> For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”—Revelation 18:3 (NWT ) I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain, in what way(s), "Babylon the Great" engaged in "Fornication"?

There is a famous quote from [sermon 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm) on the Feast of the Nativity by [Leo the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I) , the bolded text among the paragraph context below: > Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour; nor because He partook of man's weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. **He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that emptying of Himself, whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.** The section context (II. The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man) is clearly an articulation for the proper meaning of Christ's "emptying himself" (Phil 2:7) from his pre-existence, against Arianism. But **what did he mean by "increasing the human"** (part of the bolded text above)? Does it simply mean God "adding human nature" during Incarnation instead of "relinquishing divine nature" (which is unorthodox)? Or does it refer to "healing humanity" (for example: by "taking the sins of the world", [John 1:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201%3A29&version=CSB) , or by giving new life to us so we can "share in the divine nature", [2 Pet 1:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201%3A4&version=CSB)) since in the beginning of the paragraph he said something about "undertook to repair"? A good answer should try to do one or more of these: - shed light on possible translation issue from Latin to English - provide a link for a critical edition of the text - discuss how his original audience would have understood the meaning - include consideration that the language he used may not be precise if the sermon has been dated PRIOR to Chalcedon (since his papacy is from 440-461 AD) - include discussion on how the quote could have been cited in Patristic, Medieval, or post-Reformation theological text in discussing Christology. For example, if Aquinas quoted it, what's his understanding of "increasing the human"? - doctrines (maybe related to Eastern Orthodox *theosis*) that use it for support

I've seen throughout my life that the accepted symbol of prayer is both hands put together with the fingers pointing upward. I noticed that no one I can recall has ever prayed like that around me. I also noticed it's not in scripture to do that. Where did it originate, and why? ![Drawing of a pair of hands positioned palm-to-palm also known as praying hands ][1]

Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

How can Jehovah's Witnesses, who view the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force of God, like electricity, explain the following Bible passages that distinguish the Holy Spirit from the power of God? Bible and theology professor Wayne Grudem, in a polemic with those who hold that the Spirit is simply the power of God, notes: > If we consider the Holy Spirit simply as the power of God and not as a separate person, then many texts simply lose their meaning, since they mention both the Holy Spirit Himself and His power or the power of God. For example, Luke 4:14: “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee” would then mean: “And Jesus returned in the power of the power of God into Galilee.” And Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” would mean: God with the power of God and with power anointed Jesus of Nazareth.” > > — Systematic Theology: Introduction to Biblical Teaching. St. Petersburg: Mirth, 2004. P. 248).

Obviously, the temptation began only after Eve spoke with Satan. Prior to that, it seems Adam and Eve had no trouble avoiding the forbidden tree, even though it stood in the midst of the garden. At least, we have no record suggesting they felt any temptation. However, it was only after Eve's conversation with Satan that she saw the tree as attractive and its fruit as desirable for food. So, why didn’t the all-knowing God — who surely knew that Satan’s words would have triggered temptation — give them a commandment not to speak to him? EDIT: Ok, here we go again: I want to know the perspectives on this matter from the Catholicism, the Orthodoxy, and the main-stream Protestantism (which is believers in Christ who besides addressing God the Father, also address Jesus in their prayers).

In some Christian traditions—such as Pentecostal or Charismatic churches—the Holy Spirit is often said to manifest through spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues, or healing. In contrast, many other churches (such as Reformed, Baptist, or Anglican traditions) do not report such manifestations, or they interpret them differently. From a theological perspective within Christianity, how is this difference explained? Is it a matter of doctrine, spiritual openness, ecclesiology, or something else? I'm not asking which tradition is “right,” but rather how various denominations explain the differing levels of apparent Holy Spirit activity in worship or community life.

In his recent book on the Arian Controversy (Nicaea and its legacy, 2004), Ayres refers to “Athanasius' own strongly unitarian account” (Ayres, p. 435). He says: > “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent > scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly > unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal > differentiation is underdeveloped” (Ayres, p. 238).

I might be getting a bit pedantic, but when biblical scholars use the phrase "The 10 Lost Tribes" then isn't it a bit misleading? The reason being is that the biblical passage 2 Chronicles 11:16-17 does mention that some of the members of the 10 members of the Northern tribes of Israel do settle in the Southern Israelite Kingdom of Judah: > ( 2 Chronicles 11:16-17 ) > > "And those from all the tribes of Israel who set their hearts to seek > the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God > of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made > Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong for three years, because they > walked in the way of David and Solomon for three years." Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 which was written long after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was taken into exile by the Assyrian kingdom does mention the Ephraim( representing all the 10 Northern Israelite tribes ) by emphasizing that God did Not forget Ephraim: > Jeremiah 31:20 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 20 “Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a delightful child? Indeed, as often > as I have spoken against him, I certainly still remember him; > Therefore My [a]heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on > him,” declares the Lord. Therefore, it might sound comical but isn't it more nuanced & better to use the phrase "members of the 10 Northern Tribes of Israel who went into oblivion or assimilation" as opposed to "the Ten Lost tribes" ?

Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 describe God as the one "*who was, and is, and is to come*", a phrase emphasizing His eternal nature and unchanging presence across time. In contrast, Revelation 17:8 speaks of the beast (often interpreted as representing the devil or a satanic figure), saying it "*was, and is not, and is to come,*" which appears to mimic God’s description but with a distorted twist. **What attribute of God is being emphasized through this triadic formula?** And how does the similar but corrupted version applied to the beast expose the devil's nature as unstable, temporal, or counterfeit? Is this a deliberate contrast showing God's immutability and sovereignty versus the devil's impermanence or false imitation of divine authority?

I have this question for a school assignment but it doesn’t specify what journey. Please help!

Where were the two 'thieves' that were crucified at the same time as Jesus, laid to rest? as Jesus was in the tomb, where were their bodies put? Thank you

In a [brief article on the Trinity](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Articles_on_the_Westminster_Confession_of_Faith/4) by Gordon H. Clark, he makes a surprising claim about a popular trinitarian hymn: > The hymn book of one denomination has rewritten "Holy, Holy, Holy," so as to exclude all reference to "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity." I'd like to know what hymn book and denomination he's referring to. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy,_Holy,_Holy) doesn't mention any such rendition, and he doesn't provide any other identifying information about this denomination. It's possible that the following paragraph's contrast to the "Presbyterian church" indicates that the change was made in a non-presbyterian hymnal, but that's not definitive. And this article was written in 1954, so the hymnal must have been published before then, but probably not long before. Which denomination and hymnal is Clark likely referring to?

There is a substantial number of people who self-identify as or are otherwise classified as "African-Americans" in the United States who consider themselves Christians. Were the ancestors of those "African-Americans" who were captured, mainly on the west coast of Africa, Christians when they were captured by various African and European war parties, or did those captured Aftricans only become Christians after being captured and embarked to European colonies outside of Africa?

And what is the name of this Angel of the LORD, who later also made many other appearances, but only in the Old Testament?

According to the Catholics, Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. Which denominations also teach that those who have not heard the Gospel and are ignorant of Christ can be saved if they seek the truth and obey God?

This question relates somewhat to the one posted here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107637/are-indulgences-previously-granted-by-popes-still-in-effect-unless-specified-oth The following (which is part of a preparatory prayer for the *Stations of the Cross* devotion) is extracted from pg. 301 of [*Mary, Help of Christians*](https://ia801604.us.archive.org/20/items/MaryHelpOfChristians/MaryHelpOfChristians_text.pdf) I have long been under the impression that an Indulgence can be gained either for oneself or for the souls in Purgatory (but not both). After reading the above, I am not so sure. QUESTION: May an indulgence simultaneously be obtained **both** for oneself and for the souls in Purgatory (if it is not specified that it is applicable only to one or the other---such as, the indulgence associated with visiting a cemetery on All Souls Day.)? Thank you.

I figured in heaven it’s a totally different reality than the life we have here on earth. So, I believe in heaven race, color, creed, nationality, and ethnicity will not exist in heaven. Plus, it’s heaven—-paradise—-a place of bliss for believers of Christ. Plus, we get new heavenly, immortal bodies. I don’t want them to be subject to race and color or nationality again in heaven. God forbid. So I am hoping that in heaven I will not be black ever again. Don’t ask why I just want this. I know marriage isn’t in heaven, but if romantic love or divine love for people in heaven which includes romantic love is in heaven then I am all for it. I want to see my crush in heaven with me even if he did marry in this earth. I know in heaven he will love me too. I just hope heaven won’t be disappointing lol. Other than that I hope I won’t be black in heaven, because it just doesn’t define me as a soul or person.

Consider, for example, the prayer to one's Guardian Angel with specified indulgences (extracted from p. 269 of the 1909 book, [*Mary, Help of Christians*](https://ia801604.us.archive.org/20/items/MaryHelpOfChristians/MaryHelpOfChristians_text.pdf) : I know that presently, the Church does not specify partial indulgences anymore in terms of days; nevertheless, I would like to know: QUESTION: If when one sees promulgated a particular partial or plenary indulgence by a Pope, is it still valid [unless specified otherwise (*i.e,* intended to be of short duration) or revoked by a later Pope?] Remark: I believe that in the case of the above prayer to one's Guardian Angel, the indulgence is still in effect for I recall having seen it in the most recent (1994 or so) *Enchiridion Indulgentiarum* although with a different formula for the prayer. Nevertheless, there have been other indulgences granted by Popes in the past (*e.g.,* Prayer to St. Joseph the Worker by Pope St. Pius X with a 500 indulgence attached to it)---that I do not recall having seen in the Enchiridion. Thank you.