I am an atheist and Ex-Hindu. I used to watch Stephen Colbert (American and Catholic) on Comedy Central before his current more famous tv show. In one of episodes, he was talking about Hinduism, and said "Hindus worship the wrong gods" (google search would back me up on this), which I found fascinating -- this point of view about other religions. I admit that Hinduism seems to have a lot of issues, such as infamous caste system. I would like to know if this point of view was intended as a joke, or do people think that there is such a thing as "worshipping the wrong gods"?

I've heard that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies have Augustine as a major foundation. True?

The practice of Josephite marriage, i.e. a marriage without sexual relations, is occasionally observed by the Catholic Church. It is modelled on Mary and Joseph's marriage and in particular the belief of Mary's perpetual virginity. I am wondering how this can be called ''marriage" given what 1st Corinthians 7:2-5 indicates about physical intimacy in marriage: > But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. The word translated "limited time" in verse 5 is *kairos * which would appear to indicate a limited period, i.e. not indefinite, which interpretation is also implied by the latter half of the sentence instructing the couple to "come together again." This passage would thus appear to indicate that sexual relations are a necessary part of marriage. To corroborate this, Tobit 3:8 also indicates sexual intercourse is normative for marriage: > The wicked demon Asmodeus kept killing them off before they could have intercourse with her, **as is prescribed for wives.** How are these Biblical passages reconciled with the idea of Josephite marriage?

Will the people, who end up in heaven, gain additional glory for each soul that profits from their writings? For example, St. Augustine wrote many good books. Now he is in heaven. To this very day, people read his books and have spiritual benefits. Does St. Augustine receive additional beatitude in heaven for each soul that profits from his books? I want a Catholic answer.

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?

I know a lot of people who claim to be Christian but practice Yoga. I always thought (and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) seems to back me up on this) that Yoga was about meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism. Is practicing Yoga a sin since you're actually following another religion? Or is it possible to practice Yoga in a Christian manner? Also, if you are able to practice Yoga in a Christian manner, is there a conflict with that and the problem with [the weaker brother](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:9-12&version=NIV) ? Specifically, I'm seeking a [mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) viewpoint on this. I suspect that they will all be the same, but if they differ, let me know so that I can refine the scope.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

In *Systematic Theology* chapter 3 "The Canon of Scripture", Wayne Grudem says > It was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church officially declared the Apocrypha to be part of the canon (with the exception of 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). (This is on page 59 in the 1st edition.) What does he mean by this? He is certainly not unaware of the Council of Carthage (397), because he cites this just 5 pages later for its decision on the NT canon. However, the Council of Carthage's Old Testament canon includes all of the Apocrypha found in modern Catholic Bibles (except Baruch). Is this an oversight on Grudem's part? Or is there some qualitative difference between the decision of the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent that makes the latter an official declaration while the former not? *Note:* Grudem also does not mention the Council of Rome (382) anywhere that I can find, which was the first council to discuss the canon, and included the Apocrypha as canonical. However, if Grudem is following the scholarship which regards the canon list of the *Decretum Gelasianum* not to be genuinely derived from the Council of Rome, then he would have no reason to mention it. Under that view, there is no direct evidence of the Council of Rome's decisions on the canon.

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?

Paul refers to the gift of spirit that Timothy had in both I and II Timothy. > KJV 2 Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. What gift did Timothy have? Was he afraid to use it? The verse that immediately follows the verse above seems to suggest this. > KJV 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. From the following verse, I can gather: 1. The gift that would be received by Timothy was foretold (given by prophecy) 2. It was given by Laying on of Hands (Paul's hands by first verse quoted) > KJV 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Paul refers to a prophecy about Timothy > **1 Tim 1:18-19 ESV** Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the **prophecies once made about you**, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Which prophecy is he talking about?

Ordinarily, I would go to Wikipedia for this sort of question, but unfortunately the information therein is paltry. It is clear that Luther consistently believed in Mary as *Theotokos*, as this continues to be the normal belief of all branches of Protestantism till the modern day. This answer on another question indicates, but without adequate citations, that Luther's views on the Immaculate Conception changed over time. I have seen this from other sources as well, but nothing very clear. **I am looking for an overview of how his views on Mary, especially the sinlessness and/or immaculate conception, may have changed over the course of his career.** *Note: I have researched this question a bit myself. I have had a lot of difficulty sorting through polemics (from both sides) to find accurate information. Some verified references to primary sources would be most helpful.*

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

**Did the Blessed Virgin Mary teach the boy Jesus the Divine Mysteries and taught him how to pray?** At the Annunciation, it was believed that Archangel Gabriel arrived while Mary was praying and studying scriptures. > According to various Christian and Islamic traditions, the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive a son, Jesus. While the canonical gospels (Luke 1:26–38) describe the event, known as the Annunciation, they do not specify Mary's exact activity when Gabriel appeared. The detail that Mary was praying or studying comes from later apocryphal and patristic sources, such as the Protoevangelium of James, which influenced artistic and theological depictions of the event over time . > > In these traditions: > > The Protoevangelium of James: This second-century text mentions Mary was working on a veil for the Temple when she first heard a voice, then saw Gabriel. > > **Later Patristic Writings:** Other early Christian writers expanded on the narrative,***sometimes placing Mary in a moment of intense prayer or deep study of scripture,*** emphasizing her piety and devotion when the divine messenger arrived. > > Obviously, Jesus from birth to childhood lived in a House of Prayer, and learn how to pray and taught of divine mysteries from His beloved Mother, who learned the scriptures and mysteries thru meditation and contemplation. > > **I am looking for writings based on Church traditions and extra-biblical writings, showing Mary teaching the child Jesus how to pray and explaining the scriptures and mysteries of God's Kingdom, and perhaps Mary narrate to baby Jesus the mysteries of annunciation, incarnation and His divine mission as Messiah.** As Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and power, so, in no way Jesus learn scriptures, the mysteries and His redemptive mission at a younf age, without the Theotokos telling or teaching Him this subject. Also, the young Jesus at twelve, despite showing above wisdom from the Elders in the Tempole, still needs to grow in wisdom and stature, not by Himself, not by Jesus Alone, but thru submission and obedience to His parents. > **The Boy Jesus at the Temple** …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52***And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature***, and in favor with God and man.

Are there ancient writers that mentions halos/nimbus: from 1-8 century? 1. How was the halo adopted in the church? And what is its historicity? 2. I read from some sources that in the beginning it was reserved only for the Lord but in later time it was depicted on saints. 3. Did anyone wrote anything about it? Thanks in advance. ........................................................................... **UPDATE** I found only this - > “Marcus Servius Honoratus (Servius the Grammarian), a Roman grammarian of the late 4th century, > in his commentary on Virgil's works defines the Nimbus as a "divine > cloud" ("nimbo effulgens: nube divina, est enim fulgidum lumen quo > deorum capita cinguntur. Sic etiam pingi solet" - Servianorum in > Vergilii Carmina commentariorum / Ed. E. K. Rand. Lancaster, 1946. > Vol. 2. P. 471). The Latin theologian Isidore of Seville in his > Etymologies mentioned the Nimbus as a radiance around the heads of > angels (Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2).” https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2577657.html **The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636 AD?):** > **The light that is depicted as being around the heads of angels is > called a nimbus,** although a nimbus is also the dense part of a cloud > (nubis). 3.Ahood (capitulum) is commonly called a capitulare. This is > also called a cappa (i.e. another word for ‘hood,’ or perhaps > ‘kerchief’), because it has two tips like the letter kappa, or because > it is an ornament for the head (caput). >**(Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2)** **(Page 404 in the pdf)** https://sfponline.org/Uploads/2002/st%20isidore%20in%20english.pdf ------------------------------- Are there maybe church fathers that talk about it or other persons besides from Marcus Servius Honoratus and Isidore of Seville? Additional information about the halo. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112600/do-the-catholic-orthodox-believe-that-the-halo-is-apostolic-unwritten-traditio

Charity admits degrees (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in *On Love and Charity* and *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 24 a. 4 - a. 10 ). Has any theologian explained if it is possible to measure one's degree of charity? If so, how can it be measured?

Has the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls had any effect on which Old Testament books should be considered canonical by Protestants? I didn't know this until yesterday, but the dead sea scrolls contained every book of the Bible in Hebrew, including fragments of Deuterocanonical books (except Esther, although most of that is in the Protestant Bible anyway) I may be operating under the hazy assumption that Protestants only discount the Septuagint because it has its basis in Greek instead of having its basis in Hebrew so correct me if I'm wrong. >That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism, apparently on the basis that no Hebrew original was thought to exist at the time the Jewish Canon was closed Wikipedia - Sirach I just wonder if this is a source of consternation for any Protestant groups or how/if they justify the texts with their own assumptions and scholarship into what the Jews themselves considered scripture at the time of Christ. --- I'd hope that an answer would include a scholarly refutation of the idea that the original books (at least Sirach and Tobit), being composed in Greek, lacked canonical authority for that reason and no other reason.

In Revelation 7:3-4, God seals His servants before the tribulation begins. Since pre-tribulationists believe the rapture occurs before the tribulation, how do you interpret the sealing of God’s servants? Does this sealing take place before or after the rapture, and how does it align with the pre-tribulation timeline of Christ’s return?

During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up: 1. If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob? So that he could repent and be able to be blessed? 2. When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the "wrestling", asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go? 3. If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a "big deal" the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?