The accepted answer on https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/248/how-long-was-jesus-in-the-tomb/3107#3107 would only have been possible if the Last Supper was not the Passover meal, which I had always thought it was. Was the Last Supper in fact not the Passover meal?

I just read the book of Daniel all the way through for the first time and found myself curious about Michael. I’ve heard that groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists often equate Michael with Jesus, but from what I’ve seen, mainstream Protestants usually treat them as distinct. Why do Reformed theologians generally distinguish Jesus, the Son of God, from Michael the Archangel? Specifically, what are the main theological reasons? And what particular attributes or roles of Michael are highlighted in Scripture, and how do these compare to those of Jesus?

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).

In the Eucharistic liturgy now used in the Roman Catholic church, Jesus says, "Do this in memory of me." This always strikes me as weak and inappropriate compared with what I used to hear, "Do this in remembrance of me." The former formulation seems more appropriate in reference to someone who has died, whereas the latter is more consistent with the idea of re-experiencing Christ who died and rose from the dead and will come again. Am I correct that the liturgy was changed from "remembrance" to "memory," and if so, what was the justification and what was the discussion at the time?

Where can I find old Holy Office decrees that are not contained in the *Acta Sanctæ Sedis* (1856-1908) or in the *Acta Apostolicæ Sedis* (1909-present)? For example, I want to check out the citations for canon 1258 of the 1917 Code listed here: > **S. C. S. Off.**, 23 mart. 1656, ad 4; 13 nov. 1669; decr. 20 nov. 1704; > 9 dec. 1745; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Algeriae), 21 ian. 1751; > > (Mission. Tenos in Pelopponeso), 10 maii 1753, ad 1; > > (Algeriae), 14 sept. 1780; > > (Kentucky), 13 ian. 1818, ad 1; > > (Queebec), 23 febr. 1820, ad 1, 3; > > instr. (ad Ep. Sanctorien.), 12 maii 1841, n.2; > > instr. 22 iun 1859; > > (Sanctorien.), instr. (ad Archiep. Corcyren.), 3 ian. 1871, n. 2; > > (Columbi), 14 ian. 1874; > > (Tunkin. Central.), 29 mart. 1879; > > (Bucarest), 8 maii 1889; 19 aug. 1891; > > instr. 1 aug. 1900; > > 24 ian. 1906; > **S. C. de Prop. Fide** (C. G.), 17 apr. 1758, ad 2; > > 15 dec. 1764, ad 3; > > (C. G. - Antibar.), 2 aug. 1803, ad 1; > > (C. P. pro Sin. - Cochinchin.), 2 iul. 1827; > > (C. G.), 21 nov. 1837; > > instr. (ad Vic. Ap. Scopiae), 26 sept. 1840, ad 14; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Aegypti), 3 maii 1876 I tried to find the last citation in the Acta Sanctae Sedis but couldn't, does anyone know where I should look? I'm interested in all the citations for the canon except *Ex illa*, *Ex quo*, *Inter omnigenas* and *Dolorem*. If anyone can help me find any of the above documents or others cited in the canon I'd appreciate it. Any language is good.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham) says that the story of Abraham is fictional, an ex-post construction: > The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, > and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the > exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that > does not relate to any period in actual history. A common > hypothesis among scholars is that it was composed in the early Persian > period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish > landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and > traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham" but I recently read that Abraham time is about 1980 B.C. Does anyone happen to know how this speculation was derived and what currency it has?

I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?

I am not asking the difference between these, I think I have an okay grasp on that. I am generally asking, what truly does the difference of who Christ was, and the specific way he was divine, make to the individual? I grew up "protestant" *(which should be obvious based on my question)* but specifically, I grew up LDS, and because I grew up LDS, I don't think I have ever seen a Catholic church, let alone a Orthodox Church. *(And no, I am no longer mormon, and I haven't been mormon since like the age of 11. I disagree with pretty much everything.)* And so I have been kind of dabbling in Orthodoxy in my own spare time. And generally, I think I have a very surface level seperation of the differences between the four Orthodox, Antiochene is Assyrian, Miaphysite is Oriental Orthodox, and Chalcedonian is Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. But just to be sure I know the definitions, 1. Antiochene is like, two distinct natures which are seperate until union? 2. Miaphysite is unified divine and human? 3. Chalcedonian is both natures in one at the same time? But what does this difference really make in the interpretation of the ecumenical councils, and the general bible?

Since the time canon was formed, when did the teaching that salvation can still be obtained by people after their physical death first appear in Christianity?

The wise men were educated and would have documented their experience in detail. Also, they would have shared the Christmas story with everyone they came in contact with on their trip home. Once they were back in their home land their story should have spread far and wide. Outside of scripture, are there any writings telling of the wise men story? If they indeed were educated, respected, and had influence and integrity, there would be non-biblical accounts. Have any been found?

In the Gospel according to Matthew John the Baptist is explicitly shown to be Elijah whereas in John, he denies being Elijah. Obviously the parallels between John the Baptist and Elijah are bountiful ; I suppose the real question is why John denies being Elijah in John ch. 1.

In passages like John 14–16 and the baptism of Jesus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit appear to act in distinct ways, - The Son is baptized - The Spirit descends “like a dove” - The Father speaks from heaven yet Trinitarian theology teaches that God is one in essence. How do theologians explain the distinction of actions and roles among the Trinity while maintaining perfect unity of will? Are there differences in interpretation between major Trinitarian traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant)?

There is a new United Bible Society Greek New Testament coming out in June. Someone I follow posted something that implied the editorial committee may include atheists, unbelievers, and Resurrection-deniers. I cannot for the life of me find out who is on that committee to verify if that is true or not. Does anyone here know? Thank you.

The Old Testament records many instances of men having concubines or many wives. Why did having concubines not fall under the sin of adultery? 2 Samuel 5:13 - "After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him." Genesis 25:6 - "But while he was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines and sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east." (Abraham) I suppose the issue here must've been consent between all parties.

One of my close friends has recently taken to believing in a pre-trib rapture, and out of respect for her, I've tried my best to understand why she believes it. I've seen the texts which the pre-tribulationists use to support their views (mainly 1 Thess. 4:13-19, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, John 14:1-3, Matt 24, Rev. 3:10, and many others) and heard their arguments but I'm still perplexed by how the logic works. I can see how, if you already had the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, you might think some or all of those verses support that interpretation. However, what I can't see is how you anyone came up with the idea in the first place. Clearly, someone did, since there has not been a continuous tradition of pre-tribulationists and the evidence that anyone at all held that view before the 19th century is pretty scanty. So, what I want to understand is how did the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture originate (or re-originate, if the pre-tribbers are correct and it was the original doctrine)? How does one get to the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture without already having it in your mind? To be clear about what I'm asking (I don't think it's a duplicate of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7239/what-scripture-is-used-to-support-a-pre-tribulation-rapture) : I want to know how one would use Scripture to build up the picture of the pre-tribulational rapture, i.e. that Jesus will return in a secret way to gather the church off the earth and we all go into heaven prior to the seven-year Tribulation period, during which many (all?) ethnic Jews will become believers, after which Jesus will return in glory and destroy the anti-Christ and rescue the faithful Jewish believers. If you read the Bible with no pre-conceived notions of the eschaton, what kind of reasoning would lead you to believe that it teaches this timeline?

Are there catholic writings of popes, bishops or catholic church fathers that mention Anne the mother of Saint Mary or narratives from the Protoevangelium of James before its condemnation? Did the ancient catholic church believe that Anne was mother of Saint Mary before the condemnation of the Protoevangelium of James? Some may say that the condemnation of the apocrypha does not mean that they did not believe Anne was mother of Saint Mary, because this could be an unwritten tradition of the church, but the question is if there are written ancient church sources that can prove that, they believed that Anne was mother of Saint Mary and that this idea did not come from the Protoevangelium of James, but from parallel unwritten tradition? > "condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and classified as apocryphal by > the Gelasian Decree around AD 500, became a widely influential source > for Mariology." - [Gospel of James](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James) How would condemned apocrypha become "influential source for Mariology"? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------- **In the East: Probably mentioning the Protevangelium of James** **(c. 375 AD) Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** **Pdf page 641:** > For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his > creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped > the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.”14 If it is > not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of > Ann,15 who was given to **Ann by Joachim**16 and granted to her father and > mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was surely not > born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like > everyone else. (5) For even though the story and traditions of Mary > say that her father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has > conceived,”17 it was not because this had come about without conjugal > intercourse or a man’s seed. The angel who was sent to him predicted > the coming event, so that there would be no doubt. The thing had truly > happened, had already been decreed by God, and had been promised to > the righteous. 12 John 13:23. 13 Cf. Act. John 108–115. 14 Rom 1:25; > 22. 15 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1–3. 16 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1–3. 17 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.2. https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf **The book Panarion:** > It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued > about three years later,1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion

There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to examine that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, which is why I think the verses address the nature of angels. - Matt. 13:38-39: > "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." That verse is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? - Matt. 16:27 > "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. - Matt. 22:30 > "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. - Matt. 24:36 > "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. - Luke 12:9 > "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 > "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. - 1 Cor. 4:9 > "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 > "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. - Heb. 2:16: > "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. - Jude 1:6 > "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. **Now my question**: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

Prior to Westcott and Hort influencing the Revision Committee which produced the 1881 [Revised Version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version) (the supposed 'revision' of the Authorised Version which, in fact, replaced the Received Text with a new Greek Text - that of Westcott and Hort) these two gentlemen intimated that they would refuse to be on the Committee if the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith was not permitted to be a part of the proceedings. >Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott's suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. **The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset**. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee. Nesher Resources I have read, somewhere (and it escapes my memory where) that 'thousands' objected to the Unitarian Dr Vance Smith being on the Committee which would oversee the 'revision' of the bible. Yet, somehow, the above mentioned 'storm' and the 'thousands' I have read of, did not result in Vance Smith, Wescott and Hort being removed from the committee. Had they been removed, Professor Scrivener and the other members would have done as was intended and would have adjusted the known defects of the Authorised Version, rather than replace the Received Text with an altogether new text comprising of over ten thousand (seven per cent) alterations, omissions and additions. Why were the 'storm' and the 'thousands' ineffective ? Whose influence was it that overcame the opposition ? EDIT NOTE : The Protocol, referred to, here, by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' indicates the original intent of the 'Convocation' : >That [pg 003]“a Revision of the Authorized Version” is desirable; and the terms of the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870, being, that the removal of “plain and clear errors” was alone contemplated,—“whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same.” Such were in fact the limits formally imposed by Convocation, (10th Feb. and 3rd, 5th May, 1870,) on the work of Revision. Only necessary changes were to be made. The first Rule of the Committee (25th May) was similar in character: viz.—“To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version, consistently with faithfulness.” Dean John Burgon - *Revision Revised*

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?