According to their own words, Ephrem and Aphrahat annotated *The Gospel*, not a text called *Diatessaron*. How is it possible that these theologians had never heard of this work, let alone of its supposed author while their contemporary Eusebius had all this information at his fingertips? Did our blasphemous heretic covertly remove his name and replace the title with «The Gospel» before spreading his mischievous text among the unsuspecting Syrians? Is that what we are to believe?

I have been discussing Matthew 16:18 for years now with both Catholics and non-Catholics. This verse is obviously a very important verse concerning the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff. The non-Catholic argument that I come up against time and time again is the "play on words" interpretation summed up pretty well here . I understand that, according to this interpretation, Jesus calls himself "big rock," and calls Peter "small rock." > Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two > types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the > same. > > Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone > (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. > > Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock” The accepted answer goes on to say... > This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is > built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he > was the **archetype**, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have > received this personal revelation from God. I've also heard other interpretations that place the "Rock-ness," if you will, on Peter's faith. The answer above labels Peter as an "archetype" for those *individuals* with faith, or those *individuals* who receive infallible revelations. I think this reads to much into it when considering the context of scripture, and is perhaps a presupposition. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ, by changing Simon's name to Peter, established a foundational office of headship upon which the "Keys to the Kingdom of God" rests until his return. Catholics believe that *that* change signified a newly established office, and is *why* Christ changed Simon the fisherman to Peter the fisher of men to begin with. > "The keys of the kingdom" > > 551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, > twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 > He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to > preach the kingdom of God and to heal."They remain associated for > ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church: > >> As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that >> you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones >> judging the twelve tribes of Israel. > > 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; > Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the > Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the > living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on > this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not > prevail against it."Christ, the "living Stone",thus assures > his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. > Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable > rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every > lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. > > 553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you > the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth > shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be > loosed in heaven."The "power of the keys" designates authority to > govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good > Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my > sheep."The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to > absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make > disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority > to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in > particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he > specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (*CCC 551-553*) My question is, from a non-Catholic point of view, why did Jesus choose "Rock" as a name for Peter in the first place? Answering whether or not Peter is called big rock or little rock doesn't answer why Jesus called him a rock - of any size. I'm wanting to know *why* exactly non-Catholics believe Christ changed Peter's name (rock...big or small), and what does it signify in comparison to what the Catholic Church teaches .

>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word **and immediately receives it with joy**; 21 **yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, **receive the word with joy**; **and yet these do not have a firm root**; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

I came across this article on Augustine: [Why Do We And St. Augustine Believe “Once Saved Always Saved”?](https://koinos.church/why-do-we-and-st-augustine-believe-once-saved-always-saved/) . The article explains: >Augustine saw in scripture that the fall of Adam resulted in all humans receiving a nature totally depraved so that no one is capable of obedience without God’s grace providing the ability. This is why he uttered his famous prayer, “Lord command what you will and grant what you command.” This view of man’s depravity and God’s grace caused him to reject the idea that believers must maintain their perseverance by their own righteousness. All God’s work of salvation in man is an act of His grace. None of it could be accomplished by the mere will of man, not the beginning steps of repentance and not the perseverance in faith to the end. All of salvation is due to God’s grace alone. This led him to make these affirmations on “once saved always saved,” > >>I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we peresevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God. >> >>It is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called. >> >>When the gift of God is granted to them…none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (In De Perseverantiae). However, in [this debate](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA?t=1411) , Trent Horn quoted a seemingly different passage from Augustine’s [*Treatise on Rebuke and Grace*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm) : > If, however, **being already regenerate and justified**, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, I have not received, **because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God**, that he had received. I would like input from someone well-versed in Augustine’s writings: did Augustine’s views ultimately align with, or contradict, the doctrine of *Eternal Security*? Did Augustine actually believe in the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”?

I recently read an argument which was basically 'Paul against Jesus' type and was something like this: Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws but to fulfill them: > Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. ([Matthew 5:17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17&version=NET) , NET) And we have this verse in OT: > Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement. ([Genesis 17:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17:14&version=NET) , NET) It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so. What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?

Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the *Books of Maccabees* is not part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So I am wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today (which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in Greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what I am asking of any books in the Catholic Bible that precede the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonization of the Hebrew Bible used today?

**Hebrews 1:6** (NIV) says: > when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” My question is for Trinitarians, Modalists and Binitarians: ***Why was it necessary for God to give the command to his already perfectly loyal Angels to worship the second person or mode of the Godhead, whom** (one would assume) **they already always included in their worship?*** Quotes from Creeds or scholars of the different views, making sense out of this, are welcome.

St. Thomas Aquinas presents a good logical proof on how a being called god exists: He is what I assumed he said [this is in my own words]: > Everything in the universe has a cause, without a cause nothing will take place [like Newton's first law]. If we try to question the existence of anything present on the earth, the causes of the causes will lead us to the very creation of earth. Reasoning more, will lead to the formation of the universe. Now the universe, needs a cause for its production. Since everything in this universe is finite, so there must also be a finite number of causes, in this universe, and so there must be a starter cause after which every other causes develops.. that "Starter Cause" is God. Now how do I prove that God is good, or God "is active," or "interferes in human activity"? With this I mean that God [son of God, who is in fact God but a different manifestation] comes onto earth, does miracles, and punishes and blesses, and tells everybody that they are subject to a future judgement. How do I prove that God is not a Deist God, which means that God is merely transcendent in relation to the universe, who doesn't interfere in its working? Some people may reason that since God is the creator, he has a fundamental power to morph things in the universe, but some may ask why. In my atheist friend's language—"Why does god check on the actions of people? why doesn't he chill?" This is all part of some kind of thought experiment to prove logically that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible. Since St. Thomas Aquinas started this "logical thinking" and was a Christian, I decided to ask it in the Christianity Stack Exchange. I myself am not a Christian, but I love studying Christianity and pondering over it.

The book of 3rd Maccabees is included in the Eastern Orthodox canon, a practice which dates back at least to the 85th canon of the Apostolic Canons ratified by the Quinisext Council in 692. I had never heard of the book, nor had I heard the story contained in the book, until I purchased an Eastern Orthodox Bible. Wikipedia devotes a whole paragraph to talking about how it has generally been overlooked by theologians throughout history. **Why have theologians who consider this book canonical not placed greater emphasis on it?** Anyone who reads it cannot deny it is an interesting story, and I am sure that if it is incorporated in the canon, it must also be considered instructive. By contrast, the other deuterocanonical books have received a great deal of attention, as have the books of the protocanon.

> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

Ruminator's question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108102/117426 prompted me to compile a list of [Biblical passages](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108109/117426) that discuss mysteries, hidden knowledge, secrets of the Kingdom, and related themes, as well as God's willingness to invite seekers to search these things out. Ruminator also assembled an extensive collection of passages in his own [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108106/117426) on the theme of mystery in the Bible. Interestingly, some of the answers and comments in the linked question appear to advocate a kind of cessationist position, suggesting that everything has already been revealed in the Bible, and therefore no mysteries remain to be disclosed (or so they seem to argue). With this in mind, I am interested in an overview of doctrines from various denominations—including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—regarding the possibility of God revealing mysteries to spiritual seekers today. It is evident from the Bible that God has certainly revealed mysteries to individuals in the past—for example, Paul's experience of the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, where he received revelations not recorded in Scripture. The question, however, is whether this possibility is still considered viable today, doctrinally speaking, and what conditions, if any, are believed to govern access to such mysteries. Would it be reasonable for a spiritual seeker to earnestly desire the revelation of mysteries today, according to different denominations?

In 1 John 5:16–17, John distinguishes between “sin that leads to death” and “sin that does not lead to death”: >If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV) What are some biblical or practical examples of sins that would fall under the category of “sin that does not lead to death,” and how should Christians approach them in prayer and fellowship?

I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this. However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time. Do other Christian denominations do this too?

In the Catholic Church there are ways of hearing Confessions that are not "face to face" and are even very anonymous. Canon law 964 in the Latin Church states: > §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. > > §2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely. > > §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause. Many people go to Confession behind a a fixed grate in a confessional and without going to a specific Confessor one has. I have always found that weird, ie the idea of not going to a Confessor for the Sacrament of Confession. "§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause." sounds a bit strange to me as I always thought that one should try to go to a specific Confessor and perhaps even confess after session with spiritual direction. Now, it seems that the norm is not like that at all. **What does the Catholic Church actually say about the idea that we should have a specific Confessor?**

In common parlance, prophecy is often considered to be "predicting the future." For some, it conjures up images of telephone psychics and the like. Others might envision a crystal ball. It generally has a mystical connotation of some type. On the other hand, the "prophets" of Scripture (e.g. Malachi, Habakkuk, Jonah) seem to be doing something different. Making explicit predictions about the future seems to be a small part of their function as a "prophet." So my question is: **Biblically speaking, what exactly is prophecy?** Is there a Biblical definition that matches the actual practices of the prophets? ------ *If possible, please support your answers using the 66 books of Scripture that are found in the Protestant Bible.*

According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on. I would like to know: **For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they?** I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, **who** assigned them. For example: **The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:** 1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region. 2) X2 person or group, ..."" If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another. **The gospel according to Luke... ""** Please give sources, thank you!

I know our Gospel of Mark is anonymous, and I am trying to understand where the traditions of attribution come from. As far as I understand, the tradition is that the Gospel was written by Mark the interpreter of Peter, who would also be the John Mark referred in *Acts of the Apostles* as a companion of Paul who split up with Barnabas at some point. As *Acts* does not state that John Mark became an interpreter of Peter, I assume these are two different claims: - **Claim 1:** "The author of Mark was the interpreter of Peter". - **Claim 2:** "The author of Mark is John Mark, the character from *Acts of the Apostles*". I know that we can trace *Claim 1* one to Papias (though we do not know if he's discussing *our* Gospel of Mark), and later to Irenaeus (who is definitely talking about our Gospel of Mark). But they do not seem to indicate that the author was also John Mark from *Acts of the Apostles*. I have failed to find our first source for *Claim 2*. **I am interested in finding out at which point in history people started assuming that John Mark (the character in *Acts of the Apostles*) is the author of our Gospel of Mark** (or, failing that, at which point people started assuming that John Mark from the Acts of the Apostles became later in his life an interpreter of Peter).

James 1:12 (NIV) says: >“Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.” I'm trying to understand what specific kinds of hardship or trials this verse is referring to. Does it include all forms of suffering (e.g., sickness, poverty, personal tragedy), or is it focused more on spiritual trials—such as those that come from the flesh (sinful desires), the world (opposition to godly living), or the devil (temptation and spiritual warfare)? Does persevering through these inner and external spiritual battles also qualify one for the crown of life? Or is the verse mainly referring to persecution and martyrdom for the Christian faith? Also, is the “crown of life” best understood as a metaphor for eternal life itself, or is it a distinct reward for faithful endurance beyond salvation? I'm seeking perspectives grounded in Scripture and theology across Christian traditions.

An answer was given from the Orthodox perspective to a question about contemplative prayer, regarding their practice of hesychasm. The stated goals were noble, with much Scriptural support. My question is in regard to the Jesus prayer. Humility is of course required of us as we approach the God Who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16). The Jesus prayer states this: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" It is repeated over and over in an attempt to be like the publican in humility. I have, in fact, repeated this same prayer in my heart many times. But does it not in actuality represent doubt, not faith? Do Orthodox Christians believe that Christ's death has already exemplified His mercy to us, and that our role is to simply believe and receive that truth in our hearts, and then live accordingly? In other words, do we need to continually ask for mercy, or is it just a reminder of the mercy that we have already been shown?

Matthew 24:29‑30 says: >*“Immediately after the tribulation of those days… then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”* Pre‑tribulationists believe Jesus will rapture the church before the Great Tribulation. I’d like to understand how pre‑tribulation interpreters reconcile this verse with their view of Christ’s return because it seems Jesus returns after the Great Tribulation and not before.