The story of Pope Joan—a woman who allegedly disguised herself as a man and became pope in the Middle Ages—has circulated in various forms for centuries. However, I understand that the Catholic Church considers this story to be a legend rather than a historical event. What specific reasons do Catholic historians, theologians, or official Church sources give for rejecting the claim that a female pope ever existed? Are there particular historical inconsistencies, lack of documentation, or theological arguments that lead them to conclude the account is fabricated? I'm particularly interested in answers that reflect the Catholic perspective, supported by historical or doctrinal sources.

There appears to be some discussion about the name of Jesus of Nazareth in that some are suggesting the proper way to refer to him would be by the name/title '*Yeshua*'. I am interested in the reason for this and would be grateful for some references to those who argue for it. Below, I list out the reason why this appears to be about the Deity of Christ. Please note, I am not wishing to enter into discussion or to hear people's thoughts on the matter. My objective is to see references to the argument for so doing, citing the words of those who suggest that this should be done. -------------------------------------------- In Acts 7:45 and in Hebrews 4:8 we see a person named who, in context, is the man who accompanied Moses in the wilderness, commonly called, in English, 'Joshua'. The Greek of these two texts reads '*Iesous*' or, as we say in English 'Jesus'. This person was called Oshea at birth and was later re-named by Moses, Numbers 13:16, 'Jehoshua' which is two Hebrew words attached together, *Jehovah* and *yeshua*, God and salvation. As such, he is named again 'Jehoshua' in the historical chronicle, 1 Chronicles 7:27. Commonly, he was called 'Joshua'. ------------------------------------------ The first use of the word '*yeshua*' in Genesis 49:18 is when, amidst his blessing his twelve sons before his departure from this life, Israel (Jacob) cries out : >I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord [KJV] I have waited for thy *yeshua*, O *Jehovah*. ------------------------------------ So, when the angel, Gabriel (who stands in the presence of God) states to Mary : >Thou shalt call his name 'Jesus' for he shall save his people from their sins [Matthew 1:21 KJV] why is it that some people wish me to use the word '*Yeshua*' (which means 'salvation') rather than the word 'Jesus' which comes from the wording 'Jehoshua' (Jehovah plus salvation). Thus the word 'Yeshua' loses the reference to 'Jehovah'. Is this the reason that it is being done : to remove the reference to 'Jehovah' from the name 'Jesus' ? --------------------------- Again, I must ask not for personal opinions as to what is right, but I am seeking references as to why those who do this, propagate the concept.

In Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 11:29 (KJV) it says: >"Bring not every man into thine house: for the deceitful man hath many trains." This verse, from the Deuterocanonical books recognized in the Catholic canon, seems to advise caution in offering hospitality, warning that some people may be deceptive or dangerous. At the same time, Jesus teaches us to love our enemies (Luke 6:27–36), bless those who curse us, and be merciful even as our Father is merciful. How does Catholic teaching reconcile the wisdom of Sirach 11:29 with Jesus' call to radical love and kindness? Is this a contradiction, or a matter of prudence and discernment within charity?

One of the key points in the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is that the traditional understanding of the Trinity - three persons in one God - is mistaken. Instead, God is seen as having three "essential components." Lee Woofenden does a good job of explaining what this means in this article on his blog. However, there are some passages in the Bible where Jesus prays to the Father, says he has incomplete knowledge, and so on, which would seem to suggest that he is a distinct person, at least at that time. This apparent personhood, distinct from the Father, is especially poignant in a passage such as Luke 22:42: > "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." Here Jesus seems to have his own personality, knowledge, desires, and so on. My question is, how are these sorts of passages explained within Swedenborgian thought?

In 1 Timothy 2:15 (ESV), Paul writes: >“Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” This verse is puzzling. If salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). What is the most common or doctrinally sound interpretation of this passage within mainstream Christianity?

Can you commit the mortal sin of reviling (also known as contumely) without saying anything out loud? I'm not talking about something like an efficacious desire to revile someone, but can you commit the sin of reviling itself just by thinking?

When our family prays the Lord’s Prayer we have always used, “forgive us our *debts*” instead of “*trespasses*”. This is because the first Bible I attained used the word. (KJV) Our family has no denomination and as such are unsure as to how others pray the Lord’s Prayer. Which Christians are likely to use one or the other?

Where can I find a list of Popes & Cardinals who are ethnically Jewish or converted from Judaism? I got a list, but maybe someone already made one? I'll put my list in an answer. - ( Preview of next questions: Orthodox - ecumenical patriarchs of Constantinople besides St. Andrew? Anglicanism - Archbishop of Canterbury besides Justin Welby, if e even counts? Then Lutheran. Oriental Orthodox. Idk. ) - Update https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105402/list-of-jewish-ecumenical-patriarchs-of-constantinople

Just wanted to confirm if there is any concept believed in Christianity related to angel numbers or numerology? I have read in this angel number blog that it relates to Christianity. Just want to confirm. What I read is: > **Meaning in the Bible** > > Seeing angel number 2323 signifies new and fresh life as well as harmony according to the Bible. The Holy Bible also suggests that these numbers 2 and 3 occurring twice have great divine power. The holy angels are reminding you that they are always watching over you and guiding you through every single thing. > > *Source*: [Angel number 2323](https://angelsnumbers.net/2323-angel-number/) So I need the proper guidance please. Thanks.

In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul recounts a moment when he publicly opposed Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. The issue appears to involve Peter's withdrawal from eating with Gentile believers when certain Jewish Christians arrived. Paul accuses Peter and others of hypocrisy and not acting "in step with the truth of the gospel." >"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned..." (Gal. 2:11–14, ESV) Was Peter teaching or promoting heresy here, or was Paul's confrontation about inconsistent behavior rather than false doctrine? How have various Christian traditions historically interpreted this passage, especially regarding apostolic authority and church unity?

Does the Catholic Church or any particular Catholic dioceses forbid the reading of [J. K. Rowling's](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling) series of books known as [Harry Potter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter) ? This same question could be applied to the movie series based on these same books. If so what are it’s theological and moral reasons for doing so. We know that there are some Catholic schools that have forbidden these books in the libraries of some Catholic Independent Schools. However I am interested if this is the case at any diocesan level or higher? Or does the Church leave such decisions about reading these books and/or watching the movies at the discretion of the individual or even the local pastor? [Harry Potter books removed from school library because they contain 'real' curses and spells](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/harry-potter-banned-school-library-nashville-tennessee-exorcist-a9087676.html)

I was reading Romans 11, and 11:32a says: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief ‬ ‭KJV‬‬ I didn't understand that phrase, concluded all in unbelief, so I read a number of commentaries, of which I found Adam Clarke's the most helpful. But after reading through all the notes I took,the mystery remained to me is that we all sin. Why? The angels didn't all sin. I know God knew what would happen when he created Adam. He must have had a reason, or reasons, to create him in such a way, that he 1) was capable of sinning; 2) was the progenitor of the whole human race (as opposed to angels, who were created all at once); and 3) his proclivity to sin would be passed down. After I posed this question, and received answers that were helpful, I thought of this: We all sin, every one of us, because we lack something. God originally created us in His image (Gen 1:26). Yet as Christians, we need to be sanctified, which means we need to be changed into His image, and it won't be completed until we see Him. So we lost something of that image in the fall. Angels are completely different than us, and I don't believe we know enough about them to know why. At least I don't. There are theories proposed in answers and comments under this question Why can't there be another fall? that seem very plausible. I am hoping others can shed some more light from Scripture. Please not from a reformed perspective, I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

What is spiritual warfare ? And how is it different from malefic ("black") magic ? One Evangelical Christian sums it up with, *Prayer should not be spellcasting. God is not your djinni.*

I live in Nepal. I have no background in any of the Abrahamic religions. I want to study the Bible in simple language with the aid of a book that provides context and spiritual meanings. By "simple" I do not mean simple English. My English is very good. I want a proper explanation of the use of metaphors, myths, etc. in the Bible The book also needs to be suitable for self study. I already have the [Thomas Nelson KJV Study Bible](https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/the-king-james-study-bible-full-color-kjv/) . **Example**: I am right now on the book of Genesis. I was reading the passage about the fight between the Serpent and Eve. There is a verse (Gen 3:15) that says something like he will strike heels and she his head. I want to know if there is any spiritual metaphor here, or whether I am missing something. These are the kind of questions I have that I hope the study aid can answer.

I am aware that it was most likely originally composed in Latin (this is why it is highly unlikely that St. Athanasius himself wrote it) but has anyone ever tried translating it into Koine Greek? If so, where would I be able to find the text?

I can't find the proverb or scripture that mentions a "gold earring on the cheek of the Ethiopian." Am I having a false memory? What verse is it?

[Luke 8:2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%208&version=ESV) and [Mark 16:9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A9-11&version=ESV) mention that Mary Magdalene had seven demons, which Jesus exorcised. In spiritual warfare literature, it's common to distinguish different types of demonic influence; example in the article [The Extraordinary Actions of the Devil](https://catholicexchange.com/the-extraordinary-actions-of-the-devil) . [Another](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10864014/trivia) tries to give the following definitions: - *Demonic Possession* - It's when a demon takes over a person's body without their consent. It's what you see in most movies. It involves speaking in tongues, sudden personality changes, sudden violence, even superhuman strength. - *Physical Pain* - This is a sickness or an injury due to a demon being inside a person. It doesn't impact the soul, just the body. - *Diabolic Oppression* - This is when a demon torments a person, causing tragic events in their lives the loss of a loved one, the loss of a job, a home. Basically, the story of Job. - *Diabolical Infestation* - It's when demonic entities take over a house, an object, even an animal. - *Diabolical Subjugation* - It's when the possessed invites the demon into their lives. They do this through game play or pledging their soul to the devil. It's real in that if a human wants power, they can trade away their future for that power. - *Diabolical Obsession* - It's when a person has constant, overwhelming and irrational thoughts, making them act in perverse ways. It's hard to detect because it's the most highly functional of all the possessions. But it can lead to suicidal ideation and murder. But today, especially in Western countries, people tend to "psychologize" those demonic influence into chronic depression, etc, such as how [this article](https://ssw.edu/blog/seven-demons/) tries to contemporize Mary Magdalene's seven demons. Rather than speculating from modern / Western lens or use Western categories (like the above), my complete question is: **using the best studies of demonology in Jesus's time, what is the nature of the 7 demons oppressing Mary Magdalene in terms of how the Gospel writers would have conceptualized it?** In other words, what did the gospel writers have in mind when choosing the words to narrate what Jesus did? Is it always a spiritual entity perceived to be gone out like in the Exorcist movie? Or on the other extreme, is it an idiomatic expression for what today we call mental or physical illness? Or is it something in between? The significance of this question is to enable a more faithful interpretation of the many Gospel passages on Jesus and the Apostles casting out demons, which today's Christian groups (esp. those with Freedom ministries) use as the basis of their practice. Some groups even take Mark 16:16-18 literally as the sign of a true believer ("... in my name they **will** cast out demons...") and exhorting them to practice Jesus-given authority to regularly perceive demonic influence in yourself / others and exorcise them. ### Preliminary research 1. A 2009 PhD Dissertation [Jesus, A Jewish Galilean Exorcist: A Socio-Political and Anthropological Investigation](https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/17394) by Amanda Witmer, McMaster University 2. Book Article [Exorcism or Healing?: A Korean Preacher’s Re-Reading of Mark 5:1-20](https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SBL2008/Chun.doc) by Sejong Chun (Vanderbilt University), reviewed [here](https://aatfweb.org/2015/02/04/article-review-sejong-chun-exorcism-or-healing-a-korean-preachers-reading-of-mark-51-20/) , part of the 2010 book [Mark: Texts @ Contexts](https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Texts-Contexts-Nicole-Duran/dp/0800659988) . This paper contains 5 plausible hermeneutical understanding of the Mark 5:1-20 story, demonstrating the horizon of interpretation we are looking for in this question. 3. [Demons and Politics: A Consideration of Jesus' Exorcisms in Mark](https://www.amazon.com/Demons-Politics-Andrew-Perry/dp/B004P9LQBE) a by Bible scholar [Andrew Perry](https://durham.academia.edu/AndrewPerry) , pdf available [here](https://www.academia.edu/32911343/Demons_and_Politics_A_Consideration_of_Jesus_Exorcisms_in_Mark) at his Academia site, commenting on three 20th century social study theories of exorcism discussed by Paul W. Hollenbach in his well-cited Journal of the American Religion 1981 article [Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A Socio-Historical Study](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1462450) 4. 2007 Master's Thesis [The Representation and Role of Demon Possession in Mark](https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/0k225g32p) by McGill Religious Studies student Eliza Rosenberg, which includes 15-page (!) list of works cited plus a 4-page list of modern exorcism accounts, mostly from news articles from 1995 to 2007.

In Acts 19:1–7, Paul meets some disciples in Ephesus who had received only the baptism of John. After explaining the gospel more fully, he baptizes them in the name of the Lord Jesus. However, it’s only after Paul lays hands on them that the Holy Spirit comes upon them: >“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:5–6, KJV) Given that in many parts of the New Testament (e.g., Acts 2:38, Romans 8:9), the Holy Spirit is associated with baptism and repentance, why didn’t the Spirit come upon these disciples immediately upon their Christian baptism? What theological reasons might explain this sequence — baptism first, and then the coming of the Spirit only after the laying on of hands?

I have seen several Old Catholic (Union of Scranton) clergy or affiliates claim that their churches (the Polish National Catholic Church and Nordic Catholic Church) enjoy “limited intercommunion” with the Roman Catholic Church (see X posting by Fr Calvin Robinson ) From a Roman Catholic perspective, is this claim true? Does the Roman Catholic Church under canon law regard itself as in limited intercommunion with the PNCC and NCC, or is this a one-sided view from the Old Catholics?

As the gospel spread beyond Israel to the Gentile world, many began to ask important questions about God's promises to the Jewish people. In *Exodus 4:22*, God declares, *“Israel is my firstborn son,”* highlighting Israel’s special place in His redemptive plan. But with the coming of Christ and the message of salvation extended to all nations, we now see Christians referred to as adopted sons and daughters of God through faith. This raises important theological questions: Has Israel’s special status been replaced by the Church? Do Gentile believers now stand in place of Israel as God's chosen people? Or does Israel still hold a distinct role in God's unfolding story? This topic invites reflection on God's faithfulness, the unity of His promises, and how both Jews and Gentiles fit into His plan through the gospel of Jesus Christ.