If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians? Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them. So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian?

What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lack in Christ oriented teachings or doctrine to be considered a Christian church for those who claim otherwise? Maybe it's not what they lack in teaching but what they teach that changes the definition of Christ. What would those be? My thoughts on the biggest issue I could find of making God to be more humanlike: This church teaches Christ to be the Savior of the world, the God of Salvation, the Author of faith, the Creator, etc. They teach Christ as a mediator between us and God the Father as Christ taught. They have separated God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate persons with separate bodies. They have also declared that getting a body is a step of glorification and making one holy. Another way of saying making us more like God. All of these are scripturally founded in the bible. To DEHUMANIZE some one is permission to treat them less than yourself. An evil to Christian ideals and an evil that God does not practice. Christ taught contrary to dehumanizing ideals and lifted all people to an equal ground of worth and relationship to Himself. If making God more like us or God's desire to make us more like Him is the issue, why does this ideal not conflict with Christ's teachings or the bible? We were created in their image, the prophets reference God as having a head, hands, arms, a heart, tears, eyes, ears, etc. all over the bible. From what I can tell, the prophets in the bible spent a lot of time emphasizing the likeness of God and ourselves being married to him and he being jealous of our thoughts and desires. Not to some vague unidentified creature we call God but to a defined creature that resembles us so we can relate to and enjoin with God. God has spent a lot of effort to humanize us into beings he loves and wants to be one with us as Christ and God the Father are one. This has settled this issue for me in that there is no conflict of Christ's teachings and believing we can become like Him thereby making this concept Christian at heart. Christ was killed for teaching this. Any dogma to preach otherwise is to demean God's creation, destroy the relationship God is creating, and dehumanizes mankind to a state less than their potential / purpose which seems the intent of a Satanic work, not a Christian ideal.

In the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/60457/can-patron-saints-be-dethroned there seems to be some confusion between a patron saint having become no longer a patron saint, and a patron saint being "decanonized". Here, I specifically ask: When **a Pope declares a Saint to be a patron of something** (say, St. John Vianney who was first declared "Patron Saint of Parish Priests" by Pope Pius IX in 1929, and later made "Patron Saint of All Priests" by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010) can that Saint's office of *patron* ever be revoked by another Pope? Has it ever happened?

We read in Matthew 27: 24-25: > 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.” Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children! We see that the Jews went through a turbulent history of sufferings and suppression including the holocaust. Some opine that it was a punishment which they took upon themselves by virtue of their curse against the Son of God. My question therefore is: **Does the Catholic Church believe that many generations of Jews suffered because of the curse of their forefathers at Matthew 27:25?**

Matthew lists Rahab the prostitute of Jericho as one of Jesus' ancestors. I've sometimes wondered why. Yes, she risked her life to save the spies sent by Joshua to Jericho. But would that be enough for her to be included among the other women in Matthew's list along with such famous women as Mary, Ruth, Bathsheba and Tamar? All of these except Mary are mentioned in the OT as having clear ancestral ties to the Davidic lineage. So why did Matthew include her, while Luke did not? I discovered some rabbinical legends yesterday that may shed light on Matthew's decision: namely, Rahab became the wife of none other than Joshua and the mother of famous prophets including Jeremiah, Huldah and Ezekiel. The story can't be confirmed biblically and the rabbis disagree about Joshua's marrying her, but I think it is likely that her fame would be known to Matthew. Luke, on the other hand might not have known of it or might decide not to include it since his audience would not be aware of Rahab's story, let alone that of the other women mentioned by Matthew. > Eight prophets, who were also priests, descended from Rahab the > prostitute, and they are: Neriah; his son Baruch; Seraiah; Mahseiah; > Jeremiah; his father, Hilkiah; Jeremiah’s cousin Hanamel; and > Hanamel’s father, Shallum. Rabbi Yehuda said: So too, Huldah the > prophetess was a descendant of Rahab the prostitute… Rav Naḥman responded... Rahab converted and married Joshua, and therefore Huldah descended from both Joshua and Rahab. (Megillah 14b) Did Matthew know of the stories that underlie these reports in the Talmud? I also wonder if the story of Rahab's marriage to Joshua and her ancestry of important prophets was known to any of the Church Fathers, or if there are references to her history (other than her role in protecting the spies in Jericho) in other early Christian writings.

**I understand** that this question is touchy, and I myself wanted to break a hole through my wall when I heard what the Pope said, I have calmed down by God's grace. And I realize that traditionalists, like Church Militant have in a certain sense harmonized everything and calmed the storm. Although other traditionalists like akaCatholic are more reluctant to give the Pope a pass, mind you all of these are indeed traditionalists and not sedevacantists schismatics. **This question is** frankly aimed at Pope Francis more than his revision of the canon, because it seems to me that his perpetual and almost ridiculous record of clumsiness in wording is God's way of restricting him from leading the Church into heresy. I hope this question can raise more awareness and that there will be an adequate answer for this site. **The questions are as follows:** - Is Pope Francis' revision of canon 2267, in view of Trent, a development of doctrine or a change/evolution of doctrine? - Is the revision a prudential judgment or an absolute moral judgment? (This ties in with the first part of my question above, heterodoxy cannot be infallible) - Hypothetically speaking, if the Ordinary Magesterium (fallible) CLEARLY errs, can the clergy or the laymen resist the new teaching in appealing to the Church's tradition? PS: I will not quote or consider the revision of Pope St. John Paul ll as to if Pope Francis' revision is a logical continuity to it because that question has already been dealt with , this question here focuses on the continuity in view of Trent. Naturally if Pope St. John Paul ll and Pope Francis are harmonized, then it only remains to see if both of their teachings can be harmonized with the Church's tradition. **ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:** **The Traditional Catholic "atmosphere" around the Death Penalty is showcased in the following quotes(be indulgent, thank you):** > “The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being > establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a > general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual > for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit > homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. > Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt > not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of > public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that > is, the will of the most just reason.” – (St. Augustine, The City of > God, Book 1, chapter 21) > > ----- > > It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); > and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. > 100:8). …Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, > wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For > this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands > the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to > the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have > it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire > society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and > infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is > praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the > common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. > 5:6). – (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2) > > ----- > > “It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the > magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who > carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should > we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, > therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the > discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s > authority.” (Pope Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, > Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495) > > ----- > > Condemned as an error: “That heretics be burned is against the will of > the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520) **CRUCIAL INFORMATION:** **New Teaching on the Death Penalty (2018)** > 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate > response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit > extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. > > Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of > the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious > crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the > significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more > effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the > due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively > deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. > > Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that > "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the > inviolability and dignity of the person,"[1] and she works with > determination for its abolition worldwide. > > _______________________ > > [1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the > Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 > October 2017: L'Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5. **Oldest Teaching on the Death Penalty (1556)** > Catechism of the Council of Trent > > The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates > because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty > and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this > commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is > precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to > protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the > legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty > lives of those who have taken innocent lives. > > In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning > I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers > from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). > > (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

The book of Joshua references the book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13 ), as does 2 Samuel 1:18 . However, the quote from the book of Jasher in 2 Samuel 1:23 references both Saul and Jonathan, both of whom lived centuries after Joshua. Some Jews and Christians believe that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua, but since the book of Joshua mentions the book of Jasher, and the book of Jasher mentions Saul, logically it would seem to follow that the book of Joshua must have been written hundreds of years after the death of Joshua (i.e. sometime *after* the death of Saul). Such an account would seem to fit with the Deuteronomistic history proposed by Martin Noth . An alternate hypothesis offered by conservapedia suggests that the book of Jasher was written over the timespan of hundreds of years: > David's dirge at the death of Saul was recorded in [the book of > Jasher], indicating it was being maintained as a long-term record of > certain aspects of Israel's history. This explanation seems less likely to me, especially because the book of Jasher has been lost to time, and a book that was written over many hundreds of years would probably have increased the probability that it would have had greater distribution (and thus greater longevity) than other books written over a comparatively short time frame. Are there other explanations and/or documentation to support one timeframe or another for the chronological authorship of the books of Jasher and Joshua?

Christian Scientists believe that illness is caused by a mental error, rather than a physical abnormality. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. Critics say that, if that were true, animals without a brain (and thus without a mind) could never get ill. But jellyfish, animals without a brain, can and do get diseases such as cancer. How do Christian Scientists respond to that argument?

My question is about the European Conservative Laestadian Church in particular, but also about the Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC), the American branch of the Laestadians. I believe Conservative Laestadrianism is a fairly recent revival movement within the Finnish (Evangelical) Lutheran Church. They are very strict and consider themselves to be the only "true" Christian faith. Although Wikipedia has a short article about it , I can't find any meaningful information about their beliefs, only that the central teaching is the declaration of forgiveness of sins. Going through this rite will result in receiving the Holy Spirit. I had never heard about this religious denomination till this morning, when I was assigned a question about them. The focus of the question is on their Christian values and beliefs. Any insights would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Laestadianism EDIT: I have opened the question up to include the Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC), the American branch of the Laestadians. Perhaps this will enable access to their theological beliefs.

What is the Christian, more specifically Protestant, view of communal living? By communal living I mean things like shared housing and intentional communities. I can't find any teaching that would prohibit communal living, yet it seems so rare. Is there a specific reason for this? I'm also wondering why there are no large residential communities in Protestantism where people live together. For example, something like a monastery but without the vows and other things criticized by the Reformers. I hope that's not too many questions!

I have been asked to write an article on what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe with regard to Jesus’ return or presence in 1914. Here are some quotes from official J.W. sources that I know about: >The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King. Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5. https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-teach/1914-significant-year-bible-prophecy/ From a secular source, I found this: >They believe the Greek word parousia (usually translated as "coming") is more accurately understood as an extended invisible "presence", perceived only by a series of "signs". Witnesses base their beliefs about the significance of 1914 on the Watch Tower Society's interpretation of biblical chronology, which is hinged on their assertion that the Babylonian captivity and destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BC... > They teach that after the war of Armageddon, Jesus will rule over earth as king for 1000 years after which he will hand all authority back to Jehovah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses I also understand that Ray Franz, a former Witness who was on the governing board from 1971 to 1980, said: >They’ve been insisting on this as a definite truth for more than 40 years... This is a monumental change after all this time. Initially, it was taught that ‘this generation’ started with people who were old enough to understand the events of 1914 [when World War I broke out], but as the decades passed it began to include anyone born in that year. I believe there have been further 'adjustments' to the teaching about the generation born in 1914 who were supposed to be alive to see the end of this wicked system of things. Nathan Knorr, former president, said this on February 19, 1975, at a meeting in which the Governing Body listened to Fred Franz’ taped talk on 1975: >There are some things I know – I know that Jehovah is God, that Christ Jesus is his Son, that he gave his life as a ransom for us, that there is a resurrection. Other things I’m not so certain about. 1914 – I don’t know. We have talked about 1914 for a long time. We may be right and I hope we are. (Crisis of Conscience, page 260) To sum up, Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus second “presence” happened in October 1914 when he became King. This was not a literal “coming” because this event was invisible and only they understood what was happening in the heavenly realms, namely, that Jesus began to rule as King from heaven. After the tribulation period Jesus (who is known in heaven as Michael the Archangel) will bring judgment on all who oppose him and who persecute his people (Jehovah’s Witnesses). However, 107 years have elapsed since 1914, a date that “marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.” The Great Tribulation (which precedes Armageddon) is still some time future. What is the official explanation for this seeming delay? What has Jesus, enthroned as king in heaven, been doing for all this time? My information is incomplete, and may be out of date, so I would appreciate an up to date explanation from official sources so that I can write an article that accurately represents the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses as they understand events since 1914 till today. There is no intention to belittle or refute the official view with regard to 1914, rather I wish to present an accurate account.

After the flood, in Genesis 9:2-3, God gives humans permission to begin eating animals. We are finding traces of human civilization going back tens of thousands of years for Native Americans, so they must have gotten to the Americas before the flood. If the flood was local and in the last 10,000 years, then when did the Native Americans and people on other continents switch to eating animal meat?

In July 2014, Archbishop Timothy Paul of the Holy Orthodox Christian Church, as reported by [Premier Christian News](https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/martin-luther-king-jr-made-a-saint-by-american-church) , said: > Dr. King was Catholic because he inspired the Universal Church. He was evangelical because of his Baptist roots, and he was charismatic. The Roman Catholic Church cannot make him a saint because he was not a Roman Catholic. But our church body, which has full apostolic succession, can present him to the entire Christian faith to be venerated on April 4th, the date of his assassination. **Q. What is the role of 'apostolic succession' in uplifting men and women into the ranks of saints? And does this differ from how the Catholic Church beatify men and women into sainthood?**

Recently I've been partaking in multiple discussions regarding the concept of free will on this site (for the curious, see [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95960/61679) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95956/61679) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95981/61679) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679)) , mainly because of its relevance in the context of the [free-will defense against the problem of evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free-will_defense) , and through these exchanges I've noticed that the concept of *character* is very important for at least some of its proponents. To illustrate this, let me quote this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95831/61679) : > The "missing link" here is ***character.*** God has free will, and is fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous ways. Or this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95957/61679) : > One attribute of **perfect character** is having free-will and always > using it to choose not to sin. (Sin is defined as breaking God's > law, choosing to go against God's will. But since one can't use > free-will to go against *one's own* will, God is by definition > incapable of sinning.) > > If God *created* a being that is totally incapable of sinning it would > by definition not have free-will (with respect to sin). **And without** > **free-will, it would not have perfect character**. So God cannot *create* > a being with free-will that is incapable of sinning. > > Yet it *is* possible for a created being to have free-will and at the > same time be incapable of sinning (i.e. to have this attribute of > **perfect character**). > > **Perfect character** is something that a created being must develop over > time, by learning to choose not to sin. Eventually, choosing not to > sin becomes part of one's nature, while choosing to sin becomes > impossible. > > **Christians have free-will, but their purpose in life is to develop** > **perfect characters that *always freely choose* not to sin**. They can > *develop* this God-like character, but by definition no one can be *created* with it. Note: I'm not endorsing these answers. I'm just showing them as examples of Christians who believe in the existence of some kind of mysterious interaction between *character* (the main topic of this question) and *(libertarian) free will*. Just to make sure we are on the same page, I understand (libertarian) free will as an [agent's ability to choose otherwise](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#FreeDoOthe) , that is, having more than one course of action available to them, when making a choice at time *t*, given a fixed past up to *t*. Essentially, the rejection of [causal determinism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/) when it comes to a person's ability to make decisions. And I think most people usually mean the same thing when they talk about (libertarian) free will. Yet, the concept of *character* still puzzles me. First of all, because I'm not aware of any definition of libertarian free will where *character* is an essential part of the definition. I see *character* as a rather foreign concept in this context. And so when people pull out the *character* card in discussions about free will, to me it sounds like they are mixing concepts in a handwavy fashion, without providing any rigorous definitions, without clarifying how the concepts are supposed to make sense together in the same sentence. What is *character*? Is there a rigorous definition of *character* in Christianity? Does *character* exist as a "thing" in the first place (i.e., what is the ontological status of *character*)? Does *character* have any measurable or detectable causal effects on reality? For example, does an agent's *character* influence said agent in a way that determines or narrows the range of options available to them when making a decision at time *t*, and if so, how? And what is the relationship between an agent's *character* and the laws of physics? Is *character* nothing but an emergent property of the laws of physics, in the sense that the concept of *character* is a convenient high-level abstraction, but ultimately adds nothing new to what the laws of physics can already explain? Is a person's *character* nothing but the current state of the neural wiring of their brain? Is *character* nothing but brain chemistry? Or is *character* something beyond the laws of physics, not reducible to them, and different from free will at the same time? And if *character* goes beyond the laws of physics, where is the information of this *character* stored? Can it change/be updated over time? Does it obey its own "character update rules"? In short, is there a rigorous definition of *character* in Christianity, and how is this definition reconciled with the laws of physics, how the brain works, and how libertarian free will works? --- Regarding my sub-question about the relationship between *character* and the laws of physics, this question is closely related: [How do defenders of libertarian freewill reconcile it with constraints imposed by the laws of physics?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/30415/66156)

The Catholic Church seems to be adding things to the Gospels which were never written down by the Apostles. For example, where in the Gospels is it mentioned that the Pope is the representative of God in the human world? Or that it is alright to kill non-believers of Jesus Christ? Or that it is okay to wage war in the name of God? I don't think Jesus ever said those things.

This question is a spin-off of the previous discussion *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* . Therein, the top [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95831/61679) stated: > This question is answered directly in the text of the Bible. > > 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. > > > > 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we > are, yet without sin. > > > > -- [Hebrews chapter 4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204&version=KJV) > > The "missing link" here is *character.* God has free will, and is > fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but > consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous > ways. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of > his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in > benevolent and righteous ways as well. To which I replied: > Then one could ask the follow-up question *"then why did God not create human beings which are free and have perfect character?"* Some Christians, such as Latter-day Saints, do not believe in [*creatio ex nihilo*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo) , and therefore they have a very peculiar way of answering this question. This [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95950/61679) can serve as a good example. So my question for Christians who *do* believe in *creatio ex nihilo* is the following: Why did God, according to believers in *creatio ex nihilo*, opt to create human beings with imperfect characters and vulnerability to evil, instead of bestowing them with perfect characters immune to evil like His own from the very beginning?

This question is very similar to a question I just asked, but it's not a duplicate (just hear me out). Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) -- the previous question ; 2) those who interpret the events as literal, specifically the pericope of the Resurrection of the Holy Ones as cited in Matthew's Passion narrative specifically -- this question. Of course, the main body of the question will be similar, but I wanted to direct the question towards a different audience and provide a venue for that. There are also a variety of other questions geared for those who interpret it as literal. The scripture of focus is: > And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to > the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the > graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, > And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the > holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they > that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those > things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the > Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54. KJV) With phenomenal events such as an earthquake so mighty it opens a number of graves and then the righteous dead arise and interact with the community, one would expect Matthew to explicate these miracles beyond the pithy lines in his text; or, at least, expect the other evangelists to also document these incidences in their narratives. The Markan narrative denotes the temple’s rented veil and the centurion’s response, but does not make any mention of an earthquake or the resurrection of saints. Similarly, Luke and John do not make even the slightest reference to these events. Additionally, during Peter’s pontifical address during Pentecost, not even a nebulous reference to a powerful earthquake or the resurrection of these saints is conveyed. Pentecost occurred fifty days following Christ’s resurrection and the supposed Holy Ones’ appearance to “many.” Therefore, the omission of these events in Peter’s address, especially to an audience that were likely witnesses to these events, is a curious oversight. Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about these? Why aren't there other extra-biblical sources for these events? It seems like more than Christ's followers would have witnessed these events.... And it certainly seems like something people would continue to talk about for ages thereafter... Are there other sources that may imply the opening of tombs and rising of the deceased? Or were only the righteous ones able to "see" these? Or is it that there weren't that many "righteous" individuals in the scheme of things -- that it was hardly noticed? Or that the resurrected beings, looked just like everyone else? Or did the High Priest somehow cover-up this story? (For instance, we read that they tried telling people that Christ's body was stolen). Or did they just destroy all the records they could get their hands on? (and the general witness to these events were illiterate)? Or we simply have not unearthed these records yet? After all, an absence of evidence is not evidence for something, right? Just confused why no one else mentions it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) Also, do we have any archaeological records of tombs breaking open? And does the geological record correspond to an earthquake happening in this region? ***If you are interested as to a non-literal, modern interpretation, please see my other question for the answer provided there.

The Gospel of Matthew makes two rather outrageous (I can't think of a better word) claims: The Massacre of the Innocents and that many people were resurrected along with Jesus and walked to Jerusalem and appeared to many (Matthew 27:53). By the way, I asked [a question on Latin StackExchange about the wording of Matthew 27:53](https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15909/in-matthew-27-why-does-the-vulgate-call-the-graves-of-people-who-were-resurrect) . Do most denominations of Christianity consider them to be true stories or do they consider them to be myths? If they consider them to be true stories, how do they explain away the lack of evidence? Something like the Massacre of the Innocents or a zombie apocalypse would certainly be noted by non-Christian sources, wouldn't it?

For instance, I do not agree with some of the contents of Nostra Aetate from 1961. Can I be a Catholic while believing in the Catholic Church prior to that date? Or can I no longer be a Catholic since I found that the Catholic Church believes, since that date, something I do not agree with?

Some Christians believe that *"It is possible to have free-will and at the same time be incapable of sinning, but it is not possible to be created in that state"*. For example, in my recently asked question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95956/61679* , this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95957/61679) affirms: > There are things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. > For instance, God cannot create a four-sided triangle. > If something has four sides, it is by definition not a triangle. > > One attribute of perfect character is having free-will and always using it to choose not to sin. > (Sin is defined as breaking God's law, choosing to go against God's will. But since one can't use free-will to go against *one's own* will, God is by definition incapable of sinning.) > > If God *created* a being that is totally incapable of sinning it would by definition not have free-will (with respect to sin). > And without free-will, it would not have perfect character. > So God cannot *create* a being with free-will that is incapable of sinning. > > Yet it *is* possible for a created being to have free-will and at the same time be incapable of sinning (i.e. to have this attribute of perfect character). > > **Perfect character is something that a created being must develop over time, by learning to choose not to sin.** > **Eventually, choosing not to sin becomes part of one's nature, while choosing to sin becomes impossible.** > > Christians have free-will, but their purpose in life is to develop perfect characters that *always freely choose* not to sin. > They can *develop* this God-like character, but by definition no one can be *created* with it. Another [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89579/61679) to a similar related [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89577/61679) states: > That is how I understand free will, the garden, and heaven. At this > point, however, you may believe I have misunderstood your question. If > you are questioning **whether God could have instantaneously created** > **heaven full of people who are both genuinely free and yet entirely** > **sinless, then I will have to answer no, given the nature of** > **libertarian freedom**. **Only libertarian freedom combined with the** > **accumulation of choices over time is compatible with sinlessness**, and > such a timeline virtually necessitates some people making choices that > are corrupting, not sanctifying. > > For people to be both free in an undeveloped libertarian sense (which > is essentially capable of choosing good or evil arbitrarily) and for > all of them to never sin is not logically possible. More importantly > for your question, even if they never sinned, **the process of training** > **their free will to the point where they would never sin (not could)** > **had to occur across time**. In other words, the assumption is made that: - *un*created beings (e.g., God) can have free-will and be incapable of sinning at the same time, but - created beings (e.g., us) *cannot* have free-will and be incapable of sinning at the same time *when they are created*, although *they may or may not achieve that state over time*. So it seems that the concept of free will is assumed to have a twofold nature: one for beings that are created and another for beings that are uncreated. The former are thought to be subject to metaphysical limitations that prevent them from possessing perfect characters at the outset. Instead, they can only attain perfection through a process of maturation over time. On the other hand, uncreated beings are assumed to inherently possess perfect characters without the need for any maturation process (if you are uncreated, you get access to an eternal perfect character "for free"). What is the rationale behind this dual perspective on (libertarian) free will, which posits that created beings necessitate maturation over time while uncreated beings do not require any such process? Does it derive from sacred scripture or from deeper philosophical reasoning? Is this view widely held within Christianity? Can we trace its origins back to ancient Christian thinkers? Are there any historical Christian sources that explicitly and unambiguously support this view? --- **Additional request** I've heard more than once the claim that a created being with libertarian free will and having perfect character from the outset would create a [logical contradiction](https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/handouts/phl4contradiction.htm) . I kindly request that answerers that agree with this claim state the logical contradiction explicitly by presenting a formal deductive argument, or anything as close as possible to that. In particular, I would like to see how the contradiction emerges for created beings and how it doesn't for uncreated beings. Please state your premises and deductive steps clearly, explicitly and precisely.