I was pleasantly surprised to see the popularity of Daniel's seventy weeks prophecy held by Christians across multiple denominations in an recent question about "the fulness of time". In it, one day in prophecy, is interpreted as one year, and predicts the year of Jesus' ministry and death. For those who hold this view, what is the basis for some to then interpret Daniel's 1260 day prophecy as days and not years? Would it not be more consistent to continue the interpretation that one prophetic day is equal to one calendar year, as per other Christian Historicist understandings? As background, **1260 days** is equal to **42 months** (42 x 30 days), and is equal to **a time, times and half a times** (360 + 360 x2 + 180 days) >"the women fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there **a thousand two hundred and three score days**." Rev 12:6 > >"And to the women were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness in to her place, where she is nourished for **a time, and times, and half a time**" Rev 12:14 > >"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot **forty and two months**. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy **a thousand two hundred and threescore days**, clothed in sackcloth." Rev 11:2-3 > >"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until **a time and times and the dividing of time**." Dan 7:25 > >"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue **forty and two months**." Rev 13:5

James and Luke say the drought lasted for three and a half years. >Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years *(James 5:17 NLT)* >"Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land. *(Luke 4:25 NLT)* But according to the actual account in the Old Testament the drought was not even a full three years. >Now Elijah, who was from Tishbe in Gilead, told King Ahab, “As surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives—the God I serve—there will be no dew or rain during the next few years until I give the word!” *(1 Kings 17:1 NLT)* >Later on, IN THE THIRD YEAR of the drought, the LORD said to Elijah, “Go and present yourself to King Ahab. Tell him that I will soon send rain!” *(1 Kings 18:1 NLT)* >And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel *(1 Kings 18:45 NLT)* So it was in the third year of the drought that the rains came ending it. Why do Luke and James both say the drought lasted 3 years and 6 months?

Are there any scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles? If there are, please provide sources / references (papers, articles, etc).

I once heard a story of a desert father who would do some work, maybe construction of some type, and then proceed to undo it all at the end of the day, repeating the next day in order to highlight the vanity of human works. Where is the source for this story and which individual was this?

In [my previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15709/58) , I asked about the origins of the modern Young Earth Creationism movement, especially in America. Originally, the question asked when the YEC belief (mainly with regards to a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation) became widespread, and was subsequently informed that the account of creation in Genesis had been read literally by Christians ever since ancient times. What is the evidence for this claim? I'm specifically looking for **evidence that the early church interpreted Genesis 1 literally in a manner consistent with modern Young Earth Creationism beliefs**. The six-day creation and 6000-year-old age aspects may be treated separately, if and when appropriate.

In 2% of pregnancies, the fertilized egg implants somewhere other than in the uterine lining, often in the Fallopian tubes ("tubal pregnancy"). Ectopic pregnancy - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic . There is no chance of a live birth. Mayo Clinic: "An ectopic pregnancy can't proceed normally. The fertilized egg can't survive, and the growing tissue may cause life-threatening bleeding, if left untreated." The equivalent in a man would be placing an expandable bladder inside an organ in the abdomen, then slowly pumping fluid into it over days or weeks until something bursts. The only known treatment is removal of the (doomed) fetus, via abortion. How is preventing treatment, resulting in severe injury or death of the woman and *no* chance of a live birth, considered moral according to Christianity?

Horatio G. Stafford wrote lyrics for the hymn that has the chorus, ***"It is well, it is well with my soul"***. It may be more quickly recognised by that chorus than its title, *"It Is Well".* Verse 3 starts off well, and ends well, but there's a bit in the middle that disturbs me (put in bold) as this seems to show a muddling up of two different theological points about what happened at the cross. Here is all of verse 3: > My sin, O the bliss of this glorious thought! > > **My sin**, not in part but in whole, > > **Is nailed to His cross**, and I bear it no more: > > Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul! But does not Colossians 2:14 state that it was the handwriting of ordinances which were contrary to us that was nailed to the cross, removing them - "in whole"? Yes, 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ, on the tree, bore in his own body our sins. However, the handwritten commands were perfect, not sinful, yet the time came for them to be removed. This seems to have happened alongside Christ bearing our sins in his body on the tree. That which was not perfect (our sins) was borne by Christ in his body, while the perfect law of God was nailed to the cross, to be removed. Does this not conflate those two truths, by fusing bits of both together, so that both truths are corrupted? Our sins are ours, personally. The law of God is perfect and is his. Is it not critically important for the sake of biblical theology to know how both those things were dealt with - one nailed to the cross, the other borne in Christ's body? (Note: this related question deals with Colossians 2:14 and may be helpful in clarifying the doctrine of that scripture, but it does not deal with the hymn in question and the other scripture it incorporates. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/80218/whose-hand-wrote-the-document-that-listed-my-transgressions-colossians-214 )

Are there any Christian denominations that consider it sinful for believers to own weapons for any reason, even if the weapon is legal to own?

I work for a large, Fortune 500 company as a software developer. One of the pinch points is that we need to be 'on call' for one week at a time on a rotation and this might include Sundays. We are not paid extra for being on call and the work can be done remotely at home. There is not always work to be done while 'on call'; it's just if there is a severity 2 bug then you will need to be available to investigate the bug. I still attend mass on those days. It's rare that this occurs on Sundays, because most of our customers do not work on Sundays. It would be very inconvenient to change my rotation to exclude Sundays and given that it's rare to be called on Sundays, I'm wondering if this is really an issue from a Catholic perspective? We are not called on Sundays for just any type of bug, but bugs just for things which may take the system down or pose massive security threats. *** **Edit**: For clarity, the software I work on is not being used to support hospitals or emergency services, it's purely for commercial purposes. I have talked to my local priest and he did mention that missing mass and working on a Sunday are two separate concerns as well. He did mention that I could attend a Vigil mass on Saturdays if I cannot attend on a Sunday. He said working on every Sunday is not acceptable but it's not the case for me, it's every 6 weeks at max. I talked to my HR department and they said there is no legal way out of working on Sundays. The local laws apply and the local laws are more in support of employers in this situation and they also mentioned the contract I signed.

As the title says, I'm looking for a rough estimate as to how many people were present in person to directly witness the crucifixion. Book, websites, academic references, or really any source which could be reliable regarding this topic would also be helpful.

In *Mere Christianity*, in the chapter on Christian Marriage, CS Lewis says, > "As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural > inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the > world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law [of marital fidelity] is not forcing upon the passion of love something which s foreign to that passion's own nature......" I'm looking for the place where Chesterton says this.

What does Tertullian mean by the Son being a "portion of the Father's substance"? > "For the Father is the entire substance, **but the Son is a derivation > and portion of the whole**" ([*Against Praxeas*, Chapter 9](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)) . Tetullian seemed to contradict the Scriptures: > For **the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ**, > > Colossians 2:9 (HCSB) If not, what does he mean by the Son being a derivation and portion of the whole substance?

In 1 Corinthians 10:16, the Apostle Paul says that: > The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (ESV) Transubstantiation theology says that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance, but not the accidents, of the bread and wine are changed to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. However, Paul identifies the Eucharist as participation bread and wine **and** body and blood. How is this reconciled? To clarify what exactly my question is, I need to make clear that I am not saying Paul is contradicting REAL PRESENCE theology. That is, I don’t think this verse in Paul’s epistle demonstrates that Christ is not physically present in the Eucharist. Instead, I am asking specifically about CATHOLIC real presence theology, which has transubstantiation built in. For a counter example, consider the general Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran views, which hold that bread and wine AND the body, blood, soul, and divinity are present in the communion meal.

Chapter I, Article IV of the Westminster Confession (1647) reads: >The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. This is very similar to Article I in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): >WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. > >WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source. But nowhere does Scripture define its own composition. Would not some extra-Biblical source or sources have to be credited here as a relevant "testimony of man or Church" upon which the authority of Scripture itself must somehow depend? Such sources would include Church Fathers, Church councils, consensus within one's denomination or branch, trust in the Bible publisher(s), or, at the very least, personal belief or intuition. Is this a valid point? Has it ever been addressed by those who hold to the Westminster Confession? If so, how is it addressed?

**John 5:18 NASB95** For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, **but also was calling God His own Father**, making Himself equal with God. **Isaiah 64:8 NASB95** But now, O Lord, **You are our Father**, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand. Other verses that show God as Father in the OT are: Deut. 32:6, Psalm 82:6, 89:26, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 3:4, 19, Malachi 1:6, 2:10, etc... If this was a semi-common theme in the OT, why were the Jews so upset when Jesus called God Father?

The split between Rome and the East is called "the Great Schism". But the church also split at Chalcedon when the Emperor Marcian demanded a quick decision, leading to the two branches "Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Oriental Orthodoxy". Have there been other substantial splits in the church? If so, when were they? what was the cause?

Most atheists & agnostics are known for practicing [scientific skepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism) . They reject any miracle/supernatural claims unless solid scientific evidence is provided. A consequence of this epistemological standard is that most atheists end up discounting all testimonies of the supernatural, which unfortunately also includes all known arguments for the resurrection of Jesus (the cornerstone miracle of Christianity) that are grounded in historical/testimonial evidence. But what about Christians? How much epistemological value do Christians ascribe to testimonial accounts? How much respect do they have for scientific skepticism? Are Christians more willing to accept extraordinary claims based on testimonial accounts, even if no scientific evidence is provided? **Note**: if different Christian denominations or groups have different epistemological standards, I would appreciate an overview of these (main differences and similarities). ____ **Related questions (food for thought)** - [Epistemic value of multiple eyewitness accounts: single event vs. multiple events given a fixed number of eyewitnesses?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/93007/48437) (<<<< HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89886/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90292/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83141/50422

The following is a more succinct presentation of the **Logical Problem of Evil** based on the original presentation found in the introduction of the article [Logical Problem of Evil | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/) : > **Logical Problem of Evil** > > The existence of evil and suffering in our world seems to pose a serious challenge to belief in the existence of a perfect God. If God were all-knowing, it seems that God would know about all of the horrible things that happen in our world. If God were all-powerful, God would be able to do something about all of the evil and suffering. Furthermore, if God were morally perfect, then surely God would want to do something about it. And yet we find that our world is filled with countless instances of evil and suffering. These facts about evil and suffering seem to conflict with the orthodox theist claim that there exists a perfectly good God. The challenge posed by this apparent conflict has come to be known as the problem of evil. > > This article addresses one form of that problem that is prominent in recent philosophical discussions–that the conflict that exists between the claims of orthodox theism and the facts about evil and suffering in our world is a logical one. This is the “logical problem of evil.” > **Formal argument** > 1. God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful). > 2. God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing). > 3. God is perfectly good. > 4. Evil exists > 5. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world. > 6. If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it. > 7. If God is perfectly good, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world. > 8. If God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent > it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good. > 9. If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, > he must not be all- powerful. > 10. If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about > all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent it—that is, > he must not be all-knowing. > 11. If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. (from 8-10) > 12. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. (from 4 and 11) > 13. God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. (from 1-3) > > There is no way that (12) and (13) could both be true at the same > time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory. > > Statement (13) is simply the conjunction of (1) through (3) and > expresses the central belief of classical theism. However, > atheologians claim that statement (12) can also be derived from (1) > through (3). [Statements (5) through (11) purport to show how this is > done.] (12) and (13), however, are logically contradictory. Because a > contradiction can be deduced from statements (1) through (4) and > because all theists believe (1) through (4), atheologians claim that > theists have logically inconsistent beliefs. They note that > philosophers have always believed it is never rational to believe > something contradictory. So, the existence of evil and suffering makes > theists’ belief in the existence of a perfect God irrational. What are Christian responses, in terms of defenses and theodicies, to this specific presentation of the Logical Problem of Evil? Do they specifically challenge certain premises or steps in the argument's reasoning process? Answers that provide detailed insights into the challenged steps of the argument would be greatly appreciated.

Please list the essential points of the Gospel. Please use Bible quotations to back up your answers. A short list I've been pondering: 1. God's Character and Nature 2. Our brokenness from the Fall 3. Christ sent as Redeemer a. Crucifixion b. Resurrection 4. How we should respond to Christ's Atoning Sacrifice. Just thinking in terms of what is essential.

One meaning of the term "Protestant" is "a church drawing its roots from the Reformation and the denominations of the Reformers in particular". I have also seen the term extensively used to mean "a modern non-Catholic non-Orthodox western denomination" with 'modern' meaning dating back no earlier than roughly the time of the Reformation and 'western' generally meaning embracing western scholasticism and enlightenment thinking in general. I have recently been told that the latter meaning is "just wrong". Is the latter definition 'wrong' in some fundamental way and what reasons are there to use or avoid using it? If it is wrong, what term (not "modern non-Catholic non-Orthodox western denomination" please, that's just way too long) would be better for this broader usage?