Angels are called "sons of God", do they have the Holy Spirit? They are called such in Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4 Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, Daniel 3:25, Psalm 29:1 and 89:6. Paul said in Romans 8:14 that all who are led by the Spirit of God are called sons of God. >For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. > >Romans 8:14 Jesus said in Mark 12:25 that believers will become as angels in heaven. >When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be as angels in heaven. > >—Mark 12:25 Do the good angels in heaven have the Holy Spirit of God in them as in us?

If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

The Book of Enoch mentions Gadreel as one of the Watchers, but the specific claim that Gadreel led Eve astray appears in 1 Enoch 69:6. Here's the passage from the Book of Enoch that mentions Gadreel: #### 1 Enoch 69:6 (from the Ethiopic text): >"And the third was named Gadreel: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men." This passage suggests that Gadreel was responsible for leading Eve astray, which contrasts with the Genesis account where the serpent is the one who tempts Eve. #### Context of the Passage - In 1 Enoch, the Watchers are fallen angels who descended to Earth and corrupted humanity. They taught forbidden knowledge to humans, including how to make weapons of war, astrology, and the "secrets" of the heavens. - The reference to Gadreel is part of a broader narrative that associates the Watchers with the downfall of humankind, which includes the temptation of Eve. This is a key divergence from the canonical Genesis story where it is explicitly the serpent (often identified with Satan) who deceives Eve. The role of Gadreel in this context highlights the Book of Enoch's unique interpretation of the fall, is this the reason why it was excluded from the Bible, as it conflicts with the established narrative in canonical texts.

If Moses was of the tribe of Levi from both parents Exodus 2:1-3, and he never lived in Judah/Judea, in what way was he a Jew/Judean G2453 or "Jewish"? I have an understanding based on crystal clear scripture, and I've been told it's a false interpretation, so I am here looking for actual experts who can offer sound scholarship. Any takers?

In my country, the dominant religion promotes astrology a lot. But I have heard that it is a sin in Christianity. I was very stressed lately and spent a lot of money on astrologers. I never got any reasonable answers. I have been in serious trouble earlier in life due to guidance by astrologers. The origins of astrology are extremely dubious! Why is astrology considered a sin in Christianity?

> Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the > Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God > said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” Genesis 3:1 > (NET) I'm wondering what precisely was Satan's motivation to deceive Eve into disobeying God. I'm assuming the answer is in the context provided in the previous two chapters of Genesis, for example: > Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our > likeness, **so they may rule** over the fish of the sea and the birds of > the air, over the cattle, and **over all the earth**, and over all the > creatures that move on the earth.” Genesis 1:26 (NET) I'm thinking it's mostly related to man's authority over the earth - perhaps Satan saw an opportunity to have his own domain, and to rule it using the authority God had delegated to man, thus he usurped their authority. But there's some problems with this: - The authority to rule over the earth was only given to mankind. Satan didn't have a physical, human body (he wasn't mankind), so how was he planning to wield this authority? - Since the Bible does not describe a rebellion of satan prior to Eden, I'm assuming that satan's attempt to deceive Eve was actually his first rebellion against God... So, as described in Ezekiel 28:13-19, satan already held a high rank in God's kingdom as a cherub before he rebelled. What was so enticing about having authority over tiny planet Earth in God's universe compared to being so close to Yahweh and already having a certain amount of delegated authority as a cherub? That doesn't make sense to me (to forfeit so much to gain what Adam and Eve had). If anyone has a similar or different take on **what exactly satan's primary motivation to deceive Eve was** I'm interested to read it and learn from it (please base your answer on Scripture references and not personal opinion). Also, in my two bullets points I was only sharing my current thoughts about it - don't feel the need to engage with them if they are not related to your answer.

**Lucifer had a dream, what is his dream?** Scriptures teaches, >from the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks."- Fallen Lucifer frustration can be seen, as if he was deprived of something that he wanted to become, like wanting a dream that can no longer be fulfill in the presence of God, and so, he proudly shouted, I can do it on my own, without God. ***The Five I WILL*** is the manifestation of frustration. >**The five “I Wills” are found in the Book of Isaiah:** 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! 13 And thou saidst in thy heart, >I will ascend into heaven, >I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; >and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; >14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; >I will make myself like the Most High. >**Isaiah 14:12-14** We know from Wisdom9:4 that the artisan is seated on the Throne beside God. >**DRA** Give me wisdom, that ***sitteth by thy throne***, and cast me not off from among thy children: **Did Lucifer dream to become the *"consort/Wisdom"* of God, for him to sit beside the Throne of God, and when this did not happen, the frustration ended in rebellion and shouting the 5 I WILL?

I often have problems with the Apostle's Creed due to its inclusion of the resurrection of the body and the "virginity" of Mary - things that are (to my knowledge) debatable. I found another creed which is much more metaphorical in the small brochure in a prayer/Song book, but I forgot to photograph it. What (other) widely accepted creeds are there, that do not suppose Mary's virginity or bodily resurrection, and would it be acceptable to use them instead of the Apostle's Creed in a Lutheran church service in Germany?

The reason I ask is because we have already conceived. So at that point does it matter that it is not vaginal?

I recently watched the debate between the Apostate Prophet and Jake Brancatella from DebateCon earlier this year. Jake was a touch aggressive and AP was flakey, but a good discussion regardless. Jake pointed out something interesting in his argument that I think demands attention: In Genesis 37, Joseph's second dream depicts the sun, moon, and eleven stars all bowing to him. Israel then interprets this as Joseph being lauded by his mother, father, and brothers. However, Rachel was already dead and thus was unable to bow to her son in Egypt. **What is the generally-accepted solution to this problem?** I can think of four answers, but I'm not confident about any of them: 1. Rachel and Israel already played favorites with Joseph, before the whole debacle. The window for this is pretty small, because Israel was flabbergasted by the idea when Joseph brought it up. 2. This is a post-mortem thing that will happen in the afterlife. This is unverifiable on our end and I think defies logic. 3. This is not about Rachel, but one of Israel's other wives (Leah was also probably dead, so not her. Still, two other potential candidates). This seems like a bit of a stretch, but it's possible. 4. Rachel (and all the other wives) were of one flesh with Israel through marriage, so his actions may turn over to them via association. I don't think there's precedent for such a reading. What thoughts do others have on this matter? I'll be the first to say that I may be missing a simple answer somewhere.

The Catholic Church has four Marian Dogmas and claims that the Church was guided and its teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit. CCC95 says, > It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. *Pastor aeternus* teaches that the Pope is guided by the charism of the Holy Spirit and upheld infallibility in proclaiming Church Dogma. > We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. — [Pastor aeternus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_aeternus) How come the Protestant and Christian denominations or Bible alone believers who oppose these Dogmas claim that they are also guided by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit that guided the Catholic Church in proclaiming the Marian Dogmass the same Holy Spirit that were inspiring Protestant and Christian denominations to oppose it? How can the Protestant defend themselves on this obvious contradiction, knowing fully that there are no Protestant pastors and believers who can claim infallibility in their scripture interpretations?

I’ve been considering the problem of divine hiddenness and the problem of evil, and I’ve have come up with a sort of war strategy explanation. We know that intellectual belief in God doesn’t necessarily make a person good, or “save” them. In fact, The bible makes it clear that demons, and the devil, intellectually believe in God; but they are in rebellion against God: making them enemies of God. This brings me to the problem of evil, where many people argue that if God were good: he would act differently. Implying that if God exists, he is not good (or he is weak) and that morally inclined humans know better than God. Implicit in the problem of evil is this form of rebellious misotheism and/or hubris where you believe that you know better than God. If God were to reveal himself to a person while they hold on to hubris, and/or misotheistic beliefs: he would likely create a rebellious human enemy, not a faithful believer. Taking this into consideration, we shouldn’t be surprised when God doesn’t reveal himself to people who reference philosophical issues like the problem of evil; I’m sure there are exceptions, but it seems to me that someone would have to show a willingness to drop any tendencies of hubris and/or misotheistic beliefs before they expect any sort of revelation from God.

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

Do you know of any other books (besides those by John Sailhamer) that advocate for Historical Creationism?

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Protestant and Bible Alone Believers who teach that Jesus is a *"Super Jesus"* from birth to thirty years old, even though the Bible never show Him to be that, except to have wisdom above the elders. But the Bible says he still needs to grow in wisdom again, through submission and obedience to His parents.** >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. **Esther 9:28** says the celebration of Purim will never end: > These days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, in every family, province, and city, and these days of Purim should never fall into disuse among the Jews, nor should the commemoration of these days cease among their descendants ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (*Summa Theologica* q. 35 a. 6 ), Ludwig Ott (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (*Mariology* pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others. Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism. She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches. She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass. There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God. In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7451/where-does-the-catholic-tradition-that-mary-did-not-have-pain-giving-birth-to-je?noredirect=1#comment225832_7451) , included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined . This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity. In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity. Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition. The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth. It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child. If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?

There is an article coming from Archbishop Paglia, saying, **"For Catholics, who say that Judas is in hell, is a heresy."** [Vatican Official: It’s Heresy to say Judas is in Hell](https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-official-claims-its-heresy-to-say-judas-in-hell) When Ab. Paglia stated **"hell"** it means the **"real hell of the damned"**, the question is, was Judas really a damned soul and deserve to be put in real hell of the damned? Remember, when Judas died, he was not cast out in real hell of the damned but only in Hades or hell, a prison. Further reading of scriptures, we know that the Catholic Church teaches in **Catechism (CCC 632k-635)**, that Jesus descended into hell/Hades to preach the gospel. Contemplating the passages, we will see, that Judas encounter Jesus in hell or Hades. The next important question is, if we place ourselves in the shoes of Judas, will we approach Jesus to ask for forgiveness, for betraying him? Judas certainly repented in **Matthew 27:3-4**, with perfect contrition, as he first acknowledge his sins, regretted his sins, and return the money, completing the acts of perfect contrition. > Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver* to the chief priests and elders, > saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” Jesus descended into hell where Judas was cast out, to preach the gospel and to offer God's mercy, on all souls including Judas. Did Jesus have a saving plan for Judas, why? Because, Jesus was the one who pushes Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, how? Jesus said to Judas, > What you are going to do, do quickly." (John 13:27) If Jesus commanded Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, knowing Judas will forever be torture in eternal hell, that would present a Jesus contradicting the Will of the Father, as the Father sent Jesus not to condemn but to save souls in John 3:17, and the Father desires all men be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. If Jesus has no saving plan for Judas knowing he will be cast out into hell, then Jesus will contradict His very own words, as He said, **"I lay down my life for my friends"**, and Judas was a friend of Jesus, even after his betrayal. On the night of his arrest, Jesus called Judas **"friend"** despite of his acts of betrayal, and so, Jesus lay down His life also to save Judas, because He still a friend of Jesus. And for the second time, Jesus again commanded Judas to execute his plan of betrayal with a kiss. > Jesus responded by saying: "Friend, do what you are here to do." - Matthew 26:50 We can see that twice, Jesus commanded Judas to fulfill and execute his plan of betrayal, wouldn't this be inappropriate if Jesus could no longer save Judas, as it appears that Judas was condemn to hell because Jesus pushes him to do it, not just once but twice. Jesus could have said in the Last Supper, *"Judas I know your betrayal plan for me, you are my friend, and I don't want you to suffer the eternal fire in hell, please stay here, do not execute your betrayal, because if you do so, then I can no longer save you in hell..."* In view of the meditation or pondering of Judas fate and Jesus commands to Judas, is there any article supporting the minor view that Judas is in Heaven, because if the Catholic Church saw that anyone who say Judas is in hell, is a heresy, then, definitely, there's only one way for Judas, either he will be purge in purgatory after he accepted God's mercy offered by Jesus in hell, and it's over 2000 years now, Judas might have finish the purging now, and there's only one way up, but to Heaven. Judas is in Heaven now, because Jesus has a saving plan for him, that is in line with the Will of the Father, desiring all men be saved. And Jesus clearly said, > I have come not to do my own will but the Will of the Father who sent me. (John 6:38) **Is there any article written, seeing Judas is in Heaven now?**

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/