I came across this striking comment on Mark 13:32: > 192. It is written, they say: But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the > Father only. Mark 13:32 **First of all the ancient Greek manuscripts do > not contain the words, neither the Son.** But it is not to be wondered > at if they who have corrupted the sacred Scriptures, have also > falsified this passage. The reason for which it seems to have been > inserted is perfectly plain, so long as it is applied to unfold such > blasphemy. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34045.htm Ambrose seems to suggest that this verse was a later corruption or interpolation. My question: How should one respond to such a claim in an apologetical setting? Does Ambrose’s statement reflect any known textual variant among the extant Greek manuscripts, or is he simply making a theological argument against Arian interpretation?

This has always seemed strange to me that the Pope would not want to distance himself with emperor worship as much as possible. If pointifex maximus was a term used by the government of Rome in its emperor worship, wouldn’t the Pope’s PR men advise using a different title? Or am I not correct in the initial assumption? Also, I have seen on occasion that he used a pointy hat (the original pontifex maximus) does the Pope ever wear similar clothes as well? Or is there no similarity in dress at all?

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being a God? And there are sects *within religious circles* who diss the idea of Christ really being Deity. Some of those sects fly under the banner of "Christianity." ***Since a "Christian"--in normal patois--is defined as someone who is a disciple of Christ***, it follows that that disciple would believe and teach faithfully whatever the essence of Christ is. But many interpret the Bible as declaring that ***Christ taught He was Deity (God in the flesh)***. >Israelites...whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:5) >I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me. (John 6:38; also 8:24,42) >Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32) Note that the second half of this verse is engraved on the portals of Harvard University! Yet none would say that Harvard wishes to promote Christ's divinity. Could all others who claim to be Christian, whether sect or individual, ***but do not believe in His divinity*** still legitimately fall under the umbrella of the title, ***Christian***? Or is that deceptive? Is that unwarranted? ***Is that contradictory to the words of Jesus in these verses?*** >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9, NIV)

For example, if someone is at home alone and naked, or just wearing tops and no underwear.

Commentators on the story of [Acts 1:15–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=ESV) , where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like: > Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. ([*People's New Testament*](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0501.html)) There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul *was not* considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like [Acts 2:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A14&version=ESV) and [1 Corinthians 15:5–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A5-9&version=ESV) . But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been. So, my question. What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul? Related: [Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7507/21576) Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.

God tells Jeremiah to preach to people that will not listen: > **Jeremiah 7:2,27 NIV** - Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message...[*long message*]...When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer. Later on in biblical history, Jesus, whom Christians believe to be God, tells his crowd to not waste words on people that won't listen: > **Matthew 7:6 NIV** - Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. What's an overview of Christian responses to how these two things can coexist without contradiction?

In traveling around my diocese I've noticed that there are some parishes that are hand-holders and some parishes that are non-hand-holders and some people in the non-hand-holder parishes who persist in hand holding and some people in the hand holder parishes who abstain from hand holding. Also, there are some parishes where it is common to raise up your hands together for the doxology of the prayer. And some parishes where even unheld hands are held up like the priest does. I know that pure imitation of the priest isn't good (his hands are blessed, mine aren't), but what I don't know is if spontaneous hand holding by the congregation is totally licit and where the tradition came from. My mom told me it was, "something Protestants did in the 60's that Catholic's picked up on" is that all it is? Was there ever a Bishop who told his diocese to hold hands or not to hold hands?

I'm specifically talking about the GotQuestions.org article [*Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-prophets-restored.html) A summary of the main arguments (in my own words) from the article would be the following: - The office of apostle belonged exclusively to the original 12 + Matthias + Paul. - The uppercase Apostles set up the foundation for the universal church in the 1st century (Ephesians 2:20), therefore their job is already done, and the office is no longer necessary. - There is the gift of apostle, which must not be confused with the office of apostle. The gift of apostle continues, whereas the office ceased in the first century (if I'm not misunderstanding the article). - The gift of prophecy was a temporary gift necessary for laying the foundation (Ephesians 2:20 again), but once the canon of Scripture was complete, prophets were no longer necessary and ceased. - The current teaching of the restoration of prophets and apostles is unbiblical (see the article for details). - The Bible uses past tense when it talks about prophets, apostles, even miracles and gifts of the Spirit. The article seems to be making the case, then, that the past tense is indicative of cessation. **How do non-LDS believers in the modern restoration or continuation of the offices of apostle and prophet rebut this article?** _____ **Appendix - the article itself (it's relatively short)** > The movement to restore the offices of apostle and prophet bases the > claim that apostles and prophets are to be a part of the church on > Ephesians 4:11-12. These verses say, "And He gave some as apostles, > and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and > teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to > the building up of the body of Christ." > > During the first century of the church, there was an office of apostle > and there was a spiritual gift of apostle. The office or position of > apostle was held by the 12 disciples of Jesus plus Matthias, who took > Judas’ place, and Paul. Those who held the office or position of > apostle were chosen specifically by Christ (Mark 3:16-19). The > replacement for Judas is seen in Acts 1:20-26. Note in this passage > that Judas' position was called an office. It should also be noted > that Paul was chosen by Christ (1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Galatians 1:1; > 2:6-9). These men were given the task of setting up the foundation of > the church. It should be understood that it was for the universal > church that these men were a part of the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). > The foundation of the church (universal church) was laid in the first > century. This is why the office of apostle is no longer functioning. > > There was also a spiritual gift of apostle (this is not to be confused > with the office—they are separate). Among those who had the spiritual > gift were James (1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts > 14:4, 14; 1 Corinthians 9:6), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), > possibly Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:7), and Apollos (1 > Corinthians 4:6, 9). This latter group had the gift of apostleship but > not the apostolic "office" conferred upon the Twelve and Paul. Those > who had the gift of apostle, then, were those who carried the gospel > message with God’s authority. The word "apostle" means "one sent as an > authoritative delegate." This was true of those who held the office of > Apostle (like Paul) and those who had the spiritual gift (like > Apollos). Though there are men like this today, men who are sent by > God to spread the gospel, it is best NOT to refer to them as apostles > because of the confusion this causes since many are not aware of the > two different uses of the term apostle. > > The gift of prophet was a temporary gift given by the Christ for the > laying of the foundation of the universal church. Prophets also were > foundational to the universal church (Ephesians 2:20). The prophet > proclaimed a message from the Lord for the believers of the first > century. These believers did not have the advantage we have of having > a complete Bible. The last book of the New Testament (Revelation) was > not completed until late in the first century. So the Lord provided > gifted men called prophets who proclaimed messages from God to the > people until the canon of Scripture was complete. > > It should be noted that the current teaching of the restoration of > prophet and the office of apostle is far from what Scripture describes > of the men who held the gift of prophet and the office of apostle. > Those who teach the restoration of the office teach that the men who > claim to be apostles and prophets should never be spoken against, > should never be questioned, because the person who speaks against them > is speaking against God. Yet, the Apostle Paul commended the people of > Berea for checking what he said against the Word of God to make sure > he spoke the truth (Acts 17:10-11). The Apostle Paul also stated to > those in Galatia that if anyone, including himself, should teach > another Gospel, that person should be "accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9). In > everything, Paul kept pointing people to the Bible as the final > authority. The men who claim to be apostles and prophets today make > themselves the final authority, something Paul and the Twelve never > did. > > It should also be noted that Scripture refers to these men in the past > tense. 2 Peter 3:2 and also Jude 3-4, state that the people should not > stray from the message the apostles gave (past tense). Hebrews 2:3-4 > also speaks in the past tense of the those who performed (in the past) > signs, wonders, miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit. **Note:** The article also links to a 5 min YouTube video [*Is God restoring the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today? | GotQuestions.org*](https://youtu.be/F5281FieeKo) (in case you may prefer to watch the video instead). ____ For those interested in the Latter-day Saint perspective on a similar article: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422

Of course Christianity believes Jesus is God, but I am interested in this question for the argument that Jehovah (I AM), the name of God which later Jews were not allowed to speak, is a term not unique to the Father. In other words, is this special name 'I AM' just as valid for the Son, as it is the Father? Is Jesus = (Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH) in the flesh? Note: Yahweh/YHWH are just more original Hebrew representations of the English word Jehovah or capital LORD in our Bibles. These are all the same meaning, i.e. the name 'I AM'.

We read in Mk 3:19-21 (KJV) : > Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” One wonders as to why the kith and kin of Jesus made that comment in the initial days of his public life. Did they foresee a security threat from the side of the rulers or the religious hierarchy whom he criticized ? Did they really mean what they said ( "He is out of his mind") , or was it said to find an excuse for not getting involved in the affairs attributable only to him? My question therefore is: **Did the kith and kin of Jesus anticipate a security threat for themselves?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

As near as I can determine from Scripture; Creation and ejection of the rebellious angels, both happened at about the same period. That led me to begin to wonder, since it seems logical to me that God created the Angels for a specific duty. It also seemed logical that the rebellious Angels being ejected would leave some functions undone, and if my concepts gained from Revelation are true that would probably be in the area of worship. Of course God could simply create more Angels, but in creating man he could have man make the choice of whether to worship him or Satan before placing them in Heaven as is the procedure for entering the Ultimate Heaven.

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?

Most priests wear a [stole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stole_(vestment)) , a vestment that appears to be similiar to a long [scarf](https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+baker+scarf&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=eedpULmqF-OxyQGl_IGQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=965) , although it is flat and worn against the chest, rather than 'round the neck. Reading through the wikipedia article, the suggestion is that the stole is derived from Roman aristocracy - but of that is true, it completely conflicts with the notion that priests wear robes with rope belts because they were the clothing of the poor. So, the question is, where did the stole come from? What is the theological statement that is implied by this vestment?

(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory) This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment: > ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment... I *always* had trouble with this. It is *honestly* not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the Trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter). Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied), a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly *giving something up*. It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?

Most critical scholars believe that St. Peter copies or mimics off the book of Jude and that Peter is dependent on Jude, since he quotes from and uses a lot of similar phrasing and words. I have included a list of examples below, but an issue with this is that Jude would have been written when Peter had died, so how could Peter have written 2 Peter, if this is the case? - Jude 4 and 2 Peter 2:1 - Jude 5 and 2 Peter 2:4–6 - Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 - Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6 - Jude 8 and 2 Peter 2:10 - Jude 10 and 2 Peter 2:11 - Jude 11 and 2 Peter 2:12 - Jude 12-13 and 2 Peter 2:13, 17 - Jude 16 and 2 Peter 2:18 - Jude 17-18 and 2 Peter 3:2–3 Does that mean that 2nd Peter was a pseudepigrapha as scholars such as Bart Erhman argues and how would Christians normally answer this charge?

There is a similar question asking for the Catholic viewpoint: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63452/117426 . The accepted [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/63458/117426) states the following about marriage specifically: > # Complete hermaphrodites cannot validly marry. > > Dom Augustine wrote on 1917 Can. 1068 (= 1983 Canon > 1084 ), which deals with sexual impotence, an impediment to the > valid reception of the sacrament of marriage: > > >As to *hermaphrodites*, or such persons as have the sexual characteristics of both sexes, whether it be *androgynia* or > *gynandria* or *hermaphroditismus neuter*, the testimony of physicians is required [to determine whether they are sexually impotent or not]. > No *hermaphroditus neuter* can possibly be called capable of marrying > because the sex is not sufficiently determined. > > *androgynia* = hermaphroditic with male aspect predominant
> *gynandria* = hermaphroditic with female aspect predominant
> *hermaphroditus neuter* = a complete hermaphrodite (equal male and female aspects) > > > > There are no other canons explicitly forbidding hermaphrodites *qua* > hermaphrodites from receiving the other sacraments (Confirmation, > Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction). Do Protestants hold the same position? Are intersex individuals generally advised—or even required—to remain celibate for life? How are alternatives, such as self-pleasure, regarded in this context? What if an intersex individual experiences a strong sex drive? In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul encourages marriage as a remedy for those who "burn with passion." But does this counsel apply equally to intersex individuals?

In John 19:34, it says: >“But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.” This moment has been interpreted in various ways throughout Christian history and theology. In some devotional contexts, particularly in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the outpouring of blood and water from Christ’s side is seen as a profound symbol of Divine Mercy - often connected with the sacraments (e.g., Eucharist and Baptism) and the birth of the Church. My question is: **Is the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side traditionally understood as an expression of God’s mercy? If so, how is this understanding supported theologically or doctrinally within Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant perspectives)?**

I was curious about all of your thoughts on the idea of "Believer's Baptism" found in the Early Church. For those who don't know, "Believer's Baptism" is the view that people who have put their faith in Christ are allowed to be baptized I was curious if anyone on this platform can show me Early Church evidence to support this claim. I am aware of Tertullian had his own take on this belief, but not at the exact match as the main purpose of this idea. So, I was wondering if anyone can show Early Church proof of "Beliver's Baptism."

Following the recent shooting of a Christian figure, Charlie Kirk, I have been reflecting on how Christians should engage a hostile world when addressing moral reform. Scripture teaches believers to expect persecution (Matthew 5:10–12), to respond without retaliation (Romans 12:17–21), and to be prepared to give a defense with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:13–17). At the same time, Jesus commanded His disciples to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). How should Christians apply these teachings when engaging society on moral reform in a context of hostility and opposition?

> Beginning in the spring of 1917, the children reported apparitions of > an Angel, and starting in May 1917, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, > whom the children described as "the Lady more brilliant than the Sun". > (quoted in Wikipedia ) *. *Was this report accurate? How did Mary really look like in the Fatima Apparitions according to trusted Catholic sources?  (*We are not alone in the Universe* , Konrad Kulczyk, Sixth Books 2012)