In Matthew 11, Jesus is questioned about whether he is the messiah. Instead of answering directly, in Matthew 11:45 Jesus points to his deeds. The deeds he lists are messianic signs according to passages in Isaiah 26:19, 35:5-6 and 61:1. However, one evidence that Jesus offers is not named in Isaiah or in any other prophet as a messianic sign (as far as I can tell). That miracle is the cleansing of lepers. In my research, I found sources that say that it was a Rabbinical tradition of that time that only the messiah could cleanse a leper. Yet in studying one messianic passage more closely, I wonder if I have found indirect Biblical evidence for that being a messianic sign. > And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of > Holiness; **the unclean shall not pass over it**. It shall belong to those > who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. > > - Isaiah 35:8 The “unclean” above could mean only the morally wicked, but in the Old Testament it would seem to also include anyone who was ritually unclean. If the promise of a safe highway, a safe passage through the terrors of life, was denied the ritually unclean like lepers, then they would be excluded from the blessings of the messianic age. To fully participate, they would need to be cleansed. Have any theologians proposed Isaiah 35:8 as supplying the prophetic basis to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11 concerning the cleansing of lepers, making it a messianic sign?

**Some preliminary notes:** 1. No, this is not a hermeneutical question, as what I’m interested in are answers from theological perspectives who advance/defend the notion which states that the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4 are in fact the offspring of the sons of God mentioned in the same verse. 2. Separate is the question of the identity of the aforementioned “sons of God.” Instead, my inquiry is strictly about how the ancestry and origin of the Nephilim have been deduced from scripture according to any and every denomination who espouses such knowledge. **The verse** Here is the verse in question, from various English translations: > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when > the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children > to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. > **ESV** > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when > the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by > them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. **NIV** > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) > when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters > of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty > heroes of old, the famous men. **NET** > There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, > when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare > children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of > renown. **KJV** **The question** It seems clear to me from a plain, common sense reading of the verse that the Nephilim preexist the event in which the sons of God have offspring with the daughters of men. How can anyone claim that they originate from said relations? Simple question, hoping for a simple answer. God bless!

>God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.3. I have three related questions - 1. What does it mean that "God...maketh use of means"? 2. What is meant by "without, above, and against them"? 3. What does it mean for God to "work...above" means? **Conclusions** A sick person prays and then goes to the doctor. If the doctor provides the correct treatment and the patient recovers, the doctor is the "means". If the doctor is clueless, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "without means". If the doctor applies an incorrect treatment that should make the condition worse, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "against the means". If the doctor applies a treatment that should not cure the condition but only alleviate the symptoms, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "above the means".

Expressing this idea is difficult to relate. And I don’t understand the true significance of it. It seems that if Jesus destroyed his temple and which was “put back together” in three days. And to borrow a science quote from astronomer Carl Sagan: > If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Did God/Jesus create/recreate the universe through the crucifixion and resurrection? Just thinking about it seems way to deep and over my head.

Why do we see swastika in many early Christian churches? Swastika is considered pagan symbol bearing (prosperity and good luck). There are many pagan mosaics and other in Europe that have swastika, from the Romans, Greeks, Thracians etc. How was the pagan symbol adopted, and what does it mean in Christianity? Does any of the church fathers talk about that it is allowable to take pagan traditions / symbols and convert them to Christian with new meaning? I have heard that Basil the great has said something, but I don't know where to look to find what he have said. There are many more churches with swastikas and other pagan symbols that where probably borrowed from the pagans. [Swastika (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) What does the catholic, orthodox and protestants say about this? Does anyone state that the apostles used these symbols, and learned the people to use them by oral tradition? And what is the reason, will we not look very similar to the pagans if we use their symbols. If the pagans served demons using these signs, where these signs not inspired by the demons that learned the people to serve them by using these signs? How should this be understood? Thanks in advance. There seems to be a church or prayer hall dated 241AD where we can see swastika in it - Church at Megiddo The Ancient Church at Megiddo The house was built around 231 ce and its adaptation for use as a church can be securely dated to 240/241 ce. The Megiddo church would be contemporaneous with this building. Indeed, its construction, on the chronology suggested by Tepper, would predate the Christianizing renovation at Dura Europos by about a decade. The earliest Christian inscriptions that can be dated with some level of confidence stem from the third century ce and later.36 The floor inscriptions at Megiddo would thus rank among the oldest epigraphic data for Christianity.37 The Akeptous inscription would probably offer the earliest epigraphic occurrence of nomina sacra,38 and one of the earliest inscriptional references to Jesus Christ.39 And the mosaic floor itself would be a very rare instance of a pre-Constantinian Christian mosaic.40 If dated towards the end of the third century ce and especially after 313 ce, its significance would diminish, but it would still constitute valuable material evidence for ancient Christianity. [The Ancient Church at Megiddo: The Discovery and an Assessment of its Significance](https://2024.sci-hub.st/3600/018178562bf6388f4cfcc2ae31062ecb/adams2008.pdf) [he Mosaics in the Early Christian Basilica](https://www.academia.edu/figures/13123117/figure-10-mosaic-in-the-nave-detail-photo-by-author-misko) **5th c. AD** [Basilica of Bezistan](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Basilica+of+Bezistan/@41.1115081,20.0820876,-7a,46.5y/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sCIHM0ogKEICAgICM4v6MogE!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fgps-cs-s%2FAC9h4nrNLmhkUvh19_R8pwBsGqVrvQAccAZkSIkUEcjuWQCHgxoki9La06ozGPuCEr9abeoLqcZKSQGP8PqO3lagdCqqwORVLMTcv75bK8DJn1JfMnjzhYKIPFIthuCkhBBe5TOeNh18qA%3Dw203-h151-k-no!7i4032!8i3016!4m11!1m2!2m1!1sPaleochristian+Basilica+!3m7!1s0x13504252132b80ff:0xf42f7dbed22221b2!8m2!3d41.1123356!4d20.0816528!10e5!15sChdQYWxlb2NocmlzdGlhbiBCYXNpbGljYVoZIhdwYWxlb2NocmlzdGlhbiBiYXNpbGljYZIBE2hpc3RvcmljYWxfbGFuZG1hcmuaASRDaGREU1VoTk1HOW5TMFZKUTBGblNVUjZlbEI2YUd0blJSQUKqAVwQASobIhdwYWxlb2NocmlzdGlhbiBiYXNpbGljYSgAMh4QASIa-Ru4kMrII6__LK6712EEuiYlpxWUOYQE-W8yGxACIhdwYWxlb2NocmlzdGlhbiBiYXNpbGljYeABAPoBBAgSEBk!16s%2Fg%2F11glw_f49c?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) Early Christian Basilica church at Delphi The foundations and the mosaics of the narthex and the aisles of a late 5th – early 6th c. AD Christian Basilica were found in the place now occupied by “Apollo Hotel”. https://thedelphiguide.com/early-christian-basilica-church-at-delphi/ https://www.discoveringkos.com/destination-item/early-christian-basilica-of-palaiopanayia/ https://archaeologyinbulgaria.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/archaeologists-discover-hand-from-huge-roman-statue-at-early-christian-site-in-bulgarias-sandanski/#:~:text=The%20Bishop%27s%20Basilica%20is%20the,Operational%20Program%20%E2%80%9CRegional%20Development%E2%80%9D Jerash Church of Marianos - built in 570 AD under the episcopate of Bishop Marianos ========================================================= In pagan cultures: Some statements by some sites. The information needs to be checked. The association of the swastika with deities is certainly seen during the Geometric and Orientalising periods. In the Geometric period, we certainly have evidence for the existence of the Olympian Pantheon, ranging from shrines to Zeus, Apollo, Demeter, Hera and Artemis (Coldstream 2003: 327-332). However in the Geometric period we find that the swastika can be found, especially, with images of Artemis.....but it also gives us proof in the it being used in association with deities,.....Now Artemis is not the only goddess we see associated with the swastika, in this example we see it associated with, what one might presume, to be Demeter....We have seen it being used in association with deities, animals, mythology and people https://learning-history.com/greek-goddess-artemis/ https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/2019/1/22/ancient-greek-origins-of-the-swastika-in-archaic-greece This person in the video also says that the swastika is associated with the sun and idols calling them "the gods", luck, victory etc. It does not seem to be just decoration without meaning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnsEBTL5mZc How accurate is all this I can not verify. ..................................................... Floor Mosaic Depicting Dionysos's Discovery of Ariadne on Naxos Roman, probably from Syria Roman 3rd to 4th centuries Stone tesserae in mortar https://www.miho.jp/booth/html/artcon/00001755e.htm https://pbase.com/dosseman/dionysostriumf (2nd c. AD) Dionysos, Nike & Maenad (Bakche) - Zeugma mosaic - Triumph of Dionysus (Gaziantep Museum - Turkey) This pavement comes from the House of Poseidon. 1.https://www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/50616496196 2.https://pbase.com/dosseman/dionysostriumf 3.https://pbase.com/dosseman/image/170042225 4.https://pbase.com/dosseman/daedalus https://assaffeller.com/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%96%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%95 Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite, mosaic from Utica, Tunisia, Roman civilization, 3rd-4th century AD, Detail https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/noartistknown/triumph-of-neptune-and-amphitrite-mosaic-from-utica-tunisia-roman-civilization-3rd-4th-century-ad/nomedium/asset/2569228 https://assaffeller.com/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%96%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%95 Swastika and halo in the pagan culture - also found in the Christian iconography in later time some sources say - 4 th c. AD - catacombs of Commodilla is one of the first images of Christ with a halo around his head. This is just to show that there seems to be adoption of pagan elements in later Christianity. ------------------------------------------------------------- ENGLISH T**he ancient Christian Church adopted the Greek "gamma cross," giving it the meaning of salvation.** The swastika is found in paintings of early Christian catacombs, on medieval tombstones, and on priestly vestments of the 12th-14th centuries. The swastika is present in the mosaic covering the floor of the Basilica of the Nativity in Bethlehem. It is depicted among fragments of the oldest mosaic floor, preserved from the original basilica from the time of Emperor Constantine the Great and his mother Helena (the church was founded in the 320s by order of Emperor Constantine). Inside the swastika is a square, in the center of which is an inscription: Greek ΪΧΘΥΣ - "fish", this word was used in early Christian symbolism as an abbreviation: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0#%D0%A5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE Basilica of the Nativity, Bethlehem, Palestine, 4th century. The 4th-century floor mosaics. https://ru.pinterest.com/pin/223843043964727318/ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0#%D0%A5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE https://vp-sssr.ru/download/works/35/k-voprosu-o-zaprete-ekstremistskoi-simvoliki.pdf Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. Altar mosaic https://tehlib.com/arhitektura/sofijskij-sobor-v-kieve/ Crux Gammata. Mosaic of the Saint Sophia Cathedral of Kiev, 11th century AD. https://irenecaesar.wordpress.com/tag/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8/ Lalibela, Ethiopia, with a Cross, which consists of the multiplied Gammadion / Gammadia. [The Crux Gammata is the Tetragrammaton](https://irenecaesar.wordpress.com/tag/%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8/) Also the equal armed cross as seen on the processional Coptic cross. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112650/is-the-equal-armed-cross-apostolic-unwritten-tradition-according-to-the-orthodox The links are shared only because of the images as sources. I don't guarantee the accurateness of the information. This is just what I see on the interned and it seems that swastika is even used on processional crosses. There can be also seen a Latin cross in the form of swastika the sources say 11 c. AD. It seems that there is some meaning in the swastika it is not just an ornament from this what I see if the information is correct. Also ΪΧΘΥΣ in the center of the swastika.

**Arius' death was it miraculous or was he poisoned?** Arius died in 336, at Constantinople of some gory intestinal disorder. Some believe that his death corresponded to the prayers of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others believe that he may have been poisoned. Have any historians or medical professionals ever explained what type of poison could have produced the death of Arius in such a gruesome manner? [Hemorrhagic death of Arius](https://historyoftheearlychurch.wordpress.com/2021/06/07/75-the-freak-hemorrhage/) *Who believed that his death was a miraculous event and why?* *Those who believe he was murdered, what kind of poison could produce the physical manner in which he died?*

In an answer based on Catholicism (on the relevance of current events to the second coming of Christ) it was stated : >Peter has spoken through Leo XIV and will continue to do so. I had not seen such a statement before. In scripture, it is recorded that Moses and Elijah appeared on the mount of transfiguration and spoke, *but it was only to the Lord that they did so.* And I suggest that it cannot be dogmatically stated that this was not a *symbolic apparition*, rather than a personal appearance. Nor do I think that Saul's apparently seeing the witch of Endor can be *dogmatically stated* as a definite occurrence rather than 'anecdotal evidence' or an hallucination. Sorcery is *demonic* in origin and deceptive in execution, I would also point out. In scripture, it is recorded that Jesus recounts the words of Abraham (from paradise) that 'between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence' indicating that passage *between hades and paradise* cannot occur. (The only reason we are aware of Abraham's words is through *Jesus Christ the Son of God*, not by any other means.) --------------------- Note : I am presuming that the statement does not merely say that the words of Peter *as written in scripture*, being *spoken* by the Pope, are *as though Peter spoke them*. I am presuming that the statement, as delivered in context, is saying that Peter, personally, is speaking through the Pope, in a manner of inspired communication.

When in a biblical passage, such as Gal. 1:8--- > But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. or when an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Trent, declares, for example (on Justification): > 18. If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. Can we (from a Catholic perspective) justly conclude that the matter in question is either a matter of faith or morals, and therefore, cannot be rescinded by the Catholic Church?

Is doubting the truth of Christianity enough to make a proximate occasion of sin necessary (rather than free)? For example, imagine Bob is subject to many proximate occasions of sin against the 6th commandment. He could alter his lifestyle to remove these occasions of sin, however he is also not quite convinced that Catholicism (or even Christianity) is true. But in his situation there is no way for him to continue his inquiries without the danger of these occasions of sin. Does the danger to faith make these occasions of sin necessary and thus permissible?

If a person is in a coma for weeks already (so no point in waiting until the person is conscious again), or in a similar state of unconsciousness with no foreseeable change, can the Catholic [last rites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_rites#Catholic_Church) be given at the request of a Catholic family member? Or possibly a modification of the last rites? I'm thinking in particular not of the Anointing of the Sick (one of the several sacraments that are part of the Last Rites), but the Confession and the [Viaticum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viaticum) . The main question is how can the unconscious participates in the [Viaticum rite](https://spvchurch.org/documents/2019/7/communion_to_the_sick.pdf) ? What exactly does the priest do when the person cannot even say "Amen" before receiving the host? How about the requirement that a Catholic should confess at least their mortal sins prior to communion, since the unconscious cannot do that? The *Wikipedia* entry mentions that sometimes the host was placed in the mouth of a person already dead. Is that what the priest will do in this case? What is the practice today with respect to someone who is terminally ill and is unconscious, or someone whom the family has agreed to disconnect the life support system? Is there a special modified *Viaticum* rite (as well as Confession rite) that the Vatican has approved in the case where the sick is unconscious? Or if there is no modified rites for Confession and Viaticum, is there a Vatican document that prescribe guidelines in the case of the unconscious?

I am struggling to understand the meaning of these verses. Vers 31 and 32 speak of man being forgiven for blasphemy. But also that forgiveness for blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven. 33 says that a tree is known by his fruit. That to me sounds like "we will be known by our works". Our action, the effects of our actions, the fruits we bear. Which seems like a nod to the idea of dont trust the words of man but trust his fruits. It goes on to say in 36 and 37 that we will be judged for our idle words and that we will be justified or condemned by our words. I feel like this contradicts what was just said. Please share your interpretation or if I am simply misunderstanding context here.

Why are the 3 distinct Masses on Christmas (Dec. 25): 1. Mass at Midnight 2. Mass at Dawn 3. Mass at Daytime ?

Is there a feast in the Universal Calendar of the Catholic Church celebrating Mary's perpetual virginity?

At Luke 1: 46-55 we see Blessed Virgin Mary singing a song of praise, now known as the Magnificat, while greeting her cousin Elizabeth. I wish to know if the song of Mary was a spontaneous utterance, or was it an integration of prayers from the old Jewish scripts and the Psalms ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say on the source(s) of the Magnificat ?

At a Protestant funeral the other day, we were told that the sacrament of Baptism is not complete until after death. I found that this was Luther's position: “This sign of Baptism, the dying or drowning of sin is not fulfilled completely in this life." Is this not contrary to the Catholic teaching on Baptism?

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?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#Christianity) says that formal schismatics are those who: > knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism. But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people? For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church. Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II? If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

I've been reflecting on the interplay between faith and hope, especially when hope entails some degree of uncertainty and lack of intellectual assent but a strong desire for something to be true. Consider a scenario where an individual, exposed to the preaching of the Gospel, the promises of Christianity, and arguments and evidence for its core tenets, might express, "Though I don't know if Christianity is true, and I'm not highly or overwhelmingly confident, in light of the evidence I certainly believe it has potential to be true (i.e., it makes sense and I can't rule it out), and sincerely *wish* and *hope* it is true." Is it possible to redefine faith, traditionally rooted in strong beliefs, to encompass the prospect of being grounded in hope? Can individuals anchor their faith in hope rather than belief or intellectual assent, acknowledging uncertainty yet finding enough motivation rooted in hope in order to act "as if" a belief were true, with the aspiration that their hope-based faith may eventually, at some point in the future, evolve into a more solid belief? I'm interested in exploring whether this nuanced perspective has been discussed in philosophical or theological contexts, and how it might reshape our understanding of *faith* and its relationship to *hope*, *belief*, and *intellectual assent*. --- **Additional food for thought**: The application of [Pascal's wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) might be considered as an example of this, where an individual, faced with the uncertainty of the existence of a higher power, may choose to embrace a hopeful faith. In acknowledging the inability to decisively prove or disprove the divine, a fence-sitter on the question might opt for a faith-driven approach, investing in the potential benefits of belief (by acting "as if" the belief were true) while recognizing the inherent uncertainty. **Another related and important question** is whether we can choose to believe something based only (or mostly) on our desire for it to be true and in spite of our prior uncertainty. See [To what extent do we choose our beliefs?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/849/66156) --- **Definition of belief** Someone in the comments asked for a definition of *belief*. I will quote the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/) on belief: > Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to **the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true**. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. --- **Definition of hope** To clarify, I'm using hope in the following sense: > **Faith as hopeful affirmation** > > Now consider hope. James Muyskens (1979), Louis Pojman (1986a; 1986b; 1991), and William Lad Sessions (1994) have each proposed **accounts of faith that take hope as the central cognitive attitude**. Pojman claims that: >> If belief-in, or trusting, can be analyzed in terms of commitment to a course of action or a disposition to act, then it seems that we do not need to believe-that x exists in order to believe-in **or deeply hope in the existence of x**. (Pojman (1986b), 224) > > But what is hope and is this claim plausible? > > **Hope is a complex attitude that involves both evaluation and opinion or, at least, some relatively weak constraints on opinion**. If I hope for sunny weather on my sister’s wedding day, ordinarily this will involve both a desire that the weather be sunny and a belief, say, that this is at least possible. Notice that I can hope for sunny weather even if I believe that alternatives like rain or even snow are more likely. While there are differences of opinion concerning just how hope is to be analysed, quite generally, it seems that, **for any subject S and proposition p, to say that S hopes that p involves at least that (1) S desires that p and (2) S does not believe that p is impossible. Clearly hope is also an attitude one can have towards the existence of an object, entity, or person x (e.g. God) or the obtaining of some state of affairs. These conditions are arguably necessary minima for hope**. It would make little sense to say Dave hopes that his wound will heal quickly and not become infected but has no desire that this be the case or that he believes that this is impossible. But perhaps a religiously significant sense of hope requires a bit more. As stated, the first condition leaves the nature of the desires quite unspecified (e.g. are these emotions, considered value judgments, or what?); ‘impossible’ in the second condition might mean only logically incoherent. **A plausible case could be made, for example, that the second condition for religiously significant hope should be that p is a live option for S or that S believes that the probability that p is true is not so small as to be negligible or that S does not believe not-p**. > > [...] > > Although hopes can be misplaced, the minimal epistemic opinion involved in hope is a very weak one. Indeed, hope is most nakedly apparent in cases where something is hoped for despite its improbability. Moreover, and for this reason, the hope that p requires less, often far less, in the way of evidence to be rational than the belief in that same content p. It can be reasonable to hope that p in cases where belief with the same content would not be. Clearly, I can hope to win the lottery jackpot without believing that I will and indeed while believing that it is extremely unlikely that I will; that the odds of winning are about one in two hundred million. Lying blind and paralysed in a ditch, I might hope to see and walk again. Devastated by the kidnapping of her child, years later, a tearful mother might still hope to be reunited with her son. Enslaved, I might hope one day to be set free. **Similarly, one can hope that God exists without believing that God exists**. > > Source: [Authentic faith and acknowledged risk: dissolving the problem of faith and reason](https://philpapers.org/archive/MCKAFA.pdf) , DANIEL J. MCKAUGHAN. Religious Studies / Volume 49 / Issue 01 / March 2013, pp 101 ­- 124 DOI: 10.1017/S0034412512000200, Published online: 15 June 2012

What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of _son_ does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so . That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children. Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong. So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in *an overview* of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated. --- NOTES I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question: - If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? - Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that <code class="inline-code ">His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others</code>, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct? - "Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord" Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the _only_ Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

There is no doubt that angels (both the Holy and the Fallen) had a strong influence in the antediluvian world. Satan was the serpent of Eden. But, during Noah's Flood, where was he, what was he and his angels doing. Are the apostate angels trapped in Hell of 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6 the parents of the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1-4?