> Genesis 8:20 (NIV) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking > some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt > offerings on it. Noah sacrificed burnt offerings. What about Adam and Eve? Did they ever perform animal sacrifice?

My understanding of history is that: - During the times of the early Roman Empire the stance of the persecuted Christians was that they recognize the authority of the State and the Emperor and obey them, with the only exception of when the State orders them to sin (ie renounce their faith and worship false gods). God's authority is above the authority of the State, however, whenever the authority of the State does not clash with the authority of God then the State must be obeyed. For this reason when the State was condemning early Christians to death for their religious obstinacy then early Christians thought they now had the duty to obey the order of the State, which was to let the executioners kill them; as doing so was not a sin (as opposed to themselves killing others or renouncing faith) early Christians were not even attempting to escape or to rebel, but were obediently letting the State kill them. (This is sometimes brought even in contemporary times by preachers who advocate the doctrine that all people must unconditionally obey secular powers at all times with the only exception of when the secular power orders them to sin.) - However, in Medieval times, the Pope had the authority to free subjects of a king from the duty to obey him by excommunicating him. Excommunication, as far as I understand, is a formal declaration that someone is outside of the Church. Thus, it would seem to me, in Medieval times the Church did not teach that all must always obey the State, however vicious that State might be; to the contrary, Christians had to obey kings only as long as the Pope recognized these Kings were in full communion with the Church. This seems contradictory to me. Am I failing to understand something? Or did the teachings of the Church on that matter indeed change in between of Ancient and Medieval times?

Many modern bible translations are published with copyright claims. However published in the work is not only permission but a command to make a copy. This can be found in Deuteronomy 17:18: > And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that > he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is > before the priests the Levites: You might argue that this only applies to Kings. However Revelation 5:10 makes us all kings: > And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on > the earth. It seems to me that if the translators wanted to copyright their translations they would have to leave Deuteronomy 17:18 out. However they all include the verse and it appears, at least at face value, to supersede their copyright notice. Is this a valid legal argument? Has this has ever been tested in a court of law? And if so, what was the outcome?

Is there any evidence that in the middle ages (specifically in France and maybe Spain), there was a wafer/bread given to the priests as a gift for the priest and not given to be used for Eucharist?

Baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments and it forgives all sins, but it can only be performed once in a lifetime. The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic faith, but only forgives venial sins and one must first be under a state of grace to receive it. On the other hand, the sacrament of Reconciliation forgives all confessed mortal and venial sins and can be repeated as often as necessary. Does this make it the most powerful (if not the most important) sacrament for Catholics?

I understand there is the theology of creation ex nihilo; but has any theologian thought of whether God can make things go from existing to nihilo? In other words, can God make something not exist any longer? I guess this would be related to annihilationism, but that is rather a pun unintended.

**According to Catholicism, which popes have been elected to the papacy without being in priestly orders?** I was recently reading about Pope Leo X on [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X) . It claims that he was the last Pope “not to have in priestly orders at the time of his election to the papacy”. > Giovanni was elected pope on 9 March 1513, and this was proclaimed two days later. The absence of the French cardinals effectively reduced the election to a contest between Giovanni (who had the support of the younger and noble members of the college) and Raffaele Riario (who had the support of the older group). On 15 March 1513, he was ordained priest, and consecrated as bishop on 17 March. He was crowned Pope on 19 March 1513 at the age of 37. He was the last non-priest to be elected pope. - [Pope Leo X](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X) Do we know the other popes who were elected to the papacy without being in priestly orders?

Paul wrote a letter to Timothy and revealed an attribute of God previously unknown to man. Paul describes God Almighty as dwelling in a light that cannot be approached and that no one has ever seen God, not even the cherub angel Lucifer who is said to have been on the Holy Mountain of God and also that the very act of seeing God is not possible. This truth can be found in the Book of **1st Timothy chapter 6 verse 16** >who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen Do you think this could have been the deception the cherub Lucifer might have used to deceive a third of the angels in heaven that how could they worship God whose voice they can hear but whose form they cannot see? Did Lucifer demand of God to show his form or they rebel? The number of angels in heaven is in the millions, because of this truth from the book of revelation where John sees a vision of angels around the throne worshipping Him who lives forever. **Revelation 5:11** >Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. These are the angels that remained loyal to God after the rebellion, the angels that did not side with lucifer, this means that the number of angels Satan managed to deceive were also in the millions because of this truth about the deceiver of the whole world being the dragon that swept a third of the heavenly stars with its tail. **Revelation 12:4** >Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. I am asking if this incomprehensible nature of God where the angels literally heard His voice from within the light but could not see Him might have caused Satan to call out the angels in a meeting and asked them that they deserved a right to see(God to allow them to approach the light and see Him) the form of God else they cease worshipping Him? There is this widely held belief that Satan tried to be like God but I think he was well aware that he was a created being like other angels besides this is not mentioned explicitly anwhere in scripture.

To extend this [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/11384/69) , what about the text of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an "actual" account?

Consider: (1) Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? *Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.* (Matt. 16:15-16.) (Italics added.) (2) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: *Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.* (John 6:68-69.) (Italics added.) (3) Then Peter answering, said to Him: *Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have?* (Matt. 19:27.) (Italics added.) (4) And Peter said to Him: *Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?* (Luke 12:41) (Italics added.) (5) Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them: *Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.* (Acts 2:37-38.) (Italics added.) QUESTION: Does anyone know of a complete list of occasions in the New Testament where St. Peter speaks on behalf of *all* the Apostles?

Aside from the literary prologue of Luke, are there any instances where any of the four Gospel writers refer to themselves by the personal pronoun *I*? It seems, for example, that in the case of the Gospel according to John, he goes out of his way to refer to himself as the "Apostle that Jesus loved"---and not *I*.

Colossians 1:15-20 is often cited by Trinitarians as evidence that Jesus is God, because they tend to believe it is describing Jesus as creating all thing and holding all things together in an unbracketed sense. Who can do that but God? Yet, the section begins with the phrase > "The Son is the image of the invisible God" Normally, an image of something is not that thing. If I say something is an image of Bob, I mean it isn't Bob. The Greek word here is εἰκὼν (eikōn), meaning > "Strong's 1504: An image, likeness, bust. From eiko; a likeness, i.e. > statue, profile, or representation, resemblance." Do Trinitarians here understand this passage as saying "The Son is the image of the Father," so 'God' here is meant only to refer to one person of the Trinity? Or do they understand 'image' in a different way from the normal sense? What is a standard exegesis of this line according to Trinitarianism?

Do we possess any evidence that Jews sometimes worshipped other gods (like they had often done before being taken away into captivity) after the second temple was rebuilt and before it was destroyed?

The throne room of God is described in Revelation Chapter 4:1-5 in detail. >After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.” 2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. 5 And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. Revelation 4:1-5 I did a research of what this throne room looks like and managed to find this from the internet. > Given that the picture above has attempted to factor in the verses that say God dwells in a light that cannot be approached. **1st Timothy 6:16** >who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. Paul who was also inspired by Jesus wrote a letter to Timothy and describes God as dwelling in a light that cannot be approached and mentions two important facts about God. >No one has ever seen God, not even Jesus or the Spirit. This is similar to the knowledge about The Return of the Son of Man when Jesus disqualifies himself and the angels from knowing about his second coming. >No one can see God. This means not even John saw God in the vision in Revelation. So what is the Jasper and sardius stone color description John used to describe God with?

I am somewhat interested in joining the Roman Catholic Church, but there are some things that I've had to further investigate, one of which is the role of "elder" and "priest" in the Roman Catholic Church. ***Priest*** Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "priest." - In the Old Testament, כֹהֵן = ἱερεὺς = "priest" (Masoretic = LXX = KJV) - In the New Testament, ἱερεὺς = "priest." For example: Gen. 14:18 in the OT, and Matt. 8:4 in the NT. In summary, ἱερεὺς is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is translated consistently into English as "priest." ***Elder*** Here is my understanding thus far regarding the word "elder." - In the Old Testament, זָקֵן = πρεσβύτερος = “elder.” (Masoretic = LXX = KJV) - In the New Testament, πρεσβύτερος = “elder.” For example: Num. 11:25 in the OT, and Acts 11:30 in the NT. In summary, πρεσβύτερος is used in the LXX and the Greek NT, and in both, it is generally translated into English as "elder" and seldomly "presbyter," but never as "priest." The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the English word "priest " states, >The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. The bishop is truly a priest (sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the **priest** (**presbyter**), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank ("secundi sacerdotes" Innocent I ad Eugub.); by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins, to bless, to preach, to sanctify, and in a word to fulfil the non-reserved liturgical duties or priestly functions. Notice how it equates "priest" and "presbyter." ("Presbyter" is simply a loan-word derived from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος. Loan words are essentially loose transliterations, but not translations. The translation of πρεσβύτερος would be "elder.") I understand "priest" is etymologically derived from πρεσβύτερος, but πρεσβύτερος is consistently translated into English as "elder," not "priest." We consistently see the Greek word ἱερεὺς translated into English as "priest" instead. **So the question:** where in the OT or NT did the "elder" - which is the actual meaning of πρεσβύτερος - function also as a "priest" (ἱερεὺς), that is, one who was mainly tasked with offering sacrifices in a Temple? Why does the Roman Catholic Church equate the two terms?

A professor today made the claim that the following claim is spurious: > And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Mark 15:38 (NRSV) His rationale is that no-one but the high priest would be allowed to see the veil in the holy of holies in the temple, so the author of Mark could not have knowledge of such an event occurring. Is this claim accurate? Who would have seen or had knowledge of the tearing of the veil that could have communicated that event, directly or indirectly, to Mark? How could this event have made it to Mark?

The 1534 Oath of Succession made Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, heir to the throne rather than Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. The oath also recognized the king as supreme head of the church in England, thus formalizing Henry’s break with Rome. **Question**: Besides the Bishop of Rochester (St. John Fisher), were there any other bishops who refused to sign the Oath of Succession? (I suspect he may have been the only one.) According to [**My Catholic Life**](https://mycatholic.life/saints/saints-of-the-liturgical-year/june-22-saints-john-fisher-bishop-and-martyr-and-thomas-more-martyr/) : > All the bishops of England, save Fisher and two others, lost their courage and acquiesced, without a fight, to Henry VIII’s takeover of the Catholic Church in England. Their weakness brought to a sudden, crashing end a thousand years of Catholicism in England. The "two others" are not named; however, I am a little skeptical, as I can never recall having read of any bishop other than St. John Fisher who adamantly opposed Henry's oath. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe in a priesthood, i.e. office of the ministers of religion, who have been commissioned ordained with the Holy orders of the Orthodox or Catholic church; but what is the biblical basis for *this type of a separate* priesthood *from the priesthood of all believers?*

I noticed the hymn *Redeemed* states the following in its chorus (emphasis added): > Redeemed, redeemed, > > Redeemed by the blood of **the Lamb**; > > Redeemed, redeemed, > > **His child**, and forever, **I am**. This chorus appears to state that Christians are children of "the Lamb," (i.e., Jesus). However, doesn't Hebrews 2:11-12 portray Jesus as considering Christians His *brethren* rather than children? Alternatively, might verse 13 involve us being called Jesus's children? Maybe Isaiah 9:6, which refers to the Messiah as "everlasting Father," supports this as well. According to the Bible, are Christians brethren of Jesus, children of Jesus, or both?

We read in Matt 16: 6-12 (NRSVCE): >Jesus said to them, “Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They said to one another, “It is because we have brought no bread.” And becoming aware of it, Jesus said, “You of little faith, why are you talking about having no bread? ........... Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the days of Jesus when dry yeast was not in vogue, people preserved a small portion of leavened dough, for use on a subsequent occasion. This is clear from the Parable of the Yeast in Mtt 13:33: > He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” If the woman needed one measure of yeast for three measures of flour, it would not have been in the form of dry yeast we have these days, but of leavened dough set apart from previous baking. Now, leavening was considered good because it gave taste and softness to the bread and increased its shelf life. There were two options available to the breadmaker: he/she could refresh the leaven day after day by preserving the leavened dough of the most recent baking. Alternatively, one could preserve a large portion of leavened dough from the first day of baking say, Sunday and use small portions of it for leavening the flour through the full week. That would make the leaven too sour for want of renovation, but it would still act as a leavening agent. The Pharisees and Sadducees clearly showed scrupulous adherence to the Old Law which Jesus wanted to supplement with the New Law. Jesus' way of referring to the yeast, was meant to expose the confrontation. In the literal sense, he was referring to the fermented dough that had been kept too long, but it was still being used as a leavening agent. My question therefore is: Did Jesus have in mind the tradition of preserving of leavening agent, while speaking of the Pharisees' Yeast? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.