he still have done it? David, the God chosen prophet committed adultery, he had **everything** and yet the lust got him. How can one resist sin when David couldn't?

We read in Mtt 26:14 : > Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests... On a number of occassions including the Last Supper, 'the twelve' are referred to as 'disciples'. Other than the twelve whom we know as Apostles, Jesus also had 72 disciples . After the Lord's ascension, the hierarchy would become prominent with the Apostles having exclusive meetings and decision making . But, how did the apostles and other disciples distinguish between themselves during the time of Jesus' public ministry ? For instance, were they addressed as Apostle Peter, Disciple Mark etc ? Are there any apocryphal writings available on the subject ?

[Nicholas of Cusa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Cusa) (1401-1464), wrote in part 1, chapter 12 of his *De docta ignorantia* (1440): > Others who are very talented compared, to the Super-blessed Trinity, a triangle consisting of three equal right angles. 1 > *Alii peritissimi Trinitati superbenedictae triangulum trium aequalium et rectorum angulorum compararunt*. I think we are all aware of representations of the Trinity using an equilateral plane triangle. The triangle described by Nicholas is not possible in the plane, though it makes sense on the surface of a sphere, for example. He seems to imagine it (see ch. 19) as a planar figure having three infinite sides, and argues that the angles must necessarily be equal and as large as possible. 2 Setting aside any mathematical problems with his geometry, I'm curious about the origin of this image. It would seem to be related to other geometric metaphors for God, such as "an infinite line" or "a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". But I have not heard this one before. **Who came up with this idea and what did they mean by it?** (By the way, the "others" in the quotation above means "some people who are not [Anselm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury) " in context. I thought he might be talking about himself, but I don't know if there is another, earlier work of his which contains this triangle image. It seems to crop up in *De venatione sapientiae* chapter 26, but he says in its preface that he is 61 years old, which would make it later than *De docta ignorantia*. It's still possible that he's attributing his own belief to some deliberately-unnamed expert, but if so then I'd still like to find a definitive argument to that effect.) 1. Translation by Jasper Hopkins (1985) and appearing in his *Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa*, Arthur J. Banning Press, 2001. [Parallel texts from Cusanus-Portal](http://www.cusanus-portal.de/content/fw.php?werk=13&fw=34&ln=hopkins) .
2. It's not clear why he thinks they must be right angles. In some sense it would be more consistent with his reasoning for them all to be 180 degrees, which is one reason to believe that in this case, he's talking about someone else's idea.

>From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land... And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:45, 50-51). As a Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I do not doubt the truth of these words. But how do I respond to detractors who claim there is no evidence of the curtain in the temple being torn in two? I am interested in evidence from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sources. Edit: Five years after asking this question, I found this information: >"The persistent 33 A.D. seismite indicates the biggest 33 A.D. earthquake was M~6.0. This biggest earthquake was likely April 3, 33 A.D. that startled city residents and caused moderate damage, especially to the western side of Temple Mount. Pivots of two, 20-m-high, metal doors of the Temple appear to have been damaged, and the 20-m-high curtain in front of the doors was torn, likely by displacement of the lintel of the Temple during the earthquake." https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/webprogram/Paper204688.html#:~:text=The%20persistent%2033%20A.D.%20seismite,western%20side%20of%20Temple%20Mount

As Jesus continued his discourse, where many believed on him, he then goes on to say their father is the devil! It ends up with those very ones trying to stone him. ***Is there a contradiction between this verse 30…*** *“And as he spake these words, many believed on him”* ***and verse 59***, “*Then took they up stones to cast at him:* but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” Or is it fair to say that Jesus’ discourse went on to expose a proud assumption, and false pride on their part, which betrayed they had no heart-felt belief? I ask this due to what Jesus said in ***verse 31***, *“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.”* Are the words Jesus then went on to speak designed to expose what was really in their hearts, as to whether that contradicted their professed belief in him? **I seek clarification from those who maintain there is a need for confession with the mouth that has sprung from heart-felt repentance, as opposed to those who might think a public confession of faith *comes first*, and is effectively viewed by them as the most important aspect of becoming a Christian.**

They state in this Watchtower >Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things." Since according to them, "there was a time when God was alone" why don't we see any evidence at Genesis 1 or 2 that Jesus was created before Adam and Eve? Why do they jump to Revelation 3:14, the last book of the Bible? Moreover, even if you jump to Proverbs 8:22 it's still well after Genesis 1,2 when man was created after the heavens and earth were created. (Genesis 1:1.) Since they say "God was all alone" how do they justify the following that Jesus was with God here: :“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.” There is no mention of Jesus/Him being with God before the beginning as God's first creation before Genesis chapter one and two? Finally, and this is this is the real question I am asking. How could God who was all alone create anything "WITHOUT" Jesus Christ at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and "WITHOUT" Him nothing came into being that has come into being." The JW quotes are from the Watchtower

We read in Mtt 26:3-5(NIV); > Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembles in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people.” < But we see Jesus getting arrested on a day of Passover and getting crucified on the Day of Preparation ( Jn 19:14) Apparently, the Jewish leaders had a change of mind vis- a- vis their original apprehension in Mtt 26: 5. The Gospels do not record the reason for the shift. Are there any apocryphal writings on the subject ?

In [John 20:17](http://biblehub.com/john/20-17.htm) it is written that, when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene after resurrection, He says to her: >Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father However, Jesus does tell to other disciples to touch Him, after resurrection. For example, later on, in John 20:27, when Jesus appears to His disciples for a second time and Thomas (the Doubter) is with them, He says to Thomas: >Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe. Similarly, in [Luke 24:39](http://biblehub.com/luke/24-39.htm) it is written that post-resurrection Jesus said to His disciples: >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. Thus, I fail to understand why Jesus would negate Mary Magdalene to touch Him but not to His disciples. **How have theologians and the teachings of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox or Protestant churches interpreted the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene?** How is the fact that He had not yet ascended to the Father related to Mary not touching Jesus? Surely, once He was gone to the Father, it would be impossible to her for touching Jesus! One possible explanation is that Jesus did not have a physical body (e.g. [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15598/did-jesus-transform-into-spirit-form-after-resurrection) or [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8368/was-jesus-resurrected-body-the-same-as-his-glorified-body-that-he-now-has-in-he) discussion). Personally, I do not believe this was the case, as it it at odd with the other texts (where Jesus says that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have"). Neither did [Aquinas](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4054.htm) .

The NWT explicitly states in John 1:1 that Jesus Christ is "a god," yet Colossians 2:9 states, "For (or because) in Him all the fulness of Deity/Godhead dwells in bodily form." This is backed up by Colossians 1:19, "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him." "Godhead" is defined in Strongs Lexicon: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2320/kjv/tr/0-1/ In Greek, the word is "theotes" and Strongs #G2320. So how do Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile their claim that Jesus Christ is "a god" with the Greek meaning that Jesus Christ is actually God in nature or essence?

The concept of many are called but few are chosen is very alive in the Bible where Jesus says that no one can come to him unless God allows it. **Mathew 22:14** >Indeed many are called but few are chosen Also the verse that states that a man cannot receive anything unless it is granted to him from heaven including eternal life **John 3:27** >A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven. This two verses show that even for Christians they cannot come to God unless God already called them and no matter what they do, if God hasn't called them they won't be saved. So is there any circumstance where a believer can have the status of being called but not chosen ?