I've seen several different versions of this quotation, but the one constant is: > *Woman is a temple built over a sewer*. Other versions expand on this. Adding items such as > *Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You should always go in mourning and in rags.* or > *Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags*. But what is the original source? Putting the first quote in to Google reveals so many different versions that I'm beginning to doubt the existence of a primary source.

John 5:24 (ESV) > Truly truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and he does not come into judgement but has passed from death to life. The verse states that when one hears Jesus's words and believes, one "has passed", implying at the time of the hearing and believing, from death to life. Unless I am mistaken it also seems "from death to life" is the same as "being born again" mentioned previously in John 3. Does this verse state that we are born again at the time we hear and believe in Christ?

The Book of Revelation narrates of a story where an angel is ordered to write down the words of Jesus and Jesus here is referred to us the **Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation**. **Revelation 3:14** >“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation. What **exactly** is the meaning of **beginning of God's creation**? Was Jesus the first act of creation? Does it mean that God decided to have a Son **first** before he created any other thing? And is that why Jesus is said to have been **begotten**?

I found this symbol on the stained glass of a Catholic church: What does it mean or represent? There's nothing else around this symbol, just what's in the image. To me, it looks like either a ring with seven spikes on both sides or some sort of crown, but I couldn't find anything about this symbol online. I feel like I have seen/read this symbol before, but I can't pinpoint it. Initially, I thought it might have been Jesus' crown of thorns, but it looks like this ring/crown is made of gold, not thorns.

[Many Christians](https://chicagobible.org/why-was-god-never-called-father-in-the-old-testament-he-is-called-father-in-the-new-testament-kenya/) believe that Jesus' teaching about the Fatherhood of God was new and even revolutionary. Previously, Jews thought of God as "Lord" but not as Father. However, we can indeed find evidence in the Hebrew Bible for the fatherhood of God. For example the prophet Nathan, speaking for God of King Solomon, said: > He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of > his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. > (2 Sam. 7:13-14) And Psalm 103:13 says: > As a father pities his children, > so the Lord pities those who fear him. So was Jesus' teaching of God as our Father already well known to his Jewish audience? Were the OT references to God's parenthood common knowledge, or was Jesus' teaching a major new revelation of God's nature?

Tithing was known in the ancient world, adopted by the Patriarchs, and practiced by Pharisees under the Law of Moses. There was the mixed positions taken by the Reformers of Protestantism. (See https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62509/according-to-reformed-theology-what-is-the-doctrinal-basis-for-belief-in-new-te) But has modern Protestant belief systems maintained the Reformers' positions? Or has modern research and manuscript discoveries altered that traditional belief concerning tithing? There are several old books that present the History of Tithing from ancient times (pre Patriarchal) up to the 19th century British era. [**The Sacred Tenth** by Henry Lansdell, London, 1906; **The Law of the Tithe** by Arthur Babbs, New York, 1912; **An Historical Vindication of the Right of Tithes** by Thos. Comber, London, 1682] But what would they write concerning the "next chapter" in Christian history in regard to tithing (The twentieth, on to the twenty-first century)? What is the scholarly, biblical opinion today? Is it at all controversial? Is it considered optional? Has it been replaced by "free-will" gifts?

Although the earliest Christians were Jews who, like Jesus, kept the Passover feast, the Christian church during the Roman empire did not keep this feast and even forbade Christians from celebrating it. Emperor Constantine I, famous for legalizing and supporting Christianity, acted to end reliance on the date of Passover to determine the date of Easter. In so doing [he declared](https://jewishcurrents.org/emperor-constantine-and-the-jews) : > It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most > holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have > impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . Let us then have > nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd. . .” Various [Church councils](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/church-councils) prohibited Christians from celebrating Passover with Jews, eating with them etc. The Church Father [John Chrysostom](https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_04_homily4.htm) , who taught that the Jewish Passover was no longer valid, famously declared: > Do you Christians not see that what the Jews are doing [in the Passover feasts] is mockery > rather than worship? I blame the Jews for violating the Law. But I > blame you much more for going along with the lawbreakers, not only > those of you who run to the synagogues but also those of you who have > the power to stop the Judaizers but are unwilling to do so. These days, many churches not only allow Christians to celebrate Passover with Jewish friends in homes and synagogues, but even welcome rabbis or Jewish laypeople to lead Seders in church. Some churches warn against "Christianizing" the Seder by conflating it with the Last Supper but encourage members to join with Jews in celebrating the holiday. For example, according to [US Catholic](https://uscatholic.org/articles/202304/should-catholics-celebrate-passover/) magazine: >Both Nostra Aetate (On the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions) and the U.S. > Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document “God’s Mercy Endures Forever” > prohibit Christianizing the Seder. These documents do encourage > Catholics to observe a Passover Seder, along with other Jewish > liturgical forms, at the invitation of Jewish communities. My question is: do any denominations still forbid Christians from celebrating Passover with Jews?

Why is it not common practice for Biblical translators to also translate characters' names? I found that translating Biblical names into English has added layers of depth to the narratives. Update: I found [this site](https://readagape.com) , which allows you to toggle name definitions on and off. Here are a few examples of my above claim: **Genesis 3:20 - KJV** >"And Human [(Adam)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam) called his wife's name Life [(Eve)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve) ; because she was the mother of all living." **Genesis 17:5 - KJV** >"Neither shall thy name anymore be called Exalted Father [(Abram)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham) , but thy name shall be Father of Nations [(Abraham)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham) ; for a father of many nations have I made thee." **Genesis 32:28 - KJV** >"And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Heel-grabber [(Jacob)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob) , but He Who Contends With God [(Israel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob) : for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." **Matthew 16:18 - KJV** >"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock [(Peter)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter) , and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Which reads even better when paired with **Matthew 7:24-25** >"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock."

I was just wondering how other groups such as Catholic or Orthodox view the Bible translation debate. I am Baptist and use the KJV, but was curious what Bible translation they use, or if they have a specific translation they are restrained to.

The following quote is from Pope Bl. Pius IX's declaring St. Alphonsus Liguori as a Doctor of the Church: >“One can in fact assert that there has not been one error even in our times which Alphonsus, at least in great measure, did not fight against.” (Source: *Qui Ecclesiae Suae*, Apostolic Letter, Pius IX, Rome, 1871.) Can anyone provide me with a link to the papal document *Qui Ecclesiae Suae*? I thought it would be an easy thing to find, but I was mistaken.

A Lectionary (in the Roman Rite) is composed of the readings and the responsorial Psalm assigned for each Mass of the year (Sundays, weekdays, and special occasions). The Lectionary is arranged in two cycles, one for Sundays and one for weekdays. The Sunday cycle is divided into three years, labeled: A, B, and C. I would like to be be able to, say, be able to quickly determine when the next time a particular psalm, say, Psalm 1, will have excerpts from it read at Mass. I would also like to be able, if possible, to easily determine how many times exceprts from, say, Psalm 1, will be read at Mass over the complete cycle. QUESTION: Is there an expedient way to search the Lectionary in order to find when an excerpt(s) from a particular Psalm will be read at Mass? Is there, perhaps, an online way of doing this without having to resort to a physical day-by-day search of the Lectionary?

What did St. Thomas Aquinas (and/or perhaps, Augustine et al.) have to say regarding the worthy reception of Holy Communion and the forgiveness of venial sins?

Governments around the world are heavily regulating the use of antibiotics in agriculture in an attempt to curb superbacteria. But Christian Scientists believe, as far as I understand it, that antibiotics do not really help because all diseases are psychosomatic. So, are they against such regulation? Do they believe that the egg industry should be allowed to use as much antibiotics as it wants to?

[This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html) has a number of things to say about baptism, but particularly this: > Baptism does not save a person. The Bible, however, says that "baptism, which corresponds to [the waters of the Flood], now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21) and "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ***for the forgiveness of your sins***" (Acts 2:38, emphasis added), and even (in the words of Christ Himself) "unless one is born *of water* and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5, emphasis added). Many Christians believe that Baptism is a [sacrament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacraments) and a [Means of Grace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_grace) , often using these verses as support for their position. How do those who teach "believers' baptism" as ***only*** a confession of faith understand these verses? Are there other verses which can be used to argue *against* Baptism being a mechanism by which God gives Grace?

I've been watching lectures from [Centre Place](https://www.youtube.com/@centre-place) with interest. While they hold services and claim to be Christians, they seem to hold a minimalist view of the historicity of Scripture. They admit that the authors of the Gospels, for example, are anonymous and were not eyewitnesses, and that most of what they write is Theology rather than History. In [a recent lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozPG-iVKHCE) , John Hamer says: > 10:26 Today we are talking about history, and we want to separate history from religion. So the Jesus christs of scripture are part of the religious experience of Christians that point Christians to the Risen Christ. The historical Jesus though that we're looking for today can be accessed only through the academic disciplines of History, literary criticism and other supporting disciplines like Archeology to some extent. (...) > 11:47 if you're coming to it religiously as a Christian, it shouldn't necessarily change any part of the religious authority of any part of the scripture because the scripture is not history anyway. I've said a bunch of times that if Christians are even worried about this, they should just take as a default assumption that it's not history (...) Here's a slide from the lecture to illustrate: Christianity has always made fundamental truth claims about History, in my understanding. That a man lived 2000 years ago, that he was God, that he died for our sins, saving us from death; that he was resurrected, that he still lives with us. What do those Christians who adopt a minimalist historical understanding of Scripture believe in? Would they maintain these truth claims as such?

When was the Filioque clause added to the creed and what is the reason for that? Did the eastern fathers believe in the filioque?

When it comes to determining when an early church father lived, how do we know the range of years when they lived? As far as I know, even for popular church fathers like Irenaeus or Papias, we don't have many copies of their manuscripts and ones that we do have are relatively recent.

Roman Catholics believe that St. Peter was the first Pope, had primacy over the church and was given a pastoral role by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, we know the scripture argument for the papacy, which is Matthew 16:16-18: > And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the > living God. > > And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: > for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father > which is in heaven. > > And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I > will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against > it but is there any historical evidence from AD 100-200 AD that the early church held to the papacy?

Matthew 16:18 > And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Douay-Rheims) Some commentary regarding the "gates of hell" drawn from Councils, Popes, and Saints: - "Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell." (St. Thomas Aquinas) - "we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the *gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)*... (Second Council of Constantinople—Sentence Against the "Three Chapters") - "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." (Pope St. Leo IX) - "So when S. Peter was placed as foundation of the Church, and the Church was certified that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, — was it not enough to say that S. Peter, as foundation-stone of the ecclesiastical government and administration, could not be crushed and broken by infidelity or error, which is the principal gate of hell?" (St. Francis de Sales) **Question**: From a Catholic perspective, it seems that the *gates of hell* pertain to erroneous teachings (i.e., heresies). If one goes as far back as possible to the original Greek, might there be a way to connect the original (Greek) words used to denote "the gates of hell" to the notion of heresies? *Remark:* I vaguely recall reading something along these lines a while back but I can't remember where. Perhaps a Catholic theologian may be able to point me in the right direction—or at least in a direction where I can better understand the connection between "gates of hell" and heresies from a Catholic perspective.

There are claims that his birthplace is Scotland, England or even Wales.