In Matthew 26:27-28 (NRSVCE) we read: > Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Those words of Jesus are reproduced in the Eucharistic celebration of the Catholic Church. **My question is**: Why did Jesus use the words "for many" instead of "for all"? What are the connotations, including references to the OT, which the Catholic Church attribute to the word "many" as used by Jesus at the Last Supper?

In Matthew 27:29 we read: "..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns?

We read in Matt 26:36-39 (NRSVCE) : > Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed... One wonders why Jesus asked his 11 disciples to remain in two different places on his way to the place of prayer in Gethsemane And Peter was carrying a sword ! ( Jn 18:10). Did Jesus anticipate an early arrival of his betrayer and the soldiers, who needed to be warded off till he completed his prayer? Was the arrangement of disciples in two steps i.e. 8 plus 3, intended to reinforce physical security in all his human nature? **My question, therefore is**: According to Catholic teachings, why did Jesus arrange his 11 disciples in two places on the way to his place of prayer in Gethsemane?

# Enoch and the Inclusion of the Gentiles The [Book of Dream Visions](https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_4.HTM) , the fourth section of the Book of Enoch, closes with a summary of the history of Israel told in terms of animals. ([Wikipedia offers a short analysis.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#Animals_in_the_second_dream_vision)) It closes with a vision of the Messianic Kingdom: >And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. And I saw till all their generations were transformed, and they all became white bulls; and the first among them became a lamb, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. And I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything. > >Enoch 9:37-39 This seems to describe the incorporation of gentiles (the animals of the field and birds of the air) into the Kingdom (they all became white bulls). They are not just subject to the Kingdom, but are a part of it and pleasing to the Lord (the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen). It is widely accepted that Enoch influenced the early Church. Jude, 2 Peter, and possibly John reference it. Barnabus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others make use of it. Do any of the Church Fathers (for the purpose of this question, assume the Patristic Age ends with John Damascene) make reference to this passage when discussing the inclusion of the gentiles into the Kingdom?

It seems some Protestants hold that belief in Trinitarianism is required for salvation. According to those who hold this, is there a distinction between Christians who assent to this and understand what Trinitarianism actually is, as opposed to Christians who assent to it but don't really understand what Trinitarianism is? For ex., I can say "Jesus is God," but the 'is' there is ambiguous. It could be taken in all sorts of senses, one of which is the 'official' Trinitarian sense. Yet it is not clear how many rank-and-file Protestants understand Trinitarianism to the extent that they could articulate it in detail. What's required for salvation in terms of depth of belief, according to Protestants who hold Trinitarian belief is required for salvation?

According to those who hold that the bread and wine do not merely represent the body and blood of Christ, but actually are those things, why are those things eaten? Should they not be buried?

For scoping purposes, let's assume that [Divine Command Theory](https://iep.utm.edu/divine-command-theory/) is false. This means that explanations of the form *"X is evil because God said so"* would be out of scope. Having clarified that, if we bring our attention to the first sin committed by humanity, the eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam & Eve, how can we sufficiently explain that this act was "evil", "wrong" or "sinful" according to a theory of ethics consistent with Christian theism but different from DCT? God commanded Adam & Eve not to eat nor touch the fruit from a specific tree. What made breaking this commandment "evil", "wrong" or "sinful", if we rule out Divine Command Theory from the pool of candidate explanations? Please make the theory of ethics you are coming from explicit in your answer. Thanks.

Dr. James Tour recently uploaded a video titled [Dr. James Tour vs Dave Farina | Are we clueless about the origin of life? #abiogenesis](https://youtu.be/pxEWXGSIpAI) . The description in the video says: > Join us for an exciting debate between Dr James Tour and Dave Farina > on The Science of Abiogenesis. This in-person event will take place on > Fri May 19 at 7:00 PM CST in Keck Hall 100, Houston, TX and will be > streamed LIVE on YouTube! > > Dr. James Tour is a world-renowned scientist and professor of > chemistry at Rice University. He will be presenting evidence that he > believes demonstrate huge problems and hype in the origin of life > field. Dave Farina is a prominent atheist and Youtuber who will argue > for the theory of abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from > non-living matter through natural processes. > > Join us Friday May 19 at 7PM CT at Rice University or ONLINE to for > this highly anticipated event! > > See more at tourvsfarina.com This in-person debate was arranged in an attempt to settle an online discussion that has already been going on for a while between the two, through a series of video publications in which they supposedly rebut, expose and debunk one another. For example, on his YouTube channel [Professor Dave Explains](https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorDaveExplains) , Dave has posted videos such as: - [Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis](https://youtu.be/SixyZ7DkSjA) - [Response to James Tour: 700 Papers and Still Clueless (Part 1 of 2)](https://youtu.be/ghJGnMwRHCs) - [Debunking James Tour’s Latest Pathetic Series (Part 1 of 4)](https://youtu.be/sYfOA5FR6gg) Likewise, James has uploaded content such as: - [Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01](https://youtu.be/4rwPi1miWu4) - [Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 02](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7) - [Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 1](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr) As an outside observer and without any expertise in these topics, my impression and summary of the debate is the following: - Dave cited an overwhelming amount of research papers and claimed that these papers are evidence that we are NOT clueless, and that progress is clearly being made in origin of life (OOL) research. - James claimed that all these papers have titles that are hyped, and that if you read them and dig into the details and actual data being presented, they all come up short and lacking, and therefore OOL research is still clueless. From the perspective of knowledgeable supporters of creationism and intelligent design: - Does Dave Farina have a point when he points to a tremendous amount of OOL research publications that seem to indicate that we are NOT clueless? - Is James Tour correct when he dismisses all these publications as "hyped"? - What are examples of major (and perhaps unsurmountable) obstacles that OOL research is facing right now?

I would like to know how to print out Jesus is God in Aramaic specifically the Aramaic Christ spoke.

King David (probably) went to heaven. That was in spite of the fact the he committed a number of sins, the most egregious of which was stealing Bathesheba from Uriah. The some is probably true of his son King Solomon. David wrote the book of Psalms, and Solomon the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. That shows that they thought a lot about God, Jesus, and right and wrong. Then there was the story of the prophet (I believe it was Daniel) who "mediated on the law day and night." In John 3:16, it says "For God so loved he world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish put have eternal life." All other things being equal, are people that "think a lot about" God more likely to have the faith they need to go to heaven than people who don't? Put another way, would another king who committed "Bathesheba" and other similar sins but don't "think a lot about God" be more likely to go to Hell than King David? And are there examples of people in the Bible who "think a lot about God" but probably did not go to heaven? **Note:** This is the revised version of a question that was originally closed. This version postulates "faith," as the precondition for going to heaven, and asks if "thinking" is tied to "faith." My comment to an answerer below was, "To ask the question "your way," is someone who "thinks a lot about God and Jesus and right and wrong" more likely to "believe in God's son [and therefore meet] the condition for eternal life?" –

### According to major Reformed theologians, what is the Christian fulfillment of the [Songs of Ascent](https://www.gotquestions.org/Songs-of-Ascent.html) (Ps 120-134)? I'm particularly interested in **what a Reformed theologian determines to be the Christian referents of these 4 nouns** so that the verbs attached to them are meaningful in the Christian context in this age (today), **the verbs representing what a Christian can physically do**, just like how in the OT the Israelites would sing the Psalms as they physically ascended the mountain to go to the temple. Secondly, the interpretation of these 4 nouns should be distinct (i.e. they cannot all be Jesus, at least they should be different aspects of Jesus). For Catholics, the meaning can naturally be connected to ["going to mass"](https://media.ascensionpress.com/podcast/tjcs11/) to physically meet Jesus (the Eucharist) in the house of God (the cathedral) where the throne of the bishop (seat of authority for the bishop acting *in persona Christi*) is. St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican is on the [Vatican Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Hill) . The 4 nouns are: 1. the physical city & walls of **Jerusalem**: "built as a city should be", "solidly united", "Feet were standing within" 2. the **physical temple** which is the house of God: "Let's go to" 3. **mount Zion** on which the city rests (or referring to the city): "where God desires it for his home", "those who trust in the LORD are like mount Zion", "the LORD bless you from Zion", "mountains surround Jerusalem" 4. the **thrones of the house of David**: "there thrones for judgment are placed" Sample verses from the CSB translation: - Ps 121:1: "I **lift my eyes toward the mountains**." - Ps 122:1-2: "**Let's go** to the **house of the LORD**." Our feet were standing **within your gates, Jerusalem** - Ps 122:3-4: "Jerusalem, **built as a city should be**, solidly united, where the tribes, the LORD's tribes, **go up to give thanks** to the name of the Lord" - Ps 122:5: "**There, thrones for judgment are placed**, thrones of the house of David." - Ps 122:6-7: "Pray for the **well-being of Jerusalem**: "May those who love you be secure; may there be **peace within your walls**, security within your fortresses." - Ps 125:1-2: "Those who trust in the LORD **are like Mount Zion**. It cannot be shaken; it remains forever. The **mountains surround Jerusalem and the LORD surrounds his people, both now and forever**." - Ps 128:5-6: "May **the LORD bless you from Zion**, so that you will see the **prosperity of Jerusalem** all the days of your life ..." - Ps 132:13-18: "For **the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his home**: "This is my resting place forever; I will make my home here because I have desired it. I will abundantly bless its food; I will satisfy its needy with bread. I will clothe its priests with salvation and its faithful people will shout for joy. There I will make a horn grow for David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one. I will clothe his enemies with shame, but the crown he wears will be glorious." The answer should have references from Calvin's work, such as from his *Institutes of the Christian religion* or his commentaries on Scripture, **OR** from the work of a major historic Reformed theologian such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, etc.

In Revelation, there are several references to the beast with seven heads and ten horns rising to world power. >Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. >Rev. 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. >Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. >Rev. 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. How can a Bible reader determine if the seven heads refer to the G-7 seven nations? And the three extra horns could be when Russia, India, and China join them? https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1786/why-canada-failed-to-emerge-as-a-power-like-uk-or-france/7741#7741 **Note:** This is the revised version of a previously closed question. The original version was in the format, "Is it true that...?" This version is, "how can one determine if it is true that...?

> Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who > will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His > kingdom. (Matthew 16:28, NIV ) **Edit: adding another verse in order to make sense of the answer linked below.** > Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until > all these things have happened. (Mark 13:30, NIV ) **End of edit** One interpretation of this is that Jesus believed the end of the world would happen within a few decades. If that's what Jesus meant, was it a new suggestion or were there precedents? What evidence is there that Christians in the first century subscribed to this belief? Other interpretations have been suggested, like the ones summarised in this answer: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4310/45084 What are the earliest sources we have for such interpretations? What sources show us how ideas about the apocalypse changed over the course of the first hundred years or so of Christianity? I'd sort of expect there to have been a big crisis in the religion when it started to become clear that the first generation was all dead and the end of the world hadn't come, but as far as I can gather that didn't really happen. There were new sects and theological disputes as the faith spread, but the date of the apocalypse doesn't seem to have been a central factor. Is that right?

The comments to this response suggest that there is such a thing as a Christian who does not believe in God. To me, that is rather contradictory, sort of like social networking without all of the people. So... * how does it work? * What are the major authors? * Do they have a denomination? * Are there any statistics related to them? (How many, location mostly)

Does the imposition of legal sanctions by the Catholic Church on divorced individuals who have remarried carry actual spiritual consequences in the context of their relationship with God, or is it rather an expression of church discipline that can be questioned and circumvented without impacting the spiritual salvation of these individuals?

How does Christianity define idolatry which is prohibited in the 2nd of the ten commandments? Is there any general consensus among the different branches or are there different opinions? What are the earliest positions/opinions of Christianity on this subject?

Ockham (cf. [this article on him](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/) by the Catholic logician [Paul V. Spade](http://pvspade.com/)) invented his dead-end nominalist philosophy in order to justify his being against the papacy (cf. Thomist John Deely's _Four Ages of Understanding_ [p. 394](https://books.google.com/books?id=zAsjkHJ8aP8C&pg=PA394#v=onepage&q&f=false) ff., which shows how the Great Western "Schism" lead to the adoption of Ockham's nominalism, despite its weakness). But **was Ockham really a sedevacantist** (i.e., one not explicitly against the papacy _per se_ but against a particular pope claimant)**?** The following quote from Salza & Siscoe's _True or False Pope?: Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors_ p. 210 is quite convincing. Ockham wrote—"at the end of his letter to the General Chapter in Assisi in the spring of 1334" (cf. [_Tractatus de Successivis_ translation p. 12](https://books.google.com/books?id=MOEtAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Because+of+the+errors+and+the+heresies+mentioned+above+and+countless+others%22)) , defending his opposition to Pope John XXII, who opposed the (then-material) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death, defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII in [_Benedictus Deus_](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html)—that : > Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and all who were his friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon Law itself, without need of further sentence. … In proof thereof several volumes have been published. … For against the errors of this pseudo-Pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend him, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reproving his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen, and ink. … > > If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedience of the false Pope and his friends, let him try to defend his Constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, nor base his arguments on reproaches, because those who try to arm themselves with great numbers of lies, reproaches, threats, and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason. Therefore let none believe that I mean to turn away from the recognized truth because of the great number of those in favor of the pseudo-Pope, or because of proofs that are common to heretics and to orthodox men, because I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life. The Church never condemned Ockham's theories, although Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission. W. Turner writes in the old _Catholic Encyclopedia_ "[Ockham](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm) " entry: > Ockham's attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". **Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters**, and did not diminish that authority in any respect. This is sedevacantism because sedevacantism doesn't deny the papacy (as Protestants do).

Because of their Sabbath day standards, and unique lifestyle, my question is: Is 7th Day Adventistism considered an orthodox Christian faith?

Have any Jehovah's Witnesses experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, possibly in a dramatic, life-changing way, and published a testimony in which they recount their experiences? ____ Similar questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84069/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87116/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86227/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86291/50422

My beloved (somewhat conservative) presbyterian-pentecostal mother spends hours every week on dubious, supposedly Christian websites and then regurgitates their dubious prophesies and conspiracy theories. I rarely get to have a normal conversation with her anymore without her bringing up the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab in ways which completely overestimate their significance and/or nefarious nature. The issue is that she believes we are in the end times and her need to inform herself about anything and everything which could herald the end times has become insatiable. To the extent that she has completely lost her grasp of what constitutes a reliable source of information and will accept anything the internet feeds her. So I want to help my mother by occasionally referencing reliable Christian-oriented sources which will allow her to keep up to date about real global issues which she can pray about. Can I use Christian Science Monitor, or would me pushing this likely be seen negatively in her very conservative Christian church? I do not want her friends to advise her that my reading Christian Science Monitor only shows that I have become wayward in my faith (because CSMonitor has origins in Christian Science, which other members of my mother's congregation would almost certainly consider to be a non-Christian grouping), which would be very counter-productive. In wider society it has a stellar reputation and I am under the impression that it does not push Christian Science per se, but what is its reputation among very conservative Christians who are very sincere about their faith? My mother is a member of the linked denomination, but I appreciate insight on how Christian Science Monitor is viewed more widely. See: [Apostolic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Church_(1916_denomination))