According to Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, Ezekiel 44:1-2 >And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut is a prophecy of the blessed Virgin Mary. They believe that this is not only a biblical belief but an historical one and claim that St. Augustine believed and taught that Ezekiel 44:1-2 is a prophecy of Mary, therefore confirming the perpetual virginity of Mary. Is this in any way true?

Listening to Trending with Timmerie podcast on Christmas traditions, the guest was talking about "Drinking the Love of St. John" which seems like a pretty fantastic idea. But it seems like it a particular blessing might be more appropriate especially for a priest who has never heard of the tradition. So is there a particular blessing I can give to a priest to use for a blessing on St. John's feast day or do we just rely on priests to come up with it?

What is the Bible verse on how the the anticipation of an evil is often more fearsome than the evil itself?

> If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. **He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself**: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. **These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life**, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. - 1 John 5:9-13 The emboldened word "that you may know" is a word that properly deals with seeing. As used throughout the New Testament in this form it means a past-tense seeing which results in a present-tense knowing ("I saw" means "I know"). The tense here is active so it is the "you" that John has written to who may see unto knowledge. The emboldened word "have" is present, active, indicative which means that it actually, actively is in the now by the subject and it means: > The verb εχω (echo) means to have or hold and occurs in its various forms 708 times in the New Testament; see full concordance. Its usage slightly transcends that of the English equivalent. Where our English verb "to have" mostly emphasizes possession and control of external things, our Greek verb mostly describes the set of features that collectively define identity. When someone "has" something (say: an object or property, a quality or condition, a word to say, a feeling, a skill, an obligation or conviction), that something helps to determine who that person is, what his past might have looked like, and what his future might be all about. - abarim publications Can a Roman Catholic say that they **know** in this sense that, having seen something, they now actually and actively possess knowledge that they **have** eternal life in a manner that helps define who they are?

Same question as here but for Eastern Orthodox. I don't see how a married couple's becoming step-siblings is any different from step-siblings' become a married couple. Suppose Alice and Bob are widows (or single adoptive parents or unmarried biological parents or whatever) and their respective children are Charlie and Dalia. Suppose all 4 are not married (or were never married or whatever, depends if widow or not) and none of them have ever divorced or annulled. If Alice and Bob marry, then (I think...) Charlie and Dalia cannot marry. But if Charlie and Dalia marry, then can Alice and Bob marry afterwards?

Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe in the veneration of images and states and bow down to them in order to show them veneration, but did the Early Church Fathers believe in venerating images and bow down to them in order to show respect and honour, but did the Early Church Fathers believe and practice bowing to and venerating images/statues?

C.S. Lewis is widely known to have been a devout Christian. In Narnia, the lion Aslan seems to symbolize Jesus. He is executed in the first book in a manner not entirely unlike crucifixion and rises from the dead, for example. Another character by another author is Franklin, in J.D. Salinger's "Just Before the War with the Eskimos." He injures his feet and hands and is also considered by many to be a reference to Jesus. These are of course just two of many, many times when authors have given a character qualities that symbolize Jesus, or when a major plot point is reminiscent of crucifixion. These symbols have me wondering, though, isn't it some sort of blasphemy? In the first case, Aslan is a powerful and noble hero who works miracles. Could writing this book be akin to worshiping a false idol? In the second, Franklin is unkind and has many vices. He seems rather a poor choice for a Christ symbol. **Under what conditions is it actually appropriate from a religious standpoint to create a Christ figure?** EDIT: I see a downvote wondering what definition of blasphemy I have in mind. My source is [Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy) : > **blasphemy** > > 1. The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God. > 2. The act of claiming the attributes of a deity. C.S. Lewis fits definition 2, where a character he imagines claims the attributes of Jesus. Salinger fits definition 1, for the lack of reverence especially.

Michael S. Heiser has a podcast and a number of books mostly on heavenly beings, and makes a number of extraordinary claims. Among them: - In Psalm 82, the psalmist writes that God renders judgement among the gods - and Heiser claims these are other heavenly beings, probably the gods of the surrounding nations. - Heiser supports the historicity of 1st Enoch (at least, in broad strokes. I don't recall him endorsing it explicitly, but he mentions it a lot). Demons are thus the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim which don't have anywhere to go. - Heiser claims that the world is overseen by heavenly beings, each with their own nation to look after - and that all of them are doing a poor job (apart from God Himself). I might have some of it wrong - I've only started listening to/reading his works. My question, therefore, is: Who disagrees with Heiser and has published a reputable rebuttal? His conclusions seem unobjectionable from what he brings up, so I want to make sure it's not just a matter of him skipping over things that disagree or misrepresenting the solidity of his premises. Is he merely revealing the obvious when we actually look at everything the Bible says about heavenly beings? I want to be clear that I neither support Heiser (though some of his conclusions mesh well with my previous convictions) nor oppose him at this juncture; I merely want to understand better.

The problem as I understand it is a combining of roles.. not confounding or mixing but fusing the roles into something different. The role of the priest doesn't seem to match the role of the Presbyter. But if they are the same, then why the difference.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is not founded on biblical texts specifically. It is founded on the "biblically supported" doctrine that the church is the *custodian of truth*. What is the scriptural support for the Catholic church's claim that they are the custodians of truth? What does it mean to be the *custodian of truth.* Does this mean that they believe in modern revelation and receive direction from God?

I often see comments in Bible commentaries that the Apostles were convinced the second coming would happen in their lifetime. However I have never been convinced by the arguments they make to draw this conclusion. What I am wondering is what the Biblical argument is for the alternative view: That the Bible and the Apostles did not necessarily expect this, and were not so naive. Some passages commonly referred to in the subject are: Rom. 13:11–12; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; Heb 10:25 Note: I do accept that there was this feeling of an imminent return shortly after Pentecost but I am speaking about after when the Epistles were written and there was more scripture concerning this doctrine. It was only natural after Penteconst to assume an immediate return having no other information to go on.

Roman Catholics Christians reject the concept of faith alone (ie that we are justified solely by our faith in Jesus Christ) and that we are justified by both our faiths and our works, but how do they interpret Ephesians 2:8-9 which clearly teaches faith alone? > For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: > it is the gift of God: > > Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Apostasy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy) >Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία apostasía, 'a defection or revolt') is the formal disaffiliation from, abandonment of, or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion that is contrary to one's previous religious beliefs. One who undertakes apostasy is known as an apostate. Undertaking apostasy is called apostatizing (or apostasizing – also spelled apostacizing). The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean the renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense, with no pejorative connotation. ~ Wikipedia [Heresy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy) >Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, in particular the accepted beliefs of a church or religious organization. The term is usually used in reference to violations of important religious teachings, but is also used of views strongly opposed to any generally accepted ideas. A heretic is a proponent of heresy. ~Wikipedia Is it possible to be a heretic and not an apostate and vice versa? What about in other religions like Islam?

How do Protestants who believe in predestination interpret "plant" in [Matt 15:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015%3A13&version=ESV) : > He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Should the plants be understood as *expression* seeds (similar in concept to The Parable of the Sower, [Matt 13:1-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A1-23&version=ESV)) or *people* seeds (Parable of the Weeds, [Matt 13:24-30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A24-30&version=ESV)) ? - a) If the plants refer to v9 (vain teachings) and v18-19 (evil thoughts being expressed) then is Jesus saying all of these **thing** seeds (works?) will be burned up when tested (Proverbs 17:3, 1 Corinthians 3:15, etc)? - b) If the plants refer to vv. 8 & 14 (false and blind leaders, **people** seeds) then what is the significance of the phrase in v. 13 I have marked in bold: "Every plant that my heavenly Father **did not plant** will be pulled up by the roots" ? Would this be the same as Matt 13:24-29 (Parable of the Weeds) where God plants some people, and the Enemy plants others, but only God can tell them apart and has the authority to separate them? How do Protestants who believe in predestination apply these 2 parables in connection to the ideas of Predestination & Free will and the Elect/Called/Chosen?

This has implications for how we have to repent of sin, and may have more serious repercussions that I haven't thought of. Discrete cases of sin seem obvious, as when we break a clear command with a single act or decision. But can we also sin in an on-going manner, such that guilt accrues to us continuously over time? This latter case is not as clear, but the following simple argument may make it equally clear: Is it a sin to not exhibit a Christian virtue (humility, generosity, etc.) to its fullest? Since none of us mere mortals ever do that, we are therefore sinning the entire time we are in the less than ideal state. We are therefore indeed accruing sin guilt every second of every day. Can it be argued that sins are only discrete?

Muslims and even some atheists claim that St. Paul’s writings are forgeries, but what is the evidence that the writings of St. Paul are authentic?

As a follow-up to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89378/50422 , I would like to know now about the implications that the doctrine of [*Sola Scriptura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura) might or might not have over one's position in the debate between [Cessationism & Continuationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_continuationism) . Does *Sola Scriptura* entail Cessationism? (And if so, to what extent?) Is it possible to believe that the Bible is *"the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice"* and be simultaneously open to extra-biblical divine means of revelation and guidance such as: - dreams & visions ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83049/50422)) , - prophetic revelations ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87277/50422)) , - words of knowledge ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80327/50422)) , - receiving instructions from the Holy Spirit ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/80658/50422)) , - angelic visitations ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86115/50422)) , - Christophanies ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83590/50422)) , - Theophanies ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86465/50422)) , - miracles ([related](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86098/50422)) , - etc.?

In his book _No Apologies_, Anthony Esolen writes: > Had the fathers at Nicea not insisted upon the co-eternity of the Son with the Father the faith would long have degenerated into a kindly social club. Instead they affirmed that strange and world transcending vision of Trinitarian glory Esolen contends that the "complex God of the Athanasian Creed" is one based on the masculine habit of precision in detail. He believes that it was the creativity mixed with masculine anti-social tendencies that helped form the doctrines of the Trinity and without them Christianity would be anodyne, acceptable, worldly and hedonistic like Arius and not "something flaming, like Joan of Arc". Furthermore, Belloc says: > A great number of the old noble families were reluctant to accept the social revolution implied by the triumph of the Christian Church. They naturally sided with a movement which they instinctively felt to be spiritually opposed to the life and survival of that Church and which carried with it an atmosphere of social superiority over the populace. The Church relied upon and was supported at the end by the masses. Men of old family tradition and wealth found the Arian more sympathetic than the ordinary Catholic and a better ally for gentlemen. Did Arians ever address these modern contentions or did they make snob appeal the basis for their doctrinal preferences?

I vaguely recall a homily from several years ago where the priest explained what Mark 8:22-26 meant when Jesus healed a blind man that he saw other people's blindness (i.e. it was their souls that looked like trees, walking). Venerable Bede says that this is in reference to a person needing to be [purified by degrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_man_of_Bethsaida) but what other takes are there on the reason this particular man 1. Wasn't cured at once and 2. Saw people that looked like trees. Looking primarily for historical or contemporary Catholic exegetes.

According to Catholic and Orthodox apologists, priests in the New Testament are called "elders" and to defend this, they say that the Greek word Presbuteros means priests, but is this true?