In Matt: 16:18 > And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Douay-Rheims) The underlying Greek uses the term *hades*---which, I surmise, does not mean the same thing as *gehenna,* which of course, is used elsewhere in the New Testament. "Hades," like its Old Testament counterpart, *sheol*, from what I gather, seems to have a double meaning prior to Christ's crucifixion: (i) a place where souls went to after leaving this world (ii) the "limbo of the Fathers" where righteous souls went to await their release by Christ. "Gehenna" always means: the place where the damned suffer eternal punishment. So, it seems that the generic term, "hell" has might have three different meanings. QUESTION: Do we know for sure which "hell" is meant by Our Lord in Matt. 16:18; or, might it have multiple meanings as St. Thomas Aquinas might tell us when trying to interpret Scripture? I am seeking an answer from a Catholic perspective. Thank you.

Thomas said, "O Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου" (koine Greek), "My Lord and my God" (English). What would he have said in Aramaic (Hebrew?) in John 20:28? Would it relate to Adonai and Yahweh?

So my question is about churches (or more specifically the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) which bar all forms of fellowship (to include prayer) unless all points of doctrine are agreed upon. For example, two Lutherans, one from WELS and one from LCMS, have very similar doctrines. The LCMS Lutheran believes in limited fellowship, but will pray with non LCMS Lutherans. The WELS Lutheran will not pray with the LCMS Lutheran however. This makes me wonder: How is it possible to help someone grow in the faith when you cannot even pray with a person until you agree on all points of doctrine? How can they even learn all points of expected doctrine without having a community they are in fellowship with? Do they make an exception when someone is growing in the faith? Do they not bring people to worship services until they're ready to be baptised - and agree to believe all points of doctrine? (So do they discourage parishioners from bringing friends to church?)

From ``Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma'' by Ludwig Ott: According to St. Francis de Sales: > ``Church comes from the Greek word meaning *to call.* Church then signifies an assembly, or company of persons called.'' (from his *Catholic Controversies*) Using an online translator, I seem not to be able to get what I thought would be the English equivalents for *κυρικόν* and *κυριακόν*. Respectively, I get "mainly" and "Sunday." (I had thought I would get something along the lines of ``to call''.) QUESTION: Does anyone know what are the English equivalents to *κυρικόν* and *κυριακόν*; and, if they do not translate into "to call" or something similar, can anyone conjecture what may have been the Greek word for "to call" that St. Francis de Sales had in mind? Thank you.

Several Lutheran church bodies, including some of the Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia, have active monastic communities. However, other Lutheran churches, including ELCA and LCMS in America, have none. So, why do some Lutheran churches have monks while others don't? Is there a specific reason for this difference, or a rule prohibiting them in other Lutheran churches? If not, why don't those churches have monks?

From what I gather, Nestorius rejected Mary as the *Theotokos* (which means "God-bearer") and proposed instead that she merely be called, the *Christotokos*; or rather, "Christ-bearer" because since Mary was a human being---God could never be born of a creature. Hence, (with some details omitted) this would necessarily imply that there were two distinct persons in the Incarnate Christ---one human and one divine accidentally united in one body (in violation of the dogma of *homoousios* defined at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 that God the Father and God the Son are of the *same substance*). It is not clear whether or not Nestorius explicitly taught that there exists two natures in Christ, but his doctrine necessarily leads to that conclusion. Hence, with this heresy, it could neither be said that *God* was born, nor that *He* was crucified, nor that *He* died---and therefore, neither that *He* rose from the dead. And so, as the Holy Spirit tells us in 1 Cor. 15:17: *if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.* The First Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius' teachings as heretical and deposed him from his See (Nestorius was the patriarch of Constantinople at the time.) Was Nestorius ever formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church? I have now noticed that this question seems to be somewhat connected with the one posed here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96605/proof-that-cyril-of-alexandria-is-a-saint-in-the-roman-catholic-church , for *Catholic Encyclopedia* in the entry for [Pope St. Celestine I](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm) says (regarding St. Cyril of Alexandria): > Cyril having found Nestorius openly professing his heresy sent a full account to Celestine, who in a Roman synod (430), having solemnly condemned the errors of Nestorius, now ordered Cyril in his name to proceed against Nestorius, who was to be excommunicated and deposed unless within ten days he should have made in writing a solemn retractation of his errors. In letters written the same day to Nestorius, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, and to John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, Celestine announces the sentence passed upon Nestorius and the commission given to Cyril to execute it. At the same time he restored all who had been excommunicated or deprived by Nestorius. Cyril forwarded the papal sentence and his own anathema to Nestorius. Nevertheless, it is not clear to me whether or not Nestorius had been officially excommunicated.

The book of Revelation shows us the identity of the first beings to be thrown into the lake of fire and these are the **false prophet, the beast, and the dragon**. These are thrown into the lake of fire first because they are already **judged**. This action follows the **last battle** between **good and it's evil** called **Armageddon** where Satan gathers all nations of the world and **tries to attack** the **City of Saints** but **God who loves saints so dearly causes fire to come out of heaven and burns all these nations**. The devil is the **third** to be thrown into the lake of fire after the false prophet and the beast Revelation 20:7-10 >**7** And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison **8** and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. **9** And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, **10** and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. After **Satan is thrown into the lake of fire** God begins to raise the dead(I assume in this context the phrase dead refers to men) and judges all of them according to what's written in the **Book of Life**. My question is, The devil fell with one-third of the angels in the beginning when he revolted in heaven against God. These angels are known to us as demons, is there any text that confirms to us whether they will remain in the **abyss** or **will be condemned to hell like their father the devil?** This is because these demons appealed to Jesus when they had possessed a man and had said their name is **legion**, they begged Jesus not to send them into the **abyss** but instead send them to the **swine**. They also mention that Jesus may have come to torment them before their **appointed time** Luke 8:30-33 >**30** Jesus then asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” for many demons had entered him. **31** And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss. **32** Now a large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, and they begged him to let them enter these. So he gave them permission. **33** Then the demons came out of the man and entered the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and drowned. Is the abyss the **eternal destiny of the angels who did not keep their former places and decided to join the devil in rebellion?** This is because the Book of Revelation skips the judgment of demons and instead tells us about the judgment of the **unholy trinity** and of **men**, no mention of judgment of **fallen angels** The judgment chain is also like this in order going down: - The False Prophet - The Beast - The Dragon - Men I thought fallen angels would be judged after the dragon but the Book of Revelation fast forwards to men.

On pg. 13 of the c. 1930 booklet, "Ephesus and Its Great Council," by T. A. Johnston, is found the following (excerpt from a quote by the said Ecumenical Council on the condemnation of Nestorius): > ...The Lord Jesus Christ whom he blasphemed decides by this holy Council that Nestorius is deprived of his episcopal dignity and of sacerdotal communion. I interpret this as the Council deprived Nestorius of his archbishopric in Constantinople; but, I am unclear as to what "sacerdotal communion" means. Does this mean that Nestorius is forbidden to receive Holy Communion, which certainly would imply that he was excommunicated? Does it mean that he was stripped of his priestly dignity, i.e., laicized? I don't ever recall having seen this term elsewhere.

In a sense, related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96803/what-is-the-controversy-that-is-leading-the-syro-malabar-catholics-into-schism See [Wikipedia: Nestorius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorius) and observe the churches that venerate Nestorius. How is it that Nestorius is venerated (presumably as a Saint) in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church when the Catholic Church had formally condemned Nestorius as a heretic at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in the fifth century? Is this possible?? Could there be a mistake here?

I'd never seen this before today when I was trying to answer a question on the [natures of God](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6290/relationships-between-god-the-father-mary-and-the-two-natures-of-jesus-christ) , but [St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas against Nestorius](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm) is pretty interesting, and as a piece of literature, I think it's pretty unique. This is from the first of the Anathemas: > If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, "The Word was made flesh"] let him be anathema. > > Nestorius: If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema. Is the first part St. Cyril and the second part Nestorius himself? Or is the whole thing St. Cyril and the part that starts with Nestorius: just St. Cyril writing what he believe are the problems with Nestorius's theology?

I understand that Sadducees were upper-class wealthy men who made up the Jewish aristocracy. Pharisees came from all economic classes but were distinguished by their rigid adherence to behaviour as interpreted from the Torah. They were prominent during the time of Jesus, but when did these two groups first arise, and which came first? Perhaps the Old Testament can shed light on this; for example do they go back to the time of Moses, or perhaps to the time of Zadok the priest? What is the origin of the Pharisees and Sadducees?

This question is somewhat related to another question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97347/connections-between-gates-of-hell-and-heresies-from-a-catholic-standpoint In Fr. William Most's article [*Which Church Saves?*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/which-church-saves-12280) he writes (**emphasis** mine): > But Jesus also said many things. For example: in Matt 18.17: "If he will not hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican." And Matthew 16.19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **In the language of the time, to bind and loose meant to give authoritative teaching.** QUESTION: Can someone elaborate (perhaps with some references) on Fr. Most's conclusion: "In the language of the time, to bind and loose meant to give authoritative teaching" ? I am interested in the historical assimilation of *"bind and loose"* with *"teaching authority"* by the Catholic Church.

In Jn 3:8, we see Jesus equating those born of the Holy Spirit to the wind which blows where it likes. No one knows where the wind comes from and where it goes to. Jesus was referring to the place of origin of the wind and it's final destination , and not just the directions ( east/west etc..) it blows from and goes to. We know that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Origin of the people born of the Spirit is also known , whereas their destination is not predictable. So, was Jesus actually referring to the Gifts of the Spirit, say Gift of the Gab, Gift of Healing etc...those born of the Spirit may receive ? No one can foresee when the Gifts are given and taken back. My question therefore is: Is there a larger interpretation of John 3:8 with reference to Gifts of the Holy Spirit ? Inputs from Trinitarians are solicited.

Maybe this question is better suited for Biblical Hermeneutics, but it is on-topic here too. We know that King Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem for God, then the Assyrians or Babylonians (I forget which) destroyed the temple and scattered the Israelites to foreign lands. Eventually they were sent home by the King of Persia and they rebuilt the temple. Then the Romans came and destroyed the temple shortly after Jesus's life and Resurrection and the Jews were once again scattered to foreign lands. In the 20th century after WW2 the Israelites had an initiative to return to "The Promised Land" — many of them have, where they have been in regular conflict with the Arabs. My question is why do some Christians believe that when the Jews will rebuild the Temple of Solomon for the third time, and that this will trigger the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ. Does this have a biblical basis. Is this mentioned in the apostle John's Revelation?

In his article [*The Magisterium, Biblical and Pastoral Aspects*](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/magisterium-biblical-and-pastoral-aspects-3773) , Fr. John F. Wealon writes: > I know of no wiser treatment than that of the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967. The pastoral says: "At this point we must soberly discuss a difficult question, which in the case of many Catholics today, much more than in the past, either menaces their faith or their spontaneous confidence in the doctrinal authority of the Church. We are thinking of the fact that in the exercise of its office, the doctrinal authority of the Church can be subject to error and has in fact erred. The Church has always known that something of the sort was possible. It has stated it in its theology and developed rules for such situations. This possibility of error does not affect doctrines which are proclaimed to be held with absolute assent, by a solemn definition of the Pope or of a General Council or by the ordinary magisterium. It is also historically wrong to affirm that errors of the Church have subsequently been discovered in such dogmas. This of course is not to deny that in the case of a dogma growth in understanding is always possible and always necessary, the original sense being maintained while previous possible misunderstandings are eliminated. And of course the problem in question must not be confused with the obvious fact that there is changeable human law in the Church as well as divine and unalterable law. Changes in such human law have nothing to do with error, but simply raise the question of the opportuneness of legal dispositions at different times. As regards error and the possibility of error in non-defined doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, where in fact the degree of obligation can vary very widely, we must begin by accepting soberly and resolutely the fact that the whole of our human life in general has also to be lived simply 'according to the best of our knowledge'. We have to follow our conscience according to our lights, which cannot be justified with absolute intellectual certainty but still remain here and now the valid norms to be respected in thought and action, because for the present there is nothing better. This is something which everyone knows from his own experience. It is a truth accepted by every doctor in his diagnosis and by every statesman in his judgment of a political situation and the decisions to be taken in view of it. The Church too, in its doctrine and practice, cannot always allow itself to be faced by the dilemma of either giving an absolutely binding doctrinal decision or simply remaining silent and leaving everything to the personal opinion of the individual. To safeguard the real substance of the faith, the Church must give doctrinal instructions, which have a certain degree of obligation but not being definitions of the faith, have a certain provisional character, even to the extent of possible error. This is a risk which must be taken, since otherwise the Church would find it quite impossible to preach its faith as the decisive reality of life, to expound it and to apply it to each new situation of man. In such a case, the situation of the individual with regard to the Church is somewhat like that of a man who knows that he is bound to accept the decision of an expert, even though he knows that this is not infallible. "There is no place, at any rate, in sermons and religious instruction for opinions contrary to such provisional doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, even though in certain circumstances the faithful should have the nature and the limited scope of such provisional pronouncements explained to them... The Christian who believes he has a right to his private opinion, that he already knows what the Church will only come to grasp later, must ask himself in sober self-criticism before God and his conscience, whether he has the necessary depth and breadth of theological expertise to allow his private theory and practice to depart from the present doctrine of the ecclesiastical authorities. The case is in principle admissible. But conceit and presumption will have to answer for their willfulness before the judgment-seat of God". Where may I find the 1967 pastoral letter of these "German bishops" from which the above was extracted? Is it available in English? If not, German O.K.

People speaking English around the world like to quote the Bible, e.g. verses in Psalm, Matthew, and Romans. Which translation versions do they usually quote? Is it correct that they only quote KJV version, not ESV, NIV, ...?

I was wondering how each chapter in the bible was divided into sections (a sub-chapter group of verses)? Is division of a chapter into sections subjective to - the translation version? - the author of the translation? For example, consider Chapter "Romans 3". A KJV version (Published by Thomas Nelson Publishers with ePub Edition December 2022: 978-1-400-33350-9) divided the chapter into four sections titled as: - Gods Judgment Defended - All Have Sinned - Gods Righteousness Through Faith - Boasting Excluded whereas an ESV version (Published by Crossway in 2001) did it differently into only three sections: - Gods Righteousness Upheld - No One Is Righteous - The Righteousness of God Through Faith The first two sections were titled differently in the two versions. "The Righteousness of God Through Faith" in the ESV version is exactly the combination of "Gods Righteousness Through Faith" and "Boasting Excluded" in the KJV version. Why is there a difference?

The following excerpt was copied and pasted from the following webpage on the *Corpus Christi Watershed* website: [More on the subject of “Mutual Enrichment”](https://ccwatershed.org/2020/06/23/more-on-the-subject-of-mutual-enrichment/) : > **A letter of Pope Benedict XVI to bishops, given at Saint Peter’s (7 July 2007), said:** > > > “The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The ECCLESIA DEI COMMISSION, in contact with various bodies devoted to the *usus antiquior*, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, **the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage**. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being **celebrated with great reverence** in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.” I am curious what was meant by the first sentence: "The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: ... some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal." What was meant by "some of the new Prefaces" - I rarely attend the new mass, but when I do, I have not noticed any "preface" lacking from the old.

I point you to the 'Parable of the Sower' in three of the Gospels and to 2 Corinthians 4:4. These scriptures make it clear to us that, whenever the Word Of God is preached or taught, Satan gets involved in the following ways: 1) He will immediately steal the seed of the Word if the receiving heart is 'hard ground'. 2) He will bring persecution and affliction for the Word's sake if the receiving heart is 'stony ground'. 3) He blinds the minds of unbelievers, lest the light of the Glorious Gospel should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4) It is my belief that a Christian can 'bind Satan' in these teaching situations when the Christian acts in the Name of Jesus and that Satan must then desist in his manoeuvres. My question is, "Can a Christian 'bind Satan' in the Name of Jesus in a prayer that is recorded in the video lesson that can be played to different audiences at different times and all over the world?" **or** Must the Christian be present at the time that the teaching is taking place, in order to be able to 'bind Satan' in this situation in the Name of Jesus?

I read that some early Christians were called “Followers of The Way”. I also know that The Tao (of Taoism) is often translated as “The Way”. Is there any connection either etymologically or in the roots of the two systems? *I thought of this because I have heard theories that Jesus may have traveled eastward during his mostly unaccounted-for younger years (his twenties I think it would be roughly).*