In Gen. 26:5: > Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts and commandments, and observed my ceremonies and laws. (Douay Rheims) Abraham knew of the obligation to tithe. Noah knew what "clean animals" meant. Abel seemed to know about sacrificing animals (and firstlings). Joseph seemed to know that adultery was a grievous sin. and so forth... What were these precepts, commandments, ceremonies, and laws alluded to in Gen 26:5?? Were they written down? Are they represented in the *natural law*?

The Catholic Church teaches that there is hell and it is eternal cf. [The Hell There Is! | Catholic Answers ]. What is the [common] scriptural basis, if any, for the Christian groups which teach that there is a hell but that it is not eternal?

I am orthodox christian and on my walls I have icons of Jesus and Saints. But theese days I thought of the stature Christ the Redeemer from Brazil, Rio de Janeiro and I remembered some words from a book about prophet Elijah. Those aren't the words of Elijah from the Bible, but they refer to the ministry of Elijah: "They(Phoenicians and Corrupted Israelits) take a stone and chisel it in the form of a god, but at the end of the day it is just a rock. It has a mouth, but doesn't speak, it has eyes, but can't see. Those are the idols they prefer over the invisible allmightly God". This is not the exact quote from that book, because I read it in my language and I tried to translate the quote. Now I accept answers from both traditional and reformed christians who accept/deny icons and statues. My question is if you think that Christ the Reedemer is an idol, a stone with face as described by Elijah(in the book I read, not in the Bible) what are your arguments, or if you believe statues and icons aren't idols and are an accepted form of worshipping God and what are your arguments.

I read a blog post from a Catholic saying that the "pastor" (I believe the more common term in Catholicism is "priest"?) of his church asked for permission to retire and the bishop allowed it. The wording implies that the priest had previously wanted to retire but not been allowed to. Do Catholic priests need permission to retire?

It seems to me that "eternal generation" is an oxymoron : > "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel > kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of > contradictory or incongruous elements" It seems to me that "generation " requires at least a single step: > a : the action or process of producing offspring : procreation b : > the process of coming or bringing into being c > : origination by a generating process : production; especially : > formation of a geometric figure by motion of another Do they say: * God and Jesus both existed eternally with Jesus "describable" as a son, begotten, etc. but with no actual, literal birthing having occurred? * the begetting of Jesus occurred so long ago as to be for all intents and purposes to still be considered "eternally so"? * it is a "mystery beyond human comprehension" (as the Trinity in general is often described)? Or do they simply use the term without explanation of the contradiction?

While on this earth Jesus lived a sinless life. If you belive on him his perfect righteousness is imputed unto you as if you lived a sinless life. God is a perfectionist. If you have commited even one sin in your entire life, he won't allow you to enter his kingdom. If you have commited even only one sin in your life you will need to believe on Jesus so that his perfect righteousness is imputed unto you and then you can enter the kingdom of God. Is that right?

Are there any historical events that cannot be explained without a historical Jesus? If you cite the Bible, please indicate why you think the passage is part of history. Update: this question is closed for being "opinion-based". I am looking for historical accounts.

My question is motivated by the discrepancies between Mark and Matthew, for example on who was in Jesus's tomb initially, Matthew 28:2 says it was an angel and Mark 16:5 says it was a young man. Especially since Matthew used Mark as a source, why doesn't Matthew replace Mark, rather than being included alongside Mark?

I've been reading a little about the controversy and I can't quite wrap my head around it. Are Syro-Malabar Catholics upset that the Pope says to their priests that they need to face the altar while in the USA, several Bishops are telling the priests that they need to face the people? Is this really what's happening and why is that worth a schism?

In descriptions of who or what the Holy Spirit is in Binitarianism, it is described variously as the power of God, or the Spirit of the Father or Spirit of the Son. Reference: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/93194/60459 In Binitarianism is the Holy Spirit a person? Granting that Binitarianism is non-orthodox, there may be multiple answers, a full answer here will cover all cases.

If God is sovereign and our destiny is determined before the foundation of the earth, has God allotted a measure of sins for each of the doomed? Prov 16:4 says God made the wicked for the day of doom. Rom 9 talks about the potter making a vessel for dishonor. Did God cast out the Amorites only after they each individually filled up their measure of sin.

From the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_Celsum) : > Origen responds to Celsus's accusation that Jesus had performed his miracles using magic rather than divine powers by asserting that, unlike magicians, Jesus had not performed his miracles for show, but rather to reform his audiences. This seems like a rather bizarre explanation as intent doesn't necessarily have correlation to the method of the act. It doesn't logically follow. This leads me to think that the source that the Wikipedia is citing (Trigg 1983, p. 229 and Olson 1999, p. 103) might've butchered Origen's argument and Origen's intent. As such, my question is: What did Origen mean in this explanation? Is there more to this argument (to be more clear, Origen's argument against Celsus' accusation of Chrisst using black magic)?

This question came up for me in a discussion of the meaning of "saved" in Acts 15:1. >But certain ones having come down from Judea were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are > circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you are not able to be > saved [σῴζω]." The questioner wanted to know the meaning of "saved" in that specific verse. What I'm interested in here is finding resources dealing with the how the earliest church thought about salvation generally. In other words, how did the church think about salvation before Paul wrote about it and before the Gospels were disseminated? Questions that come to mind include: did pre-Pauline Christians think of salvation as being related to eternal life per se? Or did they still think in traditional Jewish terms, such as Jesus being the one who would "restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Were some of them expecting Jesus to return in their lifetimes to liberate Israel from Roman rule, rather then thinking of him as a spiritual savior who would liberate them from death and sin, as Paul thought. I would appreciate references to scholarly works on this subject, including relevant quotes if possible.

According to the Quran, God revealed the Gospels (which it calls Injeel) to Jesus, just like He revealed the Quran to Muhammad, and Torah to Moses, but the New Testament doesn't have any books that can be called God's revelation in the first person to humans. Gospels are biographies that are believed to be written by people inspired by God. My question is did early Christian authors point out this issue? Any references would be very helpful.

When one watches the 1955 epic, *The Ten Commandments,* one gets the impression that enslaved Israel had been expecting God to send a deliverer for four hundred years. Is this true? A promise is given by God in Ex. 3,17: > And I have said the word to bring you forth out of the affliction of Egypt, into the land of the Chanaanite, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and Pherezite, and Hevite, and Jebusite, to a land that floweth with milk and honey. (Douay-Rheims) But there, God is already speaking to Moses. When and where is Israel's deliverance from Egypt first prophesied? Had they been expecting a deliverer for four hundred years?

I have been doing some research and reading about the history of what a church gathering looked like, prior to the Reformation. One thing I have not been able to find detailed information regarding which languages were employed in church services, for the majority of history up to the beginning of the Reformation. I understand that religious services were done in Latin, but it seems less clear whether the sermons (homilies), music, prayers and so on were also spoken in Latin or the vernacular instead. Specifically: - What percentage of a typical church service was performed in Latin prior to the Protestant Reformation? Note: I tagged this Catholicism because that was the primary denomination prior to the Reformation and the time period I am interested in

I note that many modern theologians no longer translate monogenēs as “only begotten” but as “unique” or as "one of a kind." Most modern English versions have adopted this new understanding and translate the five Johannine uses of monogenēs as “only.” However, "only-begotten" is a key concept in the Nicene Creed. The Creed interprets it as that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father. Do such translations imply that the Nicene Creed is in error? Or are these translations wrong? Or is there a way of reconciling the absence of "only-begotten" in modern Bibles with the Nicene Creed? Furthermore, the theory of Eternal General has been defined as an: (1) “eternal, (2) personal act of the Father, (3) wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, (4) He **generates the person** (not the essence) of the Son, (5) by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, (6) without division, alienation, or change, (7) so that the Son is the express image of His Father's person, (8) and eternally continues, (9) not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son." (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 182.) This is, in other words, an explanation of the Biblical concept that the Son was begotten (generated) by the Father. But if the word only-begotten (for the Son) disappears from our Bibles, is the theory of Eternal Generation now redundant? Or are there other evidence in the Bible that the Father generated the Son?

One could teach Genesis 3 as a description of human evolution from animals along the following lines: - Adam and Eve eating the fruit in Genesis 3:7 makes their eyes open and lets them know good and evil. This describes the evolution of human intelligence, self-consciousness, and metacognition - They notice that they are naked. This can be seen figuratively as well as literally, since at the same time, humans lost their hair compared to other great apes - Additionally, God makes women's childbearing painful (it is not painful for most animals. The painfulness results from a combination of bipedalism and increased brain size) - And He forces them to plow the fields to survive (this can be related to what Yuval Harari calls the Luxury Trap ) In total, major evolutionary differences (high intelligence, nakedness, painful childbirth) are listed, which make humans stand apart from animals. One could suggest, that the humans created in Genesis 1 are still animals, i.e. our latest common ancestor with the other great apes, without high intelligence or human-like self-consciousness. And only in Genesis 3 do they evolve into intelligent humans. This intelligence and self-consciousness (and metacognition) then lead to existential suffering, very much in line with Camu's absurdism. Is there any Christian domination, that teaches Genesis 3 as a figurative description of Human evolution from animals?

In St. Alphonsus Liguori's *Dignity and Duties of the Priest,* it is written: > Empty words and sounding periods are, says St. Francis de Sales, the pest of sermons. (*De la Predic.* ch. 5, a. I.) First, because God does not cooperate with vain preaching.... Does anyone know what St. Francis may have meant by the expression, "sounding periods"? Also, what is the referenced work, *de la Predic.*?

Most of the commentary that I have read regarding the identities of the Three Visitors to Abraham in Genesis 18 have all agreed that God (without specifying which Person) was one of them. Many seem to think that the other two visitors were angels. However, I have seen it indicated that "The three visitors are considered by some to represent the Trinity." (cf. *Understanding the Scriptures* by Scott Hahn) Does anyone know of any Catholic sources (perhaps, Church Fathers, Catholic Saints, papal documents, etc.) which suggest that the aforementioned Three Visitors to Abraham were indeed, the Holy Trinity?