A week ago I was reading Matthew, and at Mt 2:15 and 2:17 he write about Old Testament prophecies. Searching for it, maybe in Jeremiah, I read something like *'**we must be cautious reading the Holy Scriptures because prophets can make mistakes**'*. I found it a beautiful message, but at the time, when I was searching for the prophecy referenced by Matthew, I don't pay too much attention to it, and today I'm not able to find it again. Can someone point me the location of some versicle that could be that?

Each Gospel has an account were Jesus references Isaiah 6:9-10. Paul also references those verses in Acts 28:26. >*9 And he replied: Go! Say to these people: Keep listening, but do not understand; keep looking, but do not perceive. 10 Make the minds[c] of these people dull; deafen their ears and blind their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their minds, turn back, and be healed.* John 12:40 appears to be the only account that clearly says that God does the hardening (Every Bible on BibleGateway has translated it in this manner). >*He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts….* But I noticed that the original Greek does not have “God”, or the pronoun “He”.….they’ve been added in translation. The translation of Acts 28:27 does not attribute the hardening to God….it says that “they” have shut their eyes. >*For the hearts of these people have grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes* Again, the original Greek does not have a pronoun “they”, yet every Bible translates it in that manner. It doesn’t even appear that Isaiah Ch 6 clearly attributes the hardening to God. Verse 10 says *“make the minds of these people dull”*. Who/What makes them dull? Verse 9 could answer that question. It says people that listen, but do not understand….and people that look, but do not perceive. (Makes me think of fellow Christians that just go through the motions. I know….I used to be one). So I guess it’s a 2-part question. I do not study or understand Greek, beyond clicking on a verse and viewing the word for word translation. So, what is it about the original Greek that translators unanimously agree to add “God” or “He” to John 12:40, and add “they” to Acts 28:27? What is causing the hardening, God….or our own actions? The above translations imply both, yet they both reference the same verses in Isaiah. Shouldn’t the understanding be one or the other, based upon the understanding of the verses in Isaiah?

This booklet was published by the Catholic Truth Society in 1938: [*The Cure of Ars by Dom Ernest Graf*](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1661856232/the-cure-of-ars-vintage-booklet-1938?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details) I recall coming across this same image in a 19th century book written in French---but I don't recall the title nor have I been able to stumble upon the book I am looking for with basic searches such as *vie le curé d'ars*. QUESTION: Can anyone tell me where I might find an older version of the same image depicted in the link? If someone can tell me the original source and illustrator---that would be great. Whenever I see this image (or one strongly related to it) in a publication, is never comes with an attribution. Thank you.

Apparently, the terms “Arian,” “Arianism,” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from the name of Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and whose dispute with his bishop Alexander began the Arian Controversy. This implies that Arius was a very important person. It implies that Arius’ theology continued during that entire period of the Arian Controversy, namely: > From AD 318, when Arius publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for > teaching ‘erroneous’ doctrines about the nature of Christ, > > Until AD 380, when the emperor outlawed all 'Arian denominations’ > through the Edict of Thessalonica . However, recent scholars on the Arian Controversy claim that Arius was neither the leader of ‘Arianism’ nor regarded by the 'Arians' as a significant theologian. For example: > “Arius … was never unequivocally a hero for the parties associated > with his name” (RW, 82). And, again, “Arius … was not an obvious hero > for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166) > > “It was not just ecclesiastical protocol which made the bishops at > Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not 'followers of Arius … They > meant exactly what they went on to say, that they had accepted Arius > as orthodox, but did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe > any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82) > > “Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … > certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an > individual theologian” (RW, 233). > > “The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not > regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer” (RH, xvii). > > “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the > major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57) > > “Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote > him.” (RH, xvii) And, again, “the heirs of his theological tradition > hardly ever quote him.” (RH, 6) > > “Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of > disciples.” (RW, 233) > > “Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It > was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern > Church.” (RW, 165) > > “Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii) > > “Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was > of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii) Authors ------- > RH = Bishop RPC Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - > The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 > > RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 > > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology So, if Arius was of no great significance in the fourth-century controversy, why is it called the ‘Arian’ Controversy?

Why do the souls in purgatory suffer since there is no presence of the flesh? Catholics and the Saints pray for the souls in purgatory for the relief of their sufferings and the forgiveness of their sins.

### Introduction The Genesis narrative of the serpent tempting Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of Eve does not seem to indicate overtly that the character known as "Satan" or "the Devil" was involved in any way. The Hebrew bible likewise does not contain any explicit passages co-identifying Satan as the serpent from the garden. However early Christians appear to have identified the Edenic serpent as Satan: **Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD), in First Apology §28:** > “For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil...” **Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–185 AD), *To Autolycus* 2.28:** > “Eve…was deceived by the wicked demon, who also is called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent…” **Early Church Tradition (Book of the Cave of Treasures circa 4th–6th century):** > Satan “took up his abode in the serpent… and… watched for the opportunity… and… called [Eve]…” ### Question - What is the origin of this belief? - Does it pre-date Christianity? - What is the earliest written Christian document linking Satan with the serpent? Sources and views from all denominations welcome

Various theories for the location of Mount Sinai have been suggested. One is Jebel Al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia, which was in Moses's time part of Midian. The most popular location is in the south of the peninsula of Sinai at either Jabal Musa or Jabal St Catherine. St Catherine is the higher of these two peaks. What is the evidence for any of these, or any other, mountain peaks?

In Mark 4:37–39 (also in Matthew 8:23–27 and Luke 8:22–25), a violent storm arises while Jesus and His disciples are crossing the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is asleep in the boat, and when the disciples wake Him, He rebukes the wind and speaks to the waves, calming the storm: > "He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, 'Quiet! Be still!' Then the wind died down and it was completely calm." — Mark 4:39 (NIV) What stands out is that Jesus rebukes the storm in the same language He often uses when dealing with demons (e.g., Mark 1:25, Luke 4:35). Shortly after this event, Jesus arrives in the region of the Gerasenes and confronts a man possessed by a legion of demons (Mark 5:1–13), who ultimately beg to be cast into a herd of pigs—which then rush into the sea and drown. Some theologians and preachers have connected these events, suggesting that: **The storm may have been a demonic attempt to kill Jesus and His disciples before He could deliver the demoniac.** Question: According to various Christian theological perspectives (e.g., evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), is there reason to believe that the storm was caused by demonic forces rather than being a natural phenomenon? How do different traditions interpret the storm in light of the nearby exorcism and the association of demons with the sea?

How do proponents of salvation by faith explain this verse: > "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached > unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which > also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, > unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1–2, KJV) On the one hand, this passage says that a believer is saved by having believed. However, it also adds a condition: "unless you have believed in vain." That must mean there's a kind of belief—or faith—that is in vain, and therefore doesn’t lead to salvation. What’s especially challenging for the doctrine of salvation by faith, it seems to me, is that this "vain faith" isn't just belief in something minimal, like the historical existence of Jesus, but belief in the gospel itself. So how do proponents of salvation by faith reconcile this verse with their view?

The Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG)1 contains "the norms which, when the Roman See becomes vacant, are to be strictly followed by the Cardinals whose right and duty it is to elect the Successor of Peter". On the one hand, the number of Cardinals who have the right to elect the new Pope, who are all those Cardinals who had not "reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death" [UDG 33], is 1352. On the other hand, there are the following 3 UDG paragraphs: >33. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. **The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty.** The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded. > >34. If the Apostolic See should become vacant during the celebration of an Ecumenical Council or of a Synod of Bishops being held in Rome or in any other place in the world, the election of the new Pope is to be carried out solely and exclusively by the Cardinal electors indicated in No. 33, and not by the Council or the Synod of Bishops. For this reason **I declare null and void acts which would in any way temerariously presume to modify the regulations concerning the election or the college of electors.** [...] > > > >76. **Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected.** In view of the above, I have two questions. A. Why would the forthcoming papal election still be valid if more than 120 Cardinals vote in it? B. Expressing the answer to A as: "The election will still be valid because of X", is X in your view strong enough to compel all Catholics to hold that the election will still be valid? Or rather, does it leave room for any Catholic to hold in good conscience that the election will not be valid? Reference and note 1 [Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis on the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis.html) 2 The number 135 is confirmed after Cardinal Becciu's announcement on April 29 that he will not participate in the conclave.

### Introduction Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism and considered to be an a prophet of God by the LDS Church. Latter Day Saints believe that the Christian bible (Old and New Testaments) predicts the coming of Joseph Smith , that he brought forth the Book of Mormon, restored a lost priesthood, and established the true church. On the other hand, non-LDS Christians call Smith a false prophet and accuse him of theological fraud. ### Question What reasons do non-LDS Christians give for calling Joseph Smith a "false prophet"? What criteria do they use to determine Joseph Smith is not a true Christian prophet?

Throughout Scripture and history, the Middle East has been the central stage for world-shaping spiritual and political events: - The **Garden of Eden** is believed to have been located near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. - **Israel**, the chosen nation, was often defended by miraculous angelic intervention (e.g., 2 Kings 19:35). - Empires like **Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar), Persia, Greece (Alexander the Great), and Rome** all rose and fell through this region. - The **birth, crucifixion, and resurrection** of Jesus Christ happened in this area. - End-times prophecies (e.g., Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel) often center around Jerusalem and the surrounding nations. Given this pattern, is it theologically or biblically valid to understand the Middle East as the prophetically ordained site of a final spiritual or political "showdown," possibly involving the return of Christ or emergence of the Antichrist? I’m especially interested in how various Christian traditions interpret this historical pattern—whether it's symbolic, literal, or both.

I wish to know why I don't hate Lucifer. I just can't seem to bring myself to hate him and i cry for him. And I don't understand why does everyone hate him when the incident he did was so so long ago. Also, I wasn't even born at the time he did those things so why I just I am not joking. I'm not trying to be rude; I just don't understand why am I like this.

A recent question and an older question have accrued several answers with 'false' prophecies of Joseph Smith. Below is a compilation of them: 1. D&C 84:2-5,31 Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation >2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. > >3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. > >4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. > >5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. > >31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed 2. D&C 87:1-3 1832 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States civil war would eventually engulf all nations >1 Verily, **thus saith the Lord** concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; > >2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. > >3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. 3. History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 182 1835 Joseph Smith prophesied the Lord’s return within 56 years >President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene. 4. History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 394 1843 Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown and wasted within a few years if they refused to redress the wrongs committed against the Mormons in Missouri >**I prophesy in the name of the Lord God** of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left 5. D&C 114:1 Apr 1838 David Patten would go on a mission (he died October 1838 before he could) >1 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world. 6. History of the Church, vol 6, p 116 1843 >While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government How do LDS explain how Joseph Smith is a prophet when there are false prophecies?

Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as "elders", but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service. How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

Some Christians hold the view that Jesus was the final prophet in a unique or ultimate sense. However, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:10 mention that the Holy Spirit gives some believers the gift of prophecy: >"to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues..." (NIV) If Jesus is considered the last prophet, how do those who hold that view understand the ongoing operation of prophecy in the Church? What terminology is used for individuals who exhibit this spiritual gift, if not “prophet”?

The neurochemical work of the brain provides many arguments that question or even refute the concept of the soul as an immaterial entity independent of physiological processes. First, all mental processes, including consciousness, emotions, and decision-making, have a clear neurochemical basis. For example, neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate directly affect our mood, motivation, and perception of reality. Damage or imbalance of these substances leads to personality changes, depression, hallucinations, or memory loss, which indicates that "personality" and "consciousness" are products of the brain, and not manifestations of an immaterial soul. Secondly, experiments with electrical stimulation of the brain (for example, the work of Wilder Penfield) show that artificial exposure to certain areas can evoke memories, emotions, or even religious experiences. If the soul were independent of the brain, such manipulations would not have such an effect. Moreover, in clinical death, when the brain stops receiving oxygen, consciousness turns off almost instantly, and "near-death experiences" are explained by hypoxia and the release of endorphins, rather than the exit of the soul from the body. Thirdly, evolutionary biology shows that consciousness developed gradually as an adaptive mechanism, rather than being "injected" into humans in a supernatural way. Primitive animals with less complex brains show the beginnings of consciousness, emotion, and learning, which contradicts the idea of an exclusively human soul. If there were a soul, it would either have to be absent in animals or manifest itself in some material way, but there is no evidence of this. Finally, the phenomenon of split brain (when the severing of the corpus callosum leads to the emergence of "two consciousnesses" in one body) it calls into question the unity of the soul. How can one soul split into two independent streams of consciousness? All these data indicate that the "soul" is just a metaphor for complex neurochemical processes, and not an independent substance. Logically speaking, there is a neurochemical brain function that completely negates the soul, and which has been proven. She denies it as follows: For example, neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and glutamate directly affect our mood, motivation, and perception of reality. Damage or imbalance of these substances leads to personality changes, depression, hallucinations, or memory loss, which indicates that "personality" and "consciousness" are products of the brain, and not manifestations of an immaterial soul. After all, the phenomenon of split brain (when the severing of the corpus callosum leads to the emergence of "two consciousnesses" in one body) it calls into question the unity of the soul. How can one soul split into two independent streams of consciousness? All these data indicate that the "soul" is just a metaphor for complex neurochemical processes, and not an independent substance.

Edward Healy Thompson, *The Life and Glories of St. Joseph*, ch. 14 "Joseph's Vow of Virginity", p. 89 states that: >Athanasius spoke these short but weighty words of Joseph and Mary: that “both remained intact, as was proved by many testimonies.”11. *De Incarnatione [*On the Incarnation* ].* I am unable to find this quote in the *De Incarnatione*. Is this a real quote or not?

As I understand neoplatonism within Christianity (from this answer ) all people are envisioned as being on a 'path', with a relationship with Christ at one end and the opposite at the other end. Where one is and what direction one is heading on that 'path' is indicated or determined somewhat by what one does and more so by why one does it. The foundation seems to be (as the answer explains) that > "In the neoplatonist tradition, all goodness comes from God, and to be good or do good, in any sense, is to participate in God's goodness" therefore "to do good is to serve Christ, whether or not you know you are doing it, and to do evil is to go against Christ, even if--or especially if--you do that evil in Christ's name.". Therefore there is, for the Christian neoplatonist, just one path and everyone is on it either serving Christ or opposing Christ whether they know it or not. At Matthew 7:13-14 Jesus says the following: > "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.", and He appears to be delineating two different 'ways' and two different entry points to those 'ways'. Way, here, is *hod-os'* (see [interlinear of Matt 7:13](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/7-13.htm)) which is the common Greek word for road or street. **How does Christian neoplatonism understand Jesus' apparent delineation of two different ways, or roads, or paths having two different entry points?**