William of Tocco, O.P., mentions in ch. 5 of his biography of St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 33-4) that: >once he [St. Thomas] had reached the age of five, they sent him to the [Benedictine] monastery of Monte Cassino in the arms of his nurse. […] Very soon, this child began to receive his education in the monastery under the diligent instruction of a master to whom he showed clear signs of his future advancement. Dom Delatte's commentary on *St. Benedict's Rule* ch. 59 (p. 406 ) says: > children [were] received into the monastery temporarily as *alumni*, to be educated there in contrast to "children [who were] given permanently and devoted to the religious life", which was later forbidden by the Council of Trent session 25, ch. 15: "Profession Shall Not Be Made Except After One Year’s Probation and on the Completion of the Sixteenth Year". Why did the Benedictines stop admitting such young boys to their monasteries for educating them?

In the past there have been reports that Christians are persecuted in Afghanistan. Is this still true?

In studying the 1830 publication alongside the 1966 publication, I've discovered a lot of changes in words and phrases. If a Book is purported to be inspired by God (such as the Bible) is it not logical to expect it to not need "improvements?" Does not the existence of these changes demonstrate that indeed neither the original 1830 version nor the 1966 version are inspired or God breathed? And if one does believe that God can change his revelation to man, how then can we know and trust that it won't change again and again like shifting sand? Isn't God by nature immutable? And therefore shouldn't his word to us also be unchanging?

In Luke 20:36, Jesus says: *“Those who are worthy of the resurrection from the dead into glory become immortal, like the angels, who never die nor marry.” (TPT)* And in Matthew 22:30 He adds: *“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (ESV)* Some translations use the wording “become like angels.” Does this mean that believers will be transformed into the same form as angels — perhaps even having wings — or is Jesus only referring to other aspects of angelic existence (such as immortality and not marrying) rather than physical form?

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a new heresy, opposing established orthodoxy, and by gaining many followers. The term "Arianism," by itself, implies that it is something developed by Arius: > Britannica defines Arianism as: “A heresy **first proposed by Arius** of > Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created > being.” > > Arianism is “a heresy of the Christian Church, **started by Arius** ... > who taught that the Son is not equivalent to the Father (όμοούστος = > consubstantialis), thereby provoking a serious schism in the Christian > Church” (Jewish Encyclopedia ). (Note that this quote explains "equivalent" as "same substance" (homoousios).) > > “Athanasius' account begins by presenting Arius as **the originator of a > new heresy**” (Ayres, p. 107). In other words, Arianism is something that Arius developed. He developed a new theology or heresy, which caused the Controversy because many people accepted it. However, Archbishop Rowan Williams, in a recent book on Arius, described him as a conservative, meaning that he defended the tradition, which would mean that he did not develop a new theology: > “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a > conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, 175). > > “A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality > has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his > supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured > tradition” (Williams, 21). > > “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology” > (Williams, 233). Other authors added: > “Arius … represents a school … and the school was to some extent > independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with > respect and awe as its founder” (Hanson, 97). > > “Arius too, far from being an original thinker, was simply one more > adherent of the dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition” (Lienhard ). > > “My second theological trajectory is the one in which we locate Arius > himself. This loose alliance I will term ‘Eusebian’. When I use this > term I mean to designate any who would have found common ground with > either of Arius' most prominent supporters, Eusebius of Nicomedia or > Eusebius of Caesarea” (Ayres, p. 52). One comment is that those two things can be true at the same time. How would that be possible? Arius either developed a new theology or he did not. If he were a conservative Alexandrian, he was defending the traditional Alexandrian theology. Ken Graham says: "Would be better to quote Christian definitions rather than those of non-christian sources." Ken, if you knew anything about this subject, you would have known that the guys I quote are the world experts in the field, and they are all Catholics in good and regular standing. The problem is that people do not want to accept the revised account of the Arian Controversy: > “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been > like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting > shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer > and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around > the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96). Dottard commented: > Arius initiated the new teaching that was rejected by the council of > Nicaea. The "controversy" arose because many recognized his teaching as > different from that of the NT which Nicaea was called to resolve. (It > did so because it essentially tried to meld Greek philosophy with > Biblical teaching which has always been a disaster. Dottard, you start by saying that Arius developed a new teaching. That is exactly what the experts are saying is not true.

I am currently reading up on of apocryphal and pseudopigagraphical literature, and I see on a list that the Testament of Hezekiah is enumerated as one of them. However, I cannot locate a source or any short blurb on its date, origin, and content? Do any of you know? Thanks!

According to Catholic theology could God command someone to kill himself? If the answer is yes, is this considered a suspension of the natural law?

There are two mentions of Jonah prophesying in the Bible, once in 2 Kings and once in Jonah. Were those two separate prophecies for two separate kings? I am curious if both passages refer too the same prophecy or if there were two separate prophecies which did not come to pass. I have always been told that Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh because he despised Nineveh and wanted to see it destroyed. I am wondering if it could be accurate to theorize that part of the reason Jonah fled is because his pride was hurt as a result of unfulfilled prophesy and he did not want to be proven wrong again? Jonah 4:2

When the verse is read in the Vulgate it sounds like it refers to the faith/faithfulness of the one who hears, however in the Greek of my Septuagint, the LORD says "my faith/faithfulness," referring to the LORD's own faith/faithfulness. >[Hab 2:4 VUL] ecce qui incredulus est non erit recta anima eius in semet ipso iustus autem in fide **sua** vivet >[Hab 2:4 LXX] ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς **μου** ζήσεται Also note: >[Hab 2:4 Dead Sea Scroll] 4 Behold, his soul is puffed up. It is not upright in him, but the righteous will live by **his** faith. >[Hab 2:4 NASB95] "Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by **his** faith. >[Rom 1:17 VUL] iustitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem sicut scriptum est iustus autem ex fide vivit >[Rom 1:17 NKJV] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." >[Gal 3:11 VUL] quoniam autem in lege nemo iustificatur apud Deum manifestum est quia iustus ex fide vivit >[Gal 3:11 NKJV] But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God [is] evident, for "the just shall live by faith." >[Heb 10:38 VUL] iustus autem meus ex fide vivit quod si subtraxerit se non placebit animae meae >[Heb 10:38 NKJV] Now the just shall live by faith; But if [anyone] draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." The Jewish rendering looks like this: >Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him; but the righteous shall live by **his** faith. {S} So whose faith are we really talking about?

According to Catholic theology, could God permit someone to engage in unnatural sex acts (contracepted sex acts, sodomy, etc)? There is some background to this in McHugh, O.P., & Callan, O.P., *Moral Theology* , but unfortunately they use other examples: >303. According to the manner in which they oblige, the laws of nature are twofold, namely, absolute and relative.
(a) Absolute laws are those that oblige for every case and condition, because the matter with which they are concerned is intrinsically good or bad in every instance (e.g., the laws forbidding marriage between parent and child, the law against polyandry).
(b) Relative laws of nature are those that oblige except in case of a most grave public necessity, because the matter with which they are concerned is generally and of its nature very becoming or unbecoming (e.g. the laws forbidding marriage between brother and sister, the law forbidding polygamy). >311. Is God able to make a decree which sets up a most grave public necessity opposed to the observance of a law of nature?
(a) If there is question of absolute laws (see 303), this cannot be done, for God cannot deny Himself by making a disposition contrary to His Eternal Law. Example: We do not read that God ever sanctioned polyandry or marriage between parent and child, and it seems that He could never permit such things as lawful.
(b) If there is question of relative laws (see 303), the decree in question can be made by God; for the unbecomingness of that which is forbidden by a relative law passes away in the face of a great need. Example: Since God desired the propagation of the human race from one man and one woman, marriage between brothers and sisters was not against the Natural Law at the beginning. Since God desired the speedy multiplication of the chosen people after the patriarchal era, polygamy was not repugnant to nature among the Jews of that period. So for example, God permitted the patriarchs to practice polygamy, but He could not have permitted them to use artificial contraception or engage in unnatural sex acts?

Billy Graham is often quoted as saying that the Bible is “God’s love letter to us.” What did he mean by this? Is there a biblical basis for calling the Bible a “love letter,” or is it more of a pastoral metaphor?

So how do they know the angel of the Lord is Michael? How do they reconcile this since Michael in the Bible at Daniel 10:13 is described as "one of the chief princes?"

***This might usefully take us back to what the [first question in this series](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107548/10672) pointed to – Paul’s explanation to Christians*** in Galatians 3:10-12. That last verse is connected to Leviticus 18:5. And perhaps 1 Peter 3:18 might show God’s plan of saving humanity from this curse of the law. But I don’t want to cramp your answers, just so long as they actually stick to the confines of this last series of questions – if you don’t mind! Is it reasonable to suggest that justification cannot be obtained through human efforts; that faith in the work of Christ avails for salvation, and that reliance to any degree on works excludes trust in the finished work of Christ? This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

I don't know where to post this, but I am trying to remember the name and author of a Christian rock song from around the 80's or 90's. It had something like spoken lyrics about a Satan figure defeating Jesus; then there was a wrestling-style countdown from ten to one, then an announcement that Jesus had come back to life; concluding with a theme possibly involving the lyrics "he's alive!" or similar. It may have been by Petra or similar.

I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events. What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says > The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century. Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop? Also, are there any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?

> [Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB] 4 **For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit**, 5 **and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come**, 6 **and then have fallen away**, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. > [Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB] 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, **and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace**? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. > [2 Peter 2:20-22 NASB] 20 For if, **after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first**. 21 **For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them**. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” And other similar passages: > [Galatians 5:1-5 NASB] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore **keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery**. 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 **You have been severed from Christ**, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; **you have fallen from grace**. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, **but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [John 15:5-6 NASB] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 **If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned**. > [Romans 11:18-22 NASB] 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: **to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness**; **for otherwise you too will be cut off**. > [1 Corinthians 9:24-27] 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? **Run in such a way that you may win**. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. So they do it to obtain a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly; I box in such a way, as to avoid hitting air; 27 **but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified**. > [Revelation 3:5 NASB] The **one who overcomes** will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and **I will not erase his name from the book of life**, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. > [Revelations 22:19 NASB] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, **God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city**, which are written in this book. How were passages typically quoted to refute OSAS interpreted by the early Church? You can find more passages here: * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87015/117426 * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/117426

> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and **create evil**: I the LORD do all these things. ([Isaiah 45:7](https://www.biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/45.htm)) [emphasis mine] This is consistent with God being called "all-mighty" and "omnipotent". However, it seems to be grossly *incompatible* with God being called "good". If he truly is all these things, why would he create evil, which is the opposite of what is good, which He is claimed to be?

To begin, I do believe in a young earth because that is how I interpret scripture, and I do not see any irrefutable evidence… yet… to dissuade me from my beliefs. When observation conflicts with our Biblical understanding, it is our Biblical understanding that is in error, such as was the case with the Catholic Church’s defense of a geocentric model against Copernicus’, and later Galilei’s, observational evidence of the heliocentric model. The reason that I believe in a young earth, yet a big bang, could most likely be based on an ignorant idea that I hold but do not have the ken (pun intended) to fully understand and my ideas will likely allude to my ignorance. This is why I am posing the question here as I cannot find any evidence to defend or disprove my theory and my understanding of cosmology is juvenile at best. I understand that immediately following the big bang, science believes that there was a rapid expansion period where matter expanded faster than the speed of light for a small fraction of a second. I vaguely understand that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity breaks down at the event horizon of this expansion. My question is this… How do we know how long the period of rapid expansion was, and how do we know how much the universe expanded in that period? Is it possible that when God said “Let there be light” that He unleashed the big bang and the universe expanded to well beyond where the earth was created. Additionally, we know that time is relative to gravity. When the universe was denser, would time not have had the effect of being exponentially faster than on the fringes of the expansion where time would be relatively slower due to lower density of mass? Again, some of the points I have discussed likely allude to my ignorance. There are likely answers to these questions with solid science behind them. I realize that I might not have the background to understand some of these answers but if someone could attempt to explain this in as layman of term that they can, I would greatly appreciate it.

Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ . The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel. > Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'. I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of "archangel" is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be? Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type "archangel" differently than other major traditions? \* Sorry, couldn't resist.