> Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to > speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. Many churches these days feature female pastors, preachers and teachers. This includes [theologically conservative churches](https://www.christianpost.com/news/five-theologically-conservative-denominations-with-female-pastors.html) . Presuming that they believe the Bible is inerrant, how do church officials and scholars justify this? Is it based on other scriptures, textual criticism or what? (Not seeking opinions on church policy here, but I am interested in how biblical inerrantists who support women preaching in church deal with this issue hermeneutically.)

**Exodus 31:17 ESV: > It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six > days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested > and was refreshed. Isaiah 40:28 ESV: > Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting > God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; > his understanding is unsearchable. I would like to preface this by saying I am not asking the meaning of "rest" I understand that means to cease. Rather I am asking about the full phrase "he rested and was refreshed". That seems like God was refreshed **as a result** of ceasing creating, but that would imply that God was weary during creation if **ceasing work** made him refreshed. Ive seen answers like "refreshed" as in taking pleasure, but that is an expression in english, **how do we know** that expression exists in ancient Hebrew as well? Similarly I have seen use of Genesis 1:31 as evidence, yet Genesis 1:31 refers to the sixth day, while Genesis 31:17 refers to the seventh day. I bolded the "how" here because I am satisfied with proof for an interpretation. Ex: If it is an anthropomorphism, how do we know it is that and not a contradiction? I understand that the hebrew word for refresh that was used means "to take breath", but there are other places where that word is used to signify regaining energy from weariness, (Exodus 23:12 and 2 Samuel 16:14). **What differentiates** this usage in Exodus 31:17 from the other verses and what makes Exodus 31:17 not mean that God was refreshed **as a result** of his cessation of work (Because how can you be refreshed from stopping work if the work did not make you tired).

**Why is there not a Liturgical Feast in honour of the Father within the Catholic Church?** The Catholic Church is trinitarian in thought and belief. Yet She has no liturgical celebration in honour of the Father. We pray the Our Father at Mass every day. > It’s sad that in the whole liturgical year there isn’t a feast dedicated to the Father, that in the whole Missal there isn’t even a votive Mass in His honour. Come to think of it, it’s very strange; there are many feasts dedicated to Jesus the Son; there is a feast of the Holy Spirit; there are many feasts dedicated to Mary... There isn’t a single feast dedicated to the Father, *“source and origin of all divinity”*. We could almost say that the Father, and no longer the Holy Spirit, is “the unknown divinity”. > > It’s true, there is the feast of the Holy Trinity, which, however, is the feast of a mystery, or a dogma and not of a person and, nevertheless, not of a single divine person. Besides, the fact that there is a feast of the Holy Family doesn’t mean the Church may not feel the need to celebrate, even individually, the three persons of the Holy Family. There are even two feasts dedicated to Jesus’ putative father, but there isn’t a single feast dedicated to His real Father. Couldn’t this be the moment to fill this gap? > > Many feasts originated in order to answer the particular needs of an era: the feast of Corpus Domini, for example, was born as a response of faith to the denial of the real presence, made by Berengario of Tours; to the threat of Jansenism, the Church responded with the feast and devotion to the Sacred Heart and no one will ever know how many spiritual graces this devotion produced. Today, the threat strikes the very heart of the Christian faith which is the revelation of God as Father – the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, as St. Paul calls Him – and, therefore, the Trinity itself. It’s not a coincidence that Providence is bringing back to mind, in our days, the mystery of God’s suffering, but because the Holy Spirit knows that this is the remedy needed to heal the contaminated mind of modern man, who has found, in suffering, the stumbling stone which leads him far away from God. > > In the teachings of the Church, feasts have always been a privileged means of allowing a particular mystery or event of the history of salvation to penetrate in the lives of the faithful. The knowledge and familiarity of the Holy Spirit certainly wouldn’t be so strong without the feast of Pentecost. Feasts are a living catechesis and today there is an urgent need for a catechesis on the Father. Besides its catechetic value, a feast dedicated to the Father would also have, like any other feast, the value of *homologesis*, that is of a public and joyful confession of faith. In fact, feasts are the highest and most solemn form of proclaiming one’s faith, because all people participate in it unanimously. Christians would certainly give great joy to the risen Lord if they were able to accomplish this project “ecumenically”, that is, reaching an agreement with all the Churches who accept it in order to celebrate, with one accord, the feast of the Father on the same day. > > While we look forward to this day, we can already celebrate the feast of the Father “in spirit and in truth”, in the intimacy of our hearts, by perhaps promoting little spiritual initiatives whose purpose is to make the Father known more, to honour Him and express all our filial love for Him, in union with Jesus, who always celebrates His Father... In fact, this is already taking place and many people are experiencing the new and extraordinary fervour it gives to faith and to our whole spiritual life. - A feast for the Father By P. Raniero Cantalamessa ofmcap. I am unaware of any Feast of the Father at a local level within the Church. Perhaps one does exist or had existed, but again I am in ignorance on this subject matter. It seems odd to me. Thus my question: **Why is there not a Liturgical Feast in honour of the Father within the Catholic Church?**

In 2009 Pope Benedict XVI established [personal ordinariate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate) structure for Anglican groups wishing to join the Catholic Church while retaining elements of their "liturgical and spiritual patrimony". In 2013, the [Divine Worship: The Missal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Worship:_The_Missal) was promulgated to replace the [Book of Divine Worship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Divine_Worship) , an earlier Catholic adaptation of the [Book of Common Prayer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer) . My question is for the difference between the [*Novus Ordo*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI) (Ordinary Form) liturgy that most Catholic parishes use and the 2013 "Anglican use" version. To prevent the answer to become unwieldy, the answer can limit itself only for the regular Sunday mass so it doesn't have to cover weddings, funeral, Easter or Christmas liturgies, although more is welcome !

**I've heard a million complex arguments about this for both sides - but here is my take on it.** There are only 3 possible things in this situation. 1. The bread truly becomes Jesus' body. 2. The bread does not become Jesus' body and its a 'figure of speech'. 3. The Holy Spirit made a mistake when writing the Bible. Lets be a bit odd and using the process of elimination going bottom to top. If you're a believing Christian and understand the properties of God, then simply the Holy Spirit can not make mistakes since it is God. God does not make mistakes so whatever is written in the Bible exactly how it is we must take as FACT. Many protestants like to argue that Jesus did not mean that the bread is his body. They like to believe it is symbolic rather then a meaning in actuality, just a mere representation. I asked a lot of them and they tend to say well my pastor said it or someone else said it - seems a lot of people just believe things they are told rather then going out and studying the actual Bible. It seems that people are forgetting that the Bible is literally God communicating with humans, smart, dumb, whoever you are it is for you to read and understand. It's not always a huge puzzle that requires an insane amount of mazes to navigate. One example of this is when Jesus says 'I am'. Jesus says I am so many times through out the Bible and not once is it 'symbolic' or 'he didn't actually mean that'. - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - "I am the resurrection and the life." - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." - "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." - "I am the light of the world." Nobody has anything to say against these yet it clearly states "I am" NOT "I am like". - "I am the bread of life." - John 6:35 - "I am the bread of life." - John 6:48 - "I am the living bread that came down from heaven" - John 6:51 However when he says this all the protestants lose their mind. Hypocrisy! Also to absolutely put a cap once and forever on this topic; when Jesus did want to represent something or use symbolic language... he did! Just look whenever he wants to use a metaphor or a simile he does with rightful semantics! - "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, **as a hen** gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." - Matthew 23:37 Why didn't he say 'Jerusalem you are a hen', hmm maybe because it was symbolic. - "You **are like** whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead" - Matthew 23:27 Why didn't he say 'you are whitewashed tombs', hmm maybe because it was symbolic. This proves that when Jesus says 'I am' he means it. Otherwise you better start re interpreting every other verse rather then just one and live up to your logic. Protestants tend to think that because they are modern they have somehow found new intellect that hasn't been accessible for the past 1500 years by Church fathers before their creation. I can already think what some people will wrongfully reply under here and I'll try my best to keep track of this thread and decimate any argument that is put against this one with ease. P.S - I am not Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. I am Christian! As you all should be. TL;DR - Jesus said 'I am the bread' not 'I am like the bread' or 'The bread is like me'. Take his word for it not anyone elses.

From What does Calvinism teach about infant death? Do newborn babies go to heaven when they die because they haven't committed sins yet, or do they go to hell because they, like everyone else, have a sinful nature? > ARTICLE 17
Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, > which testifies that **the children of believers are holy**, not by > nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together > with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt > the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to > call out of this life in their infancy In my interpretation after reading the above quote, it seems that, according to the Calvinist perspective, election/salvation are passed down from generation to generation. For instance: - A and B husband and wife, both true believers, have holy children B and C. - So B and C are true believers. - B marries D, who is also a true believer because D's parents are true believers. - C marries E, a true believer due to E's parents also being true believers. - Children born to B and D are true believers. - Similarly, children born to C and E are true believers. This cycle continues, passing down from generation to generation with a formula like this: "If both parents are true believers (holy, the elect) - then their children are also holy, the elect (true believers)." But that's only my own interpretation. That's why I ask here. ---------- John Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines pg. 52 > It is certainly true that when children of believers reach the age of > discernment [and have never repented or believed] they will have > alienated themselves from God and destroyed utterly the truth of > baptism. **But this is not to say that our Lord has not elected them and > separated them from others in order to grant them His salvation**. From the above quote, in my own understanding :
A and B husband and wife, both are true believers (the elected). They have a child, name C (also the elected because his parents are the elected). Time passes by, C reach the age of discernment. C did sinful act. Although C haven't repented yet at that time, but that doesn't mean that God has not elected and separated C from others in order to grant C His salvation.

Not necessarily 1st century Galilean Aramaic, it can be the Imperial Aramaic used for parts of the book of Daniel, or the Targumic Aramaic used in the interpretive Jewish translations of Scripture. But when does the first publication of a Lord's prayer translation in a distinctively Jewish (as opposed to Syriac) Aramaic dialect date back to, and what is the text? I'm looking for it in Hebrew (square) letters with nikkud/vowel points

We see at Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made." We go on to read at Gen 3: 14: "The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures....". We come across the first mention of the name of Devil in the Old Testament at Wisdom 2:24 : " but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it." One wonders whether the Devil pre-existed human beings, or whether he was a creation of the sins of mankind. What do the scripture-based teachings of Catholic Church say about the origin and development of Devil .

I'm sorry if this is not an appropriate question for this site, and i apologise for the lack of depth to my belief in a God. I know nothing of the bible but i have faith there is a god. I have stated the above as the basis of my belief in God on other websites and have been told by atheists that such a belief is wishful thinking. I have responded to their comments as to why an atheist would wish for oblivion in death?. Is this a good rebuttle of their statement that I am wishful thinker?

In the following quote from the Catechism, it seems to imply that you can repent of a mortal sin after death. How does that fit with the standard "Once damned always damned after death" view that the Catholic church teaches elsewhere? > Suicide > > 2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it > to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are > obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and > the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life > God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. > > 2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to > preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just > love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly > breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human > societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is > contrary to love for the living God. > > 2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, > especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. > Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. > > Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, > suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one > committing suicide. > > **2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who > have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can > provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for > persons who have taken their own lives.** I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance". Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?

The Roman Catholic Church consists of a couple dozen [autonomous particular churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_communion#List_of_Catholic_churches_in_full_communion) in full communion with the Holy See. Is there a list that indicates the particular church affiliation of each of the 266 popes (so far as is known)? Such a list would be particularly useful for answering the following questions: - How many popes has each particular church produced? - For each particular church, when was the first and last time one of their members became pope, and who were these popes? I imagine that the Latin Church has produced the vast majority of popes, at least in recent times, but I'm very interested to know the facts and figures on popes from the Eastern Churches.

I ask due to a comment to this old question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/33767/according-to-calvinism-why-does-god-give-mercy-to-some-and-not-to-others/33768#33768 Under the answer by a Calvinist that got 16 up-votes and the Green Tick, a person asked, “Has anyone ever encountered a Calvinist who was convinced he was one of the damned (non-elect)? Logically, such people ought to exist.” Another commentator said, Yes, he had had considerable dealings with just such a (miserable) person, concluding, “He somehow misinterpreted the so-called 'doctrines of grace' to be doctrines of condemnation.” I maintain this question is unique on Stack because it does not ask what God’s view, or the Bible’s view might actually be on ‘election’ unto salvation, but seeks to understand how individuals accepting that might arrive at the conclusion that they had not freely received God’s mercy. **This question is addressed to Calvinists** who might understand experientially the dilemma of someone self-identifying as a Calvinist, yet who is convinced they were damned (not elected by the grace of God unto salvation, in other words).

Dr. Taylor Marshal [says](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3tCTbiEyMnGhzKeo6O5fpg?si=f05d0479131d4783) (about 25 minutes in) that a pope could be removed by the college of cardinals for reasons of insanity like powers that the 25th Amendment to the US. Constitution gives to the Vice President and Congress. Has this ever actually happened or has it ever been attempted in the history of the papacy?

This [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97880/what-is-more-objectionable-to-christians-satanism-or-atheism?newreg=92f4b0da53e94471a55615d94573b328) got me thinking. I was an atheist gradually drifting into agnostic territory. But once I got into my 40s, I came to the realization that the devil does exist in many shapes and forms. Whether God exists or not I do not know and do not care so much. But I know for sure you could not be really agnostic realizing that at least in part religion is useful at least to establish some framework of reference for good and evil. This set of beliefs while non-Christian and might be off-topic in Christianity must have a name already. My question is what is it. I vaguely suspect that Christiantiy minus Christ is Judaism.

I feel humiliated when I ask people to explain Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and the temptations of Christ in the desert and people say something like "I'm bored by questions about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. Of course those stories didn't 'really' happen. Why do you ponder such things? They shouldn't be taken literally." But then, with equal fervor, they say, "Of course Christ was tempted by the devil in the desert! Don't you believe the Gospels?" So has the Catholic Church outlined specific Biblical passages which should not be taken literally? And if not, then why not?

The book of Acts includes several examples: > *Then **the Spirit said to Philip**, “Go up and join this chariot.”* Acts 8:29 > *While Peter was reflecting on the vision, **the Spirit said to him**, “Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.”* Acts 10:19-20 > ***The Spirit told me** to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house.​* Acts 11:12 > *While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, **the Holy Spirit said**, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”* Acts 13:2 > *6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, **having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit** to speak the word in Asia. 7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, **but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them**. 8 So, passing by Mysia, they went down to Troas. 9 **And a vision appeared to Paul in the night**: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 **And when Paul had seen the vision**, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that **God had called us** to preach the gospel to them.* Acts 16:6-10 > *9 He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. 10 While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “**Thus says the Holy Spirit**, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’”* Acts 21:9-11 In Luke 4:1 Jesus Himself is described as being led by the Holy Spirit: > ***And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit**, returned from the Jordan **and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness***. Luke 4:1 Do Cessationists believe that this is still happening today? *\(\*\) Note that the messages need not be communicated via mechanical sound waves travelling through the air necessarily, they could be communicated telepathically, or by impressing the sounds directly into the disciple's mind (aka "hearing a voice in one's head"), etc. Whatever the means, the point is that the Holy Spirit was communicating clear, specific messages or instructions to the disciples in the book of Acts (and to Jesus in the Gospels). Do Cessationists believe that the Holy Spirit is still doing that today?*

I'm asking a rather technical question here. I'm wondering where the idea comes from that a person could be "**possessed by**" a demon; as in, the demon "possesses" / "owns" the person -- as opposed to the person simply "having" / "possess**ing**" a demon which does things through and for the person. I understand that there are examples in Scripture where demons give people supernatural abilities like special knowledge or unnatural strength. I also understand that there are examples in Scripture of demons doing things to people like speaking through them or throwing them around. However, my car does things to me that I don't want it to sometimes, but it doesn't "possess" me / "own" me. I own my car. It just doesn't always do what I want it to -- it could even cause me harm (if the brakes went out or something) -- but that has more to do with it not doing what I want it to than it "owning" me. Hopefully this distinction is making sense. The reason I ask is that I looked up the Greek behind a couple of the instances of "demon possession" in Scripture (Luke 4:33; 8:27) and in both places it is **translated** to say that the person was possessed by a demon, but in both cases the **Greek** suggests that the *person* possessed the *demon*. **Is there anything explicit in Scripture which describes a person being "possessed by" a demon? If not, what is the origin of this belief?**

In 325, the bishops gathered at Nicea (with Athansius present not as a bishop but as a deacon-secretary to the Bishop of Alexandria) for an ecumenical council---in which the Council declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an ``eternal derivation'' from the Father, and therefore was co-eternal with Him and equal to God in all aspects. Did St. Athanasius actually speak at the Council of Nicea; if so, is there a record of what he said? Or, perhaps, was his earlier treatise ``On the Incarnation'' invoked during the Council's proceedings? In a nutshell---What was the extent of St. Athanasius' contributions personally *at the Council* and which affected the outcome(s) of the First Council of Nicea?

What does the Christian religion find more objectionable: the worship of Satan, or the non-belief in a God.

Why is it common in many Orthodox icons that Jesus Christ and the saints are represented making mudras? For example: