GotQuestions.org has an article entitled [*Why did Jesus say that the demon could only come out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29)?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/only-come-out-by-prayer-and-fasting.html) , which I’d like to quote to motivate this question: > Later, the disciples privately asked Jesus why they could not cast out the unclean spirit (Mark > 9:28), and Jesus replied that this particular kind could only come out > “by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29, KJV). It is only the King James > Version (and NKJV) that records Jesus saying the demon could only come > out by prayer and fasting. Other translations (ASV, NASB, ESV, NIV, et > al.) leave out *and fasting* and only mention prayer. The difference is > due to a textual variant. The two oldest and most reliable Greek > manuscripts omit *and fasting*. > > While there are many variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New > Testament, it is remarkable that none of the variants create any > significant doctrinal challenge—they are usually minor and don’t > impact the message of a passage at all. Mark 9:29 is one of the more > significant variants, as the differing translations make it unclear > whether the demon in Mark 9 could only come out by prayer and fasting, > or whether prayer alone would work. It is worth noting that in the New > Testament fasting was simply prayer so focused and intense that a > person did not give attention to things like eating or drinking—so > either way, Jesus is emphasizing that the demon in Mark 9 could only > come out by intensive prayer. > > As Jesus explains to the crowd, the key was the faith of those > involved (e.g., Mark 9:19, 23). So it is evident that prayer rooted in > faith in Jesus Christ is effective (see James’ assertion that the > prayer of a righteous [believing] person is effective, James 5:16b). > Jesus was challenging the crowd, the boy’s father, and the disciples > on the importance of believing in Him as the One who could accomplish > what would otherwise be impossible. Whether one accepts the *prayer and fasting* variant or the *prayer only* variant, it is clear that, in either case, a special kind or a higher degree of prayer is required before attempting difficult exorcisms. Unfortunately, Jesus’s recorded words are quite vague on this point, as He does not provide a more precise protocol, leaving several questions unanswered, such as: - How can one determine if an exorcism will be particularly difficult? - What factors contribute to the difficulty of an exorcism? - How much time should be devoted to prayer in preparation for a difficult exorcism? - Is fasting ever necessary, at least in extreme cases, and if so, for how long? Or is prayer alone always sufficient? Are there any Christian denominations or traditions that teach a more detailed protocol for preparing for difficult exorcisms?

I know many American evangelical churches implicitly practice New thought movement concepts as evident from the prosperity gospel msg from Joel Osteen to Joseph Prince, and I know their positive message of self-image and gratitude is the source of healing and moral transformation (despite the ironic totally depravity self-image). However, I am looking for some Christian author or church which explicitly teach the meditation and visualization techniques as taught by Joe Dispenza which involves changing the habit of past thought pattern, hoping/visualizing a better self in present-tense with gratitude. The prosperity doctrine's prayers to God functions as the meditation and these concepts for receiving blessings, healing and elevated self-image is taught in the Bible. I am curious if there are books and churches that directly promote the approach of meditation as the way to manifest God's prosperity, and how exactly do they practice it, coz I know the popular prosperity preachers use "Name it and claim it" approach and the regular pray or faith. I am looking for examples of sources in favour of this approach, not against it. PS: As a Christian, I do not adhere to any particular sect or denomination.

According to Catholic exegetes, were Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany the same person?

This argument from redeemed zoomer 's twitter account. What is the catholic response to it? > How can you infallibly know whether the true church is the Catholic > Church or the Orthodox Church? > > If you can use fallible historical reason to determine that, then I > can use fallible historical reason to determine the canon of Scripture

In other words, when does association with public sinners become itself a sin or make you a participant in others' sins? Association is not one of the 9 ways of participating in others' sins : 1. By counsel 1. By command 1. By consent 1. By provocation 1. By praise or flattery 1. By concealment 1. By partaking 1. By silence 1. By defense of the ill done

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

This question is directed to followers of the Catholic Faith, why do they believe that the dead can still be saved if we intercede for them when scripture explicity states that it is appointed for men to live once after which death and judgment follow. *Hebrews 9:27* >And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment I interpret the verse above to mean that after we die then there is nothing we can do to either glorify or provoke God and that is why we await judgment for works done while in the body. The story of the rich man and Lazarus also shows that the dead can't be saved because the rich man would have applauded to Abraham to intercede for him to enter into life but that didn't happen, the brothers of the rich man were the ones who were still in the world and their hearts were hardened against the prophets and the oracles, which mean that you can still be saved while still in the world and not when you have departed from it. Why do Catholics believe so?

In Philippians 2:6–7 (ESV), Paul writes of Christ: >*“Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”* Some interpret this "emptying" (Greek: kenóō) to mean that Christ temporarily gave up or set aside His divine attributes, and became fully human in appearance and function. Others argue that He remained fully divine while also taking on full humanity — the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Does this passage support the idea that Jesus ceased to operate in divine nature during His earthly life, or is it describing something else (e.g., a voluntary humility or servant posture)? How do major theological traditions (e.g., Chalcedonian Christianity, kenotic theology) interpret this “emptying”?

Some say that Matt 24:40-41 is referring to a Rapture with the righteous Church removed first. But Jesus said very plainly that in the end time after the tribulations the angels will come and gather the Tares from the wheat first. So if you are taken first you are a Tare and will be cast into Hell to be burned. Tares are church goers who are not saved but of the evil one. Only then are the righteous people dealt with. I can't see how people could still interpret Matthew 24:40-41 with the Rapture idea? What am I missing? How do they interpret these passages in a consistent manner? >Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Matthew 24:40-41) >As therefore the tares are gather and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the End of this World...Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:40-43)

UPDATE and Final question: **Genesis 17:13**: > He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. **Isaiah 56:6-7**: > Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; > > Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. NEW................................................. The question - After trying to understand all this I figured out the question what it should be - Are strangers / sojourners that are serving the Lord in the Old Testament saved by not being circumcisioned and only obeying the rules dedicated for the sojourners and not the children of Israel. If someone knows the answer let me know. Thanks in advance. OLD ------------------------------------------------------------ The question: Does the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament - save the pagan sojourners and if yes or no - does this make them part of the Old covenant? Is was thinking if the Isaiah 56:6-7 is relevant for the pagan sojourners? - I don't think that it necessarily mean that the pagan sojourners have chosed to serve God and without circumcision they can be saved. More then one "?" but related to one question. **Background:** How are the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament? They are not necessarily servants of God right? They could be pagan sojourners? - uncircumcised without being part of the Old Covenant? If they are pagan sojourners that are not serving God as contrary to Isaiah 56:6-7 (where strangers have chosed to serve God and I believe they are circumcised? Genesis 17:13), but the sojourners that are just passing the land of the Jews, according to the Old Covenant would they be saved by the rules for the sojourners back in the Old Covenant without them being circumcised? In the Old Covenant could there be servants of God without being circumcised and be saved? Could a person back in the days of the Old Covenant be part of the Old Covenant without being circumcised? I am asking this questions since there is a person that is applying to himself the rules for the sojourners from the Old Covenant probably without him being circumcised, but observing the sabbath - probably saying that this saves a person when part of the New Covenant. These rules for the sojourners were they not rules for pagan sojourners too that did not serve God, and how could they be saved in the Old Testament days, if they did not serve God, and how possibly these rules could help a person to be saved in the New Testament since these rules did not save the sojourners in the Old Testament? I am not sure if you understand what I mean. I am not familiar so much with the Old Testament this is why I ask here this question. I am not sure if I am wrong somewhere please let me know if I have wrongly understood the rules for the sojourners or anything else. With my current understanding and knowledge this above sounds strange to me. I think that if a person even not a Jew wanted to be saved in the days of the Old Testament must have been under the Old Covenant circumcised observing all the customs, not only the rules for the sojourners? Thanks in advance.

I was finishing up a read through of the Hebrew Bible when I came across this gem: Zechariah 14:6-9 (NASB) > On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at the time of evening there will be light. 8 And on that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. > > 9 And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. This passage posses a logical contradiction for those that would assert that Jesus is LORD (YHWH). First, in v7 it says that this unique day is known to the LORD, to YHWH. Yet Christ himself makes it clear that he himself does not know when this day is, nor anyone else, but only the Father knows it. Matthew 24:36 (NASB) > “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Furthermore, in v9 it says that God alone will be King over all the earth; there won't be any other kings. Paul tells us that in the end, Christ himself will subjected to the Father - ie, there is an end to Christ's reign as king. 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (NASB) > The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. This is consistent with what the prophets said concerning the throne of David. Psalm 89:29 (NASB) > So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. Isaiah 65:17 (NASB) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. So then, since Christ neither knows the day which is known to the LORD, to YHWH, and since his reign will end when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, then logically Christ cannot be YHWH. Rather, the only one who can be identified as YHWH given these restrictions is the Father. -------- **QUESTION**: How do Trinitarians address these two major conflicts? How can Christ be said to be YHWH when he does not know the day nor the hour when YHWH does know it? And if Christ's reign on the throne of David ends with the new creation, reversing the sin of Israel when they demanded a human king, then how can Christ be YHWH who is King over all - and at the end, the only king ?

The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition?

**1 Chronicles 25:1-5 makes a point of identifying Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun as prophets/seers.** This suggests that some of the psalms in Psalms are prophetic, anticipating future events. Several of these psalms are recognized as messianic, but largely because the NT treats them as such. But what about non-messianic psalms? **Has anyone developed a candidate list of (non-messianic) psalms which should be approached as prophetic, anticipating--at the time they were published--events which were yet future?** **Perhaps Psalm 137 is one of these?** It is commonly claimed that this psalm is exilic or even post-exilic, due to the initial reference to Babylon, remembrance of Zion, remembrance of the treatment of their captors, etc.1 Yet 137:5 is concerned that one might forget Jerusalem, which seems to exclude a post-exilic situation, unless the concern is that they might forget Jerusalem's former glory; but that goes beyond what is said. Further, 137:8 indicates that Babylon had not yet been destroyed. In some ways this psalm offers parallels to Isaiah 40-66 (esp. Isa 47) which, on the premise that there was a singular writer of Isaiah, prophetically speaks from a perspective of those already in exile. 1 Examples are Kidner and Belcher: "This psalm needs no title to announce that its provenance was the Babylonian exile." Derek Kidner, *Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary*, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 495. "Psalm 137 arises out of the experience of the community in exile in Babylon following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BC. Although the author may be looking back on that experience the memory is fresh and the historical situation is still unsettled." Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 76.

From the Catechism of Pope St. John Paul the Great: > §2521 Purity requires *modesty*, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. But according to playwright Alan Bennett, "All modesty is false modesty; otherwise, it wouldn't be called modesty". This paradoxicality can be seen in the self-refuting nature of the sentence "I am humble". How would a Catholic moral theologian justify modesty in light of its paradoxicality?

I want to be a scientist, but I don’t know if the Bible says anything against women being scientists. It has said stuff like women should "be quiet" and "submit" (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:11). I know that there are many interpretations of that. I want to know if a woman can, in good conscience, pursue a career in science.

I want to start a novena to St Michael. Found one at [Novena in honor of St. Michael the Archangel and in honour of the nine angelic choirs](http://maryourhelp.org/St-michael-the-arch-angel-novena.html) . How can I say it as there is no specific guide on the page?

## Overview Question ## **When a truth in the various fields of human knowledge contradicts or appear to contradict Divine Revelation, what is an overview of what various Christian religious traditions say is incumbent upon a Christian when their religious tradition hasn't said a thing one way or the other about the contradictory truth?** Science says > *"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us."* - WMAP Site FAQs Q9. Here are some fields of human knowledge (of course not exhaustive): *Mathematics, Astronomy & Cosmology, Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, The Arts, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems*. If a truth in these appears to contradict or directly contradicts Divine Revelation [= Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition for the Church], what is an overview of what various Christian religious tradition teach a Christian ought to do, when their religious tradition hasn't said anything as yet on the truth in question? The best answer will also have Scriptural support and include a Catholic Perspective. Some examples: - *Current Cosmological model.* Outer Space, shape of the earth, that the earth moves and rotates, etc. - Darwin's *"Descent with modification"*. The above appear to contradict Genesis. - This one was big with me: that *that SARS-CoV-2 - a **"novel virus"** that is supposed to cause CoViD-19 disease - could have been created in a lab* when both Scripture and my Catholic Church says only God is Creator Please note that the answer can use an example for illustrative purposes, but not labor in trying to prove or debunk a truth in human knowledge field. Finally, it appears we are in the End-Times, and if the devil is the deceiver of the whole world, and in the End-Time he will be most active, one would expect to find his lies pervasive in ALL human fields of knowledge.

Whenever we buy something there are many effects, some of which are not good. Some examples include supporting places of work that are rife with immodesty and are an unnecessary near occasion of sin to the people working there, companies supporting sinful behavior, companies doing unethical things, and the government using the tax to fund unjust wars. In these situations we must make use of the principle of double effect. One of the requirements for the action being permissible is that there be a *proportionately grave reason* to do it. I think it's fair to say that nothing other than sustenance and religious activities rises to this level. But since it doesn't, does that mean purchasing anything unnecessary is the mortal sin of scandal (*some word or deed that is itself evil* (funding evil stuff) *or has the appearance of evil* (not caring about funding evil stuff) *and provides an occasion of sin to another* (giving people money for doing evil things))?

What is the official position of the various Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine and the conflict between them?

Revelation 9:6 says: >*"In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them." (NKJV)* This seems to describe a period of intense suffering or judgment in which people desire to die, yet are unable to. My question is: does this imply that murder (the unlawful killing of another person) will also be impossible during this time?