The Orthodox Study Bible's OT translation (produced by the St. Athanasius Academy) is based on the Septuagint, instead of being primarily based on the Masoretic text like most English translations of the Bible. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Septuagint lists Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (roughly 6'9''), contrasting with "six cubits and a span" (roughly 9'9'') in the Masoretic text. The OSB follows the Septuagint in its translation, but the footnote says: > Goliath is over nine feet tall. This is accurate regarding the Masoretic text, but not the Septuagint. Is it a mistake? Or are they following St. Augustine's interpretation of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text? I.e. that the Hebrew text is historically accurate, but that the Greek is also divinely inspired and contains symbolical significance (*City of God* Book 18, chapter 43-44 ). There could also be another explanation I've not thought of.

According to Catholic teachings, how are Catholics to speak with their guardian angels? With their voice? In their minds? Does the Church provide any guidance or description?

The statement, "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it? Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document. **If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.** *Please note:* - This question is specifically about the statement that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid the *price* for our sins" or *"Jesus* paid the penalty for our sins," are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ *paying the penalty,* or *paying the price,* for our sins. - "Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin. - I am *not* looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking for the earliest *explicit statements* of the idea itself. - For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution . Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article, which seems rather murky and disorganized. ***Edit** in response to comments:* My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question. However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example: - *"Christ died for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ suffered for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ was punished for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have *still* not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail *with* the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have *paid the penalty* for the drunk driver's sins. S/he would *still* remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they *do* mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.) That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from *somewhere.* I want to know where it came from. I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine. If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer: **Where did the precise phrase "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" come from?**

I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm. From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

As far as I can tell, Christians are morally obligated to stay faithful to their beliefs at any cost, even under pain of martyrdom. However, what if it's someone else's life at stake? For example, if someone holds an innocent bystander at gunpoint and threatens to kill them unless you worship a false god, what do the Church or Scripture have to say about this?

Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

I have always found it deeply confusing that Pope St. John Paul II said: "The Rosary is my favourite prayer. A marvellous prayer! " (Angelus Sunday, 29 October 1978) but still recited the *Aves* in the rosary very quickly; at least in the recordings I have found. To me it just sounded like he rushed through the prayers and did not focus on meditation at all. What I nowadays know is that many people recite Aves quickly and can meditate. They might focus more on contemplation or meditation found in Dominican traditions. Dominican friars seem to focus on reciting it in more quick repetitious ways like we can see in this YouTube video: [The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7YDElMg8Rg&t=436s) I have listened to some Montfortians reciting the *Aves* and they do not focus on a quick repetitious recitation. The Dominican friars say the rosary in such a way that it become a kind of painful penance. This attitude is really confusing to me. I don't like to view prayer as painful penance but people are different. That is how I understand what the Dominican friars are doing in the video. Sadly it is very hard to find good information on this topic. It is a topic that might be avoided. Most people who recite the rosary seem to be influenced by Dominican traditions and their contemplation. What is Dominican contemplation (found in the rosary) and why do most people focus on Dominican contemplation and not Montfortian contemplation when praying the rosary?

Were there a fair number of representation of Remonstrants (Reformed Arminians) as there were of Contra-Remonstrants (Reformed Calvinists) or was the representation uneven and unfair against the Remonstrants? Thanks!

While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν ) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1 Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν ) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν ) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3 According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the *depositum fidei*? **Footnotes** 1 Luke 24:27 2 Luke 24:32 3 Luke 24:45

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". > 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people > gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of > the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They > made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this > woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded > us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 **They were using this > question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.**
> [John 8:2-6 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&version=NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

Building on the previous question regarding scriptural support (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108086/117426) , I'm now seeking historical evidence pertaining to the practice and instruction of contemplative prayer by the apostles or the early Church (i.e., the first two centuries). For a definition of contemplative prayer, please refer to the aforementioned linked question.

John 17:15 >I pray NOT that thou shouldest take them out of this world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. >Vs 20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; This prayer followed Jesus' declaration in the previous chapter of this. John 16:33 >These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. How do pretrib rapture proponents interpret and reconcil these verses being compatible with their eschatology?

There some Christians who consider, for various reasons, the KJV to be the only legitimate translation of the Bible.**I am wondering if there are any movements like that surrounding another translation, whether to English or some other language.** To be specific, I'm not asking about the *textus receptus* but rather the translation specifically, as some "KJV-only" people defend it for no other reason than that it is a translation of the *textus receptus* and would accept other translations of TR (at least theoretically). I am also not asking whether any of these people or movements are correct.

I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head. The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39... Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6). Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people. Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7). So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age. However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?). Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them? And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) **OR** they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..? **So, my question:** Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is: According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

I get mixed messages. Protestantism declares that justification is by faith alone. Catholicism declares that justification requires faith supplemented with various stipulations. **Yet both Protestants and Catholics seem to declare that what they really need are the shedding of divine blood.** Faith, works and divine blood... what part does each play in effectual justification for Catholics vs Protestantism?

Studying the Bible as Jewish believer and have a hard time seeing Jesus as God. He was my messiah but I always prayed to God the father, so how do I see them as one person! The Shema reads > Shema Israel, ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI Echad! This is translated as > "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. - Deuteronomy 6:4 How can God be one if Jesus is also God?

Revelation 1:4&5 >John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before the throne; vs5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.... Obviously there are three personas addressed in this introduction that provide grace and peace to the churches. How do Jehovah Witness explain the seven Spirits (Holy Spirit) as being a non-person if John addressed Him on an equal basis of respect in this introduction?

This question is NOT: * what does John Bunyan believe about predestination * is predestination biblically accurate? This question is: * Does "Pilgrim's Progress" take a position on predestination? * And if so, which chapter / section? Thanks!

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul give forbids women from speaking in church. 1 Corinthians 14 NIV > 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to > speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to > inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; > for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. ... later > 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do > not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a > fitting and orderly way. I am assuming the word in Greek Paul is using here for church is Ecclesia, and that he wasn't, in fact, referring to a physical meeting place, or house, but rather a Christian gathering in general (but perhaps I am mistaken in this). I wonder how it is that he explicitly forbids them to speak "They are not allowed to speak", but then a mere four verses later he is instructing 'brothers and sisters' to be eager to prophesy, and *speak* in tongues. If not at Christian gatherings, then where else were they prophesying and speaking in tongues? I understand that context is probably the key here, and that things in the Corinthian church had probably gotten very much out of hand, however, It just seems strange to me that if he meant women to speak in tongues and prophesy, he would have said "They are not allowed to speak *out of turn*", or something to that effect.