Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for avoiding most if not all religious holiday celebrations. Most reasons center on the apparent linkage of these celebrations with various pagan celebrations and feasts celebrated by non-Jews before Jesus came to earth and established Christianity. What specifically do JWs say about the Easter holiday and its origins and what (if anything) the Bible has to say about celebrating Easter?

We see in Luke 23:22 how Pilate states that he did not find it justifiable to award death sentence to Jesus and would therefore let him off after giving a punishment. Though Luke does not state what punishment was in the mind of Pilate, Jn 19:1 specifies that Jesus was flogged.John goes on to state that Pilate tried to release Jesus, but later gave in to the pressure made by the Jewish leaders who had started blackmailing him by taking Caesar's name. Now, we see Jesus dying earlier than was anticipated, presumably on account of the severe scourging . It is doubtful if crucifixion as a punishment was generally preceded by scourging. The fact that some convicts stayed on the cross for days on end before succumbing to loss of blood and breath, proves otherwise. Reading things together , one can assume that flogging was an additional punishment , that could have been avoided in Jesus' case, given that the Jewish leaders had been demanding crucifixion for him. My question therefore is: Was Jesus sentenced twice by Pilate ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

In the Douay Rheims, Galatians 1:6-8, for example, we read: >**6** I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. **7** Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. **8** But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. And, for example, the Council of Trent promulgated a list of "excommunicable offenses" according to Wikipedia's [List of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excommunicable_offences_from_the_Council_of_Trent) , all of which conclude with "let him be anathema". According to Catholic Teaching, are the terms "let him be anathema" and "excommunicated" synonymous?

I would like to make use of a quote which I paraphrase here as follows: *``We have no other business here than to get to Heaven. Everything else is a waste of time.''* I think that it (or something like it) had been uttered by a Catholic Saint, or at least by someone beatified in the Catholic Church. Does anyone recollect which Saint said this, what the exact quote is, and where I may fine it? Thank you.

There is a question asking how non-trinitarians explain Isaiah 43:11, but this one seeks trinitarian explanation as connected to other verses in Titus. > “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. > 11 I, even I, am the Lord; and ***beside me there is no saviour***.” > Isaiah 43:11 A.V. [Emphasis mine] > > “…according to the commandment of ***God our Saviour***… Grace, mercy and > peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus ***Christ our Saviour***.” > Titus 1:3 & 4 A.V. [Emphasis mine] The query is, **who has the divine role of being Saviour? In Isaiah it is Yahweh, and only him. In Titus it is both God and Jesus Christ.** It appears that there cannot be two Saviours (according to Isaiah). So, why does Titus say what it says? (Both God and Jesus Christ are – again – designated ‘Saviour’ in Titus 2:13 & 3:4 – repetition for emphasis; so, in this letter to Titus there has not been a scribal error. Both sets of statements in Titus agree.) However, the question is not a hermeneutic one regarding Greek language in Titus; it is about ***how the claims in Titus can stand in view of Isaiah 43:11 categorically stating that only God is Saviour.*** How do Trinitarians explain this?

My understanding, is that in response to the protestant reformation, Luther in particular, the Catholic Church convened the council of Trent, and put their official doctrines on the issues into writing. One section was a list of 33 "canons" which I believe are like church laws. Many of these canons ended with an "Anathema" being pronounced on anyone who would say such a thing. Anathema is a "curse", here's a quick dictionary lookup for it on dictionary.com: >1.a person or thing detested or loathed 2.a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction. 3.a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication. 4.any imprecation of divine punishment. 5.a curse; execration. These are often cited by protestants to show how the Catholic church feels about the idea of being "Saved by Faith alone". This is the source I used for the canons "https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html " Here are examples of some Canons for clarity, and the anathemas at the end: >CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. >CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. >CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema I feel like there are a lot of directions this could go, so I want to be pretty specific about the answer. The question is **Does the Catholic Church still pronounce these anathemas on protestants who believe as such?** So I feel like answers should clearly have a Yes, or a No. If you so choose, I am also interested in, what the church means by anathema, how this plays out in the Catholic view of protestant churches, etc etc. I don't really want to get into why these canons are or are not theologically sound (I would love to, but for the sake of the scope of this question let's not).

I know that Zerachiel and Sariel are both rather tied to Judaism as they are most prevalently found in the book of Enoch. In most denominations of christianity this book is not recognized as a canon, except for some oriental orthodox churches, which is why this question asks for the view from that specific branch. Still, they seem to both be represented by the name *Saraqael* through various texts despite having different characteristics. I want to know this because Zerachiel seems to be a Seraphim and they both seem to be watchers. (Sariel might be a Seraphim too?) Additional confusion was caused by references seemingly mixing up Sahariel (Hebrew: *god is my moon*) with Sariel (Hebrew: *god is my ruler*) and the existence of a Wikipedia article for both Zerachiel (Hebrew: *god has remembered*) and Sariel . So are the angels called Zerachiel and Sariel the same, or did they just happen to share a similar name and rank?

The Roman Catholic celebrates the Holy Eucharist in commemoration of the Last Supper in which during the celebration, Catholics believed that bread and wine are transformed into blood and body of Christ. Now. What is the stand of the Catholic Church for eating the blood and body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

**Introduction:** Merriam-Webster defines New Israel as “the Christian fellowship of believers: the Christian Church.” The relationship of Israel and the Church has been debated for centuries and various theologies have emerged. For example, ***replacement theology*** teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that the many promises God made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church instead—Old Testament prophecies are allegorized in order to make them applicable to the church. ***"Spiritual Israel"*** is a term sometimes used to suggest concepts related to replacement theology. Contrary to replacement theology, ***dispensationalism*** teaches that, after the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. Others believe that ***the church is distinct from Israel***, and the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost. **The reason for my question** is not to argue for or against any of these conflicting views. I have been asked to answer a very specific question, namely, ***does the Bible refer to Christian gentiles or the Church as "New Israelites", "New Israel" or "Spiritual Israel"?*** It may be that the early church fathers wrote about the relationship between Israel and the Church and it would be helpful to know who may have said what. However, being a Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I prefer to stick to what the Bible says. Nonetheless, in order to respond to the question I have been assigned, I would appreciate any helpful input regarding this specific question. Thank you. P.S. If the tags I have selected can be improved upon, feel free to make suggestions.

In light of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which acknowledges that God created the universe according to a plan, and that everything that exists has purpose, can we understand why life, despite deliberate decisions and avoidance of bad choices, often turns out to be an unordered set of random events? Can this disorder be considered a consequence of sin, even in the case of the innocent, such as children below the age of 5, who do not yet have the full capacity for moral choice? Is the teaching of the Catholic Church, in this regard, conflicting or converging with other fields such as philosophy, ethics, and others?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there will come a day when we will all get resurrected in our bodies. Critics say that the fact that cannibalism exists makes that logically impossible. If one person eats another person, how could both bodies be resurrected? How do Jehovah's Witnesses respond to that argument?

We know that Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel and their 600 (I forgot the exact number) after Heaven was taken from them for consuming the fruit. But if hypothetically, if they hadn't sinned, would they give birth to new humans in Eden? God says **before** "the fall" that He blessed man to be "fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". However from what I understand Adam and Eve didn't know what nakedness is, they seem to be so innocent that they wouldn't even know how to "multiply" before eating the fruit, and indeed they didn't had babies in Eden. It seems to me that initially God didn't want billions of humans, just two. Some even propose the theory that the fruit is a metaphor, a symbol for the sexual pleasure of Adam and Eve. I know some modern literature (not in English, not religious related) that uses the wording "girls that didn't yet tasted the sweetness of the fruit of sin" to describe a virgin woman. Maybe before the fall, God designed mammals with a non-sexual multiplication, similar to the idea that God designed all creatures to eat plants, but after the fall he permitted meat-eating in humans and animals.

I realize that it may not be completely possible to answer this question given that so much of what Arius wrote has been lost and/or misrepresented by his opponents. However, I have read his few letters that remain and his post-exile letter to Constantine doesn't seem much different than his others. I don't have access to the [R.P.C. Hanson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hanson_(bishop)) 's 1998 book [The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381](https://www.amazon.com/dp/080103146X) (reissued, 2006) so I'm hoping someone here who does can provide further insight. Here's the quote that leads me to the question: >Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. (Source: *Wikipedia* article on [Arius](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius))

Are there any passages in Early Christian literature that discuss angels and pagans? Are there any statements that suggest that angels were created specifically by God only for Christians and not for the pagans? Are there any claims that state that angels only protect Christians and not pagans?

(I confess; That was my whole question, but StackExchange won't let me post this until I 'meet their quality standards' by writing something about 'my problem' in this body-text.')

St Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:4 that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. We recite the verse in the Nicene Creed also. Now, we see Jesus mentioning his death and resurrection well in advance, but his sayings got recorded in the scriptures only after the Resurrection. As for Old Testament , we do not find prophets directly foretelling the Resurrection of Jesus except say, in Psalms 16 in which the psalmist says that The Holy One's body shall not be let to degenerate . My question therefore is : which are the OT prophesies referred to in the Nicene Creed in relation to the Resurrection of Jesus ? Inputs from scholars of any denominations are welcome.

Most people are aware that Jewish law forbade earning interest from the lending of money to another. As Christianity gained momentum in the early first and second century, many of the Mosaic laws were abandoned, although certain aspects remained in place - for example, punishments for parental disrespect were abandoned although Christians taught that a child ought to respect his or her parents. Is this another case of the letter of the law morphing into the spirit of the law? Christians seem to generally believe that it's sinful to impoverish another by means of lending practices, but that doesn't really stop many forms of interest charging that were previously forbidden. Is there any relevant scripture or literature relating to usury after the death of Christ?

Morning! I have a question about churches and baptisms. My partner and I are marrying in a Catholic Church. For background, I was raised by agnostic/ atheist parents, and my partner was raised non-religious. Despite this, I attended a Catholic school for 12 years and in my adolescence became Christian. I am practicing, truly believe, pray a lot throughout my day, and read the Bible daily, (not that this makes me any more Christian than people who practice differently) and try to live out my Christian values. I have wanted to be baptised for a few years now, but was unsure about the process. As my partner and I are both not yet baptised, we are going to be baptised together, and at least one of us needs to be baptised Catholic for the church to baptise us. I consider myself a Catholic, though I do have some beliefs that aren’t mainstream in the church. I was trying to ask our priest about this but I didn’t really get a clear answer, I think just because of the language barrier and him not understanding my long questions with messy words. In short, I believe that salvation is a gift and it is through faith alone, not works, that we are saved. I still try to live with Christian values, as I think Christian’s should - but believe that we can’t earn the gift, and that salvation was given by grace through Christ dying for our sins and rising from the dead. I am also quite Sola Scriptura, though I do place value in the word of Christians, especially those in positions of power who have studied a lot, but believe that they are human and open to correction, i.e. that humans are not infallible even if in relation to the church, as they are human, though guided by The Heavenly Father. I know that these two views are not mainstream in Catholicism, but I don’t think I particularly align ALL values with any other church that I know of either, but know I need to be baptised into the Christian faith through a church, so I feel somewhat at peace doing it thorough Catholicism, as I know about the religion. As a side note I think a lot of people are possibly cross-denominational despite belonging to a church community as these different types of church didn’t exist back in the day. For a while now I’ve been praying about what to do in this situation, to be baptised Catholic, despite some beliefs not aligning with all Catholics or not, especially as I know I am urged to raise my children in the faith if I’m baptised in it. Every day I seem to read a verse, even multiple, about the Holy Spirit that I didn’t open to read deliberately! But a lot of the verses have been talking about being at peace and the gifts that will come from the Holy Spirit, making me think that I’m being taught that it doesn’t matter through what church I’m baptised as long as I do become baptised a Christian. Anyway, to the question, I’m very scared of making The Heavenly Father unhappy by being baptised through a church that doesn’t believe everything I believe and truly think is the truth. Can I still be a Catholic and have slightly differing views on those two subjects? Does it matter what type of Christian church I’m baptised through if at the end of the day what I’m being baptised is Christian?

[Christian Scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) deny the Germ Theory, right? If so, how do they explain COVID-19?

Christian Scientists say that illnesses are an illusion and, as far as I understand it, what they mean by that is that all illnesses are psychosomatic. But they also say that death is an illusion. What does that mean?