Let me just pretext by saying I am not a Christian and everything I say is based on my limited knowledge as a non-christian. I am asking this question purely out of curiosity. Please correct me if anything I say is wrong. So as I understand, it is believed that marriage continues into the afterlife and you are reunited with your spouse in heaven. I also understand that earthly marriage ends at death and you are allowed to remarry as is stated in "til death do us part". My question is, what does Christianity say happens in heaven after a widow herself dies, if she did remarry? Does she pick a husband? Is she married to the latter husband? Or the first? Or is polygamy allowed in heaven?

Luke 1:36 >And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. (New Revised Standard Version) According to [Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/luke/1.htm) : >For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father's side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother's side, and so akin to Mary. If that is true, then could the Jews of the first century, have called Mary "the daughter of Aaron", even if she was only akin to Elisabeth by the tribe of Judah by her mother's side?

According to the New York Daily News , >Vida Nueva (New Life) internet publication said the pope told Spain's new ambassador to the Vatican, Gerardo Bugallo, that *the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes*. (I have to say that although this is circulating in the news I don't know if there is an official statement from the Vatican). In Spain though, some 400 priests openly support Catalonian independence. I'm confused as to what business the Catholic Church would have in supporting or opposing an independence movement, unless it is related to its doctrine or the Bible.

I'm working on setting up a guide book for a Eucharistic procession for Corpus Christi and I was told that it's not exactly traditional to pray the Rosary during one of these processions, but we orphaned traditionless Wisconsinite Catholics don't have a ton of songs memorized and nobody knows the traditional hymns by heart. We do, however, know how to Pray the Rosary and that's what we've been doing for the last couple of years. I was thinking though, this year, instead of Praying the Glorious Mysteries (because we're doing the procession on Sunday, not Thursday) that we'd announce these mysteries (two Joyful and three Luminous) 1. Annunciation 2. Nativity 3. Wedding at Cana 4. Transfiguration 5. Institution of the Eucharist Because they, in my opinion, are the "most Eucharistic" of the 20 mysteries. Now, since I am just a layman whose only credentials is a Gold Catholicism badge on Stackexchange, my wife says I shouldn't just go an make this kind of stuff up. We've reached out to other people in the group for planning it, but nobody seems to want to give a critique of the idea and our priests are seemingly too busy with their transitions to new assignments to worry about this. So, what I want to know is: Is it OK to mix and match mysteries of the Rosary and if so, is it OK to call it a "Eucharistic Rosary"?

I have read at various times in the past regarding the devil's ability to pretend even humility, but his utter inability to feign *obedience.* Recently, I have tried to find some quotes from Catholic Saints regarding this, but the closest thing I have been able to come up with is the following excerpt from St. Faustina's Diary (939): > A soul that will not fully submit its inspirations to the strict control of the Church; that is, to the director, clearly shows by this that a bad spirit is guiding it. The director should be extremely prudent in such cases and test the soul's obedience. Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience and thus his evil designs will be disclosed. The above quote relates to spiritual direction and the obedience due thereof. QUESTION: What quote(s) are there from other Saints regarding the weapon of obedience to overcome the devil---and Satan's utter loss to defend against it?

We know God's name was written in the Old Testament over 6000 times, but was it God's full name or the Tetragrammaton, YHVH?? Because of the Babylonian exile, they stopped using it altogether and instead used Adonai and El/Elohim. In which case, when or how was the Tetragrammaton used? Cause if the original authors were writing YHVH, then that meant they too felt God's name shouldn’t be pronounced. Which I feel should give people pause for using it nowadays as well. But if that’s not the case, then how was the YHVH used?

I've dug up at least one reference that may be a candidate. Jeremiah 6:21-23 > Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion. I've heard some say this verse is talking about the nation of Russia rising against Israel, and that the 'great nation' that is 'raised from the sides of the earth' is a allusion to the United States. - Are there any other verses that people have cited as evidence the USA is mentioned in the Bible? - Is there anyone (denominations/prominent individuals) who believes that the USA is mentioned in the Bible? - What are the arguments for or against this reference (or any other)?

Heresy is defined by the Roman Catholic Church as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 751). A person is in formal heresy when four elements are present: > 1) the person in question must have had a valid Christian baptism > > 2) the person claims to still be a Christian > > 3) the person publicly and obstinately denies or positively doubts a > truth that the Catholic Church regards as revealed by God (through the > Scriptures or Sacred tradition) > > 4) the disbelief must be morally culpable, that is, there must be a > refusal to accept what is known to be a doctrinal imperative. The Catholic Church also states categorically that the burning of an heretic is not against the will of the Spirit and that the faithful are forbidden to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend the idea that it is against the will of the Spirit. see here Here it has been asked where in the New Testament a Roman Catholic would go to find support that burning an heretic is not against the will of the Spirit. This question asks if any theologian from any denomination has ever made a substantial case from the New Testament that burning heretics **is** against the will of the Spirit. I am not asking after arguments regarding capital punishment in general.

Christians belief that God exists in three persons, although being just one entity. One of them is the Father who created the visible and the invisible world. I understand, that the Father was just active in the beginning. He does not interact with the world as of now. (Maybe he's doing something people can not explain. But maybe this is done by the Holy Spirit - the third in the club...) The Holy Spirit is another person. This is all the good thoughts. This is still active in the world in many people. This is how God interacts with people. And there is/was Jesus. Jesus was both fully human and fully god. He was crucified but was resurrected after three days and some time later ascended to heavens. As God is also in heaven, the question is if there is any need for the son as separate person anymore. Or has this person rather united with the father, as the need to also be fully human is not there anymore, as Jesus is not on earth? To be more precise: What evidence is there that Jesus is still a separate person, even after his ascension? What are the reasons Christians believe that?

It seems that that [1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&version=NASB) says that women shouldn't be pastors. But there are many denominations that allow this. >[1 Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&version=NASB)
> **12** But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a > man, but to remain quiet. > **13** For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. > **14** And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being > deceived, fell into transgression. This idea also seems supported by the [command that women should remain *silent* in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&version=NASB) . What is the biblical basis for allowing women to preach or be a pastor? Specifically, what is the biblical basis of the doctrine of [ordination of women](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Christianity) ? Also, how do the followers of this doctrine reconcile their beliefs with that of [1 Timothy](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&version=NASB) and [1 Corinthians 14:34-35](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&version=NASB) above?

The Bible mentions in a passage that the flesh cannot have life without the spirit. Both the spirit and the flesh need to be present for that person to be considered a living soul and for this I am going to quote several passages in the Bible. In the beginning when God created Adam out of the mud of the earth. He breathed into Adam's flesh his own spirit and Adam became a living soul. **Genesis 2:7** >Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. The preacher Ecclesiastes also mentions that the spirit goes into the womb from God when new life is formed. **Ecclesiastes 11:5** >As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Other translations use the word *wind* instead of *spirit* but the same *wind* is much similar to the *breath of life* God breathed into the nostrils of Adam so wind could well be substituted for spirit. Jesus also made a statement to prove that this *wind spirit* theology is closely related and I am going to quote **John 3:8** **John 3:8** >The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. The final one is the spirit of Jesus who was God moving into the child who was formed in Mary's womb. Again, I think Ecclesiastes was prophesying of Jesus without the benefit of knowing the previous verse. Now let's fast forward to **Revelation 13:11** where there is an attempt to prove to the world through deception that the false prophet is from God, and for this deception to materialize he then needs to cause an image which I will assume is the image of a man to speak so that the world would marvel and say "Who is this man (false prophet), that he even gives life to lifeless objects that they are able to speak, could he have been sent by God?". This is very similar to what Jesus did during his time on earth: he walked on water and people marveled that who was Jesus that even the seas obey him. The devil is copying God's moves desperately to ensnare the world into a trap. Now here is my question, **does the false prophet cause the spirit of Satan to move into the image of the beast so that this image (who is Satan incarnated into flesh), speaking and causing many who would not worship the first beast to be slain?**

A friend of mine who is a Christian made a mistake and lost her virginity before marriage. According to the rules of the Assemblies of God denomination, can she still have a church wedding?

I am a man, and my partner a woman. Me and my partner are in a civil partnership here in the U.K. According to the Catholic church, is sex a sin for us?

As I understand, Evangelical Protestants believe that Jesus took on the sins of humanity through his death, acting as a substitute for the target of the justice of God, and that salvation comes through faith in Jesus, as evidenced in the Gospels. Do Evangelicals have beliefs as to *why* (in a metaphysical sense) faith is required for salvation? If Jesus already took on the sins of the world, why are humans required to have faith in Jesus to be saved? FOR CLARITY: I understand it is stated in the Gospels that we must have faith to be saved, I am asking whether evangelicals have theories that explain why this is the case, or if it is simply accepted as a mystery.

We read in Acts 28 how St. Paul survived the bite of a deadly viper in the Island Melita. In fact, we seldom come across Christian missionaries, pastors, or clergymen getting killed by snakebite. One exception is the case of Jamie Coot, the Pentecost pastor of Kentucky who was bitten to death by the rattlesnake he was handling during a service in Feb, 2014. One is inclined to believe that Christian pastors and clergymen, including those working in forested areas, enjoy a sort of God-given privilege, as was the case of St Paul, against death due to snake-bite. However, this assumption needs to be checked for factual veracity. **Have there been reports of death of Christian pastors or clergymen on account of snakebite in the history of the Church?**

This post is related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95124/how-should-one-read-the-summa-theologiae In Peter Turner's answer to the question posed in the above link, he states: >The arguments against are listed first, so everything St. Thomas does not think are the objections. Everything else is what he does think is true. >The "On the Contrary" part is not always there, but usually is a summation of the refutations. In light of this, I ask: **(i.) If one is going to quote a thought of St. Thomas (say, in a book)---may one quote from the *Summa* as coming from St. Thomas---that which begins, "On the contrary,"?** For example, in reference to [IIa-IIæ Q32 A5. *Whether almsgiving is a matter of precept?*](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3032.htm#article5) , > **On the contrary,** No man is punished eternally for omitting to do what is not a matter of precept. But some are punished eternally for omitting to give alms, as is clear from Matthew 25:41-43. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept. may I quote the above as a thought coming from St. Thomas? Regarding the next paragraph, I'm pretty sure that I may say something like: > St. Thomas says: "As love of our neighbor is a matter of precept, whatever is a necessary condition to the love of our neighbor is a matter of precept also. Now the love of our neighbor requires that not only should we be our neighbor's well-wishers, but also his well-doers, according to 1 John 3:18: 'Let us not love in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth.' And in order to be a person's well-wisher and well-doer, we ought to succor his needs: this is done by almsgiving. Therefore almsgiving is a matter of precept...." Finally, regarding "Spiritual Alms", **(ii.) is it safe to assume that the terms "Spiritual Alms" and the more current, "Spiritual Works of Mercy", are synonymous?**

Consider, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas on the topic of Mercy: [Question 30. Mercy](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3030.htm) The **topic** is then broken down into a series of *articles* (questions) - which are further divided into Objections, **"On the Contrary"**, **"I Answer that"**, and **Replies to Objections**. Can someone provide a structural explanation of how one is to read St. Thomas Aquinas' *Summa Theologiae*; and in particular, how one is to determine which part of an Article's content reflect St. Thomas' personal thoughts on the matter? (e.g., Does St. Thomas himself always object to the objections? Are his true thoughts only found in "I answer that"? Are his true thoughts reflected in the "replies" to the objections?)

My Question was if there is a difference between Soul and Spirit. I ask this question because it seems like your Soul and Spirit are the same thing. I realized that your spirit and physical body are even connected at birth. Was this why Jesus could not sin? He had an unclean spirit which was the Holy Spirit while he was a baby. Jesus Spirit and physical body are two different things and yet they are perfectly connected in union. The only thing is that they can be separate and I think that your soul is where the spirit of yourself is located. This is because when you accept Jesus you receive the Holy Spirit and I think that the Holy Spirit dwells in your soul but it changes your own spirit because it becomes attached and Jesus will never let go of us no matter what. Where is the spirit located? Is it located in the mind where the soul is located? The spirit is connected to our physical body and since we are sinners this affects our spirit. The physical part of us affects the spiritual part of us. So, are we both spiritual and Physical or are we something else? I want to try to keep this focused on Christian Denomination and Beliefs of the Christian Viewpoint.

God likes to show his plans for the future through what he does today. God did a lot of things in the old testament that reflected his plan of salvation for the whole world. An example is asking Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac and then provides the sacrifice of a lamb which foreshadowed God sacrificing Jesus Christ on the cross so that the sins of the whole world are atoned for. Is it a co-incidence that Moses who is associated with the law in the Bible(Refer to his role in the transfiguration of Jesus) did not enter into the promised land but Joshua whose name is synonymous to that of Jesus(Yashua) entered into the promised land and it is Jesus who actually leads the new Israelites into the new promised land? Joshua(Yehoshua) who entered(he actually led the Israelites to the promised land) through grace and Moses not entering despite his high record of the works of the law, was God trying to show it is through grace and not works of the law that we are saved?

If a person has a choice of being truthful or nice to a friend, what does the Bible tell us to do? Example: Suppose you will hurt the feelings of your friend if you tell them the truth. Is it better to lie (or twist the truth) and be nice?