### Introduction In the Christian New Testament, *The Epistle to the Hebrews* cites Jeremiah 31:33 to inaugurate a "new covenant". Jeremiah 31:33 and it's immediate context reads: > See, a time is coming—declares GOD—when I will make a new covenant > with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. > It will not be like > the covenant I made with their ancestors, when I took them by the hand > to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant that they broke, > though I espoused them—declares GOD. > But such is the covenant I will > make with the House of Israel after these days—declares GOD: > **I will put My *Torah* into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their** > **hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people.** > **No longer will they need to teach one another** and say to one another, > “Heed GOD”; for all of them, **from the least of them to the greatest**, > **shall heed Me**—declares GOD. **For I will forgive their iniquities,** **And** > **remember their sins no more**. This "new covenant" in Jeremiah appears to involve the following: - The *Torah* is written on the hearts of Israel and Judah - Affirmation of Israel and Judah as God's people - A cessation of needing to teach each other to follow God - All of Israel and Judah (from the least to the greatest) will follow God - Forgiveness of their sins ### Question Do *Sola Scriptura*/Protestant Christians believe that this new covenant has taken effect? Do they believe only parts of the covenant are in effect? If so, which parts?

Most denominations teach the idea that someone must feel guilt or remorse for their sins and must desire not to do them, however some like those teaching Calvinism or Once Saved Always Saved seemed to stop there while other denominations seem to suggest either certain more severe sins like the Catholics or any intentional sin like the Methodists must be repented of, or one is not in a State of Grace and one will go to hell. There is scriptural support in John, Romans and Galatians for both of these view points. I am wondering about an overview of how the different modern as well as the early Church soteriologies would reconcile the more well known grace passages (particularly among Calvinists and those supporting Once Saved Always Saved) with passages that say sinners would not inherit the Kingdom of God such as Romans 1:29-1:31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10, Galatians 5:19-5:21, Ephesians 5:3-5:5, 1 Timothy 1:9-1:10, Revelation 21:8, and Revelation 22:15. I am curious to know about the doctrine of repentance in the apostolic age as well. I have looked at Jerome, Tertullian, and Chrysostom and how they taught some sins needed repenting of for one to be saved. I recognize from Romans to Revelations that there are lists of sins which say that people who commit them do not enter the Kingdom of God. I also know that the first thing Jesus asked the rich man was not whether he had faith in Jesus but did he keep the commandments. On the other hand John repeatedly mentions that those who have faith will be given eternal life. Romans seems to teach salvation by faith alone at least in the majority of its passages and Jesus also told the rich man that with God anything is possible. One iteration of the decalogue in the Old Testament (I believe it is Deuteronomy) teaches that God is merciful to those who love Him for thousands of generations.

**Are there examples of Marian Apparitions to Orthodox faithful, Protestants or non-christians?** After reading this [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/106340/25495) (**Best arguments against Marian apparitions?**), it got me wondering if there are examples of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, appearing to the Orthodox, Protestants (or other denominations) or non-christians? I am desiring an answer that has examples of all three fields if possible.

The basis for this question comes from a conversation I had with a friend. She said to me 'The only reason that two people should get together and get married is because they can do more for the Kingdom of God together than they can do apart.' On the face of it, this viewpoint makes sense and is not without some positive aspects, and it is certainly one that I have heard in the church for years. But I don't believe that there is a specific biblical passage that would support this viewpoint. This led me to ask myself, and to ask here, what reasons does the Bible give for getting married? Is the notion that married people can do more for the Kingdom a Biblical one, or is there another reason given for getting married?

To paraphrase Revelation 13:16-18: You'll receive a mark on your right hand or forehead and you can't buy or sell unless you have the Mark 666. Can you tell me from the text from whom (or what) one would get the Mark of the Beast, 666?

*"The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader."* The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation. --- In Revelation 4: >4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which **twenty-four elders** sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal. In the center and around the throne, there were **four living creatures** covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.” >9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: 11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created.” In Revelation 5: >6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and **the four living creatures and the elders**, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, **the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders** fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14. In Revelation 6: > 1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard **one of the four living creatures** cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories. This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out "Come forward", and the next horse and rider emerge. Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19: > 7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around **the elders and the four living creatures**. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God, > 14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before **the four living creatures and the elders**. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. > 15:7 **One of the four living creatures** gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever. > 19:4 **The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures** fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.” --- What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders? Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that "reason through" the passages, saying "because of X, the elders are probably Y", unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.

I took a screenshot from [this video](https://youtu.be/CaIrpN8Ga-g?t=151) , juxtaposing two lists of ailments. The left list includes conditions that Christian faith healers consistently never cure, while the right list features conditions they are more willing to pray for, with more frequent claims of healing. Or at least, that's what the video's author claims. Is there any truth to this, and if so, why?

Matthew 16:3 (KJV), which says, "And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Can this be the world today in 2025?

The Wikipedia’s [*list of Marian apparitions*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marian_apparitions) has a narrative of Marian Apparitions documented so far. In most cases, Blessed Mother Mary appears alone. In the case of the apparitions of AD 1570 and 1587 to children at Velankanni, Tamil Nadu, India, a place then under Portugese Colonial Empire, Mary is believed to have held Infant Jesus in her hands. According to Catholic scholars, is there any special significance to such Marian apparitions where Infant Jesus was present?

In [the narrative in which Moses parts the Red Sea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parting_of_the_Red_Sea) , the Jews are fleeing the pursuing Egyptians, and are also able to successfully traverse the bottom of the sea. In [popular depictions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parting_of_the_Red_Sea) , the bottom of the sea is flat and sandy. However, modern bathymetric data shows that the floor of the Red Sea is [actually quite rugged](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351081054/figure/fig5/AS:1015991567925248@1619242674066/Vertical-gravity-gradient-seismicity-and-bathymetry-of-the-Red-Sea-Rift-a-The-vertical_Q640.jpg) . Indeed, many areas in the Red Sea are famed as diving areas due to the rocky terrain which supports various [Cnidarians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnidaria) likely further limiting the availability of passable routes. Given these constraints, have modern Abrahamic historians done any research into routes across the Red Sea that might have been possible/likely?

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?

The [Athanasian Creed](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm) , printed in copies of the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer, declares that our Lord Jesus Christ is >"God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting." What is meant by "begotten" in this quotation?

### Introduction In the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 30:15, God says that He is who sets the choice between good and evil before people: > See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. In the Lords Prayer in Matthew 6, God is asked to not lead people into temptation: > Our Father who art in heaven, > Hallowed be thy name. ... > **And lead us not into temptation**, > But deliver us from evil. There seems to be many possible answers from the Christian bible: Satan, mankind's own fallen nature, or even Jesus himself. ### Question In Protestant theology, who or what tempts people into sin?

In the New Law, is the death penalty for sodomy (or other sins of lust, like fornication or adultery) a proportionate punishment? In other words, do Catholic theologians say legislators are morally permitted to write a law requiring the death penalty for homosexual or other acts of lust? Under the Old Law, Lev 20:13 did proscribe sodomy with capital punishment. cf. this post to the CathInfo thread "What Trump policies show he is pro-abortion or pro-sodomy? "

During much of the 20th century "Fundamentalism" was serious movement in Christianity. According to Britannica: > The term fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to describe conservative > Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The > Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910–15), a series of 12 > pamphlets that attacked modernist theories of biblical criticism and > reasserted the authority of the Bible. Fundamentalism affirmed principles such as biblical inerrancy and the truth of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, physical resurrection, the rapture and the Second Coming. It grew up in particular opposition to modernist ideas like Evolution, in the wake of Scopes "Monkey Trial." It also became influential in politics through movements such as Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. It seems to me, however, that the term has fallen out of favor, especially as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist political ramifications. Indeed, I found only two questions in this entire site with titles including the word "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist." Questions: Do fundamentalists, still use that term to describe themselves? Would it be offensive these days to call an anti-modernist Evangelical Christian a "fundamentalist?"

God's name for himself is a form of "I AM", and he is referred to by a form of "HE IS" (YHWH), as in **Exodus 3:13-14**: > **13**… The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? **14**And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. When Jesus used the expression, the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him for blasphemy, as described in **John 8:58-59**: > **58**Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. > **59**Then took they up stones to cast at him … In comic strips and animated cartoons, the character Popeye frequently said: > I YAM WHAT I YAM AN' THA'S ALL THAT I YAM or some variation thereof. When it first appeared (1933 or perhaps earlier) did anyone protest that this expression was blasphemous?

Some Baptists and many other evangelicals use grape juice in communion. Is this explained on any catechism (or systematic theology available online) ? Does the reason for not using wine have to do with keeping oneself pure or the moral problems with alcohol?

In his book *In the Beginning*, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following with regards to the pre-Pauline hymn of Phil 2:5-11: > We cannot consider this extraordinarily rich and profound text [Phil > 2:5-11] in detail. We want to limit ourselves here to its connection > with the story of the Fall, even though **it seems to have a somewhat > different version in mind** than the one that is related in Genesis 3 > (cf., e.g., Job 15:7-8). What is the account of the Fall presumed by Phil 2:5-11? And what is the account of the Fall related in Job 15:7-8? More over, are there other places where the Bible gives an account of original sin (either explicitly or implicitly)? If this question is too involved, I would be satisfied by any book/article recommendations.

**Has the Mass ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?** I remember reading some years ago about this possibility in Rome, by some Jesuit scholars, but can not find any sources to affirm that it has been done... As we know, Sanskrit is the sacred language of Hinduism, the language of classical Hindu philosophy, and of historical texts of Buddhism and Jainism. Sanskrit is also considered by many as the oldest language in the world. I believe that this would be a great evangelizing tool in the countries such as India and Tibet (China). Thus my question: **Has the Catholic Mass (in any Rite) ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?**

I've been studying how the biblical creation & re-creation in Genesis, from Adam to Noah, foreshadows the Exodus. For instance, Noah is of the 10th generation of mankind. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for 400 years = 40 x 10 = 10 generations if we assume 40 years per generation. 10 generations of the righteous line appears to represent a certain fullness of time, after which God enacts judgement. Anyways, what I am interested in for this post is the year of the flood (beginning and/or end) and the significance thereof. Genesis is careful to document what year each person was born in, in terms of the age of their father, up through and including Noah. It also tells us that the flood began in Noah's 600th year - and even specifies the month and day. From my calculations, it looks like the flood began in the year 1656 (from creation) and ended in 1657 (from creation). Off hand, I don't see the significance of either number. Yet, why would the author of Genesis be so specific about these dates if there were no meaning to it? Please share your insights :)