The Gospel of Matthew starts by stating the names of ancestors of Jesus Christ. Does that have any significance other than to establish that Jesus was a descendant of King David?

We read at Mtt 1:18-19 (NRSVCE): > Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. That implies that St. Joseph had always been a righteous man-- even before he was betrothed to Mary, and his decision to dismiss Mary quietly, would top up his righteousness. My question therefore is: are there stories available in Catholic tradition which throw light on the pre-betrothal life of St. Joseph , and which would substantiate that he was always a righteous man ?

In the Psalms David mentions **"unicorns"**. What exactly was unicorns to David's mind?

The Deposit of Faith is limited to the words and actions of Jesus' historical life--is that correct? Only those things that He taught to his disciples and commanded them to pass on to others can be considered part of the Deposit of Faith--is that correct? There were no additions to the Deposit of Faith after Jesus' ascension--is that correct? After the Ascension, all we can is interpret the Deposit of Faith since public revelation has finished and there is no more revelation to come--is that correct? Those sound like different questions, but it's hard to put the whole question into one sentence! :)

According to Catholic theologians, can the unbaptized have charity ? Charity is >The infused supernatural virtue by which a person loves God above all things for His own sake, and loves others for God's sake. In other words, can charity coexist with or even drive out sin (original or actual)?

I have in mind to make two unified Gospel accounts as a project to help me focus on the essential aspects of the Life, Ministry,and Atonement of Jesus Christ. For the first, I want to draw from events covered in 2 or more of the Gospel accounts. And in the second those found in all four Gospels. Once the information is in hand the idea is to use the most detailed account of an event and add any omitted details from the other accounts to fill in the full picture of what happened, and in what context. Also any recommendations as to what translation/s to use would be helpful. My current list of candidate translations are: KJV, RSV(or ASV), NASB, NRSV & NIV. The first two are (in the U.S.) public domain translations so wouldn't be a challenge if interest developed in others receiving a copy. Whereas the last two are more up to date in the textual research behind them; but are under copyright. Thank you for any helpful information or suggestions you may provide.

Abraham was from a pagan family, separated by his call to God. His families I supposed weren't different from the Canaanites in pagan worship. In some instances, the Canaanites proved more morally upright than Abraham and Isaac by instructing their fellows not to interfere with Isaac and Abraham's wives (family), meting with dire consequences anyone who does break such binding law. Genesis 26: 6-11 If this proves true, why did Abraham and Isaac instructed the heirs of the covenant never to marry from the Canaanites (pagans) but should marry from their families (pagans) in Padan-aran?

Both the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and other denominations have restrictions upon who is allowed to take communion alongside current members. Even though congregations exist in both churches wherein individual pastors will sometimes ignore this rule, the doctrine of each prohibits non-members from taking communion alongside members. Both churches require those who desire to take communion to attend classes and become full members before they are allowed to take communion. (Obvious oversimplification, but this is the gist of it.) But is this practice not in direct opposition to the overall and undeniable messages of the Gospels, which say our principal responsibilities are to love God above all else and love our neighbors as ourselves? I am not seeking the answer I already know, which is that both churches have doctrine that more-or-less states that it would be sinful (and harmful for the person receiving it) to allow someone to take communion if they did not understand the Eucharist exactly as each of these churches understands it (which oddly enough is different in each case). In 1983, the LCMS justified its position on the Eucharist and stated that it is providing justification "so that the church's posture does not appear to be a mere institutional accruement." Then it goes on to offer several institutional accruements. If it is a duck, no amount of confirming one's desire to not be a duck will change it from being a duck. A similar posture is seen in the RCC doctrine, although I am less familiar with their doctrinal writings so I won't quote them. To my knowledge, and I am sure someone will set me straight, Jesus had little to say about the nature of the Eucharist or the nature of those with whom it should be shared. His only instructions on the matter was "Do this for the remembrance of me" and his only descriptions of either portion of the meal was "This is my body, which is given for you." and "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood..." and if we use Luke, it was "poured out for many." There is also John 6:54-58 where Jesus addresses the traditional Jewish community and seems to make taking part in communion a command for *everyone* to obey, not just those who believe in a particular doctrine, although this occurred at a different time and place than the other instruction. I understand that Paul had some things to say about the Eucharist in other New Testament writings, but if we focus only upon the words of Jesus, which should always be kept sacred to a Christian, what is the problem with open communion? Isn't the potential harm that could be done far outweighed by the potential good that could be done by allowing someone who might be "on the fence" to take part in a powerful sacrament of forgiveness and remembrance? Hasn't Jesus commanded that we do so? Is it not a sin to withhold communion from those who might think a little differently about the specific nature of the Eucharist? Does this practice not insult the new believer who, like everyone other Christian, had to ask Jesus to enter their heart (whether or not we knew it when it happened)? It would seem that merely having access to information about something that is *intentionally* left vague by Jesus in the first place should not be the controlling factor in whether a sacrament is received. Even if I agree with the general concepts for why communion should be closed (people should understand its purpose so as to discourage heresies), I cannot extend that agreement to a belief that only those who understand the Eucharist like any particular church has interpreted it should be allowed to take part in a remembrance of Jesus so long as their heart is in a place of humility, contrition, and a sincere belief that Jesus Christ died and rose again to become their personal savior. Please explain how scripture says we should withhold this sacrament from people who have a different understanding of the *nature* of the Eucharist after it is blessed by a pastor/priest. Please explain why I am wrong in my belief that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper for everyone, not just those who think like we do about insignificant details. To me, that is exactly what Jesus preached at length against doing in the book of Matthew when he had some pretty angry words for the Pharisees who were all show and no faith.

In [*Life of Blessed (Now Saint) Margaret Mary Alacoque*](https://ia600703.us.archive.org/25/items/lifeofblessedmar00maryuoft/lifeofblessedmar00maryuoft.pdf) , it is found on p. 3: > It is related in the revelations of St Gertrude that she once asked St John the Evangelist why the devotion to the Sacred Heart was not publicly acknowledged in the Church at that time, and the reply was that God had reserved the manifestation of the devotion to the latter days of the Church, when the love of the people would have grown cold. And indeed, on the Feast of St John the Evangelist, December 27th, 1674, Our Lord disclosed to St. Margaret Mary great revelations about His Sacred Heart. QUESTION: Have there been any mystic Catholic Saints (or Blesseds) who have written about the sufferings Our Lord had endured during the night He spent in the dark prison? What did the mystic(s) write?

This topic has come up occasionally in other posts, but I found no question on the site asking about this specifically. *** In 1834, ED Howe published *Mormonism Unvailed* [sic], claiming based upon the work of Philastus Hurlbut that the Book of Mormon, published in 1830, plagiarized an earlier work of Solomon Spaulding entitled *Manuscript Found*. Most proponents of this theory suggest that Sidney Rigdon served as the connection between Solomon Spaulding and Joseph Smith, who Latter-day Saints believe translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient record by the gift and power of God (source ) Spaulding died in 1816 without having completed or published *Manuscript Found*; from his own correspondence we know he was working on the manuscript in 1812. The manuscript remained in the possession of his family until the 1830s. The manuscript was lost for several decades and was rediscovered in 1884; the popularity of the theory declined after this time. How do Latter-day Saints respond to the Spaulding theory? *** Background on Solomon Spaulding's manuscript and the theories associated with it can be found here .

There are numerous Christians hymns and references in Christian literature that Jesus was "forsaken by all mankind, yet to be in Heaven' enthroned", etc. In essence, there is this powerful image of Christ hanging crucified on the cross bearing the sins of all mankind, totally abandoned. (cf. Mark 15:34) The Gospels, however, at least the Gospel of John, presents the apostle John and Mary the mother of Jesus present at the crucifixion (cf. John 19:26–27), showing somehow that not every human betrayed or forsaken Christ. Are the Christian hymns a simple exaggeration to make a point, or was Jesus indeed literary forsaken by all humans? If so, how are we to interpret the passages cited in John's Gospel?

It is a polemical rabbinic translation of the entire New Testament, allegedly in an uneven and faulty Hebrew, and with a strong anti-Christian bias.

I have previously asked two questions about the "Skeptic's Prayer": - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99697/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99731/61679 Upon reflection, I find that while complete certainty regarding the validity of this form of prayer may not be fully established, I'm highly persuaded that a reasonable case in favor of the legitimacy of the "Skeptic's Prayer" can be constructed based on Scripture. However, I encountered an [article](https://infidels.org/library/modern/robby-berry-skeprayr/) articulating a distinct set of objections to the prayer. The author, an atheist, contends that the prayer falls short of fulfilling the criteria for a valid scientific test. I will quote the first paragraphs of the article: > **A Response To “The Skeptic’s Prayer”** > > **Robby Berry** > > “The Skeptic’s Prayer” is a tract taken from the Handbook Of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. > I first learned of the tract when Jeff Lowder posted it to the Usenet > newsgroup, alt.atheism. What follows is my response to the tract. > > > **Introduction** > > *The following prayer is based on Jeremiah 29:12,13: “Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You > will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”* > > > > **Concept** > > *If you are an honest scientist, here is a way to find out whether Christianity is true or not. Perform the relevant experiment. To test > the hypothesis that someone is behind the door, knock. To test the > Christian hypothesis that Christ is behind the door, knock.* > > > > *How do you knock? Pray! Tell Christ you are seeking the truth– seeking him, if he is truth. Ask him to fulfill his promise that all > who seek him will find him. In his own time, of course. He promised > that you would find, but he didn’t promise a schedule. He’s a lover, > not a train.* > > There is a serious problem with this “scientific” experiment. Suppose > you try the experiment, and nothing happens right away. How long do > you wait until you conclude that the experiment has failed to reveal > the existence of God? If nothing happens, is it because God does not > exist, or because God simply hasn’t gotten around to answering yet, or > because God is for some reason unable to contact us, or because God > does not wish to contact us, or because of some other reason? > > > *But, you man reply, I don’t know whether Christ is God. I don’t even know whether there is a God. That’s all right; you can pray the prayer* > *of the skeptic*. > > > > **Skeptic’s Prayer** > > *“God, I don’t know whether you even exist. I’m a skeptic. I doubt. I think you may be only a myth. But I’m not certain (at least when I’m > completely honest with myself). So if you do exist, and if you really > did promise to reward all seekers, you must be hearing me now. So I > hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever it is > and wherever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If > you are the truth, please help me.”* > > > > *If Christianity is true, he will. Such a prayer constitutes a scientifically fair test of the Christian hypotheses– that is, if you > do not put unfair restrictions of God, like demanding a miracle (your > way, not his) or certainly by tomorrow (your time, not his). The > demand that God act like your servant is hardly a scientifically fair > test of the hypothesis that there is a God who is your King.* The rest of the article contains language that may be perceived as too offensive, and including it would also make the quote excessively long. However, the gist of the objections presented in the article can be summarized as follows: **1. Lack of Specific Criteria for an Answered Prayer:** The Skeptic's Prayer lacks clarity on what specific results would indicate an answered prayer, making the experiment vague and inconclusive. **2. Absence of Scientific Methodology:** The tract claims to present a scientifically fair test but fails to adhere to the principles of the scientific method by not defining clear criteria for success or failure. **3. Rejection of Specificity as "Unfair Restrictions":** The authors dismiss the idea of specifying criteria for an answered prayer as "unfair restrictions," but this rejection of specificity hinders the experiment's meaningfulness and objectivity. **4. Ambiguity in Recognizing God's Revelation:** The experiment does not provide a clear definition of what circumstances or events would constitute God revealing Himself, leaving room for subjective interpretation. **5. Failure to Exclude Alternative Hypotheses:** The experiment does not account for alternative explanations for an answered prayer, such as luck, psychological factors, or other supernatural forces, leading to potential misinterpretations. **6. Skepticism as a Positive Sign:** The author suggests that the attempt to frame religious claims within a scientific context, as seen in the Skeptic's Prayer, reflects a shift towards skepticism, which is *"slowly but surely taking the place of faith."* **7. Overall Ineffectiveness of the Skeptic's Prayer as a Definitive Experiment:** The critique concludes that the Skeptic's Prayer falls short as a conclusive experiment for proving or disproving God's existence, emphasizing the need for more rigorous and specific scientific approaches to settle such questions. Quote: *"Perhaps someday, real scientists will devise an experiment capable of detecting God and settling this issue once and for all. But the Skeptic’s Prayer isn’t it."* I have two questions: - Can we legitimately categorize the Skeptic's Prayer as a "scientific experiment"? Interestingly, the attempt to portray this prayer in a 'scientific' light brings to mind John Lennox's assertion that Christianity can be tested (see *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679*) . - What counterarguments or responses can be provided to address the objections raised in the article? --- EDIT: More objections to the scientific status of the prayer are presented by many of the answers to [Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment? - Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156)

Reading chats and posts and such here with our BU friends I've noticed a thread that seems similar to the way Catholics view The Blessed Virgin Mary and Unitarians view Jesus. It seems like in both theologies they're asymptotically approaching God/Divinity. Could someone help me compare and contrast the relations between the two? Basically, what is the difference between Unitarian Christology and Catholic Mariology?

Not too long ago we had a question here that raised the issues of bribery, cultural "destruction," and use of harsh language against nonbelievers during evangelization efforts in developing countries. There is actually a Wikipedia article on Rice Christians . It offers a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, *The Story of My Experiments with Truth*: >Only Christianity was at that time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity. From this quote, we see that issues of cultural extinction, harsh language, and use of bribery in evangelization is an ongoing problem, from Gandhi's 100 year old testimony to the prior question of last week. My question is to what extent have evangelism-training leaders (or great evangelists) already noted these problems, and what words or scriptural references (or church-fathers-quotes) have they given as caution?

I posted a question on Philosophy Stack Exchange titled [*Is the Skeptic's Prayer a legitimate scientific experiment?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/108053/66156) . Please review it for contextual information. Numerous responses, predominantly from non-believers and skeptics, present various objections to the scientific validity of the *Skeptic's Prayer*. However, let's consider a scenario where a skeptic, intrigued by the possibility of God's existence and the truth of Christianity, decides to earnestly give it a try. This individual prays with the hopeful expectation of a divine response, but despite genuine effort, experiences no discernible outcome, and no conversion experience takes place. Eventually, the skeptic abandons their exploratory pursuit. From a Christian standpoint, what conceivable explanations exist for why a truth-seeking skeptic, in the specific endeavor of seeking an encounter with or a response from the Christian God, might perceive a lack of "results" in their pursuit?

This question (and its answers) indicate that, according to Roman Catholicism, the two witnesses prophesied to come in Revelation 11:3 will almost certainly be Enoch and Elijah (Elias). > And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. Part of the reasoning leading to this notion is that neither of these man died physically but both were taken up into heaven alive and, since it is appointed for man once to die and then the judgement (Hebrews 9:27 ), it is within the integrity of Scripture for them to return where they will eventually be killed by the beast from the bottomless pit. > And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. - Revelation 11:7-10 This is coupled with the prophet Malachi (4:5) declaring: > Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: With the conclusion being that, even though they are not named in the Apocalypse, Elijah will almost certainly be one of the two end times witnesses because he has yet to die in fulfillment of Scripture and he is prophesied in Scripture to come again. Jesus, however, in Matthew 11:10-15 , clearly said that John the Baptist was the prophesied appearance of Elijah and directly quoted Malachi. We also know from Matthew 14 that John the Baptist was put to death by beheading. Additionally, at the transfiguration event recorded in Matthew 17 wherein Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus to three of the disciples, the disciples asked specifically why the scribes say that Elijah must come first and, once again, Jesus declared that John the Baptist **was** that coming of Elijah: > And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:10-13 My question is: According to Roman Catholicism, since Elijah has already come back and died (fulfilling Malachi, Hebrews 9, and the RC argument literally), how many more times is Elijah coming back to earth to be killed and why?

Before Antichrist, Elias and Enoch will preach for 1,260 days: Apoc. 11:3 : >And I will give unto my two witnesses [Elias and Enoch], and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth What exactly will their preaching look like, according to Catholic commentators? Will it involve modern communication technologies like the internet, radio communication, etc.? Or will it be strictly word-of-mouth preaching?

Help me understand Romans 14:23. As we know as Christians, we tend to disagree on interpretations which leads to sometimes uncertainty. For example, say there’s something you you’ve always done that you’ve never believed was wrong/sinful. Let’s say… using tampons for example. And then someone tells you it’s wrong and uses a vague scripture to back it up. So you start to question it and wonder if it’s actually sinful to use or not. To me this sounds like doubt but I feel like it’s unfair to say I’m in sin since I’m not 100% sure it’s a sin, I’m just trying to do my due diligence… What are y’all’s thoughts?

In the Book of Tobit, Sarah is placed in an rural setting in Ecbatana, pleading to the Lord for death after her numerous suitors have been smitten down by a demon called Asmodeus. Her predicament seems known to Tobias who voices his misgivings to Azarias (Raphael). There is quite an abundance of exegesis on this story, typically covering: its parallels with Job, its significance as an intertestamental text and influence on Christian thought in subsequent centuries. However, virtually no ink has been spilled on how and why Asmodeus began afflicting this girl in the first place. I have read a monograph on this book by Robert J. Littman, who sees fit to offer the following explanation: > A major folk motif is the taboo of virginity. The hero must win the > maiden through the defeat of a dragon, serpent or monster who guards > the virginity of the maiden. Often the hero is helped by gods or > magical figures who supply weapons or potions to help to defeat the > monster. We see this in the stories of Perseus and Andromeda, and of > Admetus and Alcestis, among many others. On the one hand, I realize we have little in terms of clues within the Book of Tobit itself; and I realize how often Greek/Roman novels/fictions are compared to texts of this period. On the other hand, applying folk legends and platitudes as such seems a bit crude. Perhaps we might do better by looking for possible inferences intertextually. The Old Testament seems to have associated the wilderness as a dwelling place for demons or where evil may have greater power (such an environment was also the setting for Matthew 4:1-11). This would be consonant with Ecbatana's geography; the name of the demon itself befits the milieu (as Mary Boyce points out in History of Zoroastrianism Vol III). Yet my "wilderness" anecdote theory seems to advance matters very little, it still seems crude. It still remains to be satisfactorily explained how/why/when it happened: - We have no indication that Sarah's family were heterodox or otherwise backsliding. - There are also no mentions as to how the demon first appeared to her and under what circumstances. Was he summoned by Sarah, or did one of Sarah's enemies afflict Asmodeus on her, or it may be that despite how evil Asmodeus is, he is still acting in accordance with the Lord in that he is helping to usher in the union of Sarah and Tobias who are predestined to be together

Question

Given the scarcity of explicit clues as to how or why Asmodeus afflicts Sarah, are there intertextual clues from elsewhere in the Canon that may help explain this, even if only marginally? (Note that in the case of Job, it is made clear that Satan is to test a man of good faith and principle, however in the case of Sarah, it is not explicit, it is merely implied. Though it is stated that Sarah comes from a clan that honors the Lord; though as we have seen elsewhere in the OT, parts of a family may be of pure faith while others succumb to idolatry).