According to reformed theology, in the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, the Pope is the Antichrist. >There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. Also in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (*Of the Church*), paragraph 4, we found the same, the Pope as the Antichrist. >The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. But how can he be **THE** Antichrist, as 2 Thessalonians 2: 2-9 says, if it is talking about a position and not a person. Would not be more in line with the concept of the spirit of the antichrist, of which it is spoken of in 1 John 2: 18-19 and 1 John 4: 2-3. How can this paragraph be interpreted? The Pope is *an* antichrist or the Pope is *the* Antichrist?

There were some bone fragments found under St. Peter's Basilica in the 1940's. Pope Paul VI said in 1968 that the bones were "identified in a way that we can consider convincing." What is the convincing argument that these bones are indeed's St. Peter's? A perfect answer will include the details about how the bones were found. ___ On a related note, the bones have recently been made available for public viewing for the first time . During a Mass, Pope Francis seemed to venerate the relics, which may mean that the Church will officially declare them as St. Peter's bones.

Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7304/when-did-arabic-enter-into-usage-as-a-liturgical-language-among-orthodox-christi , *The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque* by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same). But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language? Is it because: - Arabic became the *lingua franca* and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic. - If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language? - Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to "localized" their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity? - Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points. - Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons? I hope I layed out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge.

Christians across denominations appear to believe the snake who tempted Eve in Eden was actually Satan. If the being who tempted Eve was actually Satan, why were snakes cursed to crawl on their bellies and eat dust for all time? Do Christians believe God knew the snake was actually Satan? Why do Christians believe snakes have moral culpability for what Satan did?

I am not so sharp on Theology, but I want to present to you something that I have been thinking about. God clearly says when something is bad and we shouldn’t do it. But God also said He hates divorce, meaning its some kind of evil, because God hates evil. Now, if God hates evil, why would He approve of doing it? Not just “allow” it in the sense that He gave us free will, because in that, it makes sense. In that point, God doesn’t allow x but because of free will, He lets it happen. But in the case of divorce or polygamy, God hated these because they are evil in His sight. The thing is, He didn’t say “its wrong and you shouldn’t do it, but since you have a free will, you can choose to or not to do it. But regardless, its still wrong” He didn't say that in polygamy or divorce. He allowed a form of it (regulated) even if He hates it and sees it as evil. So when we do it, its like “it's okay, as long as you are following the regulations”. So that goes against Him that He can’t view evil, yet He allows it (meaning He doesn’t count it as a sin). However, I’ve seen some answers like: “God doesn’t approve of divorce nor of polygamy, but because it still persists, its better to regulate it to minimize harm” By that logic, why can’t we just allow sins altogether because we continually sin, yet God bans it outright? And if God doesn’t approve of it morally, yet continues to do it anyway (by actually stating that we can do it and there is no sin in us if we do), then is He immoral because He goes against what He deems evil?

> "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth" ([John 14:16–17, NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A16-17&version=NIV)) From Jesus' words the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, but if we consider the succeeding verses below, it seems like it's describing the role of the Holy Spirit as a Teacher of Faith and someone who will testify in full about who Jesus is. > But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you. ([John 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A26&version=NIV)) > When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about Me. ([John 15:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15%3A26&version=NIV)) My question is: according to Catholic teaching, is the Spirit of Truth a person in whom the Holy Spirit chose to dwell, to testify to and become the teacher and guide of the Apostles?

Was Jesus the only Roman crucifixion victim who was made to wear a crown of thorns? Are there historical references as to how often this action was done on political victims?

In Acts 1:20 we read: > "For it is written in the Book of Psalms: > > > ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ > > And: > > > ‘May another take his office.’" But Psalm 69:26 is actually uses plural: > "Make their camp desolate, with none to dwell in their tents." Psalm 109:8 has singular: > "May his days be few; may another take his office." (All translations can be found from the [USCCB website](https://bible.usccb.org/bible).) So it seems to me that St. Peter is changing the plural of Psalm 69:26 into singular in order to make a point. Then he quotes Psalm 109:8 in order to make a point. He seems to be just picking Psalm texts or changing the plural into singular in order to make a point. This is just confusing. I have been searching commentaries on this but have not been able to found one. This could be because people just take for granted that changing the plural into singular is a natural thing that people can just do. **What is going on in Acts 1:20?**

I found conflicting sources on the internet: 1. The first source said the Letter to the Galatians was written between 52-55 AD. 2. The second source said it was written between 48-49 AD. Just comparing the dates did not interest me. When I see the relationship with the Jerusalem Council, it becomes more interesting. 1. The first source put the Jerusalem council before the writing of the Galatian letter. 2. The second source put the writing of the Galatian letter before the Jerusalem council. (To be honest, I myself prefer the second source for my own reason). But since I'm not an expert, I wonder at the different timing between two source? **Which source is correct ?**

From this link , the word hypocrite is rooted in the Greek word hypokrites, which means “stage actor, pretender, dissembler.” So think of a hypocrite as **a person who pretends to be a certain way, but really acts and believes the total opposite**. From this wiki about the Pharisee's hypocrisy, it's easier for me to understand it. For example, point 5 on that page says: > They presented an appearance of being 'clean' (self-restrained, not > involved in carnal matters), yet they were dirty inside. In Galatians, Paul refers to Peter as a hypocrite: > When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. *Galatians 2:11-13 (NIV)* But I can't figure out in what way Peter is being a hypocrite. He could be being a hypocrite by claiming not to force gentiles to obey Jewish laws, while actually making them do exactly that. But that would seem to contradict his experience with Cornelius, which show he wouldn't force gentiles to obey jewish law. Alternatively, he could be claiming we do need to force gentiles to follow jewish customs, while actually not believe that was true. But in that case, there would be no reason for him to be scared of the circumsision group, since outwardly he appeared to agree with them. Since neither of these seem correct, how is Peter being a hypocrite, according to Paul?

All three believe Jesus is not God, there is no Trinity as understood by traditional Christians, yet at the same time Jesus is the Messiah, the word of God, born of the virgin Mary, and accept the Torah and gospel accounts. Jesus is the Messiah, and word of God (but Trinity is wrong): https://quran.com/4/171?translations=95,101,85,20,18,22,19,17 > O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth.1 The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him.2 So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. Jesus fulfills the Torah, and brings the gospel: https://quran.com/en/al-maidah/46 >Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to the God-fearing. Virgin birth (and immaculate conception?): https://quran.com/en/at-tahrim/12 > ˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout. In the case of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, this is sufficient for them to be considered Christians, but in the case of Muslims, they are considered a foreign religion. What explains this difference in categorization? A corollary, is there a list of minimal beliefs that categorizes a group as Christian or non-Christian, which would categorize Jesus' disciples as Christian? In older times, according to John of Damascus , it seems Islam was considered a Christian heresy, not a separate religion. >From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Based on my limited knowledge of medieval theology, it does seem like Islam (along with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses) would be considered a form of Arianism.

***Who do Trinitarians understand Peter's God to be?*** ------ **Premise** Acts 3:13 NKJV (Peter speaking) > The **God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob**, the God of our fathers, glorified **His servant Jesus**, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. Acts 2:22 >Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a **man** approved of **God** among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which **God** did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 1Peter 1 >3 Blessed be the **God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ**, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, >4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, >5 Who are kept by the power of **God** through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. > Matthew 16:16 >And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, **the Son of the living God**. Psalm 84:2 > My soul longs, yes, even faints For the courts of **YHWH**; My heart and my flesh cry out for **the living God.**

Origen was arguably the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. In his 1981 book on the Arian Controversy, RPC Hanson wrote: > “Marcellus of Ancyra, in attacking Asterius and Narcissus of Neronias, > Eusebius of Caesarea and Paulinus of Tyre (certain leading Arians), > had accused them of being under the baleful influence of Origen” > (p61). > > “Epiphanius directly connects Origen with Arianism. He … declares that > the Arians and Anhomoians learnt from Origen” (p61). > > “Many scholars have regarded Arian ideas in a vague and wholesale way > as an inheritance from Origen's doctrine” (p62). Rowan Williams, in his 2001 book on Arius, also stated: > "From very early on, there were those who saw Origen as the ultimate > source of Arius' heresy" (RW, 131). Questions: 1. On what specific doctrines did Origen and Arius agree and on which doctrines did they not agree? 2. Considering these, may we describe Arius as an Originist?

Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical _Rerum Novarum_ asserts that there is a right to private property. But is this an [absolute right](https://dictionary.justia.com/absolute-right) or only a limited or qualified right based on circumstances under the natural law?

How do scholars differentiate between a Covenantal and Dispensational view of Biblical understanding? Covenant people criticize Dispensationalists for cutting up the Bible narrative into distinct parts, for saying God deals with his people in different ways in different times. They prefer to use the word "Covenant" instead of Dispensation, but isn't this the same thing using a different word? Covenantal people divide the Bible into different covenants, explaining how God deals with his people in different ways in different times. What would help me make up my mind concerning this dilemma?

All throughout the Bible, in too many instances to list, there is a meta narrative wherein the sentence of a righteous judgment is avoided by the sacrifice of an innocent: The innocent bearing the sentence of the guilty. Examples of this include the Passover lamb in the Exodus story, and the scapegoat of the great day of atonement. Up until the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world put an end to sacrifice, by becoming the once for all sacrifice, those sacrifices were of lesser beings for greater beings; lambs for people, etc. Jesus turned that around and made it the sacrifice of a greater for the lesser, but it doesn't seem as though the underlying idea of punishment for sin, retribution if you will, being transferred from one being to the other as disappeared On the other hand, I know that there are theologies which reject the notion of penal substitutionary atonement as being unbiblical. What do those theologians do with Passover and the scapegoat, for example??

This is perhaps a bit hard to express precisely, but hopefully you know what I mean when I say that in your head, you can think of certain concepts or ideas in quite a bit of detail without phrasing them in terms of actual words, inside your head. For example, if I’ve just woken up, I might think inside my head that I want to brush my teeth and take a shower, without actually thinking inside my head the sentence “I want to brush my teeth and take a shower”. The concept of wanting to go brush teeth and take a shower can almost be expressed in a single “feeling” before being put into words, even inside someone’s head. Suppose that someone is trying to pray to God, but that person is also quite bad with phrasing things. They want to pray to God and ask X, but they struggle to actually phrase what X is, either out loud, or even inside their head. They know for sure what X is as a “feeling”, in the same sense someone can coherently “feel” the desire “I want to brush my teeth and take a shower” without actually putting it into words. Can they pray for X by just asking something like, “God, please help me with this thing, Amen.”? I assume that they can, since as God is omnipotent, He knows what the person’s desire is. I know that this site is for Christians in general and perhaps views differ on this (I don’t know if they do) so if this is a “Catholics think A, Protestants think B” kind of thing, then that would be great to know. Apologies if this could be clearer - you may have guessed that I’m such a person who is bad with words.

Is committing adultery the same thing as having a concubine? Is having a concubine a form of adultery?

Jesus said 'the words that I speak unto you - they are spirit and they are life'. Paul also made it clear that if one receives the exact word of the true gospel (rather than, for example, the legal admixture which he opposed in Galatia) then Christ, himself, will be 'formed within'. >My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, [Galatians 4:19 KJV]. This being 'formed within' is the real presence of Christ himself, in Spirit, consequent upon real repentance and a saving faith. The Strict and Particular Baptist movement of the early and middle 1800s, led first by William Huntington and then by William Gadsby, John Warburton and J.C.Philpot, stood strongly for real experience of conviction of sin, repentance of an evangelical kind (not mere legal remorse) and a real closing with Christ himself in felt union. Thereafter came a weakened expectation and a reliance on a 'decision' which fell short of real regeneration. The general term 'easy believism' has been, loosely, used to describe this. I am looking for any gatherings (or even a whole denomination, if there be such) which follow in the footsteps of the Strict and Particular Baptists in this regard, both in doctrine and in practice and in fellowship. My own experience, in the south west of England, is that the denomination called 'Gospel Standard Strict Baptist' is far from its origins in the previous two centuries, though they do, in word, adhere to certain doctrine and practice that is reminiscent of their beginnings. My question is addressed to Reformed and Trinitarian, Baptist Protestantism. But I would not discount Presbyterianism. What is easy believism ?