In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Revelation, we see vivid accounts of angelic activity, including messages and visions given to John. After the completion of the canon of Scripture, especially following the Revelation of John, some traditions suggest that supernatural visitations—including those by angels—ceased or became extremely rare. From a theological or denominational standpoint, do Christian traditions teach that God stopped sending angels to earth after John received the vision of Revelation? Did God figure the Holy Spirit at work in the church is enough to reveal all hidden things and perfect messenger for the new covenant, unlike in his covenant with the nation of priests of Israel where he used to send angels to people like Manoah , Mary , Daniel? Did the Holy Spirit replace the role of angels in the OT in the NT?

Normally, the Memorial service for Jehovah's Witnesses is based on the Jewish calendar for Nisan 14. My understanding is that Nisan 14 is always the first full moon after the Spring (or Vernal) equinox, which happened on Wednesday 20 March 2024. This year, 2024, Nisan 14 falls on April 22 when there is a full moon. But the Memorial service is going to be on Sunday March 24 this year. ***Could this discrepancy have anything to do with fact that 2024 is a Jewish leap year?*** NOTE: According to a Jewish web site I found, there are 13 months in the Jewish calendar. The first month (Aviv/Nisan) in 2024 starts on Monday April 8 but to link to our calendar, we need to start with Shevat on January 10th, 2024. Shevat: January 10 - 11th month in Jewish calendar Adar 1: February 9 -12th month in Jewish calendar Adar 2: March 10 - 13th month in Jewish calendar - full moon 25 March Aviv/Nisan April 8 - 1st month in Jewish calendar - full moon 22 April

Christian language often describes sin as a burden carried in the heart, and salvation as bringing peace or relief. Is there a recognized theological or scriptural basis for linking the guilt of sin with an internal “weight,” and the experience of salvation with a kind of emotional or spiritual lightness? How have Christian traditions interpreted this metaphor or experience?

I would like to express some questions and points here regarding why God made this world as it is and not a world where humans could simply fly away at will. So, my main question to be brief is: Why did God create or willed reality in this way? That He allowed gravity in this level and not like other Mars, or why He didn’t allow us to be underwater creatures or flying ones. The thing that I’m struggling about here is the idea that God allowed us to have a choice; free will. Now what I have thought about is this: Do we really have free will if there are things that are naturally impossible for us to choose, therefore limiting our choices? Like you cannot choose between “flying” or “not flying”. You can only “not fly”. So can you really say “well, I still have free will” The answer that I have thought is “well, God has to set up some form of reality or limits. Otherwise, free will without limitations can include illogical conclusions such as existing and not existing at the same time” So okay, God creates a reality for us to live in: why this reality and not other realities? I apologize in advance if you think this is way too simple, lacking or so and so. But I hope you get the point.

The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the *Jerusalem Bible*, which uses *Yahweh*, and the *New World Translation*, which uses *Jehovah*, [the traditional rendering in English](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/6193) . There are very few translations which [transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/65691) in their text. I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do *write* the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is [not to pronounce the Name](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3720) , but the Catholic *Jerusalem Bible* still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?

What are the main differences between the two? I know that both reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but that's about it. I'm particularly interested in knowing their doctrinal differences (if any) with regards to the following points: - Christology, - Pneumatology, - The nature of God, - Soteriology, - The nature of humans (what happens to us when we die), and any other important doctrinal aspects in which they part ways.

It occurred to me this evening that I didn't know anything about Catholic eschatology, except they do not agree with Martin Luther that the Pope is the Antichrist, and Babylon, the Great Whore was not the Catholic religion! So I consulted Wikipedia and there was no entry explaining the Catholic eschatology that I saw. So how does the Catholic "Church" explain their eschatological view?

Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork. Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster. Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat. Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: ***Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”*** My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we *can* eat these things but we *shouldn't*?

> "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." - Isaiah 43:10 (KJV) In King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith teaches that members of the LDS church may too become gods one day: **Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ (King Follett Sermon)** > The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me. Moreover; we are aware that the Church of Latter Day Saints believes that the Godhead (Father Son & Holy Ghost) are three separate gods sharing the same will. > Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct > roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united > in bringing to pass Heavenly Father's divine plan of salvation. > > [Godhead (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)](https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead) Also; **Abraham 4** teaches creation was committed by multiple gods. > 1. And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. With this in mind; How does the Church of Latter Day Saints interpret Isaiah 43:10? Bonus points if the verse is kept in context.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 2214 §1 states: >The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties. This says "The Church", but §2 goes on to specify "Bishops and other Ordinaries". A bishop, when consecrated, is given the power to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese; but what authority does a simple parish priest have over his parishioners? In other words, what can a parish priest command or forbid his parishioners to do? Can he coerce his parishioners with punishments, or is this power only reserved to bishops?

I've come across several instances of the Trinitarian explanation that God's one nature (or essence) defines **what** God is, while the three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—define **who** God is. For [example](https://relevantradio.com/2022/10/explaining-the-trinity-nature-and-person/) : > ... To wrap our heads around the Trinity, we have to distinguish the word “nature” from the word “person”. Our nature would be what suggests to us that there is a person, but the person is what possesses the nature. A person could not exist without his or her nature but ultimately, the person possesses their nature. > > Patrick applied this to Frank, his caller. Frank’s person tells us *who* he is. He is Frank and that is his person. Frank’s nature tells us *what* he is. He is a human being with a soul, intellect, and free will. Therefore, he has a human nature. When Jesus became incarnate, He had two natures, one human and one divine. He never ceased being God the Son. I’d like to understand more precisely how this distinction is made within Trinitarian theology. I’m particularly interested in how this is supported by both scripture and the historical teachings of the Church. For example, the **Fourth Lateran Council (1215)** declared: >"For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit: but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal." This seems to affirm the distinction between person (who) and essence (what), but I’d like help unpacking it more fully. How do Trinitarian theologians interpret this distinction, and how does it help preserve both monotheism and the full divinity of each person? I’m looking for answers from a classical Trinitarian perspective, whether Western (Catholic/Protestant) or Eastern Orthodox, and would appreciate scriptural, conciliar, or patristic sources that explore this topic.

It is often stated that it is impossible for us to Keep the Law - or at least it must be impossible without first receiving the Holy Spirit. Studying the OT closely, I keep finding scriptures that assert otherwise (like Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy 30). King Saul not only continues to sin after receiving the HS, but sins so greatly that God revokes his Spirit from Saul! (So much for once saved always saved). And even King David - who is otherwise treated as the Gold Standard for OT Kings - commits sins that the Law demands death for after receiving the HS. After completing another read-through of 2 Kings, I found what appears to be the perfect counter example: Josiah. After learning of the Book of the Law, Josiah re-instates the Covenant and carries out his duties to rid the land of the worship of foreign gods and other sinful practices. No fault is listed against him, and in the final analysis he is raised up even over King David: 2 Kings 23:25 > Before [Josiah] there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, all his soul, and all his might, in conformity to all the Law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. It is worth noting that not only did Josiah perfectly follow the Law, but he also did so without having been blessed with the HS as his predecessors Saul and David had been. How do those that maintain that only Christ and/or only those that have the HS can keep the Law reconcile that with King Josiah?

Are Catholics allowed to read and/or own books that attack Catholicism or argue in favor of other religions without permission, even if it is for a legitimate reason like strengthening their faith? I was reading an old moral theology book but I'm not sure exactly what it meant and if it was just talking about books that were on the Index of Forbidden Books. For example, a quote from John McHugh and Charles J. Callan, OP's *Moral Theology* (1929) [§849-§866. Dangerous Reading](https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0001john/page/320/mode/2up) : > **849. Dangerous Reading.**—There is a threefold prohibition against the reading of literature dangerous to faith. > > - (a) The *natural law forbids* one to read or hear read written matter of any description which one knows is dangerous to one’s faith, even though it is not dangerous to others and not forbidden by the law of the Church. For a similar reason one may not keep such material in one’s possession. Example: Titus and Balbus read the letters of a friend on Evolution. Titus finds nothing unsound in the letters, and is not troubled by reading them; but they fill the mind of Balbus with doubts and perplexities, as the subject is above him. This reading is naturally dangerous for Balbus, but not for Titus. > >- (b) The *law of the Church forbids* the use of certain kinds of writings or representations dangerous to faith (Canon 1399), as well as of those *individual* writings that have been denounced to the Holy See and placed on the Index, or forbidden by other ecclesiastical authorities. > >- (c) The law of the Church also *pronounces ipso facto excommunication* against those who make use of works written by unbelievers in favor of their errors (Canon 2318). > > [... omitted: the rest of the "Dangerous Reading" section (§850 to §866) which covers in great detail every aspect and every term mentioned in §849, such as §862 that spells out what "use" exactly means in §849c]

In Genesis 2:16–17, God commands Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: >"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'" (ESV) This tree seems to serve no immediate nutritional or practical purpose for Adam and Eve, yet it is placed prominently in the garden. Given this, I’m wondering whether God’s primary purpose for establishing the tree was to present a moral choice — a test of obedience — that would foster spiritual maturity, trust, and relational depth with Him. Was the tree intended as a tool to develop spiritual growth through obedience?

In [Genesis 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5&version=ESV) , a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc. But in [Genesis 6:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=ESV) , God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. **Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?**

Have you ever thought why you live? And the Bible says you have the free will to choose life or death (that can mean being with God or separated from Him) But have you ever thought of “did I ever choose to live?” Of course before you are made, you have no “yes, I want to live” or “no, I don’t want to live”. But let’s say that this world is a “testing ground” for the true life to come as it is held in traditional belief (that is having eternal life in heaven or hell). My question is, why can’t I choose death? And by that, I mean non-existence. Like not in heaven, nor hell. Just nothing. If I have free will, why do I not have that option?

According to Catholicism, can unaided reason know that every religion except Christianity is false? For example, if someone claimed that they are 95% sure Christianity is true and 5% sure some other religion is true (and let's say for the sake of argument this person is perfectly informed about both religions), would Catholicism tell them this is a reasonable belief to hold and the right way to think about things, or would they say no, there is enough information out there that if you actually know about that religion you would know with complete certainty that it is false?

The Gospels record many parables spoken by Jesus, often used to teach moral or spiritual truths. Some of these, like the parable of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan, contain vivid, lifelike details. This raises the question: Were these stories based on actual historical events and people known to His audience, or were they entirely fictional narratives created to convey deeper lessons? I’m curious how different traditions or scholars interpret this — are there clues in the texts or historical context that suggest one view over the other?

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 says: >"But God has revealed them to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." Paul compares the Spirit of God to a person's own spirit — which would imply essential unity, not distinction. In my case, my spirit is not another person; it's just me. If the Spirit of God is likewise indivisible from the Father, as Trinitarian theology also affirms, how can the Spirit still be considered a distinct person from the Father? How do Trinitarian theologians respond to this apparent tension between indivisibility and personal distinction in the Godhead, especially in light of this verse?

If you suddenly suffer from a serious illness, become disabled, or experience a drastic decline in your quality of life, or if someone close to you is killed, murdered, or tortured, should you blame God for it? Certainly, the answer cannot be that it is God's will. Nobody should have to endure suffering like that. How can we still believe in God who allows this to go on in our lives? How does "the entire book of Job" and every other Psalm of David contribute to the answering of this dilemma about the doctrinal topics of Providence and the Attributes of God?