> [**Matthew 24:36**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&version=NLT) (NLT) > [**Mark 13:32**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&version=NLT) (NLT) > > 36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.” Now hold on a minute here... in according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are the same God, yet the Father knows something the Son doesn't? What's going on here?

In Galatians 4:9-10 we see St Paul sending a terse message to the faithful abhorring their observance of days, months, seasons and years terming them weak and beggarly elements. Unfortunately, he does not specify what those elements are. In fact, Jewish traditions mandated the observance of feasts and spells of prayer, determined by the days, seasons etc. Jesus followed them . Evidently, St Paul was referring to something else. My question therefore is ; what were the practices observance of which was abhorred by St Paul in Gal 4:9-10 ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

I’m currently doing a read through of “On Kingship” (De Regno) by St. Thomas Aquinas. In paragraph 8, he cites Ecclesiastes 4:9 as saying >With this in mind, Solomon says [Eccl. 4:9]: “Where there is no governor, the people shall fall.” I went to lookup this verse in my Bible but it wasn’t there. On closer inspection, the best candidate I could find is Proverbs 11:14, which states: >Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (ESV) Oddly, the only translation I can find that says “governors” is the Douay-Rheims translation. So given this, why does St. Thomas cite Ecclesiastes 4:9 when he’s obviously referring to Proverbs 11:14, and does the latin vulgate play a part in this as that’s where the D-R draws from?

I just read a quote from Pope Pius XI: > “If you desire peace in your hearts, in your homes, and in your country, assemble each evening to recite the Rosary. Let not even one day pass without saying it, no matter how burdened you may be with many cares and labors.”   (common in Catholic pages about praying the Rosary such as [here](https://stboniface-lunenburg.org/pray-the-rosary) , [here](https://reflectionsofpeter.org/the-rosary-is-a-powerful-weapon-to-put-the-demons-to-flight-and-to-keep-oneself-from-sin/) , [here](https://madisoncatholicherald.org/pray-the-rosary/) , and [here](https://catholicgentleman.com/2014/10/powerful-weapon-15-quotes-holy-rosary/) as well as pamphlets on the Rosary such as [here](https://ia903208.us.archive.org/7/items/fatimamaryspeace00knig_0/fatimamaryspeace00knig_0.pdf)) **Has the Church provided a way for us to interpret such a statement?** I doubt that Pope Pius XI meant that unless you pray the Rosary you are not a very spiritual person. I think we must look at the context of the quote. The Church has made many statements that must be interpreted such as "baptism is necessary for salvation", but at the same time there is no teaching saying that you cannot enter Heaven without being baptized. People have told me that we must look at the context in which the Church said something. **How should we interpret this statement from Pope Pius XI?**

What does the Catholic Church believe about prophesy in the Book of Revelation? Does that mention the Second Coming of Christ? Can you give me a brief overview of the subject in Roman Catholic belief?

Pertaining to Genesis 12:3 "I will curse those who curse you" is God referring only to unbelievers in Jesus? Is God referring to any human regardless of religious belief when He says: I will bless those who bless you (Genesis 12:3).

Within Jesus's lifetime: - I expect that Jesus would have written or dictated thousands of documents, and insured their preservation. - I expect that Jesus's disciples would have written or dictated tens of thousands of documents. - I expect to find detailed eyewitness testimony of Jesus's ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection. - I expect to find independent attestation of the events in the gospels, such as the blackening of the Earth for 3 hours, from all over the world. - I expect thousands of depictions of Jesus: drawings, stone etchings, and busts. Instead today we find none of these things. There is not a single piece of contemporary evidence for Jesus: - There is no archaeological evidence of Jesus. - There are no surviving writings about Jesus that date to his lifetime. - There are no drawings of Jesus from his lifetime. Why is there no contemporary evidence for Jesus? I can think of possible explanations, but none are satisfactory: - This evidence at one point existed, but was destroyed or damaged. - There were no available raw materials. - Jesus wasn't noteworthy enough to merit documenting. - People believed the world would end soon and so there would be no point of documentation. Update: this question was closed for being off-topic. Why?

I have seen in a church a cross with a loop off the top that makes the vertical look like a P: # ⳨ Does this symbol have a name? What is its meaning? From what does it derive? Can you supply any more interesting information about it?

The following are examples of (possible) essential features and functions of an Apostle I've heard from different sources. An authentic Apostle ... 1. Had to be called supernaturally by God Himself in an unmistakable way (canonical example: Paul in Acts 9). 2. Had to have eyewitnessed Jesus Christ in physical form after His resurrection (aka a *Christophany*). 3. Must have a ministry accompanied by signs, wonders and mighty deeds. 4. Must be a church planter (see [Church planting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_planting)) . 5. Must be an effective preacher of the gospel and soul winner in unreached areas. 6. Must have a position of leadership in the church. 7. Must be author of (or should be able to produce at least) inspired and canonizable writings (i.e. we should be able append their writings to the Bible). **Note**: These are just examples off the top of my head, feel free to consider other requirements people have historically proposed if I forgot any. **Questions**: - What is an overview of how different Christian denominations define the essential features and functions of an authentic Apostle? - Would these different definitions of Apostle allow for the existence of authentic Apostles in modern times? ____ Related and thought-provoking question (and answers): https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422

We all know that Jesus could make water into wine but was he an alcoholic?

We read in Jn 3:11 that the miracle Jesus worked at Cana was first of the signs that revealed his glory. That would imply that the first miracle done by Jesus in public , was at Cana. But is it not possible that prior to Cana incident, he worked miracles in front of a limited audience, say, his parents or close relatives ? The Gospels do not mention any. My question therefore is : Are there any apocryphal writings to suggest that Jesus worked miracles before Cana ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

Since there isn't any text that clearly points to the spirit of Satan possessing the serpent so that he would lie to Adam and Eve and cause them to eat from the forbidden fruit, is it a possibility that the serpent could have acted on his own to deceive them? This is because the second account of the Genesis stories of creation give the serpent a unique attribute. *Genesis 3:1* >Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. It is already clear from the verse above that the snake was created stubborn by God for this very moment. Mainstream Christians assume that it was the spirit of fallen cherub Lucifer that possessed the serpent and caused the deception, but since there isn't any text in the Bible that clearly points this out, how do we know that the serpent did not act on his own to deceive them? Unless Lucifer was an appointed Cherub in the garden of Eden prior to his fall and then he would launch his attack on the creation by possessing the serpent, but it's a fact that spirits cannot possess animals. The Balaam story is that God made the donkey speak and not possess it to cause it to speak. Unless the devil had the ability to cause the serpent to speak, but where does he get the power to do that when no one had sinned in God's creation to give him that authority?

When I attend Mass we sing an entrance hymn. There is no Gregorian introitus. In the Novus Ordo Missae we seldom have the Gregorian introitus. I've been thinking why the Church has a need to do away with the introitus. The only reason I can find is that people nowadays probably think that everyone must sing along or otherwise they are not participating. It is what I have been told. But I am interested in what the Church actually says. Why did the Church say that an entrance hymn (like the Protestants have) is better than a Gregorian introitus nowadays?

This question is a rephrase of a different question asking if any early church fathers believed that Revelation 12:1-5 is about the Virgin Mary. It may be clearer and easier to find out *what they actually believed*, rather than look for a presumption. >And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. Revelation 12:1-2 With these first two verses, we may easily dismiss the idea that the woman does refer to the Virgin Mary. It doesn't. The reason is because some teach that she did not experience pain in child birth. Can't have it both ways. If it is about the Virgin Mary, then she experienced pain. >To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you." Gen 3:16 NET As well, as mentioned, at least so far I have not found any early church father teach that the verse is about Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. There are suggestions about her virginity, but nothing about the Woman clothed with the sun is Mary. So, what did the earliest church fathers teach about Revelation 12 and the Woman?

I have this symbol over the entrance of my apartment. I have been told it is a Catholic symbol, and the owner of the flat is probably Catholic since it is the dominant faith here. Searching on Google has not brought much information. Any idea what it means? It is from Buenos Aires, Argentina and the diameter is 6 cm. It's made of some metal but not sure which one, I assume nothing precious otherwise anybody could take it.

The belief that Mary never committed sin has been around a long time, much longer than the final formulation of the doctrine of her immaculate conception (which happened around the 13th century). Augustine (d. 430), despite his doctrine of original sin, apparently carved out an exception for her, as summarized in the *Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity*'s entry on Mary: > Augustine, drawn into the problem of Mary’s holiness by Pelagius, affirms against the opinion of his adversary that Mary, *propter honorem Domini*, is the only woman without sin (*De nat. et gratia* 36,42). On the other hand, Augustine's contemporary John Chrysostom (d. 407) apparently didn't go quite so far: > Even John Chrysostom (d. 407), although attributing some imperfection to Mary, nonetheless holds her up as the example of the woman who overcomes human weaknesses (*Co. Io.* 20-21). **I'd like to know if any after Chrysostom believed that Mary committed sin.** I'd guess that the influence of Augustine would reduce the likelihood of finding this view in the West, but perhaps one or more fathers in the East continued to hold that she was less than morally perfect. This question follows typical definitions of what a "church father" is, but to spell it out, they are "ancient and generally influential Christian theologians" (as [Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers)) , not those closely associated with heretical movements (such as the Pelagian [Julian of Eclanum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Eclanum)) , and not the anonymous authors of popular apocryphal stories. And we'll say that the last of the church fathers is [John of Damascus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus) (d. 749).

In Acts 15 it is recorded that certain men from Judea had come to Antioch and were teaching the Gentile believers that, if they were not circumcised after the law of Moses, they could not be saved. Paul and Barnabbas strongly resisted them: > And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them ... - v. 1-2a They were sent/went to Jerusalem to sort out this very issue with the Apostles and elders there and, while reporting on all the things God had done through them amongst the Gentiles: > But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.- v. 5-6 After much disputing Peter spoke his piece, explaining how God had made no distinction between Jew and Gentile *in that both are purified by faith* and, in his discourse, he refers to the law of Moses as a yoke on the neck that no one can bear: > Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. - v. 10-11 Barnabas and Paul then give more testimony followed by the final summation and declaration on the matter by James, the leader of the Jerusalem council. The council then writes and sends a letter to the Gentile churches in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. They send this letter with Paul and Barnabas and also send along Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas as witnessess to verify that the letter is, in fact, from the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem: > And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that **certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment**: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. **For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication**: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. - Acts 15:23-29 How do those who insist that the 7th day Sabbath must be kept explain the complete absence of this command in a letter sent to the Gentile church for the express purpose of resolving the issue of which commands these believers should keep?

The immaculate nature of Mary is a doctrine, that holds that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception and that she lived a holy and sinless life, but did any of the early church fathers believe that Mary was without sin?

The common belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully man; that is, 100% God and 100% man. In John 17:5, Jesus asks the Father to return his glory as he had before he became flesh. So, his glory was not limited, but taken away or relinquished. Therefore, Jesus lost an attribute of God. If you don't possess all attributes of what God is (e.g. possess 99% attributes), then you cannot claim to be fully God. So my question to those who believe in the hypostatic union of Christ: how is Jesus considered fully God during his earthly ministry when he declared that he doesn't have the glory of God? Glory as an attribute of God - Exodus 16:10, 24:16-17, 33:18-19

We read in Matthew, Mark and Luke how Jesus took Peter, James and John (last two being brothers) to witness the Transfiguration atop Mount Tabore. Peter would later be named the Rock on which Jesus' Church was to be built. John was the only apostle who stood by the Cross and was 'the disciples whom Jesus loved' according to himself. As for James,he does not find a special mention - favourable or otherwise- in the Gospels. Given that the nine Apostles left out would be prone to human envy, the Lord would have selected the three with utmost care, and with certain yardsticks. My question, therefore is: **Are there any apocryphal writings which mention the yardsticks, if any, adopted by Jesus in selecting the three apostles who would witness the Transfiguration?** Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.