During Religious Ed. last night the review book had a question that we didn't see explained in the text (using [Faith and Life Series](http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/faithandlife/index.htm) for 7th Grade). It asked, "what part of scripture was not inspired?" The kids were like, "um, Judas?" and I thought that was a good answer, but said we do learn a thing or two from him. The answer key however, said "the literary style" is not inspired. I did not understand this and couldn't explain it to the kids. I just told them, the fact that some of it is poetry and some of it isn't is not in it self inspired. I can't for the life of me see how this tidbit will help them to understand the Bible or even how thinking that a poem can be inspired in and of itself. What does it mean that the literary style is not inspired and why is it not inspired? This is asked from a Catholic perspective, but I think any tradition that doesn't hold that the literary style was in fact inspired (whatever that means) could help me answer this question.

I read this quote for Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in an Arabic book, but I am trying to locate the source (reference) of that quote (in which work for Athanasius), or something of the similar meaning by the saint. > "The Persons are not three gods, but rather they are one triune God > with the consistency of His mind (the Father), His word (the Son), and > His Spirit, who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

To provide context, some time ago I posed the following question: *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98040/61679* . Answers suggested that denominations aligning with this sentiment may include the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, as well as certain branches of Protestantism like Quakerism, Methodism, Pentecostalism, and the Charismatic movement. Now, the concept of *[mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism)* in Christianity might raise an eyebrow or two. Hence, perhaps a more readily accepted phrase that avoids immediate dismissal could be *"seeking a tangible experience of *God's presence*"*. Pastor [Tim Conway](https://illbehonest.com/author/tim-conway) , affiliated with the *I'll Be Honest* ministry, provides profound insights in a video titled [The Presence of God or Mysticism? - Ask Pastor Tim](https://youtu.be/E8SsIFrqY8g) , where he eloquently defends the legitimacy of pursuing and yearning for God's presence. He cites several notable figures from recent history within the reformed movement who attest to this possibility, including Lloyd-Jones, John Owen, A.B. Simpson, Charles Simeon, David Brainerd, Jonathan Edwards, Sarah Edwards, Duncan Campbell, and more recently, Paul Washer. Given this understanding, I'm interested in exploring denominations that might hold differing views, opposing or hesitating to actively pursue a more tangible awareness and experience of God's presence. Which denominations might not prioritize or consider this aspect important? For example, are there denominations that contend seeking experiences could invalidate faith, arguing that authentic faith necessitates the absence of experiential encounters, as we are called to walk by 'faith alone'? --- *Note*: For those interested in the biblical basis for Christian Mysticism, see *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98050/61679*

Life for humans (Adam and Eve) before eating from the tree of knowledge was extremely different - as there was no sin in the physical earth. > Before that time, the two were separate, and evil had only a nebulous > existence in potentia. Then, eating from the tree of knowledge cursed the rest of humanity. Now, it is also "known" that God has the **power to do ANY thing**. Can God allow humanity ever get back to that previous state (***i.e. - we all obey Him perfectly***)** here on Earth** or is it never an option and why won't He?

Many references indicate that Paul is quoting Psalm 19:4 when he writes in Romans 10:18 “Their voice … “ (Strong’s 5353). However, the Hebrew noun in Psalm 19:4 (Strong’s 6957) seems to always be translated “line”. Is Paul indicating a line of reasoning, or proof? Or is there history there that is not readily indicated to the lay reader? Do most scholars attribute Paul’s quote to Psalm 19:4?

> Herod, on his birthday, gave a banquet for his courtiers, his > military officers, and the leading men of Galilee. Herodias’s own > daughter (named [Salome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome) in Josephus) came in and performed a dance that delighted Herod and his > guests. The king said to the girl, “Ask of me whatever you wish and I > will grant it to you.” He even swore [many things] to her, “I will > grant you whatever you ask of me, even to half of my kingdom.” Modern depictions of this event often play up its sexual connotations, portraying Herod Antipas as a lecherous old man salivating as his step daughter performed something called the [Dance of the Seven Veils](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_the_Seven_Veils) . It turns out this dance is a fiction, and the text says only that it delighted Herod and his guests - so much so that he offered half his kingdom as a reward. My question is what motivated him? Was it lechery? Should we give him the benefit of the doubt and see his offer as the result of his heart being moved by Salome's innocent dance of modest maidenly beauty? Or was it perhaps the fact that his marriage to Herodias was a subject of public controversy and by making such an offer to Salome in a public setting, Antipas was demonstrating a commitment to accept Herodias' offspring as his own, despite not being her physical father? --------------- NOTE: Interpretations from various denominational perspectives are welcome. I ask the question here rather than BH.se because the text itself provides no direct answer.

Why, in the Gospel of Mark, is Jesus referred to as the son of Mary but, in the Gospel of Luke, he is referred to as the son of Joseph? >Is not this the carpenter, **the son of Mary**, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3) >And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, **Is not this Joseph's son?** (Luke 4:22)

I've always heard, over in over, in Church and elsewhere that Jesus's ministry on Earth was only three years. However, it doesn't seem that there is much supporting Biblical evidence for this, or at least direct evidence. Nowhere does it say an exact period of time the events in the gospel where taking place over. Is there evidence in the New Testament that we can reconstruct how long Jesus ministered for? If not then where does the three year figure come from?

John the Baptist was aware the Messiah was coming after him, and His identity was revealed (or rather, confirmed) to him in the Jordan though a [voice from Heaven](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew.3%3A13%E2%80%9317%3B+Mark.1%3A9%E2%80%9311%3B+Luke.3%3A21%E2%80%9323&version=NIV) . And yet, it seems John the Baptist did not became one of Jesus's many disciples, nor was he chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve (whereas two of John's disciples did follow Jesus, [one being identified as Andrew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201:35-1:42&version=NIV)) . It seemed like they had different tasks altogether and could not mix. I am not aware of an instance where they are preaching together or sharing other moments. Why John the Baptist did not "follow" Jesus and became one of his disciples? He remained having disciples of himself, which you would imagine being a "less perfect way" than following Jesus. PD: If needed as per site rules, a Catholic perspective is preferred.

Is nausea or vomiting ever mentioned anywhere in the bible? Please provided references. I am unsure how I can make the question clearer. I don't think it is in there.

I was just reading the [*Wikipedia* article about it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_theory_of_atonement) and one of its characteristics is: > **Unlimited scope of the substitution**: According to governmental theory, Christ's death applies not to individuals directly, but to the Church as a corporate entity. In other words, Christ did not make a one-to-one substitution, but a general substitution. In this view, Christ's substitution can also be considered to be infinite, so that God could apply the substitution to an arbitrary, not pre-determined number of individuals and to their sins. It seems to say that Jesus died only for the Church as a general group. **What does death applies to the Church mean here**?

While contemplating answers to several related questions ([link 1](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99969/61679) , [link 2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99954/61679) , [link 3](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99687/61679)) , I've started to have second thoughts on my original impression about the concept of conversion, perhaps wrongly understanding it as an inherently evident experience or event, rather than a more subtle, gradual, and maybe subconscious process. When I say an experience or event, I'm not necessarily referring to a dramatic Damascus road encounter, but perhaps some form of an 'aha' moment of enlightenment. For instance, Latter-day Saints have the concept of ['gaining a testimony'](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99578/61679) , which appears to involve an experiential aspect, yet I'm uncertain if they distinguish it from the moment of conversion. Which faith traditions posit that the moment of conversion is an unmistakable and self-evident spiritual event or experience?

In diverse contexts, I've encountered encouragements aimed at seekers, skeptics, non-believers, and non-Christians in general, urging them to pray to God, beseeching Him to "reveal Himself" to them. Is there a biblical basis for urging a non-believer or seeker to pray like this? And what should the one praying this kind of prayer expect to happen if God were to indeed answer such a prayer? *Note*: this question is closely related, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92165/61679

I would like to delve into the Christian perspective on whether God can be credited for the healing process of an individual who, initially not a Muslim, converts to Islam and undergoes genuine spiritual renewal, or at least claims to undergo such a renewal, based on their self-reported experience. One can find many such testimonies on the web ([example 1](https://youtu.be/4-l7cemjwyI?t=605) , [example 2](https://youtu.be/nwjJS6wfv-s?t=547) , [example 3](https://youtu.be/Ertxy9kMB7M) , [example 4](https://youtu.be/8jNuBgSqYks) , [example 5](https://www.youtube.com/@MuslimConvertStories)) . I want to understand the Christian viewpoint regarding divine involvement in the well-being and spiritual growth of individuals who undergo a religious transformation, particularly in the context of the conversion of a non-Muslim to the Islamic faith. Is it conceivable that God plays a role in the spiritual development of a Muslim convert? **Are there any Christian denominations that believe this is possible in principle?** Or are all Christians denominations necessarily committed by theological reasons to ascribe any improvement and healing experienced by a Muslim convert to psychology, sociology, the influence of deceptive spirits, or any combination of these factors? *Note*: While this question can be broadly applied to individuals reporting healing and spiritual growth in various religions, my primary focus is on Islam, given its close association as an Abrahamic faith, alongside Judaism, with Christianity.

This question is inspired by a question asked in 2013: 'Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?' https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15590/do-all-christian-traditions-expect-a-second-coming-of-christ Although it is my understanding that mainstream Christian denominations uphold the Athanasian Creed which declares that "Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" there are some Christian denominations who deny that Christ Jesus will return visibly, when he comes with the heavenly hosts to judge the living and the dead. Jehovah's Witnesses are one example of a denomination who deny that Christ Jesus will return visibly. Revelation 1:7 declares that "every eye will see him" when he comes with the clouds, but some denominations think this is a euphemism for "seeing" with spiritual eyes; of being spiritually enlightened, that the clouds will obscure any literal sight. What is the biblical basis for Christians to believe that when Christ Jesus returns he will be seen - he will be visible to all the people on earth?

I have browsed the Internet quite a bit but could not find the scribal abbreviation for the Diatessaron (maybe an established siglum for it does not exist).

Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8. Does the Catholic Church have an official interpretation of these verses? And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by the Catholic Church?

Is there any manuscript among the Dead Sea scrolls, which foretold something that happened after the manuscript was written?

**Genesis 2:15(NIV)** > The LORD God took the man and put him in the **Garden of Eden** to work it > and take care of it. I'm curious to know, now, **in which which country is the Garden of Eden located?** (which is mentioned in Genesis)

In the book, "*The Art of Biblical Narrative*", which I gather is a fairly common and well-regarded book, [Robert Alter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Alter) makes an interesting observation that we rarely see epithets used in the Old Testament. Namely, he points out that we typically see "Jacob" and not "wily Jacob" and "Moses" as opposed to "sagacious Moses" -- contrasting with what we might find in Greek texts, such as the Homeric epics. Aside from the obvious inference that Greeks and Jews are two different peoples and two different cultures, Alter also asserts that the absence of epithets allows for a greater potential for intra-character change. This allows for story arcs over the life time of a character to unfold in a way that amplifies man's precariousness in the world, the importance of heeding the Lord's message and striving not to sin. I don't dispute that. However, it seems that there are cases when this general rule seems to not fit. It would seem that Balaam is a good example here. He has many epithets: "open-eyed", "eyes-unveiled", etc. In fact, it could be argued, it is because of these epithets that makes his ultimate failure so poignant. A cherry-picked example, perhaps, but it still shows that epithets can conform to and effectively complement the biblical narrative.

Question

Given that there are a handful of cases where epithets are used, rather successfully, to accentuate the biblical narrative, why weren't they used more? Thus taking the form of the epithetless-approach highlighted by Alter?