It is reported that the Greek speaking Christians were using the Greek Septuagint as the inspired Old Testament Books during the time in question. The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha or as the Catholics call it, "the Deuterocanonical books that are inspired by God."

Why is the Byzantine Catholic Church also called the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church? Fr. Hardon's *Catholic Dictionary* defines "Ruthenian Rite " as: >The liturgy used by the Ruthenian Catholics in Poland, the United States, and elsewhere. Said in the Slavonic language, it differs but slightly from the Byzantine Rite in the Orthodox Church. I've even seen such churches called Ukrainian.

When I read Rev 20:11-15 to answer [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/107604/10672) an idea occurs to me. Maybe there are two books at play in the Great White Throne Judgment, the book of life (criteria for salvation) and what appears to be the "books of works" (title not given), noting the phrase "another book" and the plural form of "books" in v. 12. Here's the CSB translation: > 11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and **books were opened**. **Another book was opened, which is the book of life**, and the dead were judged according to **their works by what was written in the books**. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Is it possible that the "book of life" is the criteria of inclusion for going to heaven while the "book of works" (for lack of a better name) is for giving rewards for the "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19-21) that one has accumulated while on earth, namely good works out of faith? That the "book of works" contain everything that God sees we do in secret (Matt 6:4) and the unrewarded suffering we do for Christ (Matt 5:10-12)? One is also reminded about Paul talking about how the works of God's servants (who labor in the field of harvest) will be tested by fire (1 Cor 3:10-15). Or is my speculation in the preceding paragraph unwarranted because I'm mixing un-relatable concept of "works" from 3 completely different *genres* (a gospel, an epistle, and an apocalypse)? Am I guilty of reading Matthean / Pauline concepts into Revelation or am I to be applauded for doing ["inductive Bible study"](https://biblestudy.tips/inductive-bible-study/) ? My question: **Compare and contrast Reformed and Catholics view on the role of both books mentioned in the Great White Throne Judgment, especially with regards to "merit" and "reward".** What I'm trying to ascertain: - **For Reformed**: what is the use of the *other* books since it appears that what matters is only whether the names are found in the "book of life"? - **For Catholics**: does the church use the *other* books in connection with the doctrine of good works, **EITHER** with regards to the treasury of merit **OR** with regards to justification by faith and works? **OR BOTH?** *Note*: - For the sake of answerability, I only ask to contrast the Reformed position and the Catholic position as a minimal scoping, although additional position(s) are welcome as a bonus. - To defend that this Q is not opinion-based, I require citations from published Reformed and Catholic theologians.

Yesterday I was debating the topic with my Progressive Christian friend who claimed that the Lord was a refugee. Was Jesus Christ, by definition, a refugee?

David Wilbur makes this claim: 'Christians only stopped participating in temple services because after 70 AD, there were no longer any temple services to participating in'. https://youtu.be/cEBJi9jWguw 16:11 Is there any proof/disproof that believers keept going to the temple after Paul was arrested (Acts 21:27-36)?

Genesis 5 clearly shows the number of years people lived from Adam to Noah. In the modern world, we know that 1 year equals to the number of days the earth revolves around the sun, but this knowledge was just claimed in the 17th century by Galileo while the book of Genesis should have been written much earlier. As another point of view, the calendar system that most parts of the world use today dated back to 45 BC through the introduction of Julian calendar. This may be the first time a wide group of society agreed on how long 1 year is. How did the author of Genesis define how long 1 year was? **EDIT:** While [Why did people live so long before the Flood](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2972/why-did-people-live-so-long-before-the-flood) concerned about the ages (specific to Genesis 5), my question wonders more on the way a year was defined in general, possibly valid across the Pentateuch, by giving Genesis 5 as one example. It does not ask why men lived with such long ages, which had answers such as: bodily well-being was enhanced; a greater degree of nourishment; water before the flood protected human ages; etc. These answers in that discussion did not address my question. Hence my question could have been, "How did Moses define 1 year in Pentateuch?" The problem with this phrase is that it could mistakenly viewed as a duplicate with other discussions, such as [who wrote the Pentateuch](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1037/who-wrote-the-book-of-genesis/2510#2510) , or whether the Pentateuch was written by the same author. In contrast, my question emphasizes the definition of a "year" written across the Pentateuch. To avoid conflicting discussions, herewith I specify one example by pointing to Genesis 5. An example of satisfying explanation is from one comment below, that one didn't need a calendar to know the years, but used winter and summer.

In the Reformed view of predestination and human will, could we say that human will consists of two inseparable parts — a detached will, as the capacity to deliberate or step back from objects, and an oriented will, as the capacity to unite with or choose an object apparently good? If so, would it be accurate to say that any exercise of the will that *chooses* something other than God represents a false or incomplete use of that will, since only God constitutes the true end that fulfills and rightly orients it as true freedom? In this view, God would be not merely one object of choice, but the very source and end of a properly ordered will. All other created goods—wealth, pleasure, ideologies—represent only *apparent* fulfillments. That would mean that, apart from union with God, human willing collapses into a kind of existential fragmentation: always active, but never truly free. This would imply that: 1. Human beings retain a capacity to will and choice (and thus remain morally responsible) *even in their fallen state*, but this will is fundamentally misoriented since *any* object is going to be a sinful one. 2. Only God's grace restores the true orientation of the will, reordering it toward its proper end in Him (= freedom). 3. Thus, God is not the author of our sin (since our willing as a capacity of abstraction from any object, though corrupted, remains our own), but He alone is the author of our salvation (since only He can rightly reorient the will). Would this framework be consistent with Calvinist theology? Or does it risk introducing assumptions that conflict with doctrines such as total depravity or monergistic regeneration?

Wikipedia says the following: > The patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who **lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE**. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts **challenged these views;** What is the most current favoured date?

For Catholics we've got a lot of cool call and response stuff built into our liturgies that can easily translate to everyday life. So if someone in a truck shouts at me "Dominus Vobiscum", I know to say "Et cum spiritu tuo”. I was wandering around down in the southern US a few day ago and someone in a truck yelled at me "Jesus Loves You". I thought that was wonderful and it really cheered me up. I waved and said "thanks". Is there a cool thing that Protestants say (like "ping" - "pong" on IRC or that cool sign Harley guys do)? I know Bill Cosby thought it was cool that Protestants say "Amen", but I don't think that's an "Amen" moment. I want to say "Thanks for remembering me, Jesus loves you too!", I don't want to say "I know, ain't I cool". Also, and this may be pertinent information to the question at hand, I really did look like a hobo at the time. I was walking from a Motel 6 to a Wafflehouse wearing 3 shirts, a jacket, a scraggly beard a stocking cap and carrying a mug and I'd just been camping for the weekend, the fact that I left my sleeping bag and over-stuffed backpack in the hotel room didn't seem to improve my appearance.

The truths Jesus spoke are recorded in the Gospels, and referred to by the Apostles as they continued the new church Jesus began. These unambiguous facts require no special interpretation. 1. Father… that they know you, the only true God. John 17:3 - Jesus eliminates himself from being God - 'only' means no other apart from the Father. 2. The Father has life in himself, so he has granted the son also to have life in himself. John 5:26 - Jesus, allegedly as God, can never not have life in himself. 3. I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God John 20:17 - Jesus has a God, rendering him a lessor god at the very least. 4. the Father is greater than I John 14:28 - The construct of co-equality is rendered contradictory 5. no one knows the son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the son Matt 11:27 - The holy spirit is excluded in this special relationship. **Question. Why are these crucial declarations of Jesus ignored by contradictory doctrines about a tri-personal God?** The popular practice of using various misappropriated proof-texts attempting to validate a trinity is of no consequence as they do not 'cancel out' Jesus' truths. Specially interpreted proof-texts used to suggest Jesus IS God are in contradiction with Jesus' words.

Can someone apprise me of a website or a book that solely contains novenas formally approved by the Catholic Church and containing some mark or designation as to that effect? There are novenas galore on the Internet, but I have yet to find one that comes with stamps of approval from either the local ordinary or the pope. Hence, this question. Thank you.

I'm starting a more thorough journey into understanding Anabaptism and neo-Anabaptism (largely through Hauerwas), but I've not used any "generalist" resources yet and so it's not entirely clear where writers are drawing their ideas from at times. So, my two questions: i) Do Anabaptist thinkers draw heavily upon the church fathers? ii) If so, who is the most notable thinker from the tradition(s)? iii) Is there a resource which attempts to show connections and/or tensions between Anabaptists and the church fathers? Thanks!

In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Revelation, we see vivid accounts of angelic activity, including messages and visions given to John. After the completion of the canon of Scripture, especially following the Revelation of John, some traditions suggest that supernatural visitations—including those by angels—ceased or became extremely rare. From a theological or denominational standpoint, do Christian traditions teach that God stopped sending angels to earth after John received the vision of Revelation? Did God figure the Holy Spirit at work in the church is enough to reveal all hidden things and perfect messenger for the new covenant, unlike in his covenant with the nation of priests of Israel where he used to send angels to people like Manoah , Mary , Daniel? Did the Holy Spirit replace the role of angels in the OT in the NT?

Normally, the Memorial service for Jehovah's Witnesses is based on the Jewish calendar for Nisan 14. My understanding is that Nisan 14 is always the first full moon after the Spring (or Vernal) equinox, which happened on Wednesday 20 March 2024. This year, 2024, Nisan 14 falls on April 22 when there is a full moon. But the Memorial service is going to be on Sunday March 24 this year. ***Could this discrepancy have anything to do with fact that 2024 is a Jewish leap year?*** NOTE: According to a Jewish web site I found, there are 13 months in the Jewish calendar. The first month (Aviv/Nisan) in 2024 starts on Monday April 8 but to link to our calendar, we need to start with Shevat on January 10th, 2024. Shevat: January 10 - 11th month in Jewish calendar Adar 1: February 9 -12th month in Jewish calendar Adar 2: March 10 - 13th month in Jewish calendar - full moon 25 March Aviv/Nisan April 8 - 1st month in Jewish calendar - full moon 22 April

Christian language often describes sin as a burden carried in the heart, and salvation as bringing peace or relief. Is there a recognized theological or scriptural basis for linking the guilt of sin with an internal “weight,” and the experience of salvation with a kind of emotional or spiritual lightness? How have Christian traditions interpreted this metaphor or experience?

I would like to express some questions and points here regarding why God made this world as it is and not a world where humans could simply fly away at will. So, my main question to be brief is: Why did God create or willed reality in this way? That He allowed gravity in this level and not like other Mars, or why He didn’t allow us to be underwater creatures or flying ones. The thing that I’m struggling about here is the idea that God allowed us to have a choice; free will. Now what I have thought about is this: Do we really have free will if there are things that are naturally impossible for us to choose, therefore limiting our choices? Like you cannot choose between “flying” or “not flying”. You can only “not fly”. So can you really say “well, I still have free will” The answer that I have thought is “well, God has to set up some form of reality or limits. Otherwise, free will without limitations can include illogical conclusions such as existing and not existing at the same time” So okay, God creates a reality for us to live in: why this reality and not other realities? I apologize in advance if you think this is way too simple, lacking or so and so. But I hope you get the point.

The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the *Jerusalem Bible*, which uses *Yahweh*, and the *New World Translation*, which uses *Jehovah*, [the traditional rendering in English](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6193) . There are very few translations which [transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65691) in their text. I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do *write* the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is [not to pronounce the Name](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3720) , but the Catholic *Jerusalem Bible* still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?

What are the main differences between the two? I know that both reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but that's about it. I'm particularly interested in knowing their doctrinal differences (if any) with regards to the following points: - Christology, - Pneumatology, - The nature of God, - Soteriology, - The nature of humans (what happens to us when we die), and any other important doctrinal aspects in which they part ways.

It occurred to me this evening that I didn't know anything about Catholic eschatology, except they do not agree with Martin Luther that the Pope is the Antichrist, and Babylon, the Great Whore was not the Catholic religion! So I consulted Wikipedia and there was no entry explaining the Catholic eschatology that I saw. So how does the Catholic "Church" explain their eschatological view?

Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork. Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster. Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat. Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: ***Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”*** My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we *can* eat these things but we *shouldn't*?