> John 3:16 (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and > only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have > **eternal life**. The New Testament clearly tells us how one can attain salvation or eternal life. What about Old Testament? Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal life? How can we understand this verse? > Matthew 19:16 (NIV) > Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing > must I do to get **eternal life**?” If the rich man was a Jew, he must have known how to attain eternal life from the Torah.

It is recorded in the Gospel of John that after Jesus's death and resurrection, he appeared to the disciples and said the following: >On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. > >Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:19-23 In this scene, we see Jesus commissioning his disciples and empowering them with the Holy Spirit to carry on his ministry and to forgive people's sins on his behalf. However, what about the second part of the fourth statement he says here - "If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven"? Has much been written on this delegated power of condemnation? Have any denominations held that Christians have the power to condemn people for their sins, just like they have the power to forgive them?

The question is as simple as the title. I am simply wondering, ‘When is the earliest recorded date of this tradition?’

Many people believe in the existence of demonic entities who sexually assault people at night. They are popularly known by the names of [incubus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus) and [succubus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succubus) . I don't want to share explicit material on here, but with some quick searches it's not hard to come by stories and first-hand testimonies of people who claim to have had encounters at night with these entities (just search on platforms such as YouTube, Reddit and many forums devoted to the paranormal/supernatural). Is there any biblical basis to the belief in incubus and succubus? Do the Scriptures give any credence to the possibility of demons having any sort of sexual interaction with human beings? _________________ To show that this is a belief held by many Christians, I invite the reader to check the following posts and books published by Christian deliverance ministries: (https://www.deliverancexorcisms.com/blog-and-ministry-news/the-incubus-and-succubus-demon) , (https://www.amazon.com/Deliverance-Incubus-Succubus-Demons-Night-ebook/dp/B00QKQVHSC) , (https://www.amazon.com/TOTAL-DELIVERANCE-SPIRIT-HUSBAND-WIFE-ebook/dp/B07L5RZCTK) , (https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/deliverance-from-bondage-of-the-spirit-husbands-and-wives-incubus-and-succubus) , (https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/incubus.htm) . If whole ministries are developed around the idea of setting people free from demonic oppressions, including sex demons, then it should stand to reason that many professing Christians who are either directly or indirectly linked to these ministries hold these beliefs.

In a statement urging Israel to abandon idolatry and return to the Lord (Jehovah) Samuel says: > And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return > unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and > Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and > serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the > Philistines. - 1 Samuel 7:3 This theme of serving God only as illustrated by forgoing the service of idols or false prophets and returning to the service of Jehovah God is oft repeated in Scripture: > Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer > of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love > the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall > walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, > and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. - > Deuteronomy 13:3-4 > Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: > and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of > the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil > unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; > whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side > of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but > as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:14-15   This theme is picked up by Jesus in responding to the temptations of Satan in the desert and recorded almost identically in both Matthew and Luke: > And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt > fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, > Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him > only shalt thou serve. - Matthew 4:9-10 > If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus > answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is > written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou > serve. - Luke 4:7-8 It is interesting to note how, in responding to the temptation to worship Satan, Jesus links worship and service of God together. To worship an idol is to serve that idol and to serve a false God is to worship that God. Jesus categorically declares (and also echoes all of God's revelation to us) that only God, Jehovah God, the Lord Almighty should be worshiped and served. > Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not > with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing > God: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not > unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the > inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. - Colossians 3:22-24 And in another place, regardless of what is meant by the strange Chaldean word mammon, Jesus says that two different masters (one God and one non-God) cannot both be served: > No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and > love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the > other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. - Matthew 6:24 My question, therefore is, given Jesus exhortation to serve the Lord thy God only and the apostle Paul's reminder that it is the Lord Christ whom Christians serve: Whom do Jehovah's Witnesses serve?

In [Derek Rishmawy's blog article](https://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/10/19/triune-justification/) defending how Reformed justification is *not* sub-Trinitarian, he compared fully Trinitarian Reformed approach as "the forgiving mercy of God" (via a quote from the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck) "to the more metaphysical conception of the medieval Roman church". He then says that the Reformed approach ALSO adheres to the Augustine's formula "*Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt*". **My question is**: can we have a more fleshed out comparison between the Reformed vs. Catholic conception of grace, and how the latter is "more metaphysical"? ### More on Bavinck's understanding of Nature and Grace - The section [Nature and Grace in Bavinck](https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=pro_rege) translated from J. Veenhof's dissertation on Bavinck where there is a similar contrast: > In Roman Catholicism, Christianity may still be *Erlösungsreligion*, but “it is in the first place not *reparatio*, but *elevatio naturae*.”40 However, according to Bavinck’s reformational conviction, salvation is precisely *reparatio* of created, natural life. of created, natural life. That is why he can maintain the position, over against Roman Catholicism as well as Pietism and Methodism, that nature as God’s creation “is in itself of no less value than grace.” The Holy Spirit, who acts in continuity with God’s directives in natural life, “seeks by His grace to restore the whole of natural life, to liberate it from sin and to hallow it to God.”41 “The kingdom of God is hostile to nothing but sin alone.”42 **This insight makes it possible for Bavinck to replace the predominantly ontological and metaphysical Roman Catholic conception with a much more religious and existential approach to the problematics.** Consider only the following remarkable statement > > > Grace and sin are opposites; the latter is overcome only by the power of the former; but as soon as the power of sin is broken (and in the same measure that it is) the opposition between God and man disappears.43 - 2016 blog article [As Far As Curse is Found: Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck](https://reformedforum.org/far-curse-found-nature-grace-herman-bavinck/) summarizes Bavinck's polemic against the Roman Catholic viewpoint on nature and grace. - 2019 blog article [Does nature need addition? Bavinck against the *donum superadditum*](https://allkirk.net/2019/08/23/does-nature-need-addition-bavinck-against-the-donum-superadditum/) - A useful but polemical article about *donum superadditum* containing partial truths of Catholic sacrament system and the meaning of Jesus's sacrifice: [Privation theory of evil and the *donum superadditum*](https://www.apologeticscentral.org/post/the-privation-theory-of-evil-and-the-donum-superadditum) . Possible misunderstanding of Thomism is seen here, explained by [this article](https://allkirk.net/2018/09/26/doubting-thomists-john-bolts-defense-of-the-real-aquinas-against-his-reformational-critics/)

We read in Jn 19:12-13 (NRSVCE): > From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor.” When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge’s bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. William Barclay has this to say: > The scene comes to an end by saying that Pilate brought Jesus out; as we have translated it, and as the King James Version and Revised Standard translate it, Pilate came out to the place that was called the Pavement of Gabbatha--which may mean the tessellated pavement of marble mosaic--and sat upon the judgment seat. This was the bema ( G968) , on which the magistrate sat to give his official decisions. Now the verb for to sit is kathizein ( G2523) , and that may be either intransitive or transitive; it may mean either to sit down oneself, or to seat another. Just possibly it means here that Pilate with one last mocking gesture brought Jesus out, clad in the terrible finery of the old purple robe and with his forehead girt with the crown of thorns and the drops of blood the thorns had wakened, and set him in the judgment seat, and with a wave of his hand said: "Am I to crucify your king?" The apocryphal Gospel of Peter says that in the mockery, they set Jesus on the seat of judgment and said: "Judge justly, King of Israel." Justin Martyr too says that "they set Jesus on the judgment seat, and said, 'Give judgment for us'." It may be that Pilate jestingly caricatured Jesus as judge. If that is so, what dramatic irony is there. That which was a mockery was the truth; and one day those who had mocked Jesus as judge would meet him as judge--and would remember ([*Source*](https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/dsb/john-19.html)) The footnote on [Verse 13 (NRSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019%3A13&version=NRSVCE) also attests to the possibility of two different translations:"sat" and "seated him". Incidentally, John does not mention whether any OT prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus having been made to sit on the Seat of Judgement. Nevertheless, it did prove itself as a prophecy. **My question therefore is**: Was Jn 19:12-13 intended to be a prophecy on the Day of Judgement? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

I was just thinking, that's a strange greeting. Didn't people back then usually say "hail" in the context of "Hail Caesar"? And apparently Mary thought that was a strange greeting too, even stranger than the fact that it was an Angel who greeted her thus. So, according to the Catholic Church, does Hail (or Ave) in the sense that Gabriel uses it in Luke, actually have anything to do with addressing royalty? Has it ever been posited that the Archangel Gabriel would use that terminology only in reference to the Holy Mother of God?

We see that Blessed Virgin Mary had a rather smooth travel on her way to giving birth to Jesus, bar the physical hardship of travelling to Bethlehem towards the end of her pregnancy and trying to find a place to stay. She did not have to face any temptation say, the Devil threatening her that she would be abandoned by Joseph, and that Herod would send his men to kill her son etc. Jesus, on the other hand, was made to face temptations right at the beginning of his public mission. My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, why was Blessed Virgin Mary spared of temptations on her way to motherhood?**

Where did St. Thomas Aquinas say Mary approached the borders/fringes of the divinity or Hypostatic Union?

Lactantius was a Christian who had been a part of the Roman government (which was hostile to Christians) prior to his conversion. Sometime between 303 and 311 he wrote a systematic theology, in which he wrote: >When [God] might have bestowed upon His people both riches and kingdoms, as He had before given them to the Jews, whose successors and posterity we are; **on this account He would have them [that is, "His people"] live under the power and government of others, lest, being corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, they should glide into luxury and despise the precepts of God**; as those ancestors of ours, who, ofttimes enervated by these earthly and frail goods, departed from discipline and burst the bonds of the law. But when Constantine converted to Christianity and became emperor, Lactantius became an advisor and hagiographer to Constantine, as well as a tutor to the emperor's son. It appears that he believed it good and right for a Christian to hold the highest post in the government, even though he had previously said that it was for Christians to live under a pagan emperor. Did he ever say why it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government?

At Luke 10:21 we see : > At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." Elsewhere, we see John addressing the faithful, so: > My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. (1 John 2:1) My question is: to whom was Jesus referring as infants at Luke 10:21 -- to the infants around, or to his followers of simple faith? What does the Catholic Church teach us about the usage of 'infants' in the above-said context?

I am trying to find a reference which contains an actual quote from Ven. Leo Dupont, which, as I recollect, can be paraphrased as *"... but I have never made peace with my sins."* Is anyone familiar with the complete and actual quote, and can tell me where to find it? Related to this question is https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/74067/how-does-the-catholic-church-tell-us-to-do-reparation-for-our-sins-according-to/79902#79902 in which a reference to Ven. Leo Dupont is made.

I'm aware someone asked this question already, but they no longer have an account, the post has no answers, and I'm hopefully going to reformulate the question in a way that hopefully explicates the objection more. Mark 1:1-5 states (verse numbers removed): >The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” - “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark's quotation is seemingly a conglomeration of a few Old Testament passages, but of the passages he does use from Isaiah and Malachi that are relevant, they both say essentially the same thing. Malachi 3:1 (Emphasis added and verse numbers removed): >“Behold, **I** will send **My messenger**, who will prepare the way before **Me**. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly **come to His temple**—the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight—see, He is coming,” says the LORD of Hosts. So in Mark 1 we are introduced to two figures, Jesus, and John the Baptist. In Malachi, we are introduced to two figures, God, and the messenger, who will prepare the way before God. Notice that immediately after describing a messenger who will come and prepare the way, Mark launches into his description of the ministry of John the Baptist. Since we know that John the Baptist's purpose was to bring in Jesus' ministry, that means that John the Baptist is the messenger making the path straight for the Lord, Jesus. But that means Jesus must be God. To break this down into a syllogism: 1. The Old Testament speaks of a messenger preparing the way for God to meet his people. 2. Mark identifies this messenger as John the Baptist. 3. John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus to make his people. 4. Therefore, Jesus is God as described in the Old Testament.

The following question is a bit of a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95177/on-bishops-who-refused-to-sign-henry-viiis-oath-of-succession . In an article "The Cardinal Martyr of England" found here: [**Catholic Culture**](//www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8669), it is stated (under Persecution and Consolation) > In May 1532, Thomas More resigned the chancellorship, and in June, Fisher preached against the divorce and in defense of the Church's independence. In August, Archbishop Warham of Canterbury died, and Thomas Cranmer, one of Henry's minions, was nominated at once for the post. QUESTION: Prior to Henry VIII's break with the Roman Catholic Church, did he (and if so, to what extent) have any say in the bishops that Rome appointed to his Realm? e.g., did Henry himself "nominate" Thomas Cranmer to the Pope to replace the deceased Archbishop Warham? If so, how long had such a practice been taking place? *Remark:* In 1532, Clement VII was pope. He is sometimes referred to as "the most unfortunate of the popes."

From this link :
> It seems inconsistent for God to promise believers that they will not > suffer wrath and then leave them on the earth to suffer through the > wrath of the tribulation. > > If the Bible is interpreted literally and consistently, the > pre-tribulational position is the most biblically-based > interpretation. And this link :
> At that moment, the world will have no born-again believers anywhere. ---------- Does it mean there will be no more of God's elect? I mean something like this :
Before the creation, God has 100 elects, humans who will be in heaven.
Not one of the 100 elects will taste the tribulation.
> Matthew 24:31
And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet > call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end > of heaven to the other 80 elects already died before the Rapture. The rest, 20 elects are raptured.
No more the elect, no more believer to the rest of the future after the Rapture, before the Millennial Kingdom.

A while back, I was reading a book (I don't remember the title) on the life of Polish martyr, Blessed Jerzy Popiełuszko; and I am now trying to recollect a quote, I think may have been from it, which I paraphrase here as follows: > "An idea that needs rifles to survive will die of its own accord. But an idea capable of life will win with no effort at all. And it will be followed by millions of people." I am certain that something like this was uttered by Blessed Jerzy Popiełuszko---though I cannot say for certain whether it was all part of a single quote, or two separate quotes. I have searched for an answer, but all that I have been able to verify so far is: > "An idea that needs rifles to survive will die of its own accord." QUESTION: Can anyone confirm or correct my paraphrase? I am looking for the exact words for: *"But an idea capable of life will win with no effort at all. And it will be followed by millions of people."* And of course, whether the whole paraphrase had been uttered as one quote, or whether it is comprised of two separate quotes uttered perhaps, on different occasions. I want like to include this in a book I am writing.

I heard "Christ" isn't the last name He got from His parents. Is that true? Does He have a last name? If He does not have a last name, then how does that work? If that wasn't His last name, and there were other people named Jesus, then how could people even know which Jesus people were talking about? Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way, like if I am young.

Lots of battles were fought in the Bible. Some were won primarily by a miraculous act of God, such as the fall of Jericho in the days of Joshua or the defeat of Sennacherib's Assyrian army in the days of Hezekiah. The non-miraculous victory with the most enemy casualties that I know of is the Battle of Mount Zemaraim, won by Rehoboam of Judah against the Kingdom of Israel. The Bible claims 500,000 casualties. Which battle won primarily by a miraculous act of God, fought by either the tribes (Moses through Samuel), United Kingdom (Saul to Solomon) or the Kingdom of Judah (Rehoboam to the Exile)... - claimed the most enemy casualties? - was fought against the largest opposing army? I am looking for battles prior to the Babylonian Exile, ca 585 BC. The greatest victory I know of is the defeat of Sennacherib, with 185,000 enemy casualties: > 32 “Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He > shall not come into this city or shoot an arrow there, or come before > it with a shield or cast up a siege mound against it. 33 By the way > that he came, by the same he shall return, and he shall not come into > this city, declares the Lord. 34 For I will defend this city to save > it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.” 35 And > that night the angel of the Lord went out and **struck down 185,000 in > the camp of the Assyrians**. And when people arose early in the morning, > behold, these were all dead bodies. 36 Then Sennacherib king of > Assyria departed and went home and lived at Nineveh. 37 And as he was > worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, Adrammelech and Sharezer, > his sons, struck him down with the sword and escaped into the land of > Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place. (2 Ki 19:32–37) Is there a greater miraculous victory that I overlooked?

I had a strange exchange with a user on this forum. They took a view I doubt Thomas Aquinas would have agreed with. They felt that anything that interfered with saying the Mass was persecution. Let me give you two trivial examples where it logically is not and a real-world example where it might be. Imagine a priest, for whatever reason, may be late to say the mass and is hurrying to church. Rather than go to a corner and cross at the light using a crosswalk, the priest walks between two parked vehicles and crosses in the middle of the street. A policeman detains the priest, even though they know why they committed the misdemeanor of jaywalking. The police officer explains that they never make exceptions based on rank or position and that they were to be detained until the officer writes the ticket. The priest is late but does make it to church. Instead, imagine the same priest had lived in a different city and had forgotten to renew their vehicle registration. They are pulled over for a broken tail light. Upon inspection, the police officer impounds the vehicle as it is illegal for it to be driven. The priest never makes it to say the mass. The other person argued that any use of the civil law that interferes with the mass is a persecution of the Christian Church. There is a real-world flip side to this coin. Richard Nixon's former chief of staff admitted in an interview that the actual reason for the war on drugs and the making of certain drugs illegal was to facilitate the arrest of Nixon's political opponents. The law was targeted at blacks and hippies. If they could be blocked from voting by arrests, then Nixon would likely win the election. The language of the law is neutral but clearly written to target people on the basis of race and political affiliation. A law with completely neutral language could be written to target Christian churches. Under Catholic and Orthodox theology, when would a law be considered as persecuting the church? Persecution is not a trivial thing, in my mind, and certainly not a claim to vainly bandied about.