In the post https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/109124/pope-leo-i-and-worshiping-towards-the-east-how-can-he-say-all-this-and-still-w , the OP makes reference to Sermon 27 of Pope St. Leo the Great. It links to the New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia). The translator of sermons from Pope Leo I on that site is Philip Schaff, a Protestant theologian. After spending a considerable amount of time trying to locate online an English translation of Pope St. Leo's sermons (or even a sub-collection of them) by a Catholic translator and editor, I have come up empty-handed. So I ask--- QUESTION: Does anyone know where I may find a freely available English online collection of sermons by Pope St. Leo the Great by a Catholic translator? Thank you.

## Background The character of Satan appears very different in the New Testament as compared to the Hebrew Bible. Some of the apparent stark differences appear below: --- - **The idea that the snake in the garden was Satan** Revelation 12:9; 20:2 identify Satan as an "ancient serpent". Later Christians linked this allusion with the snake from Genesis. On the other hand, the Hebrew bible **never** identifies the snake as anything more than an animal, and certainly never teaches that Satan was disguised as or possessing a snake. --- - **The idea that Satan rules the world as god** Satan is called “the god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4: > In their case **the god of this world** has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing clearly the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. and “the prince of this world” in John 12:31: > Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out The Hebrew Bible no where supports the idea of a supernatural being besides YHVH ruling the world. It repeatedly says that YHVH will not share His power and dominion of the world with another: > I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols - Isaiah 42:8 --- - **The idea that Satan is a fallen angel working against God** The NT portrays Satan as a fallen angel in Luke 10:18, and portrays him as working at odds against God's plans of spreading the gospel in 1 Thessalonians 2:18. The Hebrew bible contains no references to 'Satan' falling from heaven or working against God's plans and it portrays Satan as one of many 'sons of God' who remains in God's presence in heaven and in fact does God's commands in Job 1:6-22. ## Question How do Protestants explain these differences? Why is Satan taught to be the "god of this world/age" in the New Testament while this theology is absent in the Hebrew Bible?

Romans 8:3 says that God sent His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” How is this phrase interpreted in historic Christian theology regarding Christ’s humanity and sinlessness? I’m looking for one well-supported interpretation from any mainstream tradition (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox), grounded in Scripture or established commentary.

> Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME. > > Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF. > > Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD." Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18 So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god? > John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?" If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: > For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/

It appears from this question and answer that the Jehovah's Witnesses hold a slightly different understanding of God's omniscience than the typical Orthodox view wherein God always and at all times knows absolutely everything past, present, and future. From what I understand, the JW position is that God **can** know anything He wishes to know but, when it comes to foreknowledge, He does not choose to exercise the ability universally. In other words, God chooses what things He will and, by extension, will not foreknow. Various branches of Open Theism attempt to describe how the future can be epistemically open to God and the two main branches hold the future to be either alethically settled or open. This related question outlines the 4 main branches of Open Theism and, of the four, I believe JW thought lines up most closely with Voluntary Nescience (although I am not sure if JW believe that the future is alethically settled): > Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... Even if Vulontary Nescience is not an accurate summation of JW belief regarding God's omniscience, still they do assert that God chooses what He will and will not foreknow. Searching through the Scriptures it seems that there are a great many things which it was critical for God to have foreknown and which, indeed, He did foreknow. Most notably, all prophesy spoken by or through God consists of foreknown future events. I say foreknown because God is not guessing: He is telling beforehand what **will** come to pass. Some of those are things that He brings to pass and one might say that He foreknows what He Himself will do. Others are things that hinge upon human decisions (often a multiplicity). My question is, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, How does God foreknow which things He must foreknow and which things He can safely leave unforeseen without resorting to the equivalent of guessing? Another way of phrasing this is, If God chooses to foreknow certain things from the set of all of the possible things that there are to foreknow how can He identify the critical items and choose to foreknow them without knowing what all of the non-critical items actually are?

I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus. What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

I'm interested in whether there was an early Church Father who ***explicitly*** drew the connection that Trinitarians commonly draw today: the connection between Jesus' "**I am**" statement, found in **John 8:58** and God Almighty calling Himself the "**I am**" in **Exodus 3:14**. I would be interested in any Trinitarian answer that holds on to the Chalcedonian creeds. **When did the Church start drawing this connection?** I couldn't find such an **explicit** reference to such a connection being made by any of the 1st to 3rd-century Church Fathers in my research and am wondering if I'm missing something.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says >“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). However, in some situations, people might use deception to bring about peace — for example, concealing the truth to prevent violence or lying to stop conflict. From a Protestant theological perspective, would such a person still be considered a “peacemaker” in the sense Jesus describes in Matthew 5:9? Or would the use of deceit disqualify them from that blessing, given the biblical prohibitions against lying (e.g., Proverbs 12:22; Ephesians 4:25)?

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

How did the early church fathers accepting the doctrine of the Trinity regard Christians who didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity? By early I'm mean 2nd century or before. Constantine changes the picture of government interference. My understanding is they accepted them as Christians but heretical (a schism). But I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to answer this. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107892/as-a-jewish-believer-in-jesus-i-view-him-as-my-messiah-the-son-of-god-but-not

I think Romans is clear about law, and transgression, here is my understanding, if anyone wanted to answer feel free, or comments welcome. The law is a negative, nothing to do with the promises of God, no righteousness for the law, righteousness is through faith. So we hear about those of the law, that they are not heirs of the promises of life. **What does the law do, or serve as ?** It shows wrath in man, that is what the law works, transgression, and where there is no law, ( by faith) there is no transgression. > Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, > was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the > righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, > faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because > the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression So where there is no law there is no transgression, which is precisely what Romans 4:4-8 speaks, how those who do not work ( not in the law/not in transgression.) believe on Him who justifies the ungodly. ( Their faith is counted as righteousness.) Those in the law ( where there is transgression, by man working wrath) work, their reward is not of grace, they are IN DEBT. ( as many as are of the WORKS of the law/Cursed is every one THAT CONTINUES NOT in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.) David also described the blessing of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness without works testifying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. ( the law works wrath, works transgression, where there is no law there is no transgression, as told clearly in this same passage, where righteousness without works is imputed, the man is blessed, whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered/ believing the promises of God is where there is no transgression/faith is imputed as righteousness.) > Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of > grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on > him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for > righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the > man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, > Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are > covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. > > Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under > the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not > in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants. So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc. Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy. So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?

By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

In Romans 7:12–14, Paul writes that the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet he also emphasizes that it cannot save humanity from sin. How have theologians, especially in the Protestant tradition, reconciled this apparent tension?

My question is for protestant Christians. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then what does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 mean by saying that people are saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and believing the truth?

In its article on the decline of human life spans, [CreationWiki](http://creationwiki.org/Human_longevity) states, >Interestingly, Noah died only two years before Abraham was born. Unfortunately for readers they provide no biblical support. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

According to Catholicism is the separation of certain Marian titles a possible manner of procuring a theological definition in favour of the title Mary Mediatrix of all Graces? I have never been in favour of using the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix, but I can still see a glimmer of hope that the title of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces could one day be defined. The title of Mary Co-Redemptrix does have more theological entanglements to get defined, whereas the option of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces could possibly be defined theologically in the future, though not without nuance and theological interpretation. We all know that these titles have been out here for a long time and some popes have favoured some such Marian devotional titles. However, modern popes are not always in favour of them. Notably the Holy See has just come out with the document [***Mater Populi Fidelis***](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html) which discourages the usage of certain Marian titles. Both titles od Mary Co-Redemptrix and Mary Mediatrix of All Graces are mentioned. However the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix is more strongly worded not to be used. If the title Mediatrix of all graces could be disassociated from other modern Marian titles, could the possibility of a future dogma be reached? One interesting note that makes this possibility more real is that the Catholic Church has historically permitted a mass to be said in honour of Mary under the title of Mediatrix of All Graces. > In Belgium eight years later, Redemptorist priest François Xavier Godts wrote a book, De definibilitate mediationis universalis Deiparae (“On the definability of the universal mediation of the Mother of God”), proposing precisely that it be defined that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces. In April 1921, Désiré-Joseph Mercier, Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen, Belgium wrote to his brother bishops in support of this. > > In response to petitions from Belgium, including one signed by all its bishops, the Holy See approved in 1921 an annual celebration in that country of a feast day of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces. In printings of the Roman Missal from that date until 1961, the Mass of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces was found in the appendix *Missae pro aliquibus locis* (Masses for Some Places), but not in the General Roman Calendar for use wherever the Roman Rite is celebrated. Other Masses authorized for celebration in different places on the same day 31 May were those of the Blessed Virgin Mary Queen of All Saints and Mother of Fair Love and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Belgian celebration has now been replaced by an optional memorial on 31 August of The Virgin Mary Mediatrix. - [Mediatrix of all graces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix_of_all_graces) To my knowledge this mass has not been abrogated. I am not aware of any mass ever being allowed for Mary Co-Redemptrix. Perhaps someone can enlighten me? Thus I ask the question: **Have any Catholic theologians favoured the possibility of defining Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, while keeping the titles of Mary Co-Redemptrix a practical impossibity, due to its more complex misunderstandings and confusion?**