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

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

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

This may come off as an odd request - but I’m looking for a catholic roadmap of salvation that gives an order to how one comes to salvation and maintain salvation through the sacraments. This request is in order to give a better explanation to my Protestant friends, especially in relation to baptism and faith. Thanks a bunch!

I am doing research into historical perspectives on the course and causes of the European Witch Trials. Obviously a large amount of historical analysis is dedicated too the influnce of Christianity/Catholicism on these events (R.e malleus maleficarum), however I'm struggling to find a 'counter' to this view. Could anyone explain to be contemporary thought on the witch trials (history) through a Christian lense? Or point me in the direct to scholars on the issue. These are the sorts of things im intrested in: - Can / should the church be held responsible for causing the trials? - What role did the church play in undertaking and increasing witch trials? - What was is the current eccelastical thought, on the churchs role and responsiblity for these sorts of events? - If not the Church, who? - And more generally, any professional or personal thoughts on the trials, from a Christian perspective would also be appreciated. Edit: This question was closed, so as a revision consider this: How does the church respond to its role in the european witch trials

Where can I find old Holy Office decrees that are not contained in the *Acta Sanctæ Sedis* (1856-1908) or in the *Acta Apostolicæ Sedis* (1909-present)? For example, I want to check out the citations for canon 1258 of the 1917 Code listed here: > **S. C. S. Off.**, 23 mart. 1656, ad 4; 13 nov. 1669; decr. 20 nov. 1704; > 9 dec. 1745; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Algeriae), 21 ian. 1751; > > (Mission. Tenos in Pelopponeso), 10 maii 1753, ad 1; > > (Algeriae), 14 sept. 1780; > > (Kentucky), 13 ian. 1818, ad 1; > > (Queebec), 23 febr. 1820, ad 1, 3; > > instr. (ad Ep. Sanctorien.), 12 maii 1841, n.2; > > instr. 22 iun 1859; > > (Sanctorien.), instr. (ad Archiep. Corcyren.), 3 ian. 1871, n. 2; > > (Columbi), 14 ian. 1874; > > (Tunkin. Central.), 29 mart. 1879; > > (Bucarest), 8 maii 1889; 19 aug. 1891; > > instr. 1 aug. 1900; > > 24 ian. 1906; > **S. C. de Prop. Fide** (C. G.), 17 apr. 1758, ad 2; > > 15 dec. 1764, ad 3; > > (C. G. - Antibar.), 2 aug. 1803, ad 1; > > (C. P. pro Sin. - Cochinchin.), 2 iul. 1827; > > (C. G.), 21 nov. 1837; > > instr. (ad Vic. Ap. Scopiae), 26 sept. 1840, ad 14; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Aegypti), 3 maii 1876 I tried to find the last citation in the Acta Sanctae Sedis but couldn't, does anyone know where I should look? I'm interested in all the citations for the canon except *Ex illa*, *Ex quo*, *Inter omnigenas* and *Dolorem*. If anyone can help me find any of the above documents or others cited in the canon I'd appreciate it. Any language is good.

Galatians 5:17 says, *"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh."* This seems to suggest a deliberate opposition between the two. My question is: Was this opposition between the Spirit and the flesh part of God's original design from the beginning (before the Fall), or did it come about as a result of sin? In other words, did God will for this tension to exist under His authority, or is it a result of rebellion against that authority? I’m looking for answers from perspectives that explain how this dynamic fits into Christian theology — particularly with reference to Scripture and doctrinal traditions.

Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are [totally depraved](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-fall-of-man-and-total-depravity/) , and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance. Their *reason* rejects God's supremacy, their *will* refuses God's invitation, and their *emotion* recoils against God's goodness. This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin. But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the *sanctification* stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character. Then after death, in the elect's *glorification* stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with *full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God*, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see [Nathaniel's answer to another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/61910/10672)) . My question is: **since we are in the "*already, but not yet*" stage, how do we understand the causes and the nature of progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion, considering that the *telos* of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?** In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, since we are *already* justified, and since the clarion call is to "imitate Jesus", wouldn't it make sense to expect *palpable* and *measurable* progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion? If so, then naturally we seek to understand the *theological causes* and the *practices* that engender those effects. I would like a documented answer quoting a **21st century scholarly (published) work** of a Reformed theologian who **explicitly links** sanctification to *progressive restoration* in reason, will, and emotion, by describing how sanctification works toward the healing, in the Reformed tradition.

I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?

The subject of the "calvinist" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church comes up from time to time, with the 2 sides presenting conflicting versions of events. Here is what I am certain of already. 1. Lucaris was viewed as having heretical beliefs as viewed by the rest of the Orthodox Church at that time. 2. There was a tension between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. 3. There were other ottomans who didn't like Lucaris. The Execution was deceptive from the start, as Lucaris was taken away as if to be banished. But later out of sight of the majority of people they strangled him with a bowstring. --- #### Question: Are there any sources or evidence that indicate one of the 4 parties mentioned were directly involved? Reason: A common assertion is that the orthodox church was attempting to remove him at "any cost", though I can't find evidence to support that.

Revelation 13 speaks about the beast deceiving the world and causing people to receive the mark of the beast on their right hand or forehead. This raises the question of just how far-reaching Satan’s deception can be on a global scale. If the Bible warns that the entire world will be deceived into accepting the mark of the beast, does this imply that the devil can successfully promote widespread false beliefs and practices on a global level? How does Christian theology understand the devil’s power to deceive nations, especially considering the vast differences in cultures, languages, and political systems? How could Satan maneuver these differences to bring the whole world into unity under a single deception?

Genesis chapter 42 - 45 recount story of Joseph tricking his brothers who are in Egypt to buy grain, into going back and forth several times from Canaan to Egypt in an attempt exonerate themselves in the (feigned) accusation from Joseph of being a spy. Eventually Joesph reveals himself as their brother, and Jacob and his family move to Egypt as a result. Why did Joseph trick them in this way? I can think of only a few reasons: - He wanted to get all of his brothers and father back to Egypt before he revealed himself. - He distrusted his brothers, since they had tried to kill him, and sold him into slavery years prior to this event, he was trying to ascertain if his younger brother and father were in fact still alive. - He was punishing his brothers by making them suffer this way in an act of revenge. In any event the author of Genesis spends a lot of precipitous time and space recounting this deception, is there some cultural aspect to this that I am missing? Is there some context to the story that would reveal more about the characters involved or the nature of God or their relationship to him?

### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

About what ancient temples does Clement of Alexandria talk about in (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46) - (It sounds to be the pagan temples?) and additionally he mentions (facing the images) what are these images? - there seems to be similarity in the book - **De architectura Chapter V** As far as I know from what I have read it seems that God had only one temple - the Jerusalem Temple Deuteronomy 12:5-14; 1 Kings 9:3; 2 Chronicles 6:6; Psalm 132:13-14; 1 Kings 8:29-30; 2 Chronicles 6:20-21; and the Jewish prayed towards the Hollie of Holies in the temple, if I am not mistaken, this is towards the West when the person is in the Jerusalem Temple and pray towards the Hollie of Holies, this person may have faced West I think? The Jerusalem Temple had entrance from the East, so in the temple people may have prayed towards the West - towards the Hollie of Holies where I think was God's presence Leviticus 16:2; Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; - I think that this was the reason the Jewish prayed towards the Jerusalem Temple - because of the Hollie of Holies where should have been God's presence? - if they turned to pray towards the East (Ezekiel 8:15-16) in the Jerusalem Temple they may have prayed turned with their backs to the Hollie of Holies (*Spiritually Jeremiah 32:31-33 and Physically Ezekiel 8:15-16*?) - where God's presence should have been? If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. (Clement here is talking about temples not single temple, so I assume that he is talking about the pagan temples. Also he says - "the most ancient temples looked towards the west" this is the opposite of the Jerusalem Temple that looked towards East since the entrance was from the East I think - if this is the case then why would any true Christian look to the pagan temples in order to be taught to pray towards the East facing the images ?) - ("the most ancient temples looked towards the west") - ("that people might be taught to turn to the east") - ("when facing the images") **(Comparing this with the pagan - De architectura CHAPTER V)** > CHapter V How the Temple should Face > > 1. **THE quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face** is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella **should face the western quarter of the sky**. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices **to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple**, and thus those who are undertaking vows look **toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth,** and **likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice.** > > 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of > the gods. > > - [The Ten Books of Architecture](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) **Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;** > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. 2. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,**(Pagan temples?)** **(Maybe - (De > architectura CHAPTER V))** 3. that people might be taught to turn to the > east when facing the images. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; **The book:** [Clement of Alexandria *The Stromata*](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) (Should I understand that Clement of Alexandria here is teaching that the Christian is taught to pray towards East by the orientation of the pagan temples?)(So the pagan temples are pointed as reason?) **If this is the case what could we say about** **2 Cor. 6:15-18** > **15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?** or **what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?** > **16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in > them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my > people. > **17 Wherefore come out from among them,** and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 > And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, > saith the Lord Almighty. How should we understand this. - is this practice pagan or Christian? - is it appropriate for a Christian to practice it or is it not? Having in mind Matthew 15:9; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 7:19. The most wide and accepted interpretation today I think is the second coming from East as reason for praying towards the East. But this interpretation seems to be not that ancient, I have yet not found ancient church father that mentions the second coming from East as reason for the worship towards the East - since Basil and the rest before him does not mention that Christ will come from East and that this is the reason to pray towards the East. It seems that this interpretation gets widespread after John Damascus, but I am not sure. Maybe he was influenced by the Didascalia from probably around 4c.AD. But I still can not find any ancient church father that points to the Didascalia or mentions this interpretation, the first that mentions this is I think John Damascus after the Didascalia.

Revelation 13:18 (KJV) — *“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”* Some Christians point to persistent physical and time-related patterns in creation and human measurement systems that seem to feature “666,” such as: - **Earth’s axial tilt: 90 ∘ − 23.4 ∘ ≈ 66.6 ∘ 90 ∘ −23.4 ∘ ≈66.6 ∘** - **Earth’s orbital speed: ≈ 66,600 mph (depending on units and rounding)** - **Calendar division: 6 × 60 × 60 seconds in a day’s time measurement pattern** - **Barcodes: The guard bars in UPC codes resemble the digit “6” in the barcode system, producing a “666” pattern** Since Revelation calls believers to “count” the number, could such existing patterns be indicators that we are already living in the “beast system”? Or should these be understood as coincidences or unrelated to the prophecy?

1. Why did they enlarge the ends of the crosses in early time from the time of Constantine, since we see coins with such cross? Thanks in advance. [Amazing colorful mosaics at the basilica of Almyrida, of the early byzantine era (6th century bC), in Apokoronas, Crete, Greece.](https://www.alamy.com/amazing-colorful-mosaics-at-the-basilica-of-almyrida-of-the-early-byzantine-era-6th-century-bc-in-apokoronas-crete-greece-image568479165.html) [Croix Christianisme (Wikipedia)](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme)) [The Christogram in the mosaic may look like a cross, but it's actually more like a "chi rho" symbol, which puts together the first two captial letters in the Greek word for Christ.](https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-the-greek-biblical-inscription-embedded-in-an-ancient-mosaic-floor-discovered-in-israel-180985849/ https://wowcappadocia.com/aidesim-mosaic-basilica.html https://www.dailysabah.com/history/2017/03/03/1600-year-old-byzantine-mosaics-in-kilis-to-attract-tourists [A Church Beyond Compare - The Nea Church, or the Basilica of Saint Mary the New in Jerusalem (543-614)](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/11/a-church-beyond-compare-nea-church-or.html) https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html I mean this - the enlarged ends of the crosses. It looks like the ankh and the equal sided cross from the near east have enlarged ends, not exactly sure why, there is similarity. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483203978736/ https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html How can there be sol invictus with Christian cross? [Ancient Numismatic Coins](http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.7.tic.45?lang=hu)

This question was prompted by these verses surrounding Jesus' cleansing of the temple of the money-changers: **John 2:18-19** (NKJV): > So the Jews answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, > since You do these things?” > > Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three > days I will raise it up.” On what basis could Jews demand a sign from someone?

I've heard that the Bible's division into verses was made later than the division into chapters. So, whose translation firstly came up with this system of chapter divisions that we have today?

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?