If there is a god then he probably wouldn't let us have 100% proof that he is real, so that we can have faith in him instead of just having physical proof. so we cant know for sure that he is or isn't real. But if there isn't a god, then eventually we should be able to find 100% proof that he isn't real, and that people are just bending reality to fit their religion. but we don't have that proof yet. So, how can I know if he exists or not?

According to Wikipedia, Isidore of Seville (not to be confused with Isidore the Laborer ) is the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers. Unfortunately, the current revision doesn't describe how a 7th Century man became the patron of a 20th Century invention and its related profession. It does mention the existence of the Order of Saint Isidore of Seville , founded January 1, 2000, but it's unclear on if they pushed for this patronage or if it was others. How did Isidore of Seville gain the distinction of being the patron saint of the Internet and computer programmers?

What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? Is she a true prophet by the biblical standard? *(This question has been prompted by the comments to the answer to [What did the serpent look like?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7632/what-did-the-serpent-look-like/31040#31040)*)

[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho#Historicity) explains three archaeological studies of the Jericho site, and concludes that the city was abandoned at the time the supposed Biblical battle took place. How do Christians reconcile the Biblical account with this science?

Trinitarians assert that Jesus was fully God and fully human. That the two "persons" were separate and not intermixed (one could die, get hungry, feel physical pain and the other wouldn't). Which of these two was sent by "the father"? Which of these two received authority as spoken in Matthew 28:18-19?

In the Old Testament, we can see several places that portray God as the most gracious and the most merciful. However, when God accompanied the Israelites to their promised land, he said that he would destroy the seven nations of that area (Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites) so that the Israelites could take their place. Why does God love the Israelites so much that he can also show his mercy and love to all the other nations and people he created? Are only Israelites entitled to his love, and not modern-day Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, then why did Jesus say he came to fulfill the laws of Moses? (In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.") Are other people not worthy of God's love?

I looked at the [*Wikipedia* page on the St. Thomas Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians) , the oldest school of Indian Christians who follow the teachings of St. Thomas the Apostle, who had travelled to India to preach. However, I couldn’t find what their beliefs *were* from that page. Were they Trinitarian or Unitarian? Are there any academic references (books, papers) that discuss their religious beliefs on the nature of God, Jesus, etc?

While having a conversation with a member of the Latter day saints. I did some independent research regarding their official account of the origin of their Faith. I did not see any similar question, if there is one I do apologize. Forgive the long build up to my question, it helps the question be properly understood. It is down below in large friendly letters. :) I found this in "Joseph Smith's History" on a very well designed website, that would display explanations for certain words and even links to specific Bible verses involved. During my reading of the first hand account of events, I intentionally did not bother with any historical details nor look up things to bias my original opinion of the text. ---------- The account does not seem to show that Joseph did anything to confirm that his vision was from God and not from the evil one. I come from an eastern orthodox perspective and it seems that Joseph neglected (perhaps due to his age) 2 out of the 3 things we are supposed to do when confronted by visions of supernatural nature. 1. Challenging the messenger, demons can perfectly imitate even divine figures and loved ones. Even various Orthodox saints were deceived by visions where demons impersonated Christ, saints, or similar. We are supposed to challenge them, who sent them, etc. (Example St. Issac of the caves was tricked into worshiping a demon that another one called Christ) 2. Test the message itself, it should align with scripture if it is from God. (Remember this for the question at the end) 3. Seek guidance from a spiritual leader. --------------- These are the issues (minor and major) that I see from reading it. 1. It seems odd that the vision starts with "overpowering darkness" preventing him from speaking. But that doesn't really pose an issue, especially if Joseph did become freed by calling out to God. 2. In the vision, one being points to the other and says "this is my son", who's son? Lucifer and God both will say that they have a son. The orthodox church accounts of visions have many instances where one demon calls another "Christ" to deceive the recipient. 3. The angel Moroni, according to Joseph misquotes scripture by changing verses entirely. This should have been a clear sign that it was false. The "angel" versions are significantly different. 4. Joseph told pastors of his vision, but the pastors he told flatly refused to acknowledge that visions could even occur. (Making it regrettably impossible for him to seek spiritual guidance) -------------------- My main question is this focused on my 3rd objection above. #### "According to the account Joseph as a young man knew the scriptures, despite this he allowed an angel that he knew **changed a text from the Bible** to guide him. How do members of the church of latter day saints reconcile for this direct sin performed by the angel Moroni? >36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, **though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles**. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus: > > 37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall **burn** as stubble; for **they that come shall** burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Compare with: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1 or Malachi 3:19) ----------- > 38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will **reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of** Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Compare with: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:" (Malachi 4:5 or Malachi 3:24) ----------------- Changing verses is a sin, and the angel Moroni did it, and Joseph noticed and recorded it officially. > “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.) I understand the LDS response to this already, if the first vision and angel are valid from God, then there is no issue. But the angel sinned according to the account, by changing the scriptures... > We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, **nor do we distort the word of God.** On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2). > “**Your word**, LORD, **is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens**” (Psalm 119:89). > “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but **the word of our God endures forever**” (Isaiah 40:8). > “Heaven and earth will pass away, but **my words will never pass away**” (Matthew 24:35)

For the first 74 years of the KJV (including most notably the 1611 version) the KJV included the apocryphal books. So if the 1611 version is inspired why don't the Protestant KJV-1611-Only crowd consider them canonical?

I might be making much ado about nothing and/or being nit-picky. However, was it an accepted custom amongst the Ancient Israelites to name their children Ishmael? I'm asking because in 2 Kings 25:25-27 and the Book of Jeremiah, it mentions a person named Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal family. > 25 But it came about > in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of > Elishama, of the royal [a]family, came [b]with ten men and struck > Gedaliah down so that he died along with the Jews and the Chaldeans > who were with him at Mizpah. - 2 Kings 25:25-27 (New American Standard Bible 1995) > 8 So they came to > Gedaliah at Mizpah, along with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and > Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of > Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the > son of the Maacathite, both they and their men. - Jeremiah 40:8 (New American Standard Bible 1995) However, is it strange for Ancient Israelite to name one of their children, Ishmael, which is a name usually associated with a quasi rival as Ishmael was an opponent of Isaac (one of the paternal ancestors of the Ancient Israelites)?

Within the theology of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Great Apostacy is held to. The Great Apostacy is primarily identified by the loss, or removal, of priesthood keys and authority from the earth. I can't find any specifics from a church source on when this occurred. Does anyone know of any detailed explanation on when the apostacy occurred? I'd like to give an idea as to why that is the case, and encourage members to poke holes in it if possible. In our theology, the Apostles hold all the keys of the priesthood, which constitute the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction. Sometimes the Apostles delegate those keys. For example, "Bishops hold the priesthood keys to lead the work of the Church in the ward" (local congregation) (source ). "A bishop is called by inspiration of the Lord and ordained by a stake president under the direction of the First Presidency of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve."(source ) *In the absence of keys held by apostles, there can be no ordination of bishops. A bishop does not hold the keys to authorize the ordination of successor bishop (**this seems to be the key claim**).* As it relates to the Great Apostacy, once the Apostles are all gone, the keys to direct bishop ordination are gone. A bishop could be ordained and alive at the time the last Apostle is taken, and he could ordain others to offices in the Aaronic priesthood, but once he dies the keys he was delegated are gone. So it may be true that holders of the priesthood are alive at the time the last apostle was taken, but within the next 100 years or so, no living key holder will be left and soon following no authoritative ordination will be possible. This seems to be the reason we can't pin a date down, we don't know when the last priesthood holder died. Thoughts?

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

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.