It was mentioned in Exodus that God has granted Moses abilities such as turning his staff into a snake and turning the water of the Nile into blood in order to make the people believe he was sent by God. Why had God not by himself saved the Israelites from slavery? Why did he not talk to them? “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt,” why did God harden pharaohs heart and torment the Israelites more?

There have always been wars around the world, most of which are driven by race or religion. There has also always been a significant gap between the super-rich and the poor, many of whom cannot afford healthy food or proper healthcare, or live with very few opportunities. Additionally, sudden health problems or deaths in families often cause catastrophic and lasting trauma for the relatives. Unhappiness, failures, sadness, misery, sorrow, and other forms of suffering affect people regardless of whether they are Christian or not. So, why pray if, for thousands of years, prayer has seemingly changed nothing? Nothing at all. It appears that religion can resemble fanaticism or even perpetuate slavery because, if something isn't working, why would intelligent people continue with it? This is especially relevant when it comes to praying to God.

*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.

William of Tocco, O.P., mentions in ch. 5 of his biography of St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 33-4) that: >once he [St. Thomas] had reached the age of five, they sent him to the [Benedictine] monastery of Monte Cassino in the arms of his nurse. […] Very soon, this child began to receive his education in the monastery under the diligent instruction of a master to whom he showed clear signs of his future advancement. Dom Delatte's commentary on *St. Benedict's Rule* ch. 59 (p. 406 ) says: > children [were] received into the monastery temporarily as *alumni*, to be educated there in contrast to "children [who were] given permanently and devoted to the religious life", which was later forbidden by the Council of Trent session 25, ch. 15: "Profession Shall Not Be Made Except After One Year’s Probation and on the Completion of the Sixteenth Year". Why did the Benedictines stop admitting such young boys to their monasteries for educating them?

Is the injunction in the Benedictine rule “Deinde non occidere” interpreted to forbid the killing of brutes, or only humans?

There are a number of biblical texts that have been rejected by scholars as later additions to the text. This seems to be a legitimate attitude when there is a strong basis for it, such as that the passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It's also personally convenient if the passage is theologically controversial or politically incorrect, such as Paul's supposed writings against women speaking in church, or the famous [Johannine Comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma) . But what if it is a beloved scripture, such as the story of the [Woman Taken in Adultery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery) , which apparently does not start appearing into relatively late in the manuscript tradition. Or, in the case of 1 Cor. 13, what if one becomes convinced that it is not actually a writing of Paul but that a later editor has inserted it. (See [this question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/99098/is-i-cor-13-an-insertion-by-a-later-editor) for details.) Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

I recently watched the video ["My deliverance testimony: **warning this will trigger many christians**"](https://youtu.be/Lm9TcYmZjMs) which recounts a former New Age practitioner's conversion to Christianity and subsequent deliverance from demonic forces. These forces were legally allowed into her life through occult practices during her New Age days. She specifically mentioned a stubborn demon, allowed in through Kundalini Yoga, which only left her after eight months of her conversion. The "controversial" aspect of her testimony, depending on one's doctrinal commitments, is that she still required demonic deliverance well after her conversion and being filled with the Holy Spirit. Despite being "on fire for Jesus," this particular demon persisted until she was fully delivered. As expected, the video is causing some controversy in the comment section. For example (quoting some comments): > I believe demons can oppress a Christian. I do not believe that they can Indwell a Christian who is saved and sealed with the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, I immediately question if one was truly converted. The notion that a demon can indwell a Christian is a lie of note. The one who the son sets free is free indeed. You are sealed with the Spirit of God. > > Many make the claim that actual Christians can be indwelled by a demon and that is a lie. There is no record of that in scripture. It also diminishes the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. I have seen deliverance and it is dramatic. The conclusion is that they were never saved to begin with. That is tough pill to swallow as many think they are when they are not. When you respond to the gospel, God himself seals you with his spirit. His spirit helps you live out your life through sanctification, he also helps you pray and he (the Spirit) intercedes on your behalf. That alone eviscerates any claim about Christians having a demon inside of them. Lies from the devil. If you believe that, you do not understand the gospel and you need some basic sound doctrine. Basic theology is important, it helps us get crystal clear on these matters, especially the gospel (which is everything). > Thank you for sharing about this, you are right - it's controversial in the church at large to say Christians can have demons. Sadly, it's very difficult for many of us to find a church where anyone (including the pastoral team) is willing to take on anyone as a disciple, let alone believe that anyone in a church setting would need deliverance from a demon. For encouragement to anyone who may happen to read this, after fifteen years of being saved (and told I was showing the fruit of the Spirit), I began listening to the book, Pigs In The Parlor (by Frank Hammond). Well, an hour or two later I started coughing uncontrollably. I wasn't sick, had no other symptoms of sickness, but experienced a coughing fit for five or ten minutes. Afterwards, I kept thinking, That was so weird; what was that? But over the following week, I realised a thought-pattern that had bothered me for decades was gone! So I've concluded that a demon left, simply after hearing (through earbuds, by the way) the prayers that were being spoken in the audio book I was listening to! Hallelujah, God is so good! God bless you and your family 🙂 > I had a very similar experience as you…having demons and then also > having the Holy Spirit…my full deliverance took almost 2 and a half > years. 🤯 > > People don’t understand your body becomes a battlefield as you learn > to submit and be sanctified in Jesus.🤍 > > Praise God for the miracle of your life!!!!🙌🏻 Derek Prince really > helped me too!!!❤ > > Thank you for inspiring me to share this truth on my channel. I > haven’t thought of covering this topic but the body of Christ needs to > hear that Believers can house demons. They stay until they are kicked > out. > > I, like you, was so desperate. You have to FIGHT and KILL the flesh > with the Truth of God’s word, prayer, fasting and never giving up on > God. > It happened with me too! I was Holy Spirit filled and I still had demons. It took obedience and sanctification in order for them to leave me (yes, they were inside me). Few months after I got freed I started a research about the occult in order to make a video and expose the lies. But I went soo far away into that investigation that I walked out of the narrow path of Jesus (by giving almost all of my focus on the darkness) and I once again got possessed by an unclean spirit. I cried, I repented, I fasted, but it really took time to solidify my commitment to walk in holiness and obedience with the Lord. Once the Lord saw that I was committed to walking with Him in purity the spirit left me in a split of a second. What biblical texts are cited to support the belief that Christians can have demons?

I'm reading Matt Perman's book [What's Best Next](http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Best-Next-Gospel-Transforms-ebook/dp/B006FP4PVY/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1394128758&sr=1-1&keywords=perman+what%27s+best+next) and found this interesting: >5. Knowing how to get things done enables us to fulfill God’s call to make plans for the good of others. This is one of the most exciting reasons to me. The biblical call on our lives is not to do good randomly and haphazardly. Rather, God calls us to be proactive in doing good — even to the point of making plans for the good of others. For example, Isaiah 32: 8 says that “he who is noble plans noble things, and on noble things he stands.” We often think of doing good simply as something we are to do when it crosses our path. But Isaiah shows us that we are also to take initiative to conceive, plan, and then execute endeavors for the good of others and the world. (And this requires, of course, actually knowing how to plan and actually make our plans happen!) >Perman, Matthew Aaron (2014-03-04). What's Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done (p. 23). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. In reading through Isaiah 32, there seems to be a kingdom of righteousness being described that sounds really good - but then it is almost immediately followed by a warning of destruction. Not really knowing Isaiah as well as I should, I'm trying to understand the context from which Perman is making this leap. Is this inference from Perman (that we should be actively planning noble things) directly drawn from the prophetic nature of what Isaiah is preaching here, or is there an eisegesis that is required to make the point?

Referring to this passage: **1 Kings 6:23-27,** > 23 Inside the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olive wood, each > ten cubits high. 24 One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other > wing of the cherub five cubits: ten cubits from the tip of one wing to > the tip of the other. 25 And the other cherub was ten cubits; both > cherubim were of the same size and shape. 26 The height of one cherub was > ten cubits, and so was the other cherub. 27 Then he set the cherubim > inside the inner room; and they stretched out the wings of the > cherubim so that the wing of the one touched one wall, and the wing of > the other cherub touched the other wall. And their wings touched each > other in the middle of the room. A cubit is said to be 18-20.4 inches. 10 cubits at 18" would be 15 feet. 10 cubits at 20.4" would be 17 feet. In numerous pictures of the cherubim on the internet , they are usually shown to be small, fitting entirely within the bounds of the dimensions of the ark, which is 2 cubits by 1.5 cubits. The cherubim should be 15 feet tall, minimum! The Most Holy Place was a 20-cubit cube in shape (1 Kings 6:16-20 ). According to verse 27, the wings touched the wall on either side, yet the dimensions given in verses 24-25 indicate the wingspans are less than that size. (Still, at a 10-cubit wingspan, that would be HEAVY to carry!) The directions for the cherubs indicate only two wings apiece. If the wings were stretched out to touch the walls, how do they also touch each other "in the middle of the room"? I wonder if this touching is so because the cherubim are in the middle of the room, so if the wings project out their backs, that's also where they are touching each other per cherubim. How do the wings touch each end of the Most Holy Place walls that are 20 cubits apart?

Why was «کریسمس» (*kerismas*) loaned from English? Wasn't there an indigenous Christian presence which could of given a word of a differing etymology?

In John 2:19–21, Jesus says: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jewish leaders understood Him to mean the literal temple in Jerusalem, but the passage notes that He was speaking of “the temple of His body.” How is this understood in Christian theology? Was Jesus explicitly referring to His physical body as the “temple,” and if so, what is the significance of this metaphor?

In Genesis, Abraham is chosen by God to be the father of many nations and the one through whom the covenant is established (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:1–8). However, at the same time, Genesis also introduces Melchizedek, king of Salem and "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18–20), who is presented as a righteous and significant figure. Given that Melchizedek was already a priest of the true God, what does Scripture or Christian theology say about why God specifically chose Abraham—rather than Melchizedek or any other righteous men of that time—to make His covenant with? I'm looking for answers based on biblical evidence or theological reasoning, rather than speculation.

In John 18:37–38, Jesus says He came into the world *“to testify to the truth,”* and Pilate responds, *“What is truth?”* In Christian theology, “truth” is often associated with God’s nature, His Word, and the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus also says in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth.” However, does this theological concept of truth also encompass factual truths about the created world (e.g., the shape of the earth, historical facts, scientific realities), or is it limited to spiritual and moral truths revealed by God? How have Christian theologians understood the scope of “truth” in Scripture?

Christian theology generally teaches that only God is omnipresent, while Satan is a created being with limited power and presence. Yet, believers around the world often experience temptations or trials that they attribute to Satan’s influence. How do Christian theologians explain Satan’s ability to seemingly affect or test many people in different locations at once, if he cannot be everywhere? - Does Scripture suggest he works through a network of demons? I’m asking specifically from a biblical and theological standpoint, not from personal opinion.

The second commandment in English reads (King James Version) > Thou shalt have no other gods before me. but in German it reads (Luther Bible) > Du sollst keine anderen Götter neben mir haben. This in translation means "You shall not have other Gods *beside / next to* me." The English version could be interpreted to permit other gods if they are not before but after / below God. I presume that the German text is more precise in this regard?

Abraxas is a well known anguiped (snake legged) figure, associated with Gnosticism and possibly with Alexandrian esoteric Judaism . It played a role at various points in the history of Christianity as a symbol of heresy, for example as a seal of certain Templar individuals and local chapters. The "Snake-Legged Goddess" or "Tendril-Legged Goddess" is another, earlier, anguiped divine figure associated with Scythian origin legends. Given that their respective followers co-existed within the context of Hellenistic religious culture before and during the Roman Empire, assuming a possible connection seems to make sense. However, I was not able to find any source making the connection explicitly. Are there any?

In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

As stated above. I know the out-of-pocket answer is "pride", but I'm curious. The angels all had full knowledge of the choice and the resultant consequences, yet a third rebelled. Was it exclusively pride that led them to this decision, or something else? It seems a remarkably unwise decision for a being that knows unequivocally that it will result in eternal torment and separation from God. We can make the obvious argument that this is an awful lot like us, but the angels all had far more information than us. Angels don't need faith, they've all personally met God and know who He is without any doubt. They're timeless and never experienced moments of weakness. They made the decision in utterly ideal circumstances. Was it truly pride and pride alone that led to this?

I'm going to give an example. If my parents only met because of Hitler, would I not exist if not for the actions of Hitler. Or does God give the same souls life regardless of our parents? There are different verses in which some would say we have existed before birth (Jeremiah 1:5), and others claiming that we are created from nothing (Genesis 2:7).

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2,5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the desobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2,17), that Christ fulfill the Law and was exalted above all creation. Medidating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a catholic opinion, and it's, indeed, catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, have the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including in the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfill the Law firstly in its virtue and holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), i have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be to simple (I did not complete my cathechesis yet, if this serves of excuse), but what I'm really searching is to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and go deeply in this mystery. God bless.