I was thinking about the marriage between a Syro-Malabar boy and a Jacobite girl. I know there are norms and rules about marriage between people from both churches and it is allowed. But the girl has a weird request as the boy is Syro-Malabar the wedding will be in a Syro-Malabar rite but in the Syro-Malabar rite in the wedding ceremony, the bride and groom are required to place hands on the holy gospel and take an oath. She is against taking an oath as she claims it is a direct violation of the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". This has quite stirred me as the oath-taking is done by placing hands on the Bible. To solve this I found a solution to change from Syro-Malabar to Syro-Malankara as in Syro-Malankara it is different and more familiar to the girl and no bible- and oath-taking (correct me if I'm wrong). But the problem is there is only one Syro-Malankara church nearby and it is far away from the boy's Parish which can create logistical and other problems as both of them have a big family and related issues. I was wondering if there is any way to conduct a Syro-Malankara rite at the Syro-Malabar church (boy's Parish). I also would love to know any other potential solutions. As she was brought up in her faith I cannot force herself to correct it (I don't have the authority). And I want to respect her beliefs also don't want to create a problem. Would it be a problem if she didn't hold the Bible and take an oath?

[Numbers 25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+25&version=NIV) shows God as a god who destroys and kills anyone who aligns him/herself with the wrong deity. However, [Matthew 5:39](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%205:39&version=NIV) talks about how we should "not resist an evil person". How can we reconcile God of Numbers 25 with the God of Matt 5:39? To put this another way, is God a god of Anger or a god of Love?

I've been told that each of the plagues that God brought upon Egypt corresponded to a different Egyptian god. That is to say, to mock that particular god. For example, heqet, the goddess of fertility, who had the head of a frog, corresponded to the plague of frogs [tzef'ardeya]. What is the source of this concept ?

[*Fr. Frederick William Faber*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_Faber) became a member of the Oxford Movement under the leadership of St. John Henry Newman et al. in the 1830s. Many of its members, as a result of the condemnations levied upon the group by the Church of England at the time, lost their status at Oxford (e.g., William G. Ward) and/or became Catholics---such as Ward, Newman and Faber (the latter two, of whom, had also previously taken Anglican orders.) Though Faber lived a relatively short life (49 years), he was a prolific writer and a zealous supporter of the Catholic Church. His writings, *e.g.*, [*The Precious Blood*](https://ia802701.us.archive.org/23/items/ThePreciousBlood/ThePreciousBlood_text.pdf) deal with topics most apropos to the confusion the Church is now suffering in the form of many clerics who promote ``gospels'' different from the *only one* preached by the Apostles. QUESTION: Has the cause for Sainthood of Fr. Frederick William Faber ever been formally proposed by someone (a group) devoted to the effort?

I have heard that over half of Protestants do not believe in an earlier theological conception of the Trinity. I have heard that this is especially true of Evangelicals, and that they consider the older type of belief to be Catholic in nature. In what sense has personal belief in (this older Protestant conception of) the Trinity decreased? Why? Note that I am not asking whether Christians believe in the Trinity (most do), nor about Church doctrine, but about some sort of broad shift in belief. This poll provides an example, though I am not asking for analysis of that poll but rather about what further knowledge people have on this.

(both quotes in NKJV) James 2:24 > You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Romans 3:28 > For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the > works of the law. It seems like James is saying we are justified by faith **and** works, but Paul is saying that we are justified by faith **alone**. Am I missing something here?

Both most Protestants and all Catholics believe in Sola Scriptura of the New Testament. Yet certain passages such as John 20:23 cause much consternation among Protestors, resulting in many articles, perhaps tomes, trying to avoid a literal translation. >If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (NIV) The question is why not just use the simplest, - the literal translation?

I have been searching the internet for hours but the only resource I could discover so far that teaches biblical Greek a bit like I imagine is [Little Greek 101: Learning New Testament Greek](http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/) It's not comprehensive but maybe it can give you a bit of an idea of what I am looking for, that is, why not take individual verses and explain the grammatical concepts with those verses, building up the vocabulary at the same time? So far there is nothing that does exactly this, but maybe you can help me out and point me to some book or resource?

I have been brought up in a church group where our church history has never been taught and they refuse to call themselves anything other than Christian. This makes it very difficult for me to research how they started from a historical perspective. If anyone has an idea of what it could be, I would be very thankful. Here are some practices and beliefs unique (again, I say this with some uncertainty) to this group. 1) 7 Dispensations and frequent teaching of them. 2) Women in church should write their questions on slips of paper, then hand it to a man to read out loud for them. 3) High regard for the Darby Translation. 4) Saying “Lord’s Day” instead of Sunday. 5) Their own hymn book, called “Spiritual Songs.” Some beliefs and practices that are broadly found in other denominations but might help in identifying this one are: Believers cannot lose their salvation. Believers baptism. The Eucharist (or as they call it, Breaking of Bread) is only symbolic. Women veiling during meetings and services. No Ecclesiastical structure or even any titles of “pastor” and the like. Belief in the doctrine of Predestination. I hope somebody might be able to help me out.

Ok so, I haven’t seen anyone ask this question really… Since when we die we know we won’t have any knowledge, ecclesiaties 9:5 nor any consciousness we will be in a state of slumber right? It will be like when we were in our mother’s womb, we don’t (at least I don’t) remember anything from being in there. Will it feel like after death when Jesus returns, 5 seconds have passed since we died, or 40 years? Or 2,000 years… You get what I mean?

John 14:21-23 KJV >**21** He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, **and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him**. **22** Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? **23** Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: **and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him**. The passage in John 14:21-23 presents a clear assurance of both the manifestation of Jesus to those who love Him and the promise that the Father and the Son will establish their abode with faithful believers. However, the precise nature of this manifestation and the implications of the Father and the Son making their abode with believers remain unspecified in the text. Essentially, the passage leaves unanswered questions about what this manifestation entails and what practical implications arise when the Father and the Son choose to dwell with the believer, promises that seem deliberately worded in metaphorical language. Put simply, the passage doesn't explicitly detail the expected outcomes in concrete, practical, and non-allegorical terms. How, in concrete and practical terms, do the Father and the Son manifest themselves to Christians based on the promises laid out in this passage? I'm looking for relatively recently published (1900 - present) **testimonial books** that exemplify the manner in which the revelation described in John 14:21-23 unfolds in the lives of Christians in the modern world. --- Note: this question was inspired by the answer for [What is the success criterion for the task of 'seeking God' in Christianity?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/99384/61679) .

The notion of 'seeking God' can be found in multiple passages in the Bible: Acts 17:26-27 >**26** And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, **2700** **that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him**. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us Proverbs 8:17 >I love those who love me, **and those who seek me diligently find me**. Jeremiah 29:13 >**You will seek me and find me**, when you seek me with all your heart. Isaiah 55:6 >**Seek the Lord while he may be found**; call upon him while he is near; Deuteronomy 4:29 >But from there **you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him**, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. 2 Chronicles 15:2 >and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord is with you while you are with him. **If you seek him, he will be found by you**, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you. Matthew 7:7-11 >**7** “Ask, and it will be given to you; **seek, and you will find**; knock, and it will be opened to you. **8** For everyone who asks receives, **and the one who seeks finds**, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. **9** Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? **10** Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? **11** If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! Hebrews 11:6 >And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that **he rewards those who seek him** Acts 17:27 is particularly interesting to me because it takes place in the context of the Apostle Paul addressing the Areopagus of Athens, proclaiming a universal invitation for all mankind to seek (and find) God. But the question in the title remains: what is the success criterion for the task of 'seeking God'? Of course, one could simply say that the task of 'seeking God' could be considered successfully accomplished if God is actually *found*. In other words, the success criterion for *seeking God* is actually *finding God*. Well, although technically correct, this kind of simplistic answer doesn't actually answer the question to my taste because it simply pushes the problem to now having to determine whether or not God has been found. And the question remains, what does 'finding God' actually look like, and how can one know, epistemologically speaking, if this 'finding' has actually taken place, from a subjective point of view? And digging deeper into what this 'finding' might actually look like, I foresee two general kinds of answers that people might offer: - Answers focusing on general revelation, apologetics, history, natural theology, science, and even sacred scripture. In other words, assessing the publicly accessible evidence intellectually, and rationally coming to the conclusion that God must exist. I foresee that some people might go down this route and claim that God can be 'found' rationally in this manner. On this view, seeking God may entail studying entire PhDs in philosophy and theology, spending years in the study of arguments and counter-arguments for/against God's existence from science, history, philosophy, etc. Finding God would then probably look like having some sort of 'aha' moment of realization after having weighed all the publicly accessible evidence. A possible downside to this approach is that there are many intellectuals who actually claim to have done all this with intellectual honesty and still failed to be convinced. [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) comes to mind as a notable example. - Answers that focus on 'finding God' in a more direct, private, experiential, and revelatory way, involving some kind of [religious experience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience) . The problem of this approach is that it sounds very much like [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) to me, which I know to be very controversial. So it looks to me that it's either a long path of hard studying of arguments, without a guarantee of being eventually convinced, or a path of seeking revelatory experiences that is highly controversial. My specific questions therefore are: - Am I positing a false dichotomy? (This question specifically can be seen as a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99241/61679) - What is an overview of Christian perspectives on what it actually means to 'find God' as a success criterion for the task of 'seeking God'?

I've tried several search engines... Is there a verse that says we all end up doing God's will either as sons like [John or James] or as slaves like [rebellious people/demons]?

I've been a Christian for about 5 years now and I'm in a non-denominational setting. However, I'm having a hard time agreeing with my pastors, who are telling me that if I believe in Jesus (a type of belief that shows fruit of the Spirit of course, which I do), I'll go to heaven. The core of the issue for me is Romans 14:23 - "**But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin**." I'm not as much concerned with the command in particular, but more the thought that this passage is saying whoever sins (at least in this way) is condemned (and remember, the context is very clearly talking about a Christian with a weak faith). All the Christians I know always quote Romans 8, which says there's no condemnation for those in Christ - they use it to assure themselves of going to heaven when they feel guilty. I hope you can see my dilemma here? The word 'condemned' here is the same word in Greek here as in Romans 8!! And the same word Jesus uses when talking about people being condemned if they don't believe! I see the same word for 'condemned' used to talk about final judgement again in 1 Corinthians 11:32, also talking specifically about believers. One commentary I saw said the word condemned doesn't necessarily mean condemned to hell, but I just haven't seen good evidence for that. Why would the biblical writers use a main word for how the Bible talks about final judgement in a context where it didn't mean that? That would just confuse and scare people unnecessarily! I'm confused because the Bible does genuinely say we're justified by faith. But, in light of these verses, it seems almost to mean we're justified by our moment-to-moment obedience to faith, with some evidence that God will get us to heaven eventually, even perhaps through periods of being condemned. That's the best I've got without finding some way around these verses about condemnation. I wish I could believe what my church believes - that if I just have faith in Jesus (that shows fruit of the Spirit), I'll go to heaven. But I just don't see solid evidence for that perspective in light of these verses. Do any of you have any perspective on this?

Recently I heard from my devout religious acquaintance that, according to Christian (Catholic) faith, a cloned individual wouldn't actually be a person. She explained that a human being consists of a body and a soul (it's the philosophy of St Thomas, the conception is derived form Aristotle, I suppose). As the flesh can be created by scientists, only God can grant something (somebody) with a soul. As cloning is — according to her — an artificial way of creating a man, you can't divide the spirit like you can split the cells. So I’m asking you a question: Is this really part of Catholic ethics? I understand that the Church is against cloning, but this is the first time I’ve heard that the “effect” of it is, so to say, punished. The same could apply to *in vitro* conception, but I suppose cloning could be taken as a more radical version of this.

There are at least three places in St. Faustina's *Diary* where she writes about the world being maintained by chosen souls; see, for example: > **926** And the Lord gave me to know who it is that upholds the existence of mankind: it is the chosen souls. When the number of the chosen ones is complete, the world will cease to exist. > **1434** I learned that the world's existence is maintained by chosen souls; > **1533** Now I see clearly that chosen souls keep the world in existence QUESTION: Does anyone know of any other Catholic Saints that have written about the world being upheld by chosen souls; and/or, when the number of chosen souls is complete---the world will cease to exist? Or, perhaps, anything else along these lines? Thank you.

There are many Christian pastors, scholars, and theologians who are positive they have the correct interpretation of the unpardonable sin. There isn’t a universal interpretation that everyone agrees on. I assume they all take into account verses such as John 7:37-38, 1 John 1:8–9, Hebrew 7:25, John 6:44, and Romans 10:9-10 when forming their interpretations. Questions 1. Can it be correctly said that all interpretations by pastors and theologians on the unpardonable sin, involve a rejection of Jesus within the interpretation, or involve non-repentance? I don’t believe any interpretation to be correct if it implies that after said interpretation occurs, one could be denied by our Lord if they repent and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and they call on His Name. Based on so many other verses, that interpretation is just unBiblical. 1. If some pastors or theologians think otherwise, do they ever attempt to explain their view of the unpardonable sin and how it would hermeneutically fit within the rest of scripture, without contradictions? Looking for common ground within interpretations of this sin by theologians and pastors. I know of folks who are terrified they may have accidentally committed this sin. (I asked these similar questions in a different community on this site but didn’t get a lot of answers due to it being the incorrect community, I think by the site’s guidelines, to ask in.) The unpardonable sin verse I have been referring to is Matthew 12:31-32: >**31** And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. **32** Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Is attending a priestly ordination, bishop's consecration, or religious profession an indulgenced act (pious work)?

So Jesus after seeing a vision of the suffering he would go through to pay the atonement required to save mankind from the gates of hell, offered a prayer to God asking him to remove that cup of suffering so he doesn't have to drink from it. And here we know that Jesus and God are two different persons because only **two different persons would have two different wills**, the **golden words** that show Jesus is not God are >However let your will be done, not mine. Jesus is letting the **will of the Father supercede his will** because God and Jesus have two different wills from this prayer. - Jesus' will: "Father if its possible, remove this cup from my presence" - God's will: "You have to drink of it to save the world and receive the kingdom" How do people who claim Jesus is God defend this when God and Jesus can have two different wills? Also Jesus himself said these words to distinguish himself from God. >Do not call me good, no one is good except God. >The Father is greater than I.

As I was listening to Christmas music over the holidays, I noticed that the popular Danish Christmas hymn "Dejlig er jorden" ("Beautiful is the world") shares a melody with the hymn "Fairest Lord Jesus", while there are only very vague similarities in the lyrics, such as the motif of the world's natural beauty. Curious about this I checked Wikipedia and learned that both hymns ultimately derive from a German hymn that first appeared in print in 1677. What are the historical details of the progression from the German hymn of 1677 to "Fairest Lord Jesus"?