***Vignettes from Nature***, a book written by Grant Allen and published from London in 1881 has this interesting note: the piece of cloth with which Jesus' face is believed to have been wiped on his way to Calvary was originally known in Latin as 'Vera Icon' meaning 'True Image' which was adapted to name the woman saint who had done the act of compassion.Hence the name St. Veronica. There is no reference of the incident in the Gospels. But, it is mentioned in the 'Via Sacra' or Way of the Cross , a Catholic devotion commemorating the Passion of Christ. Can someone substantiate how St. Veronica got her Name? PS: There is a question on CSE involving the subject, but does not answer my question. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48014/where-did-the-account-of-veronica-originate

I understand that there are verses that say becoming sinless is impossible: > For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) > As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10) > If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8) > Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-19, NKJV) But how can it be impossible if we can do all things with God? > But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:29) > I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:13) How can the highest courts of heaven be filled with “an innumerable number” of those who stopped sinning in life? > 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
> 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12) How was Noah “a just man and perfect in his generations, and [he] walked with God”(Genesis 6:9)?
How was the Israelite king Asa's heart “perfect with the Lord all his days.” (1 Kings 15:14)?
How was Job “perfect and upright, and one that feared God” (Job 1:1) God makes people's hearts all the same, so therefore we all have the same capacity to stop sinning: > He fashioneth [all mens’] hearts alike; he considereth all their works. (Psalm 33:15) So how can it be impossible to be sinless?

I can't help but notice how, for example Eastern-Orthodox only pray prayers that are written in books. Either by saints, or clergy, etc. While for example Methodists pray freely, formulating their own ideas. Is there a name for these two different prayer views?

I spent many, many years in France and while there I read some older liturgical books that explained what the Golden Mass of Our Lady was. These all explained that the Mass in question was in reality the Mass of the **Expectation of Our Lady** (December 18). This was especially true in past centuries in Belgium. While trying to do some research on this connect to the Feast of the Expectation of Our Lady as being the Golden Mass of Our lady, I find out that it seems to be related to the Ember Wednesday of Advent. The Golden Mass of Ember Wednesday The Blessed Virgin Mary and Annunciation of the Lord Although these two liturgical days of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (EF) do share the same Gospel of the Annunciation: Luke 1, 26-38 and occasionally the same day; these two liturgical celebrations have very different spiritual moods. Dom Gueranger does not speak of an Ember Wednesday of Advent connection. The Ember Days were days of fasting and not feast days. Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that the Ember Wednesday of Advent connection the **Missa Aurea** is not correct. My question is as follows: Can anyone locate a pre-twenty-century liturgical source indicating a link between the **Feast of the Expectation of Our Lady** and the **Golden Mass**?

We see at Luke 2: 22- 39 the presentation of Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem and the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth : " When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ...........When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth " Matt 2:21-23 narrates the settling of Holy Family at Nazareth in a different context, that is, after the visit of the Magi, the Holy Family's escape to Egypt and its return from that place : " Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” Jesus was dedicated in the Temple when He was just 40 days old, as was required by Leviticus 12:1-4 . On the other hand, the visit of Magi is believed to have taken place when Jesus was older , say two years (given by the massacre of children upto the age of two by Herod ) . Apparently, the return of Holy Family to Nazareth as mentioned at Luke 2:39 took place after a considerable gap of time .My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the gap between the time of Jesus' presentation at the Temple and that of His Family's return to Nazareth ?

In St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, it said >But to know distinctly what is contained in the universal whole is to know the less common, as to "animal" indistinctly is to know it as "animal"; whereas **to know "animal" distinctly is know it as "rational" or "irrational animal," that is, to know a man or a lion**: therefore our intellect knows "animal" before it knows man; and the same reason holds in comparing any more universal idea with the less universal. (Answer of Question 85(3)) >Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly **to name a man, we should call him a "rational substance,"** but not an "intellectual substance," which latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property, and to man by participation; nor do we call him a "sensible substance," which is the proper name of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent way than to other animals. (Answer of Question 108(5)) So human being is defined as rational animal(or rational substance), and animal is sensible substance. However, androids with AI have complete rationality too, and they can be sensible with sensors. So is android a kind of mankind? Androids seems also rational substances, thus they are men by the definition. However in common sense they don't have souls, hence mustn't be mankind. That seems a paradox. So **my question**: Are androids have souls? Are androids rational substances? If they are rational substances but don't have souls, are they mankind? Why? Note: 'Android ' in here means a kind of intelligent robot which is similar to ours, not a kind of Google's OS.

I recently read an insightful essay written three years ago by Henry Kissinger (now 98 years old) called How the Enlightenment Ends which is a warning regarding, among other things, the usage of Artificial Intelligence in the fields of philosophy and politics. >The Enlightenment started with essentially philosophical insights spread by a new technology. Our period is moving in the opposite direction. **It has generated a potentially dominating technology in search of a guiding philosophy.** The Atlantic.com - June 2018 It would not surprise me if moves were afoot to use AI within Christianity in regard to examination of the scripture (to arrive at doctrinal conclusions) or in the examination of the wide spectrum of beliefs within Christendom (in order to 'normalize' faith itself). Is there any reliable information about such ongoing or proposed projects ? --------------------------- EDIT AFTER COMMENT : My question does not promote or condone AI. I am merely asking if it is being used for the kind of purposes I am outlining. Personally, that would concern me as an adverse step.

As the field of artificial intelligence advances, there has been increased discussion about the possibility that AI automating increasing levels of cognitive tasks. While some argue that such AI could bring about great benefits, others are concerned about the potential consequences of creating machines that could surpass human abilities. In the Christian tradition, there are a number of teachings that could be relevant to this discussion, such as the idea that humans are made in the image of God and have a unique dignity that sets us apart from other creatures. There are also biblical passages that warn against putting too much trust in human-made things and the importance of submitting to God's will. I am interested in knowing whether there are any published opinions or theological reflections within Christianity that address the permissibility or impermissibility of creating human-level AI. Are there any (published) arguments or perspectives within the Christian tradition that would suggest that building such machines is morally unacceptable? I would appreciate any references to Bible verses, articles, books, or other published sources that address this question.

We read in Gen 1:31: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. By human standards, certificate of excellence in relation to something made, is given by a third party which assesses the product independently or in consultation with the manufacturer. Going by Gen 1: 26 ( "Let us make man in our image ") the entire Trinity was involved in Creation . Genesis does not record if God consulted anyone say, the Angels, in the assessment of Creation. How do Creationists address this issue ? Do the Theistic- evolutionists have something to say from their perspective ?

A question from an atheist here. Many Christians seem to oppose Darwin's evolution theory and specifically the notion that man evolved from apes. You see this in the press, you see this in politics, I also happened to talk with some devoted Christians who consider this idea heresy. Why is that? I understand it is written in the Bible that God created humans. It isn't written, how exactly. What's wrong with the concept that God created the Universe in a way that 13.7 billion years later, the evolution of living species on Earth produced humans? It would have certainly been a huge job, worthy of God, much more grand than creating humans directly? The seemingly random evolution still follows the laws of nature (specified by God) and produces results (that God intended) - what's wrong with this view? The fact that something seems random to us (and even our science can prove it's random) doesn't mean it is random to God, who is not subject to our laws of nature. So why do many Christian oppose the evolution theory?

According Paul Wadell's book *The Primacy of Love: An Introduction to the Ethics of Thomas Aquinas*, Aquinas defends that Charity is the mother of all virtues, and also how they can be perfected into 'gifts' of the Holy Spirit. It is exactly this part of how charity perfects them into gifts that I do not understand. It says that charity, when faced with its human limit, with its limit as a virtue, it is transformed by God into the Spirit, taking the virtue to its plenitude. How does this transformation happen? Or is it a mystery?

Church tradition tells us that most of the 12 apostles were martyred, with the apostle John being the only one considered to die an old death. Is there any extra-biblical evidence that shows the apostles were martyred?

Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV >The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children **for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.** Isaiah 59:21 > “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, **on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever**,” says the Lord. Do these verses prove that Old Testament law is still to be followed since it is to be followed forever?

According to trinitarian theology, Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God. It is said that Jesus, being 100% God, died. Therefore, God died. I know that 1/3 of God did not die, because that would be ***tritheism ***. So I've considered two other positions: 1. 100% of the living God stopped living. He died and three days later He rose again. 2. God did not die in the regular human sense. Just as He is "eternally begotten", He is also "eternally dead". Neither of these positions make any sense to me, so perhaps there is a third option. Could somebody please explain how God's death should be understood?

The Bible says: >KJV Ezra 1:8 Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. But in the following chapters that name scarcely turns up. Instead Zerubabbel is portrayed as the prince of Judah in the place of Sheshbazzar. Are they the same people with two names? I would like an answer from biblical and historical sources.

## Motivation I have difficulty, personally, believing in the **perpetual virginity of Mary**. I do not begrudge anyone else believing that doctrine; I cannot imagine that it affects a person's salvation either way. But, to the best of my understanding, a straightforward reading of Matthew 1.25 rules it out: >but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. On the other hand, I do respect the authority, indeed the infallibility, of the Ecumenical Councils. I was a bit shocked, then, to read today that the Fifth Ecumenical Council, alias the **Second Council of Constantinople**, made belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary mandatory for anyone calling himself a Christian. I would be grateful, therefore, for any help in resolving my consequent cognitive dissonance. *I would prefer, however, for any given answer to this question to focus on the interpretation of the canons of Second Council of Constantinople, and not my reading (or misreading) of scripture. Matthew 1.25 has been discussed many times elsewhere; the Second Council of Constantinople has not.* ## The Second Council of Constantinople According to this translation , Canon 2 of the Fifth Ecumenical council states: >If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema. After a bit of reflection, I think I understand from this: 1. The bishops who drew up this canon believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. 1. The canon anathematises those who fail to acknowledge Mary as **Mother of God** but it does not anathematise, explicitly at least, anyone failing to acknowledge Mary as Ever-Virgin. Canon 2, on the other hand, does seem to come a bit closer to an explicit anathematisation of those denying Mary the title of Ever-Virgin: >If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema. But, again, the anathema, at least to my mind, seems to be aimed at a Christological heresy rather than a Mariological one, at whether, through Mary, God was born of a woman, rather than at whether the Mother of God ever slept with her husband. Although it is also clear that the bishops present at the council did believe in Mary's perpetual virginity. (Mary is also called Ever-Virgin in several other canons, but I do not have anything to say about those canons which I have not said already.) ## Summation I wholeheartedly believe that Mary is the Mother of God in precisely the Christological sense outlined in the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople. Therefore, it seems that, despite not believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I am not liable to any of the anathemas (anathemata?) of said canons. But is that just casuistry and/or wishful thinking on my part? (One final thing: it seems that the text of the canons was not preserved in the original Greek, but only in a single Latin manuscript, which was not rediscovered until the 1980s. Does this have any bearing on the authority of the canons in the form in which we have them today?)

I am looking for Old Testament verses about faith in the promised Messiah. It would help to have Old Testament scripture to show continuity with New Testament scripture concerning the promise of the Messiah.

I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God. But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul. So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?

From *Nonresistant Nonbelief*, by J. L. Schellenberg: > One might fail to believe in God even while God is open to a belief-entailing personal relationship if one prevents oneself from believing in God through self-deceptive resistance of God. **So the hiddenness argument needs to show that not all nonbelief is of this sort: that there is (or has in the past been) nonresistant nonbelief**. Chapter 6 shows how this may be done. It does so by reference to humans in the early days of human evolution **as well as those today who are in doubt over whether such a God exists after careful reflection on the idea**. With this job completed, we can add a third premise: **Some finite persons are or have been nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists**. And from this premise together with the previous conclusion, a second conclusion can be drawn: No perfectly loving God exists. > > ([source](https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198733089.001.0001/acprof-9780198733089-chapter-6)) Other authors refer to nonresistant nonbelief as "blameless" disbelief or "inculpable" nonbelief. For example, [this article](https://philpapers.org/browse/divine-hiddenness) says: > “Divine Hiddenness” in contemporary philosophy of religion may refer to the supposed fact that the existence of God is less than obvious, or to an argument against theism based on this supposed fact. The argument begins with the observation that many people of apparently good will and at least average intelligence have investigated the claims of theism, and yet still do not believe that God exists. Suppose, as many theists do, that the greatest human good is found in a personal relationship with God. **Not believing that God exists seems an obvious barrier to such a relationship; but many of those who do not believe in God seem morally and epistemically blameless in their lack of belief**. If the God of theism—an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good personal being—did exist, then surely those who genuinely seek God would find God: an omnipotent God would be capable of providing clear self-revelation to those who genuinely seek, and a perfectly good God would want to provide such revelation. **That so many of those who do seek or have sought God persist in unbelief is therefore itself evidence that God does not exist. Or so claims the advocate of the “argument from divine hiddenness.”** Some philosophers have responded by argued that “the problem of divine hiddenness” is simply a special case of the more general problem of evil, adding nothing new to the case against the existence of God, nor any new challenge to extant responses to the problem of evil. For example, it could be that there is some outweighing good that can only be obtained by God allowing **blameless disbelief** to continue in a person’s life. Other philosophers have argued that a good God might provide only “purposive evidence”; i.e., evidence that may only be made available to one if it would accomplish God’s purpose in one’s life (e.g., that one would respond to the evidence not just by believing that God exists, but also by loving and obeying God). There are contemporary individuals who identify themselves as "nonresistant nonbelievers". For example, in a [recent debate](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM?t=1406) titled *DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor*, Alex O'Connor said in his opening statement: > [...] I'm going to be making the claim, specifically, that atheism or naturalism provides better account for 3 facts of our universe: > - The first being the hiddenness of God. > - The second being the geographical, statistical arrangement of religious belief. > - And the third will be the problem of gratuitous suffering and we'll see if we get time to finish it off. > > Far from being unable to escape God, there is a very real contingent of nonbelievers, and I would count myself among their number, who are unable by any means to discover Him. Who seek and do not find, who knock and receive, as it were, no answer. This strange phenomenon is known as the problem of divine hiddenness. If there is a God, then simply why is He hidden from so many of us so much of the time? If theism is to offer a sufficient account of reality, then it must offer an account of what J. L. Schellenberg has famously labeled "nonresistant nonbelief", which he distinguishes from "resistant nonbelief" [...] **Question**: From a Christian perspective, what are Alex and others who identify themselves as "nonresistant nonbelievers" doing wrong that is preventing them from finding God and attaining genuine belief in Him? What are plausible reasons for why God may appear hidden to them despite their alleged nonresistance? **Note**: for scoping purposes, I'd be interested in answers that accept the following premises: - *Universalism* is false - Human beings possess some form of freedom of the will (i.e. full determinism is false, e.g. Molinists and Arminians would be welcome to answer this question) ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81266/50422

My friend was mentioning a bishop, so I bluntly made a joke "What? Like the chess piece?" I got a few laughs from my other Christian friends before that friend who mentioned a bishop said it was mocking Christianity. And it was running through my mind getting confused if I'd done something wrong or blasphemous, though I don't have a clear mind on what is blasphemous and what is not. Side note: I am a Christian myself, and I'm trying to learn more about God and Grow more disciplined too, so I'm not very knowledgeable if it's a way of mocking.