Question regarding Judas Iscariot. Judas was a Jew by both religion and ethnicity, which would qualify him as one of the chosen. Can we therefore expect to see Judas in heaven? Thanks for your response and insight.

The [fine tuning argument](https://www.discovery.org/a/91/) essentially states that there is so much about the universe that is "fine tuned" for life - eg things like the gravitational constant would cause the universe to disintegrate if they were off by 1 part in a million million - that there must be a creator who did the tuning. The most common response from eg atheists is comparing the situation to water in a puddle remarking on how the hole in the ground is exactly the right shape to hold it. In other words, claiming that rather than the universe being fine tuned, it just fit the existing conditions out of necessity. Whenever this is mentioned in Christian forums, it is pooh-poohed and derided as though it is obviously wrong, but no-one ever seems to actually explain it. What is the "obvious" refutation of the puddle analogy that everyone seems to know?

From my reading of the following passages, it seems that Christianity does recognize at least two distinct types of knowledge of God: > [Romans 1:18-23 ESV] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be **known about God** is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although **they knew God**, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. > [John 17:3 ESV] 3 And this is eternal life, that **they know you**, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. The passage from Romans 1 describes a knowledge of God that does not lead to salvation. In contrast, John 17 presents Jesus declaring that eternal life *is* the knowledge of God (and Jesus), a knowledge that clearly brings salvation. What kind of knowledge is Jesus referring to? Am I correct in concluding that the knowledge of God Jesus speaks of is fundamentally different from the knowledge described in Romans 1? Does Christianity indeed recognize different kinds of "knowledge of God"? If so, what are the various ways in which God can be *known* according to Christian teaching? Is there a type of "knowledge of God" that transcends merely acquiring information from books or making intellectual inferences from creation (as in Romans 1)? Is there a "spiritual" kind of knowledge of God, and how is this understood within Christian spirituality?

Can anyone tell me who is the name's day saint of St. John de Brébeuf ? The name's day saint of someone is similar to a patron saint , but is not exactly the same. I have try to find a source that makes note of this but have come up empty handed so far. St. Jean de Brébeuf was born on March 25, 1593 and was martyred on March 16, 1649 by the Iroquois Indians. > A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday. > > The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe; Protestant churches practice less veneration of saints. In many countries, however, name-day celebrations no longer have connection to explicitly Christian traditions. > > The celebration of name days has been a tradition in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries since the Middle Ages, and has also continued in some measure in countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, whose Protestant established church retains certain Catholic traditions. The name days originate in the list of holidays celebrated in commemoration of saints and martyrs of the church. For example, the name Karl or Carl is celebrated in Sweden on January 28, the anniversary of the death of Charlemagne (Charles magnus, i.e., "the great"). The church promoted celebration of name days (or rather saints' feast days) over birthdays. - Name day (Wikipedia)

**John 16:13**: > (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. > > (NLT) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. I've often heard John 16:13 quoted as an argument for the various "infallibility" doctrines, be it Biblical infallibility, infallibility of the ecumenical councils, or general Church infallibility. In particular there is great emphasis placed upon the fact that the Holy Spirit will "guide you into all the truth." In fact I have heard it stated that if you believe that the Church can err, then you believe Christ was lying when he said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to "all the truth," not "some of the truth." Yet a plain reading of that verse does not seem to require infallibility. "Guide" seems to imply a process, and one not necessarily free from error. If someone is being guided to a final destination they may still get lost along the way, perhaps even be allowed to do so. The verse just seems to be assuring us that in the end the Holy Spirit will bring us to "all the truth." So am I missing something? Is there something that has been lost in translation? Is there extra-Biblical commentary somewhere amongst the Church Fathers that more thoroughly explains the verse? I am particularly in the Catholic position, but I would also be interested in the Orthodox and Protestant interpretations as well.

In Revelation 17:5, the apostle John describes a mysterious figure: >"Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth." (Revelation 17:5) Many modern interpreters and some Christian teachers associate America with this symbolic "Babylon," citing its global cultural influence, economic dominance, and especially its perceived moral decline (e.g., promotion of sexual immorality, media-driven hedonism, and exporting of ungodly values worldwide). My question is: Do any Christian traditions or interpretations seriously support the view that America is Babylon the Great specifically because of its moral decay? Or is this interpretation more rooted in speculative prophecy teachings rather than established theological frameworks? I’m interested in thoughtful perspectives from within Christian theology, especially those that either support or critique this view using Scripture.

I've asked many people this question, but they all have different opinions. Some say that the beast is a disease or war or something along that line. Others tell me that the beast is an actual beast. I am looking for answers among the broad spectrum of all denominations Christianity. I know there is no way of knowing, but I would just like to know the different beliefs about the *kinds of things* the beast might be. This question refers to ALL of the beasts. I would also like to know what types of denominations think that the end of times have already come.

What is the Statue of Homeless Jesus (sleeping on a bench)? Has the Catholic Church officially appreciated it?

We read in Mark 15: 42-44: > "When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. " That implies that Jesus'death on the cross happened earlier than had been expected. Some medical professionals theorize that Jesus died of a heart failure, to which extreme mental stress had significantly contributed. They believe that the Lord's psychological trauma did not end with the Sweating of Blood at Gethsemane, rather followed Him to the Cross. Now, one should not expect that the Creed will be re-written to state that Jesus died on the Cross, of heart-failure. But, understanding the theory helps one to look at the mental agony of Jesus with the same gravity as his physical suffering. My question therefore, is: Has the Catholic Church taken cognizance of the theory that the terminal cause of Jesus's death on the cross was heart-failure ?

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

In trying to understand various trinitarians theologians like Karl Rahner/Karl Barth, the concept of "subsisting" often comes up. I'm really not sure what to make of it, initially I imagined it means (because of the "sub" prefix) what is the substance something is made of, or more likely a quality of an entity that exists within. But I'm really trying to wrap my head around what's the difference between saying: 1. There's one God who subsists in three persons 2. There are three persons who subsist in one God. Does the first affirm that there really is only one God, as in one person, who inside lives as three? And then the second to mean that there really are three distinct persons, but who inside live as one? Because my trinitarian theology is more western, I'd appreciate (and I've tagged this question) for Catholics and Protestants – as, again, that's what I'd wish for – but Eastern-Orthodox are also welcomed to respond as long as they keep my background in mind.

Please note, I am not asking what was inside the Ark of the Covenant (question asked in June 2013) but what happened to Aaron's budding staff and the jar of manna by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon. Exodus 16:33-34 says the jar of manna was placed in the Ark in front of the stone tablets. Numbers 17:10 says Aaron's budding staff was placed in front of/before the Ark of the Covenant. 1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 both say that by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon there was nothing inside the Ark except for the two stone tablets of the testimony/covenant. However, Hebrews 9:1-4 says the Ark contained the two stone tablets (the terms of the covenant), Aaron's rod (or staff) and the gold jar containing manna. What happened to Aaron's budding staff and the gold jar of manna? Were they lost or were they stolen? And why does the writer of Hebrews mention them?

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and fundamentalist flat earthers continue to look to Genesis 1 for an explanation of cosmogony. Did the Catholic Church ever admit that science triumphed over pre-scientific religious origin stories?

In [Chapter 2 of Holy Apostle St Paul's 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians, vv. 1-12], the RSVCE Title of which is **The Man of Lawlessness**, i.e., the **Antichrist**, St Paul in v.5 asks his audience to recall: > *5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?* It appears that the early Christians right from the **Apostolic Age** were taught about and were familiar with this **Antichrist** character. The Church teaches that the heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church from the Apostles, is contained in the the ***depositum fidei***, i.e., in Sacred Scripture and [Holy] Tradition. > **The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church** > > **[CCC 84]** The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the ***depositum fidei***), contained in Sacred Scripture and > Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] > the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful > to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking > of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and > professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a > remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." Chapter 13 in the Apostle St. John's Apocalypse introduces the Apocalyptic Beasts and their relationship . In the preceding Chapter 12 , the dragon had already been introduced, described, and the readers told what he does: > *the **great dragon** [...], that **ancient serpent**, who is called **the Devil and Satan**, **the deceiver of the whole world*** That leaves us with the two Beasts, the 7-headed First Beast from the Sea, and the Second Beast with with two horns from the earth. Which of these two Beasts, from the Catholic Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is identifiable with the **Antichrist**?

In 1 John 4:1–3, we are instructed to "test the spirits" and are told that "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." This passage seems to suggest that verbal confession of Jesus' incarnation is a reliable test for determining whether a spirit is from God. However, in the Gospel accounts — for example, Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28 — we see the demonic legion that possessed the man in the region of the Gerasenes recognizing Jesus and crying out: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” This shows that demons are capable of identifying and even verbally acknowledging who Jesus is. Given that, how should 1 John 4:1–3 be interpreted? - Can demonic spirits confess Jesus Christ in a way that appears genuine? - Is verbal confession alone a sufficient test of the spirit's origin? - How do we reconcile 1 John’s teaching with the demonic acknowledgment of Jesus in the Gospels? I’m hoping to understand whether this test is meant to be literal, theological, or deeper than just spoken words.

It should be common sense knowledge that many Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin. The following already asked questions should be more than enough to prove the point: - [Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual) - [What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35233/what-is-the-biblical-argument-that-homosexual-attraction-is-sinful-by-itself) - [What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7598/what-is-a-christians-justification-for-a-legal-prohibition-of-homosexual-marria) That said, I'm not sure if I've ever heard Christians who claim that homosexuality is a sin also claim that homosexuals can be freed from their (claimed) sinful condition. Logic tells me that they should expect this to be the case, in light of passages such as: Romans 8:12-17 (ESV): > 12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, **but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live**. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Galatians 5:16-24 (ESV): > 16 But I say, **walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh**. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 **Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality**, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 **But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness**, 23 **gentleness, self-control**; against such things there is no law. 24 **And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires**. If homosexuality is a sinful desire of the flesh, as many Christians believe, does this mean that homosexuality, as any other sin, can be reversed by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, as the passages above seem to indicate? Is this the standard view among Christians who condemn homosexuality as a sin? An alternative way of phrasing the question: Can God heal homosexuality (according to those who view homosexuality as a sin)?

Acts 1:9–11 records Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Hebrews 1:3 and other passages state that He "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Yet other verses, such as Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25, describe Him as interceding for believers. Revelation 3:21 also speaks of Him sharing His Father’s throne. According to Christian theology, since His ascension, has Jesus been permanently seated on His throne, or is this meant to describe His authority while He remains actively engaged in roles such as interceding, reigning, and preparing for His return? I’m seeking an explanation based on Scripture and Christian doctrine about what Jesus has been doing since He ascended to the Father.

I was looking at this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16918/is-there-any-protestant-method-how-to-deal-spiritual-dryness . In it, the OP describes "spiritual dryness" as when a person doesn't feel the 'presence of God'. Let's pause and think about this. Feeling something entails perception—sensing something. In other words, it involves the senses: mechanisms that take in signals and convert them into conscious experience. But if we are talking about "feeling the presence of God," and if God is supposed to be a spiritual being, then unless God chooses to perform a miracle by intervening in the physical world and making his presence physically evident—by impacting our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, or taste—the only other alternatives I can think of are: 1. God making his presence known through emotions (which makes me wonder: do we perceive emotions through our five senses—although [some estimate up to 33 senses!](https://www.senseationalspaces.com/blogs-1/re7az3aj7icnauvk324h5l5o0du6vz)—or are emotions perceived through a different sense in the brain?). 2. God making his presence known through our thoughts (perhaps by implanting spontaneous thoughts in our minds?). 3. We actually have a spiritual sense or senses, but these are dormant in most people. For example, an atheist, naturalist, or physicalist who denies the existence of the spiritual might be "spiritually blind" because their spiritual senses are inactive. However, if their spiritual senses were activated, they would be able to have spiritual experiences, just as most people are able to have auditory, visual, tactile, mental, or emotional experiences through the conventional senses. A whole new category of experience would be unlocked through the activation of spiritual senses. The third option reminds me a bit of the concept of the [third eye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye) , though that's an Eastern religious concept rather than a strictly Christian idea. Still, I wonder if Christianity teaches—perhaps with different terminology and nuances—about the existence of some kind of spiritual sense or senses, whether these can be activated (and if so, how), and whether, through them, we can perceive the presence of God (as a spiritual being), or even the presence of angels, demons, or the spiritual world in general. Given these considerations, I’m interested in how different Christian denominations and traditions address the idea of "spiritual senses." Do various branches of Christianity teach that humans have spiritual senses through which they can perceive God or spiritual realities? If so, how are these senses understood, and how do they relate to experiences like "spiritual dryness," the "dark night of the soul," or "feeling the presence of God"? I would appreciate an overview of how major Christian traditions—such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—approach this concept.

***Zionism*** (political nationalism) certainly was not begun by Dispensationalists; and the occurrence of the Halocaust did give impetus to it. But Dispensationalist have strongly embraced it. And Zionist Dispensationalists often quote the Genesis 12 verse, ***God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel*** to justify their support, spiritually, financially, and militarily, for the nation of modern Israel. >I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Genesis 12:3) This is even though the majority of the Jews in Israel are either ***secular, or anti-Christian***. And are seen to persecute Christians living there. (Statements by King of Jordon, and news reports on TBN network who reluctantly received his report until they saw videos themselves of Jews disrupting Christian rites). And ***Christian Palestinians*** are not even on their radar screen! So how do ***protestant orthodox Christian scholars*** deal with this seminal verse about blessing Israel in contrast to the Dispensational interpretation? Which other scriptures do non-Disp. Christians appeal to, that causes them to treat ***all nation equally***, with love and mercy, without referring to any particular nation or political entity?

In the Bible, certain individuals are described as having exceptional skill in craftsmanship. For example, **Noah** was able to construct the ark with precise dimensions and structural complexity (Genesis 6:14–16). Later in the Old Testament, **Bezalel** and **Oholiab** are said to have been "filled with the Spirit of God" and given wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and skill in all kinds of craftsmanship to construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 31:1–6). This raises an important theological and interpretive question: **Were these abilities supernaturally imparted by God at the moment of calling, or were they natural talents that God chose to use and bless for His purposes?** Additionally, how should we understand the language of "filled with the Spirit of God" in this context—does it imply sudden divine empowerment, or a sanctified use of already existing skills? I'm interested in how various Christian traditions and biblical interpretations understand this dynamic between divine inspiration and human ability.