Wikipedia explains the etymology of the word Pope as follows: > The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας > (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later > referring to a bishop or patriarch. The earliest record of the use > of this title is in regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope > Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248) in a letter written by his > successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon, a Roman > presbyter: > > τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. > > Which translates into: > > I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas. > > From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all > bishops. The earliest extant record of the word papa being used > in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it > was applied to Pope Marcellinus. Eventually the term Pope/Papa was limited to the Bishop of Rome alone and now, in the Roman Catholic church, the term 'Father' is usually used to address priests: > In the early church, members of the clergy generally did not have standard titles. However, an accepted way to address bishops was “papa” or “pappa,” which referred to the role of the bishops as father figures. This name eventually became associated solely with the Bishop of Rome. The highest title in the Catholic Church, that of “Pope,” is derived from those early titles. By the late Middle Ages, priests belonging to various religious orders were called father. This practice has persisted to modern times, as priests are customarily called father today. - Mercy Home Regardless of whether papa/father is used to refer to the Pope or Bishops or local Priests the idea underneath seems to be a reference to spiritual and familial paternity based ultimately upon the notion that Adam was created to be both High Priest and Father of all humanity: > Adam is the father of the human race, as well as the high priest of humanity. Thus, there is an intimate link between priesthood and fatherhood. The priesthood leading up to Aaron and the Levites is a familial priesthood. What is important to understand during this period of salvation history is that the father of the family is a priest, and the prominence of the first-born son in the family. - Catholic News Agency In Matthew chapter 9 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and the disciples and He is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, that is to say the religious teachers and leaders. What he tells everyone is: > But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. - Matthew 23:8-10 1) Don't allow anyone to call you teacher/guide or Master because Christ is in that role and you are all brothers/equal under Him. 2) Don't call anyone on earth your Father because only God fills that role The prohibition appears to be twofold: One is against accepting the designations of teacher or master over another and the second is against assigning the designation of Father to anyone. It should be obvious that these prohibitions are expected to be understood 'spiritually' both from the immediate context and the Bible as a whole (since Jesus has made clear that, spiritually, there are only two fatherhoods : God or the Devil) as well as from common sense ... we all have natural fathers as well as secular teachers, mentors, and bosses. Taking the Matthew passage at face value there is no clear prohibition against a priest, for example, accepting the designation (spiritual) 'Father' but there is clear prohibition against anyone actually assigning that designation to 'any man on earth'. A highly voted answer to this strongly related question indicates a Catholic view that Jesus was prohibiting the term 'Father' being applied to those who are undeserving of the term: > Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it. With this understanding in mind coupled with the fact that priests in the Catholic Church seem to be called 'Father' by custom rather than according to whether they deserve the title (that is to say, a priest who does not have the heart of a shepherd nor the well-being of his flock as priority will still, by custom, be called 'Father'), how does the Catholic Church interpret Matthew 23:9 so as to normalize priests being called Father irregardless of their performance?

John the Baptist is a central figure in Christianity. Sent by God as shown by the prophets, he prepared the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1, Mt 3:3, 11:10). John was of the priestly Levitical tribe in the order of Abijah, being born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, both of whom were of Levi (1 Ch 24:10, Luke 1:5). When John was preaching and baptizing, it is important to note for this question, he did so apart and away from the temple in Jerusalem. He preached in the wilderness. He baptized in the Jordan. (See Mt. 3:1, Mar 1:4.) The point is he did this without reference to the Levitical system of confession of sin and sacrifice. (See Lev 4, 23, etc.) With these things in mind, from a Trinitarian position, what exactly was John the Baptist preaching apart from the temple system when he said repent? Repent means change your mind. Metanoeo, Strong's G3340, to think differently, to reconsider. How would this change prepare the way of the Lord? How would it make straight His paths?

There is an old man in our neighborhood who is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, though for various reasons he does not attend the local church. He asked me what I thought about the question, "Might a person read the Scriptures, remembering Jesus and the Cross, and take communion (the wine and the flat bread) alone at home, by one's self?" He reminded me that various wealthy people throughout history had their own chapels, priests and attendants that served the communion supper, "at home alone." Do the Southern Baptists have a position on private home-communion?

Whilst there are other questions I have found similar to this one, they do not specifically seem to explain the exact start date for the 70 week prophecy in Daniel regarding the command to rebuild Jerusalem. If we read the Daniel 9:25 prophecy, verse 25 talks about "**restore and rebuild Jerusalem**". **Cyrus decrees in Ezra 1 to Return to Jerusalem and Build the Temple** > In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, to fulfill the word of the > LORD spoken through Jeremiah, the LORD stirred the spirit of Cyrus > king of Persia to send a proclamation throughout his kingdom and to > put it in writing as follows: > > 2“This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: > > ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, who has given me all the kingdoms of the > earth, has appointed me to build a house for Him at Jerusalem in Judah. Zerubbabel is among those who return to carry out this decree. **Enemies of the tribes obtain a decree to stop construction** King Artaxerxes, in the first year of his reign, after being told by the "enemies of Judah and Ephraim" and also consulting the original decree given by Cyrus, believes the Israelites are in breach of said decree (in that only the Temple may be built) and stops the entire process. > *Ezra 4 12 "Let it be known to the king that the Jews who came from you to us have returned to Jerusalem. And they are rebuilding that > rebellious and wicked city, restoring its walls, and repairing its > foundations." 21 Now, therefore, issue an order for these men to stop, > so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order.* We obviously know that he was told a falsehood by the enemies of Judah and Ephraim about what was actually going on in Jerusalem in that they were not rebuilding city walls as Artaxerxes was led to believe, however, he stopped the process nonetheless. Moving forward in history...we know in Ezra 6, after the death of Artaxerxes, construction restarted by Zerubbabel, and that King Darius was approached by Tattenai the governor of the region west of the Euphrates to confirm the decree to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The response from Darius: > Exra 6:1 Thus King Darius ordered a search of the archives stored in the > treasury of Babylon. 2And a scroll was found in the fortress of > Ecbatana, in the province of Media, with the following written on it: > > Memorandum: > > 3In the first year of King Cyrus, he issued a decree concerning the > house of God in Jerusalem: > > Let the house be rebuilt as a place for offering sacrifices, and let > its foundations be firmly laid. It is to be sixty cubits high and > sixty cubits wide,a 4with three layers of cut stones and one of > timbers. The costs are to be paid from the royal treasury. > > 5Furthermore, the gold and silver articles of the house of God, which > Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and carried to > Babylon, must also be returned to the temple in Jerusalem and > deposited in the house of God. > > 6Therefore Darius decreed: > > To Tattenai governor of the region west of the Euphrates,b > Shethar-bozenai, and your associates and officials in the region: > > You must stay away from that place! 7Leave this work on the house of > God alone. Let the governor and elders of the Jews rebuild this house > of God on its original site. **Ezra obtains letters from Artaxerxes and returns from Babylon** Ezra is granted authority by king Artaxerxes in the 7th year of his reign. However, it appears to me that the letter given to Ezra by the kind at that time is still only for Temple, its services, and for the self governance of Judah. It does not appear to make any reference to the rebuilding of the city itself. > Ezra 7:12 Artaxerxes, king of kings. > > To Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven: > > Greetings.d > > 13I hereby decree that any volunteers among the Israelites in my > kingdom, including the priests and Levites, may go up with you to > Jerusalem. 14You are sent by the king and his seven counselors to > evaluate Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of your God, which > is in your hand. > *Ezra7: 23 Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven must be done diligently for His house.* Some 12 or 13 years later, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign, Nehemiah the cupbearer asks the king for permission to **rebuild the walls and gates of the city** > *Nehemiah 2:4 “...If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, I ask that you send me to Judah, to the > city where my fathers are buried, so that I may rebuild it.” 7 I also > said to him, “If it pleases the king, may letters be given to me for > the governors west of the Euphrates,b so that they will grant me safe > passage until I reach Judah. 8And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper > of the king’s forest, so that he will give me timber to make beams for > the gates of the citadel to the temple, for the city wall, and for the > house I will occupy.”* My point of interest is the original prophecy in Daniel 9 stating **restore and rebuild Jerusalem**. The decree given by Cyrus is only for the Temple, then Nehemiah is given authority to build the city walls and gates. Finally, remember the prophecy given in Isaiah 44): > 26 who confirms the message of His servant and fulfills the counsel of > His messengers, who says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be inhabited,’ and of > the cities of Judah, ‘They will be rebuilt, and I will restore their > ruins,’ 27who says to the depths of the sea, ‘Be dry, and I will dry > up your currents,’ 28who says of Cyrus, ‘My shepherd will fulfill all > that I desire,’ who says of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of > the temple, ‘Let its foundation be laid.’ Which of the above is the official decree that fulfills the explanation of the prophecy by the angel Gabriel in Daniel 9:25? 1. The first decree given to build the Temple by Cyrus in 539 B.C and overseen by Zerubbabel (Cyrus lived 600-530 B.C) 2. the second decree given by Darius the Great 522-486 B.C (what year was this decree given... 521 B.C?) 3. The authority given to Ezra by Artaxerxes in 7th year of his reign (457 B.C) 4. or the letters given to Nehemiah by Artexerxes to build the city walls and gates? (445 B.C) Dates for the above are based on Wikipedia (Cyrus The Great , Darius The Great or Hystaspes , Artaxerxes I )

I know two sources on this Catholic issue. St. Thomas Aquinas says no. *ST II-II, Q83 A11 ad 3*: >Those who are in Purgatory though they are above us on account of their impeccability, yet they are below us as to the pains which they suffer: and in this respect they are not in a condition to pray, but rather in a condition that requires us to pray for them. [Edit: I find that Aquinas specifies that they aren't in a condition to pray effectively because having died they are beyond increasing their merit, which means they can't effectively do meritorious acts in the world like intercede. No, I don't get it either. An explanation of this would be welcome!] But the Catechism (CCC 958) shows a different view : > [T]he Church ... ‘because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’ she offers her suffrages for them.”500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making **their intercession** for us effective. > > 500 LG 50; cf. 2 *Macc* 12:45 Aquinas's stated reason that the souls are suffering doesn't make sense: people obviously can pray when suffering! The Catechism doesn't explain at all. What are the best reasons on either side?

A full preterist is someone who believes that all the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled. Then in Revelation 20:4 (RSV-2CE): >Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgement was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. **They came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.** How does a full preterist interpret the Thousand-year reign of Christ?

Are there any genuine stigmatics alive today, approved by a representative of the Catholic Church?

Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . However, there is not such diversity of citation styles among more recently published works. When and why did the modern convention become standard?

As stated for instance [here](https://christianpure.com/learn/protestant-christian-vs-reformed-christian/) and many other places, Reform Christianity has as one of its central precepts predestination, i.e. Gd has already chosen some of us for salvation and some for damnation. Logically, this would lead me to be a fatalist: nothing I can do will change my fate. How does Reform Christianity so vehemently argue against fatalism at the same time? This is not a smug rebuttal (which would be naive) but rather a genuine request for the details. The way I see it, this is all a side effect of the I suppose well meaning starting point of the sovereignty of Gd, logically leading to predestination - from here, there is either some nebulous cop-out or indeed an elaborate reconciliation of this and avoiding fatalism which I would find great intellectual satisfaction in learning.

Adam and Eve were never shown to have had a marriage ceremony, yet [God commanded them to multiply](https://www.bible.com/bible/59/gen.1.28) . What is the basis for the idea that God requires a ceremony to be performed for marriage, rather than being a spiritual commitment made by the husband and wife?

### Introduction The Hebrew Bible contains commands for several types of sacrifices. The sacrificial system encompasses a variety of offerings (Hebrew: korbanot) that serve different purposes. These sacrifices, described primarily in Leviticus and Numbers, includes animal sacrifices (bulls, goats, sheep, birds) as well as grain, oil, and wine offerings, all carried out by the priests at the altar of the Tabernacle/Temple. Each type of offering had specific requirements and a distinct purpose. Some were for atonement of sin, others for thanksgiving or purification: | **Sacrifice (Hebrew / English Name)** | **What Was Offered** | **Who Offered / Performed** | **Purpose of Sacrifice** | **How the Sacrifice Was Carried Out** | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Olah (עולה) – Burnt Offering** | A male animal without blemish – could be a bull, ram, goat, or for the poor, a turtledove or pigeon. | Voluntarily by an individual, performed by a priest. | This is a general sacrifice, performed daily. It is also used as a sin sacrifice on the appointment of a priest. | The animal is slaughtered and its blood splashed on the altar by the priest. The entire carcass was completely **burned on the altar** (nothing eaten by anyone, symbolizing total surrender to God). The hide went to the priests. | | **Minchah (מנחה) – Grain / Meal Offering** | Fine flour or unleavened baked goods (loaves or cakes) made from wheat or barley, mixed with olive oil and frankincense, and seasoned with salt. No yeast or honey was used. | Usually a **voluntary** offering by an individual (often accompanying burnt or peace offerings); a priest handled it on the altar and ate the remainder. (If the priest himself offered it, it was entirely burned.) | **Thanksgiving and dedication** of one’s labor and produce to God. A non-blood offering symbolizing the dedication of daily sustenance and work. | A **handful** (with all the frankincense) was **burned on the altar** as a memorial portion. The rest was **eaten by the priests** in a holy place, unless it was a priest’s own offering, in which case it was fully burned. | | **Nesekh (נסך) – Drink Offering** | A libation of **wine** (usually undiluted) poured out on the altar; sometimes water (during festivals). | Performed by the **priest** as part of a larger sacrifice. The wine was brought by the offerer and poured out by the priest. | **Worship and devotion** – honoring God with the “fruit of the vine.” Symbolized joyful self-offering and blessing. | The priest **poured the wine** onto the altar (into special receptacles at its corners). Drink offerings were never offered alone but always alongside burnt and grain offerings. | | **Zevach Shelamim (זבח שלמים) – Peace / Fellowship Offering** | An unblemished animal from the herd or flock (male or female), often with **grains or breads** (both leavened and unleavened). | Offered **voluntarily** by an individual or family (as **thanksgiving**, **vow**, or **freewill** offering). The offerer slaughtered it; **priests** handled the blood and altar portions and received a share of the meat. | **Thanksgiving, fellowship, and celebration** of peace and blessing from God. Expressed gratitude and communion with Him. | The priest **splashed the blood on the altar**; the **fat portions** were **burned** as God’s share. The priest received the **breast** and **right thigh**; the rest was **eaten joyfully** by the offerer and family in a holy place. Leftovers were eaten within 1–2 days. | | **Chatat (חטאת) – Sin / Purification Offering** | Different animals based on the sinner’s status: **bull** (high priest/community), **male goat** (leader), **female goat or lamb** (individual), or **birds/flour** (poor). | **Mandatory** for unintentional sins or ritual impurities (e.g. after childbirth). The sinner laid hands on the animal; the **priest** performed the ritual and blood rites. | **Atonement for unintentional sin** and **purification from impurity**, reconciling the sinner with God. | The offerer **laid hands** on the animal, which was **slaughtered**. The priest **applied blood** to the altar (and sometimes within the Holy Place). The **fat** was burned; **priests ate** the remainder unless it was for the high priest/community, which was **burned outside the camp**. | | **Asham (אשם) – Guilt / Trespass Offering** | A **ram** without blemish (sometimes a lamb), often with a specified value in silver to ensure worthiness. | **Mandatory** for offenses involving **misuse of holy things**, **breach of trust**, **uncertainty of guilt**, or **restitution cases**. The **priest** sacrificed it after confession and repayment by the guilty party. | **Atonement for specific guilt** involving harm to others or desecration of holy things; emphasized **repentance and restitution**. | The offender **confessed and made restitution** (plus 20%) before the sacrifice. The **ram** was slaughtered, its **blood** splashed on the altar, **fat** burned, and the **meat eaten by priests**. Forgiveness was granted after restitution and offering. | | **Korban Pesach (קרבן פסח) – Passover Sacrifice** | A one-year-old **male lamb or goat**, without blemish. | **Mandatory** annual sacrifice for each household on the 14th of Nisan. The **head of household** slaughtered it; **priests** collected and sprinkled the blood. | **Commemoration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and the death of the first born**. | The **blood** was splashed on the altar. The lamb was **roasted whole** and **eaten that night** with **unleavened bread and bitter herbs**. Nothing left until morning; no bones broken. All leftovers were **burned**. | | **Parah Adumah (פרה אדומה) – Red Heifer Offering** | A **red heifer** without defect, never yoked. | Performed by a **priest** (e.g. Eleazar) **outside the camp**, on behalf of the whole community. | **Ritual purification from corpse defilement**; not for sin but to produce ashes for the **“water of purification.”** | The **heifer** was **slaughtered outside the camp**; the **priest sprinkled its blood** toward the Tabernacle seven times. The whole carcass was **burned to ashes** with **cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool**. The ashes were stored and later mixed with water and **sprinkled** on those made unclean by contact with the dead. | | **Minchat Kena’ot (מנחת קנאות) – Jealousy / Ordeal Offering** | 1/10 ephah of **barley flour**, no oil or incense (plain). | Brought by a **husband** for a wife suspected of adultery (*sotah*); the **priest** conducted the ordeal and offering. | To **reveal hidden guilt or prove innocence** in suspected adultery; a **judgment ritual**, not atonement. | The priest prepared **bitter water** (holy water, dust, and ink of curses). The woman swore innocence, held the offering, and drank the water. The priest **waved the offering**, burned a **handful** on the altar, and disposed of the rest. If guilty, she was cursed; if innocent, she was unharmed and could conceive. | ### Question Each of these sacrifices has its own purpose and ritual in the Hebrew Bible (atonement for sin, thanksgiving, purification, etc.). Given this background, which specific sacrifice or offering does Jesus’s death on the cross correspond to or fulfill?

I've been told that it's rare to find someone who combines Dispensationalism and Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine (such as John MacArthur). Why is this? What ideas don't mesh well?

I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created. The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion. Here are some of the references I found: From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ: >“He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.” From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote: >“Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant... We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9: >"Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection. However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael. This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine. I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel. The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

In John 1:18, it seems no one has seen God's face: >No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. And in Exodus 33:20, it is also mentioned that you cannot see God's face as you will die if you see his face. > "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Now we know that it is impossible to see God's face as you won't live after it, but somehow Moses saw his face and lived. Exodus 33:11: >The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. So did Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel. Exodus 24:9-11: >Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. Oh, and Abram too. Genesis 12:7: >Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. According to the Catholic Church, how did these people see God's face and live even though he clearly says no one can see his face and live?

### Background Mormons believe that the Hebrew Bible was corrupted and had lost many important prophecies and doctrines pointing towards Mormon theology, which were eventually restored by Joseph Smith such as “Genesis 50:33”: > 33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. ### Question Did Jesus and the apostles leave the church with a defective Old Testament which lacked important Mormon teachings? Why didn’t Jesus and/or the apostles fix these supposed corruptions in the Hebrew Bible and provide the new church with an accurate reading of the text?

I admit the question is a bit broad, so let me explain: In many cultures around the world, marriage of first cousins is common. However, the Catholic Church disallows marriage of first cousins (in absence of a special dispensation), and according to Wikipedia , this canon rule has a bit of a convoluted history. On the Protestant side, Luther and Calvin rejected this rule of the Catholic Church on the grounds that it is not Biblically based. However, I have met many Protestants who are anti-cousin marriage, and the general sentiment in American culture is that cousin marriage is morally wrong. I'm curious what the basis of forbidding or being morally opposed to cousin marriage is, within Christian traditions (though opposition to cousin marriage is obviously not universal). How did this idea originate, and is the same logic still applied?

There has been much publicity about the 'Head of the Church of England' praying with the Pope in Rome. But I have not (yet) seen any support for this from the laity of the Anglican communion or from the vicars of the Church of England or from the bishops. Is the 'Head' of the Anglican communion acting on their own (possibly ideological) account or are they acting as representing the whole body ?

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

In Ezekiel chapter 4 the prophet was instructed to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of the sin of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for 40 days for the sin of Judah. What historical period is being referred to here? When did the 390 years begin and end? Also for the 40 year period, when did it begin and end?

What is "Boethius's solution"? I saw it referenced in a comment, but when I tried to Google it, I didn't get a good answer. It has to do with the relationship between God's omniscience and man's free will.