Is wearing makeup is sinful according to Catholic teaching? If so, why? I am not asking about someone who would put makeup to cover some kind of deformity on his face (like when someone gets burned on his face) but about regular cases. **Edit (My conclusion so far).** It would seem to me that Aquinas is saying that wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin. It seems to me that Aquinas in his article separates two questions: 1. Whether the adornment (and here adornment (*ornatus*) means wearing clothes, jewelry or something which is added onto the body and is not like makeup which applies paint on the body as Aquinas says in a replay to the second objection) of women is devoid of mortal sin? With this question, it seems to me, he deals in '*I answer with (Respondeo)*'. 2. Whether applying paint(and here is painting (*fucatio*) something that we would call wearing makeup) on the body can be devoid of sin? With this question, it seems to me, he deals in 'Reply to Objection 2'. I am here interested in question 2 and as far as I can see, Aquinas says in Reply to Objection 2 that it is sinful to wear makeup: > Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a kind of > falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin. It seems to me, that the reason that he gives for why wearing makeup can not be devoid of sin is that it is some kind of deceiving. I could try to formalize his argument in this way: 1. It is wrong to deceive others. 2. Wearing makeup is the same as counterfeiting a beauty one has not, therefore wearing makeup includes deceiving others. 3. Therefore, it is wrong to wear makeup. The reason why this argument would not work for wearing clothes is that clothes are to cover the body, while makeup applies paint on the body. Clothes to the body are not the same as makeup to face. Also, this argument would not convict applying products against skin dehydration (or something like that) because those products could be understood as medicine. Also, we could see that the same argument (principle) which I gave is used against those who paint themselves in a way to seem to be of different sex (ie. transgenders). One of the reasons why is it sinful for them to paint themselves that way is because they deceive others. If I am still misunderstanding something please correct me.

Docetism is the belief that Jesus never took a physical, corporeal form, but He was instead solely spiritual in nature. Passages such as 1 John 2:15 , Galatians 5:17 , and Romans 7:18 could be construed to support their argument, but is there anything in the Bible that Docetists claim(ed) directly implies that Christ was not of flesh? On another note, I'd also like to find documentation of a Docetist actually defending their belief with Scripture. Does anyone know of such a case or where I could find one?

I often hear that God caused time to exist, or created time. But causality is relatable to us as a temporal concept, at least in the sense that it requires strict ordering; nothing caused can logically precede its cause (otherwise we could never prove for example that God is Supreme because of His power to cause anything, if causation is meaningless or without order or hierarchy). Time certainly teaches us this and causality is an attribute of time--but perhaps causality is not unique to time? It must be so if time was indeed "caused". Therefore no definition of "eternal" may ignore causality, eternity itself providing for and always being consistent with causality; causality necessarily transcends "time" as we know it, because "time" as we know it was at least purportedly "caused". Further compounding the subject is the fact that time is not always a singleton nor is it always referred to with the definite article in Scripture; it may be used in an apparent singleton sense as in Revelation 10:6 ("there should be time no longer"), but in other places the indefinite article is used, "a time", as in Ecclesiastes 3 . Given that there are multiple "times" in God's purview and appointed by Him to His creations, what sense are we to make, Scripturally, from the assertion that God created time, if the causal aspect is discounted? For example there is no verse in any translation I am aware of that states that God "created time" or that He "caused causality to exist", since the latter would require circular definition. One could purport that God is able to make no sense or have His attributes be circularly defined, but that would make Him unknowable (and void of virtue), contradicting John 17:3. Therefore what is causality, or eternity for that matter, according to the Scriptures? How do time, eternity and causality relate, according to the Scriptures? Is there any inherent attribute of time, if causality is not unique to time?

>The teachings of the Unification Church are based on the Bible but with new interpretations, and Moon saw his role as completing the unfulfilled mission of Jesus **to restore humanity to a state of “sinless” purity.** Unification Church - Reported by 'The Independent' 17 Feb 2013 And what is the biblical basis for explaining how this was to be done ?

Luke 4:16-21 NIV >**16** He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, **17** and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: **18** “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, **19** to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” **20** Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. **21** He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” John 2:11 NIV >What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. Mark 1:14-15 NIV >**14** After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. **15** “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” Matthew 4 cites the same context as the initiation of Jesus' public ministry. We see that Luke presents a perfect starting point for the public ministry of Jesus in Nazareth. John, however, appears to say that Jesus started his ministry with the miracle at Cana. Matthew and Mark on their part, present an event in Galilee by which Jesus started his public life. Exactly when did Jesus launch his public ministry?

In my 20’s, my mom made me abort a child. Later, I was baptized Protestant. I went through RCIA. Did my baptism absolve my sin or must I confess?

[Theistic evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) postulates that God employed the process of evolution to bring about the formation of the human species. In this view, Adam and Eve, like any other living organisms, are thought to share a common ancestor and, by logical inference, must have had biological parents. However, Adam and Eve are also commonly believed to have possessed souls. Considering that genetically they may not have been significantly different from their parents (given the gradual nature of evolutionary changes), it raises an intriguing question: Did their parents also have souls, and if so, does this imply moral accountability for Adam and Eve's ancestry? And for a more amusing pondering: How might dinner table conversations have played out between Adam and Eve and their parents if the former possessed souls while the latter did not?

John 5:28–29 seems to teach salvation by works: > Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. (ESV) How do Calvinists explain this passage?

> Hosea (NLT) > > 1:2-3 When the LORD first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he > said to him, "**Go and marry a prostitute**, so that some of her children > will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has > acted like a prostitute by turning against the LORD and worshiping > other gods." **So he married Gomer** daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and > bore him a son. > > 3:1 Then the LORD said to me, "**Go and love your wife again**, even > though she commits adultery with another lover. This will illustrate > that the LORD still loves Israel, even though the people have turned > to other gods and love to worship them." Did Hosea fall in love with the prostitute or he was simply forced to marry her? Was God forcing Hosea to love her? Is it even possible? Did Hosea really fall in love with her ultimately?

Recently, I have spent some time trying to better understand the Messianic prophecy given in Dan. 9:24-27, which begins with ``Seventy weeks are decreed .... It seems that many English translations begin 9:24 as such, albeit the Hebrew "shavuim", which I understand is given in the Hebrew test, means *sevens*. Based on what Daniel was thinking about when the angel Gabriel appeared to him, it is clear enough that the prophecy pertains to seventy sevens (or 490) years, the last seven of which still seems to be in the future. However, it has been interpreted that the Messiah must have come (before the completion of the first sixty-nine sevens of years) AND must have been "cut off" AFTER the completion of those years. Furthermore, the beginning of those seventy sevens of years must have occurred ``from the utterance of the word that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt ..." Now, chronology from that time is not a clear as we would like to have it, but it does seem to be the case that there are four possibilities for the decree that the prophecy refers to; and in particular, when the countdown of seventy sevens began---The very latest being the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem in 444 B.C. Thus, at the very latest, the countdown of the seventy sevens of years began no later than this date. Now, **WHAT LENGTH OF A YEAR IS LIKELY BEING ALLUDED TO?** If we take the year to be a solar year, then -444 + 483 = 39; and so, simply speaking, the Messiah must have been cut off (killed) around 39 A.D., or later---which seems to be too late. And if we use the dates of the other three possibilities (that I am not listing here)---the Messiah would then have had to have been born much too early, since according to Daniel's prophecy, He had to have been on earth before the expiration of the sixty-nine sevens. This, in some cases, would have placed His birth in near the second century B.C. QUESTION: Hence, with the thought that the Jewish calendar neither is, nor was, a solar calendar---is it possible that the elapse of 483 years prior to the Messiah being cut off refers to "years" on the order of 360 days? I ask, because roughly speaking, this would have the Messiah being cut off in or after the early 30s A.D. which agrees more closely with current calculations as to the year in which Jesus Christ was crucified. Can someone add light to (or correct) these thoughts on calculating a lower bound for when "the Anointed One" had to have been cut off according to Daniel's prophecy? Thank you.

In Deuteronomy 18:16-18 God said to Moses that he will raise up a prophet like unto Moses from his own people or from among their brethern, Christians believe that that this verse is speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ, but in what ways is Jesus like Moses and what are the similarities between Moses and Jesus? > According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in > the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of > the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I > die not. > > And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have > spoken. > > I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto > thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them > all that I shall command him. Deuteronomy 18:16-18

I assume, in theory, God could be able to create a mountain (if he wants to). I don't want to assume he wants to do it, it's just a speculation. If this mountain is tall enough, no people will be ever able to reach the summit. What if we use planes? Well, God can decide to make that mountain even higher that no planes or any kind of spaceship can see the top of it. Can God go even further and create a mountain so high that even God himself, starting from the base, cannot climb all the way to the top?

In an answer to this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23931/why-is-god-the-father-referred-to-as-eternal-father-in-lds-writings-when-he-is) Calvin quoted some LDS scripture from this [search](http://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/god-eternal-nature-of?lang=eng) on the LDS scripture site. It seems that the word "eternal" might mean continuing forever from some point in time in LDS theology, rather than the forever past until forever future as it does for many Christians. However, some of these specifically say from forever past to forever future. How can these scriptures be consistent with their "eternal progression" doctrine? >God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 No change here, so no eternal progression? When this sentence occurs in the Bible, it is usually believed to refer to forever past as well as forever future, however it could be from "sometime past" to "now" to "forever future". >God knows all things, being from everlasting to everlasting: Moro. 7:22 This definitely refers to eternity past to eternity future. >God’s course is one eternal round: D&C 3:2 OK, this could be future only, unless round means it's an unbroken cycle. >God is endless: D&C 19:4, 10 No end in either past or future? Or could it be no end in space? >God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 Past eternity to future eternity, no eternal progression? >Endless and Eternal is God’s name: Moses 7:35 OK, maybe a beginning is not considered an end, so one-direction eternity might work. Am I seriously misinterpreting these statements here?

Historically, one of the attributes of God that provided the most comfort to many people was his unchanging nature - God is "the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow." (Hebrews 13:8) Additionally, Malachi 3:3 says, "I am the Lord, I do not change." and Numbers 23:19 reminds us that God is not a man, and thus does not "repent". This doctrine of God's immutability gave solace to those, frankly, frightened of a changing world. On the other hand, there are places where God "changes his mind" (Exodus 32 / Numbers 16) and even "regrets" making humanity (Genesis 6:6 - translated repents in the KJV!) but fundamentally the question is this: Does the God of the Bible change and grow, as say, a progressive theologian (or is that process theologian I forget!) would maintain, or is God's constancy his defining characteristic?

Trinitarians typically believe that the persons of the Trinity are coequal. How do they explain Jesus' statement that his Father was greater? > Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. > If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the > Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28, KJV) A similar question was once asked here, but was closed for addressing too broad of an audience. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/52406/jesus-rejects-equality-with-god-how-does-this-statement-reconcile-with-traditi Note that this question is not directed at "natures." The question is about Jesus and His Father, and their relationship to each other. I am directing this question specifically to the Trinitarian perspective.

The phrase "Faith in Christ" can also be translated "Faith of Christ" (or "Faithfulness of Christ" [NET]): - 1. In the older school of translations of the Bible into English (I'll call them the "King James school" of translations), almost every example of "pistis Christos" is rendered **"the Faith of Christ"** (the subjective genetive translation) 2. In the vast majority of modern translations (I'll call them the "Modern school") the same phrase is rendered as **"[your] Faith in Christ"**. (the objective genetive translation) 3. There are a few translations that waver between the two possibilities, depending on the exact verse involved, trying to bring the context to bear - the NET is an example of this. See the section below for more detail on the Greek formulations of "Faith in Christ", and the last section for some examples of the different translations. This question only addresses the 3rd type where "en" or "eis" in Greek is not present. The Question: - **Is there any way to understand why or how this general shift occurred from translating these Greek phrases from "the Faith of Christ" to "[your] Faith in Christ" for the majority of modern translations?** --- **Different Greek formulations for "Faith in/of Christ" in the New Testament** In trying to understand the term "Faith" in the Bible, I have come across several different underlying Greek phrases: 1. **En Pistis Christos:** Faith located inside of Christ, or with Christ as the source of the faith. i.e. you have the faith because you are joined with Christ or "in Christ". 2. **Eis Pistis Christos:** Faith into or toward Christ, with the direction of the faith being the key, rather than Christ being the object of the faith. I still do not fully understand the meaning of this one. 3. **Pistis Christos: (by itself with no article):** This can be translated either: - **"[your] Faith in Christ"**, which means [you] trust in Christ or some aspect of his character (Christ or what he does is the object of the faith). This is technically called the *objective genitive* translation. - **"the Faith of Christ" [or sometimes, "the faithfulness of Christ"]**, meaning the faith that Christ has in some other object (such as God the Father). This is technically called the *subjective genitive* translation. Sometimes there are other variations which I'm not enough of a Greek scholar to really speak to, but just about any time faith is not paired with Christ in relationship to faith, the passage is less clear as to the core meaning of faith in that instance, compared with passages that include Christ. **This question is regarding the #3 type of faith only, and only those cases that also mention faith's relationship to Christ. In #3, the Greek allows both "Faith in Christ" and "Faith of Christ" as correct translations, and neither is preferred on it's own - only context can give us clues as to which the correct interpretation is.** --- **Usage examples:** - **1. Romans 3:22.** The KJV indicates that righteousness is applied to us because of the faith that Jesus had (or really, carried out): > 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is **by faith of Jesus Christ** unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; *(Romans 3:21-23, KJV)* - The NET sides with KJV in this case, making it explicit that it is the action of what Christ did by changing it from "faith of Christ" to "faithfulness of Christ" (his faithfulness in carrying out the Father's plan for his death and resurrection, etc.): > 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God **through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ** for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. *(Romans 3:21-23, NET)* Both the NIV and NASB are examples of the modern school's translation making the application of righteousness into a dependency on the individual believer's faith or trust with Jesus as the object of that faith: > - 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes **through faith in Jesus Christ** to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, *(Romans 3:21-23, NIV)* > - 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God **through faith in Jesus Christ** for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, *(Romans 3:21-23, NASB)* --- **2. Galatians 2:16** > - 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by **the faith of Jesus Christ**, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by **the faith of Christ**, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no * flesh be justified. *(Galatians 2:16, KJV)* > - 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by **the faithfulness of Jesus Christ**. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by **the faithfulness of Christ** *(Galatians 2:16, NET)* > - 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but **through faith in Christ Jesus**, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified **by faith in Christ** and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no * flesh will be justified. *(Galatians 2:16, NASB)* --- **So, again, what is the reason for this shift in most modern translations away from "Faith of Christ" in Romans 3:22, Gal 2:16 and similar verses?** **Is it due to textual criticism (correction from a comment: textual analysis)? Shifts in theology/doctrine? A better understanding of Koine Greek? Something else?** **Also Note:** The NET has some pretty extensive footnotes on most of these cases that expound upon the various ancient textual variants and different possible interpretations with the reasoning why they went the way they did.

We read in Jn 6:26: Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Elsewhere also, John uses the term ' sign' while reporting the miracles of Jesus. In fact, we seldom here Jesus referring to his own deeds as miracles, one exception being Mtt 11:23: And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. My question therefore is: What is the special significance of the term ' signs' in relation to the miracles of Jesus ?

People don't like hypocrites, and they get a pretty bad rap in the Bible (especially from Jesus), but is hypocrisy itself a sin? In reformed theology at least, every one is fallen and cannot avoid sin, and is by definition a hypocrite if they point out anyone else's sin. It seems to me that hypocrisy is a necessary evil in the process of accountability. The difference I see is in the manner of being hypocritical, Jesus was critical of the prideful hypocrites who could not see the flaws in themselves, but maybe there is a safe way to be both hypocritical and humbly acknowledging your own sin?

Romans 1:18-25 ESV > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them**. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse**. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Psalm 139:7-10 ESV > 7 **Where shall I go from your Spirit?** **Or where shall I flee from your presence?** 8 If I ascend to heaven, **you are there**! If I make my bed in Sheol, **you are there**! 9 If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, 10 **even there** your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. Paul argues that the universe clearly points to an Almighty Creator, in a way that is clearly perceived by everyone. The psalmist complements this by adding that the presence of God can be perceived anywhere, no matter where one goes. Combining both descriptions, the picture one gets is that the existence and presence of God ought to be undeniably obvious. However, these conclusions are challenged by an increasingly popular argument known as the *Argument from Divine Hiddenness*. The following are handy sources to learn about this argument: - https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/ The argument in question was in fact brought up in a recent [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/106261/66156) to [*Is Romans 1:19-20 philosophically sound?*](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/106259/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange: > Aside from a lack of philosophical argument in the verse you posted > (which I’m sure someone else will answer), there is actually a > philosophical debate about how God is *hidden*, rather than being > “clearly perceived”: if God exists, why is he hidden from us? > > Here is a summary from the [IEP > article](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-hiddenness-argument-against-gods-existence/) > for it: > > > these arguments try to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to > everyone than it is. Since the truth of God’s existence is not as > obvious to everyone as it should be if God existed, proponents of > arguments from divine hiddenness conclude that God must not (or > probably does not) exist. > > As the article explains, the problem rests on the assumption that God > has hidden his existence from us, or at the very least been reluctant > to give evidence that point towards his existence. If there were clear > signs towards his existence, nonbelief would be less prevalent than it > currently is. > > There are some good arguments against the Atheist position (which you > can find in the article), but since there is an ongoing debate about > the hiddenness of God I would say the argument in the verses you > posted doesn’t hold up philosophically. If the existence and presence of God are unmistakably and undeniably evident, how do we explain the traction and impact that the *argument from divine hiddenness* seems to be gaining among atheists? **Note**: Attempts to trivialize the question by answering *"because they are atheists"* are out of scope, because such answers would fail to explain why the individuals in question are atheists in the first place (which should be surprising given the fact that, according to Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 139:7-10 and similar passages, theism should be undeniably evident to everyone).

The following blog has a quaint list of anniversaries for the Feast of the Annunciation: > Thus we find in some calendars of the Middle Ages the following quaint “anniversaries” listed for March 25: > > - The Creation of the World > > - The Fall of Adam and Eve > > - The Sacrifice of Isaac > > - The Exodus of the Jews from Egypt > > - The Incarnation > > - The Crucifixion and Death of Christ > > - The Last Judgment > > [Solemnity of the Annunciation, March 25](https://familyfeastandferia.com/lityear/feastdays-part-1/annunciation-march-25-2/) I am able to associate the historical background of all these points, except the for the last point: The Last Judgement. For example I have more or less located a source for the Sacrifice of Isaac: [Are there any Jewish or Hebrew traditions that hold that the Passover and the binding of Isaac were on the same day (15 Nisan)?](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/94810/13061) Thus my question: **Can someone locate a Middle Ages reference source linking The Last Judgement to the Feast of the Annunciation or the Jewish Passover of 15 Nisan?**