Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:22-30 both tell the account of the Christ casting out devils while Pharisees accused Him of being possessed by Beelzebub. The Christ rebukes them and declares the following from Matthew 12:31-32: > 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. It appears that the Christ is telling us that blasphemy against the Father or the Son (i.e. *"God damn it!"* or *"Jesus Jumping Christ!"*) is forgivable, but not of the Holy Spirit. However, most preachers and theologians I have listened to believe that it really means that it means living an unrepentant life. My question is how Christian theologians have made this conclusion and if it holds up to biblical doctrine.

This question is motivated by one of the answers given [here](https://law.stackexchange.com/a/93770/24981) for the question [Is religious confession legally privileged](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/93765/is-religious-confession-legally-privileged) . I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that if a Catholic priest reveals anything that was told to him during Sacramental Confession---he is automatically excommunicated by the Church. QUESTION: If the penitent involved gives permission for that priest to reveal something from his confession, may the priest do so without ecclesiastical penalty? Or is he still bound to reveal nothing?

In a comment to another question, someone commented that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "clearly" symbolic and not actual trees. I was surprised by that position. I think it's certainly possible that the trees are symbolic, but it's not obvious to me that God didn't use actual trees in Eden. I am curious about what different denominations say about the literalness of the trees in Eden. I see three possible options: 1. The denomination teaches that the trees were actual trees 2. The denomination teaches that the trees were symbolic of something else 3. The denomination doesn't say definitively one way or the other I would like an overview of which of the above positions is taken by different denominations across Christianity. *I think that this question is following the guidelines on overview questions as described here , but let me know if it needs to be adjusted to be on-topic.*

Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18 are three New Testament passages that seem to indicate that Christ once took the Nazirite vow (as did Samuel, Samson, and John the Baptist). It is known that the Nazirite Vow was made as follows: the Nazirite should abstain from wine, corpses and let his hair grow during the period of his vow. Nazirites were specially set apart for God and their long hair was equivalent to a king's crown. So did Jesus make the vow? Does this prove that Jesus had long hair?

Luke 2:5 gives an account of Joseph who went to Bethlehem for enrolling in the census with Mary who was pledged to him in marriage. Matt 1:18-25 however, states that Joseph took Mary home as his wife on the instructions of the Angel, after 'finding her with child.' . If the journey to Bethlehem did not take months, Mary would have been well into the advanced stage of pregnancy when they commenced the journey. How come that they were still at betrothal stage when they started for Bethlehem? Is it possible that they completed the final ritual of marriage after reaching Joseph's hometown? But then, how does it match with the account of Matthew? My question therefore is : **How are the accounts of completion of the ritual of marriage of Joseph and Mary reconciled in the narrations of Matthew and Luke?** Views of scholars of any denominations are welcome.

Judas Iscariot is the twin brother of St. Thomas the Apostle ? I am not saying that St. Thomas the Apostle's is the twin brother of Judas Iscariot. I am simply seeking resource historical information that states this so. Some years ago, a priest friend of mine stated that there was an obscure legend or tradition that St. Thomas the Apostle, who was called the twin, claimed that his twin brother was no one other than the infamous traitor of Our Lord, Judas Iscariot. My priest friend in no longer amongst us and I have never known him to be wrong on such things. I have not been able to locate a source of any such legend or tradition. Can anyone locate a possible source of this obscure legend or tradition?

Did any [medieval](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) Catholics have a pious belief that immediately after death, God gave people a last chance to repent of their sins and thus save their immortal soul from going to hell for all eternity? I recently came across the following tidbit about St. Padre Pio in which he affirmed his own belief that repentance immediately after death was possible. > "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - [Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.](https://caccioppoli.com/Close%20encounters%20of%20Padre%20Pio%20with%20deceased%20souls%20in%20Purgatory,%20Guardian%20Angel,%20devil.%20His%20own%20words%20on%20temptation,%20virtues,%20life..html) This got me thinking of what a priest that once told me some years ago: “Some Catholics in the Middle Ages (500 AD - 1500 AD) had a pious belief that immediately after sinners had died, Our Lord gave them a final chance to repent!” The priest in question is no longer amongst us and I have never known him to state something like this erroneously. Can anyone find any references from any Catholic sources about the possible existence of this [pious belief](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35592) during the Middle Ages?

In Francois Trochu's biography of St. John Vianney, ``*The Cure of Ars*,'' the Little Sisters of the Poor is mentioned by the Saint to a young girl who wishes to enter that Order at Lyons: > "Yes, my child, you will be a Little Sister of the Poor," M. Vianney one day said to Mlle. Ernestine Durand, a girl of Lyons, then eighteen years of age; "yes, yes, you will be a Little Sister.... But after having joined the community you will be obliged to leave it again." "Oh, in that case, Father, I prefer---" "No, no, enter, enter! Three days after your departure from the convent your mother will take you back to it herself." Ernestine obeyed blindly. Having obtained---with much difficulty, it must be admitted---the consent of her parents, she entered as a postulant with the Little Sisters of the Poor of Lyons. She whole-heartedly took up her new life. Presently letters came from her family, full of regrets and even threats: the girl was not yet of age; she had extorted her mother's consent; if need be, recourse would be had to the intervention of the law. As a matter of fact, her brother came to the convent accompanied by a policeman. The postulant was compelled to return home. She was broken-hearted and lost both appetite and sleep. At the end of three days her mother said to her: ``Oh, I do not mean to bring about your death; I shall take you back to your beloved companions!'' Thus, as the Cure d'Ars had foretold, the child was restored to the convent by her own mother, who, if she were not yet wholly resigned, at least no longer withheld her consent. Another similar case is also provided by the author Throchu: > Soeur Marie de Jesus, a little novice, saw her profession put off by reason of her extreme youth. In her distress she was allowed to make a pilgrimage to Ars, where she made a general confession. "O my little one, how happy you are!" the saint exclaimed, as she finished her accusation. "True, Father, I am happy, but I have grievously offended God before I entered religion." "My child, in the world you would have committed so many sins that you would have ended by losing your soul. Be true to your vocation." He wished to see her again before her departure. "O my little sister," he said, "your soul is white, perfectly white. And now, go and make your profession." "But, Father, you know very well that I am supposed to be too young...." "Everything is ready, my child: your cross is made. Go!" > Now, at the very moment when Soeur Marie de Jesus crossed the threshold of the Hospice of Lyons, where she had a commission to execute for her superior, the portress handed her a small parcel. "This is for you, Sister." "May I open it?" "Of course." What was the Sister's emotion when, on undoing the parcel, she found a cross, on the back of which were engraved her name and a date; it was the crucifix of her profession. Urged by a mysterious impulse, the superior had suddenly decided to admit to her first vows the novice who had been condemned to a delay of three years. This was the meaning of the words of the Cure d'Ars: *"Your cross is made. Go!"* Mgr. Trochu also wrote a full-length biography of Jeanne Jugan (published 1950 or so) prior to her beautification by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and canonization by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. St. Jeanne Jugan's *The Little Sisters of the Poor* had its beginning in 1839 at Saint-Servan in Brittany and expanded to other parts of France within 10 years. St. John Vianney was assigned as a parish priest to Ars in 1819 (or thereabouts) and died there in 1859. Ars is over 800 kilometres from Brittany; however, Lyons is some 35 kilometres (approx. 21.7 mi) from Ars. In light of his work at Ars and his three reported absences from Ars, it seems impossible that St. John Vianney ever visited Brittany as the Cure of Ars. However, he had certainly been to Lyons on multiple occasions, and perhaps (likely) St. Jeanne Jugan (who founded Little Sisters of the Poor in 1839) had also been to Lyons---as an affiliate of the Little Sisters of the Poor was established there while St. John Vianney was the Cure of Ars. Also Note: St. Jeanne Jugan outlived St. John Vianney. It is also to be observed that the charity of St. Jeanne Jugan and St. John Vianney towards the poor are strikingly similar (especially between St. Jeanne's *House of the Cross* and St. John's *Providence*); thus, I would like, if possible, to identify an encounter between these two champions of the poor, provided that if one exists. So I ask: Does anyone know with some degree of certainty if St. Jeanne Jugan ever met the Cure of Ars; and if so, what were the circumstances? Thank you.

We read in Luke 1:24-25 how Elizabeth, after conceiving John the Baptist, led a secluded life for five month, saying that God had taken away her disgrace of not having children. In first appearance, her hiding of the pregnancy does not go well with the sense of victory over the public disgrace. So, there could have been a reason behind the hiding. Incidentally, we see Blessed Virgin Mary staying with Elizabeth for three month after the Annunciation. Did she also want to stay away from the public view during the initial months of pregnancy? Did it have anything to do with the political scenario under the regime of Herod who might have imposed forced abortion on Jewish ladies of certain lineage for fear of the prophesied birth of the Messiah? My question therefore is: Did the Blessed Virgin Mary hide her pregnancy from public eye for sometime? Views of scholars of any denomination are welcome.

In Matthew 2, it makes it clear that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when Herod died. > After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” We know that Herod died in 4 BC, so we know that Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or shortly beforehand. In Luke 2, it is made clear that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius >In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. ... >He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. Quirinius became governor of Syria and performed his census in 6 AD. From this we know that Jesus must have been born in 6 AD. **This is a nine year discrepancy between the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Matthew and the time of Jesus' birth as recorded by Luke**. How can these two accounts be reconciled?

From this link : > Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have > believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring and thus contains no > errors The above sentences maybe to everyone else is easy to be understood by the Calvinist, but not for me (especially I'm not a Christian). To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed. It's just like there is an ice cube in the fridge, then it doesn't make sense if I say *"I believe that ice cube is cold"*. To me, the chronological order is like this :
Christians have believed that "X" writing is God's Words.
So, Christians believe that "X" writing is Scripture.
Since God's Words is infallible, then Christians believe that "X" writing is infallible. So to me, the "believe" is not on the God's Words, but that "X" writing which is believed God's Words. The chronological order is : *IF there is a writing which is believed God's Words THEN that writing is infallible*. Later on : *Because this writing is believed God's Words then this writing is infallible* Another quote from the same link: > **If God never lies**, His Word never lies either. We can therefore trust > it to be free from all error The same, it's confusing to me as the IF is on "God never lies", while my own chronological order the IF is on "the writing" ---> **IF this X writing is God's Words** THEN there is no lie in this X writing. (Why the "THEN" is like that ? because God never lies). Because to me the IF is : *IF the writing is believed God's Words then the writing does not endorse anything untrue in the point of view whoever believe that writing is God's Words* then it raise a question: *how *"God never lies"* is the IF ?* > *"The Christians have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring"* So my question is:
how *"God's Words is incapable of erring"* is a believe ? ---------- Please ignore the question if the sentence in the quote is just a circular sentence like this :
*1. Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that Scripture is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors
2. If Scripture never lies, Scripture never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error*

While I was searching in Youtube about music backmasking I found this video and there *(a few minutes starting the video)*, the narrator says: > [...] The angel [Lucifer] was head over the music in the Heaven. After that, I made a quick Google search about [Satan was a singer] and I found a here that this cannot be answered. I ask this because when I read the Bible *- "DHH or "Dios Habla Hoy" Spanish version"-* and checking the verses I cannot neither understand or think in a relation between Satan/Lucifer and music. My question is: was Satan/Lucifer the angel of music before his fall? I'm interested in a Roman Catholic response *(or Vatican statement about this)* but I want check other perspectives about this topic.

The Bible describes God as: God is the All-Powerful Creator of the universe. If the God is All-Powerful - how would a human (who is the less powerful) be able to crucify the All-Powerful God (Jesus) - how would I worship a God who can't protect himself and one day when he was baby, he needed the human to protect him and feed him to stay alive! - what was he before he becomes an embryo? and where was he? was he nothing? - if yes, how was he created? - if yes, who then created the human before he gets created?

Regarding Catholic Saints who were members of the laity---I would like to know if there are any who disobeyed their parents in order not to commit sin. (I exclude superiors here, for one could name perhaps all or most of the martyrs.) Regarding Catholic Saints who were religious---were there any who disobeyed either their immediate superiors or parents in order to avoid sin? (I know, for instance, that St. Thomas Aquinas' family was against him joining the Dominican order and hired a prostitute in order to tempt him---but I don't know if either parent was involved.)

Cremation is a very popular way to deal with the bodies of the deceased in the UK, and is permitted by the Church of England as an appropriate method for doing so. The process creates ashes, which then need to be scattered, interred, or otherwise disposed of. What options for disposal of ashes are appropriate according to the canon law and practices of the Church of England?

Rev. 13:18 in, for example, the Douay-Rheims Bible, is given as follows: > Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six. Many bibles state similarly. However, the LEB and NirV, for examples, do not state "it is the number of a man", but rather, "it is man's number." So, I decided to look for some Greek, but I did not find the *Koine* Greek; instead, I came up upon https://www.logosapostolic.org/interlinear-nt/revelation/13.htm , which, regarding the phrase in question, provides the Greek: > ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου which (site) offers as the English translation: > for *the* number of a man (with italics, they add) In any case, a visit to DeepL translator https://www.deepl.com/translator#el/en/ἀριθμὸς%20γὰρ%20ἀνθρώπου provides the following translation: > number of man QUESTION: (i) Are there any Catholic Bibles which provide "number of man" in Rev. 13:18 instead of "number of a man"; and (ii) Can anyone point me to a site which provides the Book of Revelation in the *Koine* Greek and suggest (with sound reason) which is correct---"number of a man" or "number of man"?

Most Jewish and Christian scholars define πορνεία (sexual immorality) to include premarital sex. However, where either the old or new testament mention specific sexual immoralities, it's never included. In Leviticus 18 many specific acts are condemned, but not premarital sex. Likewise, Paul spoke specifically of incest in 1 Corinthians 5, adultery and prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6, and homosexuality in Romans 1. If premarital sex is indeed immoral, it is obviously the most prevalent form of immoral sexual acts by far, so then, why doesn't he repeatedly warn against it?

There is a Colombian priest in our area that invites lay people to watch while he supposedly performs exorcisms. Is this permitted? It seems dangerous.

I’m doing some research if you could help. Question 1 How Is living a long life (900+ years) like some of Seth’s descendants not a direct sign of divinity. I’m not super religious but the grouping I’ve been working with lately helped me come to this understanding “things that shouldn’t have happened aren’t deeply explained and aren’t harmful/negative I tend to take as a sign or divinity.” Just bc there’s already so much unknown when it comes to religion an unnatural GOOD thing I just take as divinity amongst earth. That leads me to my next question multiple descendants of Seth lived to be 900+ That’s a direct sign of divinity (to me and my grouping) so if anyone has any insight any scripture you could point me too of what lifestyle these people (descendants of Seth ppl who have lived 900+) Kept any scripture where their character is mentioned that allotted them SUCH a long life. & ultimately what could’ve happened to tarnish that family to the point Noah was the only pure blood and no one lives to be 900 anymore. I’m very open minded opinions welcomed this is less about religion as a whole more about living to be 900 how that was possible and could be possible again The Bible is interpreted a lot of ways so any feedback is welcomed Also I did see something about the calendar being different and some don’t believe they were actually that old.. saying it’s an exaggeration in writing

St. Thomas Aquinas is known to make excellent **conceptual distinctions** in philosophy and theology, most critically in his philosophy and psychology of the human soul, the nature of truth & love in God as well as in a human person, the intra-Trinitarian relations and the works of the Trinity *ad extra*, the interaction of angels with humans (which exorcists use), and many many more areas. So it is reasonable to ask **how we would use St. Thomas's own distinctions to analyze his "private revelation" of Christ to him** where Aquinas "heard" Jesus said: > Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; what reward wilt thou have?" To which St. Thomas responded: > None other than Thyself, Lord (*source*: [this article](https://www.churchpop.com/when-christ-spoke-from-a-crucifix-the-mystical-vision-of-st-thomas-aquinas/)) My question has to do with the **nature of this experience** that I hope an answer will use St. Thomas's own distinctions to describe it. Is it ecstasy? Is it beatific vision? Is it private revelation? Is it a Vision? Is it Christophany? Is it apparition? Is it Word of Knowledge (that some Christians claim to have today in Charismatic circles)? Is it like St. Paul being transported to 3rd heaven? Is it an out of body experience? Was it audible, visible, or non-empirical but palpable? Did the 3 fellow Dominicans who witnessed the account hear it too? Or was it similar to private mental seeing like when the light of faith permeates the light of reason? The curious thing is that Aquinas's experience is not listed in the *Wikipedia* article on [Catholic Church approved list of private revelations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_revelations_approved_by_the_Catholic_Church) nor in *Wikipedia* article on [Visions of Jesus and Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visions_of_Jesus_and_Mary) . Was it an oversight on *Wikipedia* part? Or was the nature of the experience different than "private revelation" and "vision"? It is so widely cited even in scholarly biographies of St. Thomas Aquinas that we cannot deem it mere legend, but did the Vatican ever authenticated St. Thomas's experience in the first place?