If you want to be confused and stay confused, you've come to the right place. It seems that practically all the answers on any topic are answered as follows: Question- Should you come to a complete stop at a red light? Answer - It depends on whether you're translating from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin or some other translation e.g. Substitutionary locomotion. Those sound good on paper, but they're just another way to say "I don't know". So if that's the truth, it won't hurt to just say so.

I know many American evangelical churches implicitly practice New thought movement concepts as evident from the prosperity gospel msg from Joel Osteen to Joseph Prince, and I know their positive message of self-image and gratitude is the source of healing and moral transformation (despite the ironic totally depravity self-image). However, I am looking for some Christian author or church which explicitly teach the meditation and visualization techniques as taught by Joe Dispenza which involves changing the habit of past thought pattern, hoping/visualizing a better self in present-tense with gratitude. The prosperity doctrine's prayers to God functions as the meditation and these concepts for receiving blessings, healing and elevated self-image is taught in the Bible. I am curious if there are books and churches that directly promote the approach of meditation as the way to manifest God's prosperity, and how exactly do they practice it, coz I know the popular prosperity preachers use "Name it and claim it" approach and the regular pray or faith. I am looking for examples of sources in favour of this approach, not against it. PS: As a Christian, I do not adhere to any particular sect or denomination.

I know that all Protestants consider prayer and Bible study to be important, but what about other spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, participating in an all-night vigil, practicing silence and solitude, or engaging in ascetic practices like giving up certain foods, refraining from entertainment, living simply, or voluntarily limiting material possessions, as is often seen in monastic life? For example, Jesus fasted for 40 days and often withdrew to solitary places to pray, such as when He spent the whole night in prayer on a mountain (Luke 6:12). Related to this, this question discusses the biblical basis of twelve spiritual disciplines: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3469/117426 Do Protestants believe in spiritual principles or laws that make some or all spiritual disciplines effective or beneficial? I understand that Protestants value prayer as a way to communicate with God, and Bible study as a way to receive guidance from God (while not necessarily excluding the possibility of extra-biblical communication). This clearly explains the centrality of prayer and Bible study in Protestant practice. But do Protestants also have a theological or spiritual framework that sees fasting or other ascetic practices as spiritually useful? If someone does not practice fasting, for example, are they missing out on something important? Do Protestants believe that certain spiritual disciplines—beyond prayer and Bible study—can have specific spiritual effects, such as aiding in spiritual warfare or bringing about other spiritual benefits? I recognize that Protestantism encompasses a wide range of perspectives, so I am interested in an overview of them.

According to Catholic exegetes, were Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany the same person?

## Many Catholic Depictions of Christ Crucified Show the Piercing into the Right Side. ## **Here are some examples of crucifixes from monastery.com:** - **Crucifixion Icon ** - **Byzantine Crucifix ** And - **San Damiano Crucifix ** It was from the image of Christ in the crucifix at **San Damiano** which miraculously spoke these words to **St. Francis of Assisi**: > **"Go repair My Church."** ## What is the Catholic Basis and Support from the *depositum Fidei* for the Depiction of the Piercing into the Right Side of Christ? ## The **best answer** will have arguments from the **72 Books of the Catholic Bible** and **from the writings of the Church Fathers**. *If there is any relevant supporting information on the topic, such as from the well known private revelations, that may be included in an Endnote.*

This argument from redeemed zoomer 's twitter account. What is the catholic response to it? > How can you infallibly know whether the true church is the Catholic > Church or the Orthodox Church? > > If you can use fallible historical reason to determine that, then I > can use fallible historical reason to determine the canon of Scripture

In other words, when does association with public sinners become itself a sin or make you a participant in others' sins? Association is not one of the 9 ways of participating in others' sins : 1. By counsel 1. By command 1. By consent 1. By provocation 1. By praise or flattery 1. By concealment 1. By partaking 1. By silence 1. By defense of the ill done

Having sang [What a friend we have in Jesus](https://hymnary.org/text/what_a_friend_we_have_in_jesus_all_our_s) since childhood, sharing with Jesus my griefs (verse 1), my struggle with temptation (verse 2), and my toiling in life (verse 3) is natural for me. But when I encourage a lapsed Catholic friend (who grew up in pre-Vatican II era) to do the same with Jesus, I received a strong pushback, saying he is extremely uncomfortable seeing Jesus that way, how what he most appreciated about the Tridentine Mass is the **utmost respect** that everyone shows to God and to Christ, which is another reason he doesn't like to go to church anymore. I happened to hear him talking to his old high school friend, who to this day remains a devoted Catholic (and who also is a catechist at his parish), telling my friend that **for him missing daily mass feels like not visiting a "friend"** (he meant Jesus who is present bodily in the Eucharist). He then tried to disabuse my friend of his misconceptions of the *Novus Ordo* mass, how it's essentially unchanged doctrinally from the *Tridentine* mass, and encouraged my friend to resume his sacramental life. I don't plan to convert my friend to Protestantism but I am trying to **share the Gospel in Catholic terms**. I would be happy if my friend is willing to go to church again and to have a good relationship with Jesus, even in Catholic terms, like how his high school friend is doing. My friend is fine praying the Rosary, which is [in the same spirit](https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/h/hail-holy-queen-prayer.php) as *Salve Regina*. The *Salve Regina* text (see [here](https://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/SalveRegina.html) , along with the history and the liturgical use of the prayer) **contains similar language with *What a friend we have in Jesus* hymn but directed to Mary** > To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. followed by a request for Mary to "see" us with compassion and to "show" us Jesus: > Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us. And after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. While I personally do not have a problem with praying to Mary as an individual believer's 1. **spiritual mother** who as the second Eve has *compassion* for us, casualties of the original sin of the first Eve, who like an earthly mother *embraces* and *comforts* a crying child 2. **intercessor**, praying for our salvation, along with the angels and the saints 3. **advocate**, who points us to the One who can help us: God the Father who ***only*** through Jesus Christ His Son takes away our pain, sin, and suffering by our participating in the sacraments, I do wonder whether there is some truth in the Protestant's objection of how prayers to Mary **redirect some aspects** of a believer's relationship with Jesus. It seems to me that Catholic spirituality takes a **BOTH-AND** approach with regards to Jesus and Mary, **dividing the affections** that Protestants direct solely to Jesus. This division of affection by a Catholic seems to match the two main Catholic prayers: - **relating to Mary in the Marian prayers (Rosary, *Salve Regina*):** - as someone who understands us in our weakness like a close friend - as someone whom we are not afraid to approach, because she is "one of us" - as someone who loves us and comforts us like our earthly mother and who wants the best for us - **relating to Jesus as celebrated in the Mass:** - who is the awesome standard of holiness, thus reminds us of our sinfulness (*Kyrie Eleison*) - who is sent by the awesome glorious ruler of heaven and earth (*Sanctus*) - who is also the means of grace through His sacrifice (*Agnus Dei*, the Lamb "who takes away the sins of the world") which then explains perfectly my friend's reticence to relate to Jesus like how the hymn suggests (as a friend). This also explains his preferred attitude when going to mass (utmost respect). Given the above analysis, it now makes sense to me how Eleonore Stump labels her new Atonement Theory described in his 2018 book [*Atonement*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198813864) **Marian Interpretation** because her theory cannot be easily subsumed under any previous theories in history, though she relies heavily on Thomas Aquinas. In her account Jesus is portrayed as highly compassionate and as having complete solidarity with us in our weaknesses through complete **mind reading** in compassion & solidarity, hence the Marian aspects in *Salve Regina* ("see" and "show"). Believers no longer need to feel distant to God nor afraid of God's justice and holiness, but are instead motivated to lay our burdens to Jesus, receiving his love for us, being united with Him in the Eucharist, and agreeing to be molded to Jesus's image by being yoked with him. I try to understand a theological tradition and a spirituality in their own terms, so I want to understand the Catholic logic of the devotion to both Mary and Jesus **as Catholics understand it**. So, seeing how Catholics seem to relate to Mary as mother and "friend" but to Jesus mostly as Lord, Savior, and Exemplar, although both are united in love toward us (sojourners in exile, striving in the Church Militant), **can you help me understand the role of "friendship with Jesus" in Catholic spirituality**?

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

This question is directed to followers of the Catholic Faith, why do they believe that the dead can still be saved if we intercede for them when scripture explicity states that it is appointed for men to live once after which death and judgment follow. *Hebrews 9:27* >And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment I interpret the verse above to mean that after we die then there is nothing we can do to either glorify or provoke God and that is why we await judgment for works done while in the body. The story of the rich man and Lazarus also shows that the dead can't be saved because the rich man would have applauded to Abraham to intercede for him to enter into life but that didn't happen, the brothers of the rich man were the ones who were still in the world and their hearts were hardened against the prophets and the oracles, which mean that you can still be saved while still in the world and not when you have departed from it. Why do Catholics believe so?

In Philippians 2:6–7 (ESV), Paul writes of Christ: >*“Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”* Some interpret this "emptying" (Greek: kenóō) to mean that Christ temporarily gave up or set aside His divine attributes, and became fully human in appearance and function. Others argue that He remained fully divine while also taking on full humanity — the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Does this passage support the idea that Jesus ceased to operate in divine nature during His earthly life, or is it describing something else (e.g., a voluntary humility or servant posture)? How do major theological traditions (e.g., Chalcedonian Christianity, kenotic theology) interpret this “emptying”?

Some say that Matt 24:40-41 is referring to a Rapture with the righteous Church removed first. But Jesus said very plainly that in the end time after the tribulations the angels will come and gather the Tares from the wheat first. So if you are taken first you are a Tare and will be cast into Hell to be burned. Tares are church goers who are not saved but of the evil one. Only then are the righteous people dealt with. I can't see how people could still interpret Matthew 24:40-41 with the Rapture idea? What am I missing? How do they interpret these passages in a consistent manner? >Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Matthew 24:40-41) >As therefore the tares are gather and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the End of this World...Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:40-43)

UPDATE and Final question: **Genesis 17:13**: > He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. **Isaiah 56:6-7**: > Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; > > Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. NEW................................................. The question - After trying to understand all this I figured out the question what it should be - Are strangers / sojourners that are serving the Lord in the Old Testament saved by not being circumcisioned and only obeying the rules dedicated for the sojourners and not the children of Israel. If someone knows the answer let me know. Thanks in advance. OLD ------------------------------------------------------------ The question: Does the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament - save the pagan sojourners and if yes or no - does this make them part of the Old covenant? Is was thinking if the Isaiah 56:6-7 is relevant for the pagan sojourners? - I don't think that it necessarily mean that the pagan sojourners have chosed to serve God and without circumcision they can be saved. More then one "?" but related to one question. **Background:** How are the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament? They are not necessarily servants of God right? They could be pagan sojourners? - uncircumcised without being part of the Old Covenant? If they are pagan sojourners that are not serving God as contrary to Isaiah 56:6-7 (where strangers have chosed to serve God and I believe they are circumcised? Genesis 17:13), but the sojourners that are just passing the land of the Jews, according to the Old Covenant would they be saved by the rules for the sojourners back in the Old Covenant without them being circumcised? In the Old Covenant could there be servants of God without being circumcised and be saved? Could a person back in the days of the Old Covenant be part of the Old Covenant without being circumcised? I am asking this questions since there is a person that is applying to himself the rules for the sojourners from the Old Covenant probably without him being circumcised, but observing the sabbath - probably saying that this saves a person when part of the New Covenant. These rules for the sojourners were they not rules for pagan sojourners too that did not serve God, and how could they be saved in the Old Testament days, if they did not serve God, and how possibly these rules could help a person to be saved in the New Testament since these rules did not save the sojourners in the Old Testament? I am not sure if you understand what I mean. I am not familiar so much with the Old Testament this is why I ask here this question. I am not sure if I am wrong somewhere please let me know if I have wrongly understood the rules for the sojourners or anything else. With my current understanding and knowledge this above sounds strange to me. I think that if a person even not a Jew wanted to be saved in the days of the Old Testament must have been under the Old Covenant circumcised observing all the customs, not only the rules for the sojourners? Thanks in advance.

I was finishing up a read through of the Hebrew Bible when I came across this gem: Zechariah 14:6-9 (NASB) > On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at the time of evening there will be light. 8 And on that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. > > 9 And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. This passage posses a logical contradiction for those that would assert that Jesus is LORD (YHWH). First, in v7 it says that this unique day is known to the LORD, to YHWH. Yet Christ himself makes it clear that he himself does not know when this day is, nor anyone else, but only the Father knows it. Matthew 24:36 (NASB) > “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Furthermore, in v9 it says that God alone will be King over all the earth; there won't be any other kings. Paul tells us that in the end, Christ himself will subjected to the Father - ie, there is an end to Christ's reign as king. 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (NASB) > The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. This is consistent with what the prophets said concerning the throne of David. Psalm 89:29 (NASB) > So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. Isaiah 65:17 (NASB) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. So then, since Christ neither knows the day which is known to the LORD, to YHWH, and since his reign will end when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, then logically Christ cannot be YHWH. Rather, the only one who can be identified as YHWH given these restrictions is the Father. -------- **QUESTION**: How do Trinitarians address these two major conflicts? How can Christ be said to be YHWH when he does not know the day nor the hour when YHWH does know it? And if Christ's reign on the throne of David ends with the new creation, reversing the sin of Israel when they demanded a human king, then how can Christ be YHWH who is King over all - and at the end, the only king ?

Jesus does not have a brother in the catholic tradition, his mother Mary is a perpetual virgin, which can hardly be compatible with having several children. Yet in his epistle to the Galatians (1, 19) , Paul calls James "the brother of the Lord". In the first letter to the Corinthians (9: 4-5) , he mentions other brothers of the Lord who have the right to take their wives during their apostolic mission. It is clear in Paul's formulation that compares his rights with "other apostles and the Lord’s brothers, and the apostle Peter" that he does not attribute the qualifier of brother of the Lord only to a few specific individuals. It does not stand as synonym of disciple. From this, several historians hold the position that either Joseph or Mary had children together or from previous relationships for Joseph like P-A. Bernheim(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2584331-james-brother-of-jesus) , or F. Blanchetière[2] (https://brill.com/view/title/15554) , who point out that, Paul never qualifies Peter or John as brother of the Lord, or Fr John P. Meier who denies[3] (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/838138.A_Marginal_Jew) the theory of cousins that never appears in the Greek version of the Old Testament in which the term *adelphos* marks exclusively the fraternal bond of blood or right. However the Catholic church and many Catholic exegetes believe that Mary didn't had other children, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church , following the traditional reading based on the later belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, following Jerome [4] (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm), the first Father of the Church to argue against the siblings theory for the benefit of the cousins one at the end of the fourth century. They also recuse the half-brothers and sisters theory presented in an apocryphal gospel from James, around 180, born of a first marriage of Joseph from previous relationships. Why these "Brothers of the Lord" have been embarrassing for the Catholic Church which make them gradually forgotten and lose their quality of brothers? Why at the same time as the cult of chastity develops, whose mother of Jesus becomes the symbol and which will find its apogee in the doctrine of its perpetual virginity? Note : Other like Assyrian and part of protestants hold this doctrine as well but I narrow my question to the Catholic Church as far as the different schisms had not yet been pronounced when the doctrine was created.

In several instances we have a few sentences translated as “if” when clearly what is being said is not conditional and the word if is a clear mistranslation. I’ll give you a few examples and would like experts in Greek to give us the corrected accurate translation. Let’s start with Jesus Christ prayers in the garden of Gethsemane: In both Mark 14:36 Jesus outright says that all things are possible with His Father: > “Abba, Father,” He said, ***“all things are possible for You.*** There’s no if, ands or buts, Jesus is clear, all things are possible. However Matthew 26:39 it’s translated - > “My Father, ***if*** it is possible” It’s impossible for the text to say “if it is possible, as that contradicts the account in Mark as well as Jesus numerous teachings that with God all things are possible, a teaching Jesus stressed multiple times throughout the entire Old and New Testament. Another example would be Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians 4. In 1 Corinthians 4:18-21 ***Paul says with 100% certainty that he is coming to the Corinthians.*** > Some of you have become arrogant, ***as if I were not coming to you. > But I will come to you shortly,*** if the Lord is willing, and then I > will find out not only what these arrogant people are saying, but what > power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of > power. Which do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love > and with a gentle spirit? It would make absolutely zero sense for Paul to say he is 100% coming, even saying condemning anyone who says he isn’t coming as arrogant in verse 18, to then say “if God wills”, the word cannot be if, because he’s saying clearly that he is coming, even in the same verse/sentence that proceeds the if he reiterates that he is coming. Further it would make no sense for Paul to even say “if God wills” because that would assume he doesn’t know God’s will, which is impossible, the Apostles knew God’s will. So even the notion of them even saying “if” is impossible. I think the word should be translated as Since. When you replace the word “if” with since, the text makes sense, it aligns with doctrine. Father since it is possible. I will come to you shortly, since God wills/desires, and then I will find out..

I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported? I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?

The absence of a "mysticism"-oriented text in Catholic Christianity has always struck me. The *Philokalia* are an incredible source of ascetic instructions for the believer who seeks communion with God. (1) In what consideration do Catholic Christians keep the Philokalia? And, (2) is there a similar text in the Catholic tradition?

**1 Chronicles 25:1-5 makes a point of identifying Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun as prophets/seers.** This suggests that some of the psalms in Psalms are prophetic, anticipating future events. Several of these psalms are recognized as messianic, but largely because the NT treats them as such. But what about non-messianic psalms? **Has anyone developed a candidate list of (non-messianic) psalms which should be approached as prophetic, anticipating--at the time they were published--events which were yet future?** **Perhaps Psalm 137 is one of these?** It is commonly claimed that this psalm is exilic or even post-exilic, due to the initial reference to Babylon, remembrance of Zion, remembrance of the treatment of their captors, etc.1 Yet 137:5 is concerned that one might forget Jerusalem, which seems to exclude a post-exilic situation, unless the concern is that they might forget Jerusalem's former glory; but that goes beyond what is said. Further, 137:8 indicates that Babylon had not yet been destroyed. In some ways this psalm offers parallels to Isaiah 40-66 (esp. Isa 47) which, on the premise that there was a singular writer of Isaiah, prophetically speaks from a perspective of those already in exile. 1 Examples are Kidner and Belcher: "This psalm needs no title to announce that its provenance was the Babylonian exile." Derek Kidner, *Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary*, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), 495. "Psalm 137 arises out of the experience of the community in exile in Babylon following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 587 BC. Although the author may be looking back on that experience the memory is fresh and the historical situation is still unsettled." Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 76.

From the Catechism of Pope St. John Paul the Great: > §2521 Purity requires *modesty*, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. But according to playwright Alan Bennett, "All modesty is false modesty; otherwise, it wouldn't be called modesty". This paradoxicality can be seen in the self-refuting nature of the sentence "I am humble". How would a Catholic moral theologian justify modesty in light of its paradoxicality?