In researching my answer for [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35389/does-catholicism-confound-the-role-of-elder-and-priest) I started to think about the doctrine that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles as being a bit unfair to the other folks. For instance, if St. James who wrote the epistle wasn't the brother of John or Jude, but actually a third James or a fourth James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, would his Episcopacy necessarily have been conferred on him by the Apostles or just by virtue of who he was. Or were the elders the first successors of the 12 apostles regardless of their functions as presbyters?

**Ezra's Drastic Divorces** In the book of Ezra (ch. 9 and 10) we learn of Ezra being extremely agitated at the intermarriage of Jews with...Moabites. >When I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonished. And at evening sacrifice I arose from my heaviness, and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell up my knees, and spread out my hands unto the Lord my God...(Ezra 9:3,5) And later, Nehemiah suffered the same agony at learning of the same conduct. (Nehemiah 13:2,3) **Moabitess Ruth** And yet the great-grandfather of King David, Boaz, married a Moabitess, Ruth, with seemingly no reservation nor adverse consequence. >So Boaz took Ruth and she was his wife, and when he went in unto her, she bare a son...And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi, and they called his name Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David. (Ruth 4:13,17) This Moabitess is even listed by name in the genealogy of Matthew: *Boaz begat Obed of Ruth* (Matthew 1:5) **But** if Israelites were forbidden to marry this type of foreigner, why is there no reaction to it by the Levites or the prophets or elders of Bethlehem? Such as was evident in the expulsion of such women by Ezra later? The family of Naomi lived in Moab, so the sons married there such women "out of availability" (?), and by some stretch be excused. But Boaz is in Israel (Bethlehem) where there were plenty of Jewish women available!

St. Thomas Aquinas studied (and prayed) continually. It has been said that study became prayer for him. According to Catholicism, is study a form of prayer?

In the following verses (and many others), the word "key" is used in an untraditional way. Typically you would use a key to unlock a lock. The supposed "lock" is highlighted in bold in every verse. Matthew 16:19 > And I will give unto thee the keys of **the kingdom of heaven**: and > whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and > whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. D&C 7:7 > And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; > and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of **this > ministry** until I come. D&C 13:1 > Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the > Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of **the ministering of > angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion > for the remission of sins**; and this shall never be taken again from > the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the > Lord in righteousness. Is there one united meaning of the word "key" in the scriptures, from an LDS perspective?

>”Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,“ *‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2‬:‭18‬ ‭ESV‬‬* Is there a specific group Paul is mentioning here? I’m unaware of a Jewish group that “worshiped angels”.

From my understanding and through examples in history and my life as well, God allows good and bad things to happen. Although I would always be curious as to why certain things happen, especially when it comes to bad stuff, I know His reasonings would go beyond my comprehension and understanding as He knows all. God will only allow certain things to happen if He wants it to happen. The devil, on the other hand, can only do things as he is allowed to by God. With that being said, would it be possible for God to allow the devil to skew His Word (Bible) in any way, shape, or form? Knowing that the devil is pure evil and one who deceives, manipulates, and twists the things of God, one would wonder what kind of things he would do prevent Christians from fully benefitting from reading God's Word and progressing in their spiritual life. An example that I think could be something that he would do or has done is change certain words in the Bible. As you may be aware, one word or phrase can have the power to change a sentence or meaning completely, whether in the Bible or just everyday conversation. **John 3:16** > For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. > ~ NLT (New Living Translation) > For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. > ~ BLB (Berean Literal Bible) Both are the same verse, that pretty much says the same thing, but one glaring difference is the words **will not** and **should not**. Would it be fair to say that **will not** is pretty definitive, that if I truly believe in Jesus, I **will** be saved regardless of what happens afterwards? As opposed to **should not** or **shall not** (in other translations), which would indicate that it could happen but not guaranteed. For this verse, I would think that figuring out which translation or meaning is the true meaning would be pretty crucial. One implies that I'm good once I'm saved and the other implies that I should be good to go once I'm saved but... It would seem that either you can or cannot lose your salvation once you accept Christ. If you **can't**, then that would allow me to focus on other aspects of the Bible and if you **can**, then that makes me wonder what I must do to make sure that I keep it that way and not mess up (unforgivable sin comes to mind). God is not one to cause confusion when it comes to those that want to seek Him and His Word, so I'm wondering to what lengths or permissions would He allow the devil to do his thing? These are beliefs from **Arminianism** vs **Calvinism**, which if I'm not mistaken, for this topic, is that you are good once you're saved vs you can be unsaved, respectively. I'm not asking which view is correct, but clarification of which words would more accurately reflect the original texts/Scriptures. Would it be **will** or **should**? And if you read my responses in the comments, I made a point about why I'm not convinced that they are the same words. Unless I'm misunderstanding something and that back in the day, those words meant the same thing or something, those two words do not convey the same meaning to me. I would be much more convinced that something was or wasn't going to happen with the words **will/will not** than **should/should not**.

I'm looking for a good scholarly/academic source for the study of numbers and their significance in the Old and New Testaments. I often come across remarks about the Hebrew and/or Christian significance of different numbers, but they are always remarks in passing, and they never seem to provide any sources I can look into further. I would like to be able to substantiate these remarks with some good exposition of the primary sources and rationale for the attribution of various meanings to different numbers in the biblical literature.

God is 1. I think we can all agree with Jesus' most important commandment... the Shema. I've been told here by the most prudent of Trinitarians, that YHWH is not a being or a person, but instead 3 persons sharing the 1 divine essence/nature. If this is the Truth, then that which is of the quantity 1 must be the non personified divine essence/nature. (Not my belief but taken from top voted answers to my previous questions) We are told in scripture that after our resurrection, we too will share in the same nature as our master, Jesus Christ, for we will be like him. He is the first of many. 2 Peter 1:4. > ...by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these **you may be partakers of the divine nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Eph 3 >14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; ***you may be filled with all the fullness of God.*** 1 John 3:2 >Beloved, *now we are children of God*; and it has not yet been revealed what *we shall be*, but we know that when He is revealed, **we shall be like Him**, for we shall see Him as He is. Romans 8 > 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the **firstborn among many brethren**. John 1 > 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right *to become children of God*, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, **but of God.** This progression of reason easily leads one to the the next questions. According to Trinitarians: 1. ***What is the difference (if any) between the final ontologies of the Preeminent son of God and the rest of the children of God?*** (Please support your answer with scripture.) 2. ***If no difference exists.... Will all the glorified children of God be the 1 YHWH; the 1 non-personified deity comprised of all persons who share in this unique divine nature?***

In the Catholic Church, we believe that Jesus Christ is present -- body, blood, soul and divinity -- in the Holy Eucharist (Blessed Sacrament/Blessed Host). I would like to know if it is only the second person of the Holy Trinity (God the Son) who is in the Blessed Sacrament or all three persons (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) are in it.

Did Christians stop the practice of circumcision ([Berith](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bris) , Brith, Bris?) immediately and based on which scripture?

Paul says in Romans 9:7-8 >**7** and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” **8** This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. And Galatians 3:16 says >Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. But if the promise to Abraham and his offspring was for Christ or us as believers, why was circumcision, if it was the sign of the covenant, given to Abraham’s physical offspring, since they’re not part of the Abrahamic covenant? My best guess right now is that the promise in Genesis 12 has some double-fulfillment features going on, like 2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 7. As an alternative to a direct answer, links to helpful related articles or books would also be appreciated.

According to the Catholic Church, do the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ when a Protestant church observes the Lord's Supper? What if the church uses grape juice that does not meet the Catholic requirements for mustum?

What was the size of the crowd outside the Praetorium when Jesus and Barabbas were offered to be released at the Passover feast? Are there any historical accounts as to the size of the crowd?

I have heard some theologians coming from both amillennial and premillianial perspectives claiming Athanasius as one of their own. As is often the case with modern readers of the Church Fathers, there seems a great temptation to read modern-day views into the ancient texts... Of Athanasius's works, I have read *On the Incarnation* and most of the festal epistles, and I don't recall reading anything relevant to the issue of the millennium. However, I read them before I had much interest in the topic and might have missed something. Did Athanasius write anything (directly or tangentially) about the issue of the millennium? --- As a refresher on the issue of the *millennium*, it is a question of how to interpret Revelation 20:1-10, and the corresponding picture of eschatology. Premillennialists view this as a future, this-worldly reign of Christ that begins when he returns and concludes with the final judgment. Amillennialists and postmillennialists view it as symbolic of the period leading up to the 2nd coming, and that there is no substantial gap between the return of Jesus and the final judgment. Both points of view are ancient (among authors I have read, Pseudo-Barnabas and Justin Martyr are premil, while Augustine and Eusebius are post/a-mil), though the modern debates tend to look pretty different than the discussions I find in the Church Fathers.

The well-researched [answer](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/14060/3849) to BH.SE Question [What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/13997/3849) referenced a few early church fathers that "voted yes" (Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) as well as later Western Church fathers (Jerome, Ambrose, Rufinus, Augustine, and Innocent). The answer noted that > "[the book of] Revelation had the longest and hardest fight of any book to be recognized as inspired. Though numerous early authors quoted and approved of it, others argued against Revelation." and to combat the concern how the Book of Revelation is "obscure" and is being used to "speculate the future", St. Augustine warned that the book should only be included "**with an admonition against using the book speculatively**" (City of God XX.6-9). Fast forward about 1600 years, history has shown PLENTY of [failed predictions for the second coming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming) and [failed predictions for apocalyptic events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) , which I think testifies to the wisdom of St. Augustine. Maybe it is wise that we should only interpret the the Book of Revelation according to how the supporters of its inclusion into the canon interpreted the book? Mainstream Christians have been respecting the early Church Fathers' interpretation of the Bible regarding the Trinity. **Why not respect them for the Book of Revelation as well**? Therefore, my question is: among the [many interpretations that are on offer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Interpretations) , **which interpretation(s) of the book of Revelation did the Church Fathers who accepted it into the canon hold?** Can we discern a **common** interpretation among them? I wonder whether there was a **consensus** regarding to the meaning of the most prominent [figures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Figures_in_Revelation) : the Beast, the Antichrist, the Markings, the Trumpets, the Dragon, the Woman, Gog and Magog, Armageddon, etc?

I'm reading my NIV study bible in the book of Leviticus; Lev 4:3 to be exact. Anyway, the notes at the bottom was explaining a sin offering is for someone who committed a sin 1. without realizing it or 2. ***committed out of weakness rather than rebellion*** That second sentence got me curious. What is the difference between committing sin out of weakness rather than rebellion? I thought all sin was rebellion against God's laws and high standards. How does weakness come into play? The more I'm thinking about it, I might have answered my own question but I'll still throw these examples out. An extreme example I'm thinking of is killing. How is killing done out of weakness? It's a sin according to the 10 commandments. That's straight sin against God's word, rebellion, disrespect for another's life, etc. Maybe the only excuse would be self defense but otherwise, done against God. Another example might be pornography. As Christians, we know we're not supposed look at porn but maybe we get tempted and something happens. Then we grab a magazine and look at something we're not supposed to (moment of weakness). But this act is still sin and rebellion against God (Matt 5:28, 1 Cor 6:18 to name a few verses). So is the difference between rebellion and weakness the state of our heart? Rebellion is we're thumbing our nose at God saying we do what we want vs. in the above example where we sin not because we want to but because we were tempted and failed? Maybe none of this matters since the notes are man's words rather than God's words but the notes in the study bible are there to help us understand the verses/passage in modern terms. So back to my original question, what is the difference between a sin committed out of weakness vs. rebellion?

>By harnessing the power of AI and machine learning paired with the right data from satellites and beyond, our models are giving us a picture of the world we’ve never seen before. And it’s allowing us to make climate progress in a way some never believed possible.” Gavin McCormick, a co-founder of Climate Trace and executive director of environmental nonprofit WattTime Gavin McCormick contributed to COP28 and said the above at a time when it has just been stated that the US, China and India are most at fault in regard to soaring gas emissions, particularly of methane. (See the same link as above, as to that information.) In the desperation to correct the climate situation, has humanity invented its own 'god' - a beast formed of the nations themselves, a conglomerate of all knowledge, a collusion of all expertise, and is this a present day manifestation of something that existed in a former day, but in a very different guise ? Are any Christian denominations perceiving a danger as trust is beginning to be put in a 'living' form that is, effectively, the accumulation of knowledge and experience of humanity but without any input whatsoever from any other source - whether divine, heavenly or spiritual ? I am interested in what any denominations might have said about this aspect of artificial intelligence and I would be particularly interested if there was a Protestant and Trinitarian source available.

I was looking through my daughter's Internet history and found that she was watching something called ASMR on youtube. My wife and I watched these things and we were totally enthralled listening to someone cut soap with a knife. And if you're like me last night, wondering what an ASMR is: > Autonomous sensory meridian response, sometimes auto sensory meridian response, is a tingling sensation that typically begins on the scalp and moves down the back of the neck and upper spine. A pleasant form of paresthesia, it has been compared with auditory-tactile synesthesia and may overlap with frisson > > [ASMR - Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASMR) I know that certain forms of self-medication including mesmerization and hypnotism could be considered illicit by some Catholic books for examinations of conscience (i.e. handbook of prayers) under the 5th and 8th commandments. Can the same principles that apply to that apply to this? Is ASMR any worse because it's something that is apparently scientifically designed to produce some sort of a calming response, as opposed to something that is not scientifically designed, like a recording of rain, crickets chirping or whatnot?

I suppose that no popular version (ESV, NKJV, NIV) contain cross references that includes Apocrypha references,especially the ESV thinline reference bible? ESV is the most popular along with NKJV by Thomas Nelson for x-ref. Does any of its edition included Apocrypha x-ref? The *NRSV reference bible with Apocrypha* must contain them, but I need to find out about the popular version reference bibles.

According to sedeprivationism , does a material pope (*papa materialiter*) have temporal authority ?