Matt. 18:20 (D-R): > For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Does anyone know of any Fathers of the Catholic Church whom have commented on this passage of Scripture; and if so, what they have said about it? Thank you.

What is Cavanagh Altar Bread? Why do churches in America prefer to use the product for Communion wafers?

I am fully aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah and Jesus are separate beings. However their translation of John 1:1 says that "the word (logos) was a god. Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow that Jesus is indeed rightly called divine though not equal to Almighty God?

We read in Matt 27 how Jesus was put to trial before the Roman Governor: > Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed......... For he realized that it was out of jealousy that they had handed him over. ....... The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” All of them said, “Let him be crucified!” Then he asked, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” The charges levelled against Jesus were blasphemy and misleading of the Jews against Roman empire, calling himself their king. The first one would come under Hebrew law and the trial & punishment was of summary nature, as we see in Jn 8:58-59: > Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. And we see the Jewish leaders saying to Pilate: > The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.” (Jn 19:7) Those days, only the Romans had the power to award death sentence to Jews (Jn 18:31). But blasphemy was not listed by Romans as a crime demanding death sentence. The second charge could not be substantiated, as we see Pilate putting up the sign of INRI over Jesus' cross, much to the embarrassment of the Jewish leaders (Jn 19:22). In effect, Jesus was convicted for allegedly breaking Hebrew laws, but was awarded death sentence under Roman laws. **My question therefore, is**: Under the laws of which regime was Jesus sentenced to death on the cross? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In the 16th century, Pope Pius V established a 15-Mysteries Rosary comprising of Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious Mysteries. In the year 2002, Pope John Paul II added five Luminous Mysteries depicting key points of the Public Life of Jesus. There are different schools of thought as to whether the Luminous Mysteries form integral part of the devotion of Rosary, or not. The points of objection include a deviation from the matching of numbers of the Rosary beads used for three sets of Mysteries in 15 decades, that is 150 with the number of Psalms, vis-a-vis the number of beads now required to be used, that is 200, in case the complete Rosary is recited in one go. My question therefore is: **What is the official stand of Catholic Church on the inclusion of Luminous Mysteries as integral part of the devotion of Rosary?**

According to the [Catholic Encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) , a question about the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) I have read that the Council of Jerusalem is labeled as a "General Council." Furthermore, it is my understanding that the terms "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" are synonymous. If that is correct, then why is the Council of Jerusalem (50 A.D. or thereabouts) not considered to be the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church?

**What is the difference between a Catholic custom and a Catholic tradition?** I have noticed a trend in recent years to call Catholic customs a Catholic tradition (with a small t). Much confusion is out there in this domain. Tradition with a capital T is less confusing for most with what a tradition with a miniscule t actually is. The confusion I am seeing lately is confusing Catholic traditions with Catholic customs and Catholic devotions. There is a French author out there that really explained this quite well and stated that a Catholic custom could not be considered a Catholic tradition (local) if it has not been around for less than 100 years. Unfortunately, I can not recall the source. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. I imagine some local customs are now considered true local traditions.

Did Jesus always have explicit knowledge that he is God? Or, did he figure out he is God by reading the old testament, and realizing the prophecies were about him? Or some other means? And, how did he know that he knew, instead of it being a matter of opinion?

Some underground church in mainland China said that they are a branch of a Christian denomination called "福音派", which also exists in US and other places in the world. But they were not able to name it in English, except that one member mentioned the word of "assembly", despite not being able to confirm whether it is "Assembly of God". By searching on the censored Internet (the one only available in China), "福音派" seems to be a translation of "evangelical", while "派" means denomination. If I am correct, "evangelical" isn't just a denomination, but a group of conservative denominations, at least in US. Also, I am not sure if there is any mainline denomination in mainland China. It seems to make sense to think of the church as evangelical, since it constantly gives out a conservative feeling, both biblical and political. (The preacher keeps saying that gays are promiscuous and will go to hell, by citing the bible, and claims that the American churches accepting the LGBTQ movement betray the bible. He also keeps requesting every one to keep the church's location a secret, while denying their religious freedom having been infringed at all, and furthermore feeling grateful to the government for not having found it out and/or not having shut it down.) Is there a way to find out which denomination the church (or a church calling themselves "福音派") belongs to? Is there more than one evangelical denominations whose names include "assembly"? Does "福音派" in China mostly likely refer to one particular denomination?

This question is more theoretical than anything, but I wanted to ask the following: If God is a perfect being, one can safely infer that he has no needs, because of the nature of his existence is already 100% fulfilled. One can also infer, under the same preconception, that he should have no real wants. A true want for something more would mean that you are, at least in your own perception, incomplete. With this in mind, one can assume that God had no real reason to create humanity. I have heard the argument that God "wanted" to create humanity, in the same manner that human parents "want" to have kids. But if God is perfect, with no needs and no reason to want more, than this argument doesn't hold a lot of weight. So, does the bible explain the "why" of God creating humanity? I wouldn't expect to have a direct answer, but does it at least give us clues as to God's reasoning?

Note: I truly do not mean to reopen debate about cessationism or ask about the basis of it or contrary views. I'm just asking about terms and how this one would be classified. _______ ## The Question Is hearing directly from God (or Christ or the Holy Spirit) *in either words to the ear, or clear words in the mind as “Other”* one of the Supernatural Fruits of the Spirit, and hence directly subject to the cessationism debate, and hence also something the Church Fathers experienced? Is this generally referred to as revelation, as opposed to prophesy? Do Christians believe (or, which Christians believe, including **you** if Christian) that this happens in modern times to some Christians? _______ ## Notes and links: Related: Depending upon the delineation made in the above by any answers, then my last question has already been asked and answered somewhat: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/10041/54533 Related: This question has examples from the Bible of God talking to people, and an answer says that Reformed Theology includes it as one of the things that they claim has ceased: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/50422 I believe there are examples of church fathers hearing from God, and am even more certain they acquainted with and believed those who did, don’t recall which question that was. Finally, [Al Brown’s thoughts on cessationism generally](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/84727/54533) (which is not this question).

Apparently the Catholic Church has recognized Joachim and Anne as saints, and it is said that they are the father and mother of the virgin Mary. Is the belief that Joachim and Anne are the parents of Mary dogmatically declared by the Roman Catholic Church?

Does the Catholic Church officially consider the end of the Patristic era to have occurred with the death of St. John Damascene in the eighth century? I have read that some consider St. Bernard of Clairvaux who died in the twelfth century to have been a Church Father. If so, are there any Church Fathers of the Catholic Church between St. John Damascene and St. Bernard, or is indeed, St. John Damascene the last one? Thank you.

John Bunyan's 'The Pilgrim’s Progress' (published 1678) makes reference to "crossing the River" in order to get to the Celestial City. Chapter 20 mentions that only Enoch and Elijah did not have to cross the River. FAITH is needed to make the crossing from this life to the next. In Chapter 34 Christiana crosses the River, along with many other pilgrims. All have been summoned to make the crossing. My question is about the origins of the expression "crossing over Jordan" and whether this is commonly understood as an allegory of the believer passing over from this life to the next, or if it could mean something else. I'm looking for source material/references to help me trace this expression and understand how various Christian traditions understand it. Is “crossing over Jordan” a metaphor or a figure of speech for the believer passing from physical death to heaven?

I have heard that there is a lot of influence from the Greeks in the development of Christianity, the Stoics and Platonists, and the concept of *logos*, the Word, and Jesus. You can see this in the Gospels, the book of Enoch, Daniel, etc. This, as far as I know, is an established fact of modern biblical scholarship (not from a religious but an academic point of view), But where does the Holy Ghost fit into this Greek influence and what is he (they?) supposed to be? Sorry if this is a dumb question, but does the Holy Ghost come from Greek influence? Are they the ghost of a dead Jesus? How does that make sense if Jesus was said to be resurrected? What is the origin, as far as scholarship can tell (textual analysis, archeology, etc.), of the Holy Ghost and what is their nature and relationship to the other two?

I am curious why the books of the Protestant Bible are in the order that they are in? Someone told me they thought the books were in some sort of chronological order - is that true? (I know the content isn't chronological, but are they in the order written or something like that?)

>1)”Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. [**Deuteronomy 6:4**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A4&version=ESV) >2)And the Word( Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[a] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” [**John 1:14**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A14&version=ESV) >3)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [**John 1:1**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1&version=ESV) >4)He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by[a] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [**Coossians 1:15-17**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1%3A15-17&version=ESV) >5)”and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [**Mathew 3:17**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3%3A17&version=ESV) According to these 5 verses, it tells that Jesus was created before all the rest. And in another verse says that Jesus always existed. And in another verse, it says that Jesus is God. This where I can’t explain. How can Jesus, Holy Ghost and God be one God? In first, I thought that Jesus and Holy Ghost are 2 different creators that are uncreated and God is the uncreated one which it will equal 3 gods. **CLARIFICATION** I had a conversation today with my religious teacher, and I asked him, “sir, can I ask you something?” And he said, “yes, you can” and I asked him, “is that true that Jesus is God’s creation?” And he said, “no, Jesus is God, in fact, he part from trinity of one God.” And I asked, “how can this be possible?” And he said, “I don’t know”. What I found that in Bible says that God has sent Jesus, what is that suppose to mean? Is Jesus another creator like God Himself? And in another verse I find this: >”this is My beloved son! So listen to him” Which it indicates that Jesus and God are different and not 3 in one God. But some rumors say opposite that Jesus, Holy Ghost and Father are three persons in one God. >“I’ll be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty” [**[Corinthians, 6:18]**](https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-18.htm) **My questions are:** 1. How it is possible to be 3 persons in one God? 2. Is there anything in Bible that clarifies the concept of trinity? Can anyone please find something in Bible that can clearly explain how this is possible?

**To clarify**, I'm not asking why God allows evil. I believe there are sufficient arguments for that. What I would like to know is: how can a righteous God **tolerate** evil without it affecting His nature as righteous? Are there any arguments for that, and is there any supporting evidence from the Bible to provide a basis for that belief? This question is based on a few passages: > Genesis 15:16 (NASB) : 16 Then in the fourth generation they will > return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete." This verse makes it clear that God tolerates evil, at least to some degree. > Psalm 5:4-5 (NASB) : 4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in > wickedness; No evil can dwell with You. 5 The boastful will not stand > before Your eyes; You hate all who do injustice. This verse indicates that no evil can dwell with God. Righteousness cannot dwell with unrighteousness. However, what is the significance of God tolerating sin outside his dwelling as opposed to inside it? Not to mention that the omnipresence of God is taught in several places in scripture. Ex. > Psalm 139:7-10 (NASB) > > 7 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your > presence? 8 If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed > in Sheol, behold, You are there. 9 If I take up the wings of the > dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, 10 Even there Your > hand will lead me, And Your right hand will take hold of me. I bring in this verse not to ask a second question but to show that even though evil is not in God's dwelling, it is still within the scope of His presence. This is to emphasize the question: how can a righteous God tolerate sin (for any duration of time) without being evil? Let me make the distinction more clear. **Why God Allows Evil:** This question concerns theodicy, which seeks to identify any conflict between a benevolent, omnipotent God and the evil and suffering in the world; in other words, it asks why a God who is good and powerful will allow evil to exist. **Why God Tolerates Evil on Earth:** This question focuses primarily on the evil that continues on earth, which means that God will allow or have some tolerance. Connecting to the broader question of why God permits evil, this question narrows the focus to understanding why God continues to tolerate its presence within our world.

Hosea 11:9 (ESV): > I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; **for I am God and not a man**, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. Recently someone brought this up to argue against the doctrine of the incarnation and the divinity of Jesus. How do Trinitarians respond? ____________ Related: [Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47058/trinitarian-christianity-and-numbers-2319-was-jesus-a-man)

The term discipline conjures up a huge range of actions in most people's minds. A parent disciplining a child could mean time-outs in the corner or a swat on the rear, not getting to hang out with friends, or any number of other things. Introducing the modifier 'church' probably doesn't do much to clarify. I can imagine the range of things brought to mind by the term _church discipline_ could range from being made to wear a dunce cap during service to 40 lashes. I have asked about the purpose and Scriptural basis of discipline, but what is an overview of how it is implemented? Is there a common definition for what consequences make up the 'discipline'? What is an overview of methods employed by different traditions?