Saints sometimes exhibited mystical phenomena in the cognoscitive order such as visions, locutions, revelations, discernment of spirits , and hierognosis (ability to distinguish blessed from profane objects); cf. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., *Teología de la Perfección Cristiana* p. 814. Discernment of spirits in the sense of reading souls (as opposed to distinguishing good from evil spirits; cf. *ibid.* p. 826) would seem to include the ability to know what state of life God is calling a particular soul to. What saints gifted with spiritual discernment were able to accurately determine what vocation God is calling someone to?

In the account of creation in Genesis 1, it seems that God describes many of the things He creates as being "good". Verse 2 indicates that prior to there being light, there was "darkness over the face of the deep". God's first created act, aside perhaps from the heavens and the earth themselves, is light. He specifically calls the light "good", but not the darkness. So, was the darkness "not good", or did God simply not explicitly declare it as such? > 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. > > 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that *the light* was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. *(Genesis 1:1-5, ESV)*

Heard one preacher teaching on 1 Samuel 16 that when the prophet came to annoint another king in the house of Jesse he actually tried to pour oil on David's brothers but it would not come out until he came to David KJV 1 Samuel 16 : 1 >And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these. Tried to search for this information in 1 Samuel 16 but couldn't find it. Got me thinking whether this was from some extra biblical source. Could be someone has an idea on this source?

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit" . The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. *What is God?* is **God is the supreme Spirit**, *who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.* As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say > The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit. Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit? Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.

Besides Palm Sunday 2026, when was the last time Mass was not said at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher?

I am a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the USA. I belong to a group discussing various theological issues. I am interested in the differences between our doctrine and Roman Catholic doctrine. One of the problems we have run across in the past is understanding what is the official Roman Catholic position on various questions. Many times we will find people who claim to know Roman Catholic doctrine and then discover that their explanations misrepresent the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not helpful. So, I am trying to discover where we can get correct and official answers to our questions. Is there a forum or other online resource that we can use? We are not looking for resources that simply point us to online versions of canon law, since becoming an expert in canon law by reading it would probably take years; and then we might not interpret it correctly. We are looking for resources that we can use to ask questions. We are not interested in quarreling or demeaning the Roman Catholic Church. We only wish to obtain authoritative answers to our questions.

I have seen some similar questions, however, this is slightly different. The passages in John cannot be referring to the 'Holy Spirit' as it was here already, Jesus in John is talking about someone to come after him. Luke 3:22 2 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: Luke chapter 1 verses 39-41: And Mary rose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. (Genesis 1:2) – from beginning of time - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete (advocate) shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7 also John 16: 12-14 and a number of other passages. Jesus also mentioned as parakletos 1 John 2:1 Jesus is a parakletos (advocate), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, ["Paraclete" (Parakletos, Advocate, Comforter, Helper)] that he may abide with you into the age (to come)."John 14:16 John 1:20-24 20He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.” 21“Then who are you?” they inquired. “Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” 22So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” 24Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25asked him, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”… "2 Peter 1:21" - For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit; “John 15:26" - 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”. “Ephesians 4:30" - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. “Acts 4:31" - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. "John 16:13" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but what so ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." John chapter 16: verses 7-8: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”

Christ was reviled, scorned, derided, calumniated, and mocked while He lived on earth. If the Blessed Virgin Mother is one of the greatest imitators of Christ, it seems she likewise would've suffered these crosses, but there is no mention of this in Holy Scriptures. Besides Satan*, who were the Blessed Virgin Mother's enemies while she lived on earth, according to Catholic theologians, mystics' visions, or apocryphal accounts? *cf. Gen. 3:15 : "I will put enmities between thee [Satan] and the woman [the Blessed Virgin], and thy seed and her seed [Christ]: she [the Blessed Virgin] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Psalm 2:7 says: “I will declare the decree:The Lord has said to Me,‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"... See also Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 (and compare with Mark 1:9-11). Psalms 2:7 (ignoring those that say it talks about David); and Hebrews 5:5 - clearly speak in terms of "TODAY" I have begotten thee". (emphasis on "today"). What was the relationship of Jesus to God "the father" before the day Jesus became a begotten son of God? NOTE: I have taken care to read the posts that speak about Jesus as a son of God. They don't ask the same question as to what he was before. Edit: Question is addressed to those who believe that Jesus is "the word" spoken of in John 1:1; those who accept him to be the "only begotten son" or the second person in the Trinity. I am not sure whether only Trinitarians subscribe to these ideas. My understanding of "mainstream" Trinitarian Christianity is that God has always been "the father", "the son ("word")", and "the Holy spirit". When one reads Hebrews 5:5: "Today I have begotten you", it signifies a change in relationship. Does it mean that before "THAT day", divine Jesus or "the Word" was something else to God but not a son? That is the relationship I am inquiring about.

### Background The Book of Mormon describes various groups (most notably the family of Lehi) who left Jerusalem around 600 BC and traveled to the Americas. The text explicitly states that these people continued to observe the Law of Moses for several hundred years: >"And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, **we keep the law of Moses**, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled." (2 Nephi 25:24) Given this commitment to the Torah, one would expect to see the observance of specific Mosaic commandments regarding attire, such as: Tzitzit (Fringes/Tassels): > "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations..." (Numbers 15:38). Tefillin (Phylacteries): > "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes." (Deuteronomy 6:8). However, in the vast majority of official and popular Church artwork—ranging from Arnold Friberg’s mid-century paintings to modern media produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the characters are typically depicted in generic "ancient" tunics or Mesoamerican-style clothing without the distinctively Jewish religious markers of *tzitzit* and *tefilin*. Example: ### Question From a Latter-day Saint perspective, is there an official theological or artistic explanation for the absence of these items in visual representations of Book of Mormon peoples? Specifically, I am interested in knowing if: - There is a belief that these specific "cultural" elements of the Law of Moses were not carried over to the New World. - The omission is recognized as a matter of "artistic license" rather than historical claim. - There is scholarly commentary (e.g., from BYU or Maxwell Institute) addressing why Nephite "Law of Moses" observance might have looked visually different from Levantine "Law of Moses" observance.

From the [Cannons of Dort](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort) 2nd Point of Doctrine, Article III > This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. This is from a Calvinist perspective, but I assume that most Christians hold that Christ's atonement for man is infinite and unlimited in time and in power. My question is about where this belief was sourced from. Is it somewhere I don't know about in the Bible or from early Christian creeds/councils? So what do Calvinists point to as the origin of the belief of an infinite atonement?

In Gospel of John 14:28, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I,” which is often used in arguments about the relationship between the Father and the Son. Some interpret the “I” here as referring specifically to Jesus’ human nature (e.g., in an incarnational or functional sense), rather than His divine nature. However, in the same Gospel, Jesus also says in John 8:58, “before Abraham was, I am,” where the “I” appears to refer to His divine identity. My question is: On what basis do interpreters distinguish the “I” in John 14:28 as referring to Jesus’ human nature, while the “I” in John 8:58 refers to His divine nature?

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

The Bible doesn't say the thieves were Jewish. Is there ANY historical writings that would establish this? Not looking for assumptions of what the Scripture is saying.

While reading about differences Luther had with Catholicism I came upon the argument that Luther conferred with the devil in a writing attributed to him titled "De Missa Privata et Unctione Sacerdotum". Does this criticism of Luther 'hold water'?

How can we as Christians say that all of Jesus' speeches about the impending judgement of "this generation", his immediate coming in his kingdom ("from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven") & the disciples not being done converting Jewish citizens before Jesus comes, don't mean that Jesus was actually coming back in His flesh, but were metaphors for being the King of Christian hearts during the time of grace for the pagan nations? When looking at just the book of Matthew, it's easy to explain verses like Matt 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, 26:64 IF they are ON THEIR OWN. But so so many similar verses are found throughout the whole NT. And in bulk it does seem like Jesus is saying that doomsday is immediate & his earthly kingdom with him as king in the flesh was instantaneous. Taken together he is always talking about "the coming of the son of man", "the clouds of heaven", "his kingdom", "his angels" & "in the glory of his Father". It's apocalyptic & cosmic preaching, associated with, for example, Daniel 7:13-14. Today & then it's definitely associated with doomsday aka the last day of the last days aka the final judgment & a political and national kingdom in the flesh. Let's play this out by following examples, again looking only at the book of Matthew (I know there are a lot of different interpretations but these are the ones I've heard most often): - 16:26-28 supposedly is about the Transfiguration, which was a vision of Jesus as king in his kingdom — even though in verse 26 the seeing of the Son of Man is linked to coming into the kingdom with judgment, angels, and the Father? Which in turn is directly linked to the end of times, see for example, Daniel 7. - 24:34 "This generation" is actually about the generation which lived during Jesus day & discarded Jesus, which was judged in AD 69? - And 26:64 "From now on, the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father, and you will see him coming to judgment" is supposedly just reflecting Jesus' true nature? - And the converting in Israel won't be finished before Jesus returns - 10:23 – is most likely again about the judgment in the year 70? This just feels like "picking & choosing". The same metaphors are used, the wording is similar & it's all apocalyptic language, plus heavily influenced by Daniel, but every time they are supposed to mean something different?? And it definitely doesn't mean doomsday, a national / political kingdom in the flesh & that it's a failed prophecy? Why are we so sure? Why would Jesus use these heavy metaphors instead of just saying: "this generation/my contemporaries will be judged for rejecting the messiah, after my death I will be spiritual King of hearts & heaven until the end of the last days during which I will come in the flesh to get my people & to judge the whole earths wickedness"? What helps are ideas like: - the "end times" is a term without definition of its length - the church age / the age of grace for the pagan nations, was always handled like a mystery in all of Scripture - Luke 17:20-21 - Jesus himself saying it's neither visible nor an earthly kingdom but of the hearts & spiritual - in Daniel 7 Jesus is not actually coming to earth for his kingdom but ascending to heaven. Possibly showing it is a spiritual kingdom. - nothing Jesus ever said was easy to understand. His own disciples were struggling to get things right. He always talked in parables, allegories & metaphors. - the theory that some Jewish priests had to have converted up to the judgement AD 69. Otherwise the Christian movement wouldn't have been able to expand this fast. And they wouldn't have converted if it was clear that Jesus prophecies were supposed to be immediate & that they failed. (Obviously Paul himself & Acts 6:7, but probably many more, for the number of Christians exploded.) I really don't want to be disrespectful; I want the Bible to be true! It's just really hard to trust, knowing Jesus looks like an apocalyptic preacher whose immediate prophecies failed. P.S. Ugh it was hard to put these raging thoughts to paper. English isn't my mother tongue.

One thing that makes me doubt is contemporary biblical scholarship consensus and academic biblical teachings. Some of their teachings are irreconcilable with faith. Yes, I'm flirting with becoming an evangelical fundamentalist & I would love the Bible to be literally perfect & infallible. But even if one is not an evangelical fundamentalist it should matter if the Bible on the whole is correct. Because Jesus confirmed the Old Testament & by denying this the New Testament and Jesus' gift of eternal life is invalid, too. I know there are also conservative scholars but those are not many and the scholarly consensus is eating them up alive. To dismiss biblical scholar consensus as theories without proof seems too easy and also unfair because it's a science in which loads of hard work was done and many people have brooded over it a long time.

In Christian theology, what is understood to happen immediately after a person dies? Some biblical passages seem to suggest that the dead go to a general realm of the dead (often referred to as Sheol or Hades), while others describe conscious states such as paradise or torment. Additionally, Scripture strongly prohibits consulting the dead, yet there are passages that appear to depict interaction with deceased individuals. How do mainstream Protestant doctrines reconcile the following questions: 1. Do people, upon death, go immediately to paradise or torment, or do they enter a general realm of the dead awaiting final judgment? I am looking for a doctrinally grounded answer using Scripture and recognized Christian theological frameworks.

For those who believe that God is outside of time, is Jesus also outside of time? On the one hand Jesus existed in time on Earth during His incarnation and perhaps as the Word of God in the Old Testament. >But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God - Heb.10:12. **Conclusion** The answers below agree that yes, Jesus' spiritual self is outside of time. His physical body was within time.