How do non-Trinitarian Christians respond to the question *where did Jesus go and what did he do between His death and resurrection?* *** *** This question is asked as a parallel to this existing question . Since the scoping of the earlier question was tightened to specifically solicit the input of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and other Protestants, and a variety of users had offered answers from other viewpoints, this question is being asked to provide a place to respond from these other viewpoints. Scoping for this question would certainly include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Biblical Unitarians, and the Swedenborgian Church. However, if between this question and its predecessor there is a Christian viewpoint that is still excluded, I would be happy to edit the scoping of this question so that between the two questions a more complete set of Christian denominations can be represented.

There is a common saying, "Christ is risen. He is risen indeed." What is the bible meaning? And what does this mean from the perspective of a person who is alive on this earth today? How can this help the person? I've often heard this means a person who is dead (spiritually) can be risen again (become alive after being forgiven). Please state the denomination of your answer.

Is there a problem with the punctuation, as we see that Jesus did not go to paradise that day? ----------------------------------------------- Could Jesus' words be punctuated as: >I tell you the truth this day - with me thou shalt be in Paradise.

We have record of King David having several prophets speak into his life who "kept him on the straight and narrow" or disciplined him when necessary. (Samuel, Nathan, Gad) But I fail to find any prophets interacting with Solomon! Was this the reason for his ultimate apostasy? Did he make the mistake of relying on his gift of wisdom, without a continuing interaction with God?

In Luke chapter 23, there is an interaction between Jesus and two thieves on the cross. One of the thieves mocks the Savior, telling him to save himself. The other thief rebukes the first, and confesses that he deserves to be on the cross, but Jesus doesn't: > “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, > If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. > > “But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear > God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. > > “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy > kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39–43, KJV ). This passage is frequently referenced (sometimes along with others) as evidence that baptism isn't a prerequisite for salvation. However, it's not clear to me how this passage can be used to make that assertion. What evidence is there that the penitent thief was not baptized? (He already knew who the Savior was, so it would make sense that he had followed him at some point during his ministry.)

What is a survey of beliefs in contemporary Trinitarian denominations regarding whether the Holy Spirit - a co-equal person of the Godhead - is omniscient? Do any hold members should be expelled if they deny such belief?

Deut 34:5-7 say that when Moses died at the age of 120 years, his eyesight or strength had not diminished. That implies that he did not die of age-related ailments. One is left to assume that Moses died a sudden death for reasons like heart failure, or in an accident. Anyway, the Old Testament is silent on the cause of his death. My question therefore: **Is there a traditional belief in Christianity or Judaism on the cause of death of Moses?**

*This question may sound like making excuses but please don't down-vote, it's a big issue specially in middle east.* I'm living in Iran and because of the sanctions I'm not able to transfer money using credit cards PayPal etc. I try to use open-source but if it's not open-source it's a pirated version. Despite not feeling good about doing this I have no other choice. even if I could transfer money, I can't afford all the prices (because of the sanctions and crippled economy). Piracy is so common here that even government uses it, for example PC's Windows OS. Again, I have no alternative to stop using pirated version of *things*, Is this a sin in the situation that I explained?

Some religions claim to have a newer revelation of God: the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an are presented to be the latest revelation of God. The Old Testament closes with a climax of expectation of the Savior. The New Testament presents the Savior and finishes with his return. **What are the biblical arguments that the canon is closed?** I do understand that Catholics include in the canon what protestants calls the Apocrypha, but I don't want to make a distinction about that in this question. Although, there is no need to quote out of these books to answer this question.

## The situation According to Catholicism, during the Consecration, if for some reason, the priest consecrated only one of the species validly, would that configure an imperfect Sacrifice or the Sacrifice wouldn't even take place? Some examples I'm thinking to achieve this situation: * Using a valid matter for only one of the species (e.g. bread and cider or barley bread and wine) * Using a valid form for only one of the species (e.g. making a mistake on Words of Institution of one of the species) * A priest who dies in the middle of the Consecration I think is safe to say that the second example is the most common way such a thing could happen. And that being the case, it's totally possible for someone discover the possible invalidity, which is exactly what is in question, as it is happening. Take that as the general situation for this question. ----- ## My research ### Catholic Encyclopedia In my research about it, I came to this article about the Sacrifice of the Mass from The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1911). There are two important parts (emphasis mine) that seem to answer my question: > ### The existence of the Mass > [...] Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, **without the use of the two forms of bread and wine** (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore **the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place**. > ### The constituent parts of the Mass > [...] Not only older theologians such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the **untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid**, such as barley bread or cider, **the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice**. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold consecration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, **the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice**. But just before this last citation, it actually is preceded by a disclaimer: > While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, **the necessity of the twofold consecration** can be demonstrated *only as highly probable*. ### Summa Theologiae I tried to find something about it in the Summa, and the best I could get was a response where St. Thomas describes that once the consecration has started it _should_ be finished, even requiring another priest to do it if necessary. But, this could be a necessity in terms of proper way to celebrate Mass, not that it would not be a valid Sacrifice, at least that's how it seems to me. Also, @Geremia remembered me about Missal's De Defectibus which proposes basically the same thing. > If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication." > > Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Q. 83, A. 6 ### Priests/Theologians opinions A good priest that I trust (friend of mine), said that such a case would configure a "gravely injured Sacrifice". So another similar opinion to the theologians quoted before (mutilated Sacrifice). I also asked another priest online and he said that the sacrifice would not happen in this case. I addressed this question directly to other trusted individuals, and still waiting a response. Will answer myself if I encounter something clear about this situation. ## Concluding questions - Is there anything said about this by the magisterium (even if indirectly)? - Is there an actual answer to this question, or it's a disputed thing among theologians? - Basically, can it be answered (with certainty) at all? If we can arrive at a definitive conclusion, and it is that the Sacrifice doesn't take place, then, it would follow that _in principle_ it would not be enough to fulfill the Sunday obligation if that was the case, right? Take into consideration the example I proposed that is most probable, where the priest commits an error in the form unintentionally, and anyone who notices does so as it happens. Then, anyone who's ignorant of the deficiency in the form (either by not knowing it, or knowing but not noticing the deficiency) would not be liable. That's not in question. But consider then a well informed Catholic who noticed the error. How far the Sunday obligation would impel them to go to another celebration? Only if they have the possibility to do so? Having planning other activities would be enough to say they can't? I know that if it happened to me, I would do my best to go to a another celebration out of Love of God, and because of the uncertainty that led me ask this question. But it seems to me that someone who did their part trying to participate the Sacrifice of Mass, even if it was invalid and they were well informed to notice that when it happened, they couldn't be liable for a mistake of the priest. Am I right about it?

I was thinking about the mention of the Father in the NT with the definite article, first example is John 1:1. In the rest of the NT there is always a theological reverence towards the Father that must be noticed. One quick example is 1 Tim 6:16 "who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see." I do not want to make this question long, so there we go: don't you think that by affirming filioque we actually run over the role (economy, not ontology) of the Father in the New Testament?

**According to Catholicism, did the Apostles enjoy the prerogative of infallibility?** The doctrine of papal infallibility was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1870! Does the Catholic Church recognize that the 12 Apostles of Our Lord enjoyed this privilege also? Are there any other Divine Privileges that the Apostles may have enjoyed, whether defined in principle or simply believed by certain Catholic theologians, Doctors of the Church or Church Fathers?

It is my understanding that because he had been a soldier and shed human blood, God did not allow David to build His temple---but reserved that honor for his son, Solomon. QUESTION: In his lifetime, did Solomon ever physically fight as a soldier or shed human blood with his own hands? His reign seem to have been, unusually, a time of peace.

It's well-known that in the Bible God mentioned all about Israel and its people like Judaism. Judaism and Christianity believe in the same Bibles also. So Judaism is an ethnic religion according to their claim. If anyone wants to be Jewish, he can't be. One must be from that ethnicity to be Jewish. It's same for many African, Indian, Chinese and so many other ethnic religions. But in case of Islam we see that God never said "O people of Arab". Qur'an is all about people of the world. God always talked about all humankind. So in case of Christianity, it seems an ethnic religion like all other ethnic religions. But why Christians claim it to be universal religion? Did Jesus or God say that the Bible is for all humankind or Christianity is for all humankind? **What is the logic of Christianity being different from other ethnic religions?**

This is a huge question. Do let me know if its immensity makes it off-topic for this site. I will start out my question with a quote from Schopenhauer: > *A man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills.* *The Basic Argument* logically proves how *free will* defined as *will over one's will* is logically impossible due to the infinite regress it entails. If we have this definition of free will, and we exercised will to shape our will, then this meta-will must also have been shaped by our meta-meta-will, and so on. So, if one wants to be logical, this sense of *free will* must be abandoned. What we are left with then is the definition of free will implicit in Schopenhauer's quote; *free will* is the ability to do what you want. That's not as clear-cut as it sounds like, as there are many additional details that needs hashing out. However, regardless of those details, we are left with the very counter-intuitive idea of a supposedly benevolent being punishing us for things that are, **ultimately**, beyond our will. What we want at any given moment is determined by who we are and our environment (and the randomness inherent in both of those). We do not have ultimate control over these things. If I could create a sentient, conscious robot that is programmed to want to destroy things around it, and it is given free reign to do so, then it has free will, yet to punish it for being destructive would be ridiculous. It chose to, but it didn't choose to choose to. So, if we do not will what we will, why does God punish us for our will?

What do various Christian denominations believe about the requirement of baptism, and situations that impede it? For a personal example, it has been more than 3 years since I converted to Christianity; as I'm living in Iran and leaving Islam is a crime punishable with slashes and death, I tried to keep my faith hidden. There is no church where I live and a few open churches are in other cities very far from where I live and "restricted". I'm not in contact with any other Christian communities in Iran; I can't trust them. What if a Christian is not baptized? Is it a ceremony that **must** be done?

I converted to Christianity about 3 years ago and since then it's a "work in progress". I do pray once a day for a short time. I feel like I'm not devoted enough. When I was Muslim there were rules for praying; 5 times a day at specific hours and with specific prayers. with Christianity no such rules exist as far as I know. I want to pray more and I don't know how or what to say, please guide me. pray for me

I was reading "When the Bible talks about wine does it mean alcoholic wine? " and I thought, The Last Supper was during the Passover, when the Jews ware forbidden to use leaven: > **Exodus 12:15 KJV** > Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the > first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever > eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that > soul shall be cut off from Israel. This implies that the wine used in the The Last Supper was just grape juice, right?

I know that the Pope can speak infallibly (*ex cathedra*), and that this has officially been done once, as well as three times before Papal infallibility was formally declared. I would assume that any doctrine he talks about or mentions would be infallible, at least with regards to the bits spoken while in *ex cathedra* mode. Additionally, however, I can't immediately think of a reason why *ex cathedra* statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines. Thus, my question is: which doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are infallible? If none, many, or all of Catholic Church doctrines are infallible, then say so. In the case of *many*, a broad classification would be appreciated. If there is a small number of them, then a list would be greatly appreciated.

Romans 1:18-24 sounds like an argument from [Intelligent Design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) to me: > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made**. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and **exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things**. > > 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served **the creature rather than the Creator**, who is blessed forever! Amen. Can Romans 1:18-24 and the Theory of Evolution be reconciled? How do Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution make sense of Paul's teleological argument? If Paul is arguing for design, isn't Paul arguing indirectly against evolution?