Background = I recently went to a Lebanese festival at a Maronite church and was curious about the difference between that Eastern Catholic Rite and the Melkite rite. When asking about Maronites, I got this main answer: "Melkites primarily worship with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while Maronites use the Liturgy of St. James" While I have grown up going to Melkite masses and am therefore familiar with the St. John Chrysostom liturgy, I am not sure what a St. James liturgy is. I also tried asking my Catholic in-laws and they didn't know either. So I come here to ask the question Question = What is a "St. James" liturgy mass and how does it differ from a "St. John Chrysostom" liturgy?

Joshua 10:12–14 describes that >the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. Victor Warkulwiz, *Universe without Space and Time* , ch. 2 claims >Joshua’s long day was observed around the world, as indicated in the folklore of various nations. With Hezekiah’s sign (Isaiah 38:7–8 , 4 Kgs 20:8-11 , 2 Par 32:24 ), the sun momentarily went backwards. What non-biblical historical evidence is there of "Joshua's long day" and "Hezekiah's sign"?

[Pope Francis announced the consistory for the creation of new cardinals](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-07/pope-announces-consistory-for-creation-of-new-cardinals.html) today. The consistory will be held on 30th September, i.e. there is 3 month period during much can happen. **My question**: are the persons nominated to be created cardinals eligible to participate in the conclave? Of course, they are not formally created cardinals, but maybe there are some rules for the election of the next pontiff that specify more details of this and make such exceptions. I am looking pretty much on the prefect-elect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, [Víctor Manuel Fernández](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%ADctor_Manuel_Fern%C3%A1ndez) who may be elected pope in the next conclave if only he is properly made cardinal before that conclave. I am guessing that he can take name John XXIV.

Was Phoebe a deacon? The NIV/NLT translators seem to think deacon: > **Romans 16:1 (NIV)** I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a **deacon** of the church in Cenchreae. Furthermore, when I read the qualifications for a deacon in 1 Timothy 3, I see that a deacon should clearly be a man: > **1 Timothy 3:8–12 (ESV)** Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. **Their wives** likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the **husband of one wife**, managing their children and their own households well. Most other translations call Phoebe a "servant" instead of "deacon", however the greek word for deacon in both passages is διάκονος . I'm not sure what to make of this.

I know similar questions have been asked on this topic, but my question is a bit more semantic in nature. Relative to the answers this is generating, I feel that I must have inadequately articulated my question, so I’m editing it to ensure the correct question is being understood and answered. The question in its simplest form is whether the Jubilee was *counted* in 49-year increments or 50-year increments, but not *whether* it was 49 or 50 years. In other words, what I am hoping to discover is *not* how Jubilees were reckoned, but how the cycle was *counted*. And this is germane to Ezekiel 1:1–2. > Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the > fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of > Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. In the > fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's > captivity [...] (Ezek. 1:1–2) In consideration of all the contemporary kings of both Judah and Babylon, the year of the captivity, and when the city was destroyed, this reference to the “thirtieth year” can be to no other epoch than the Jubilee cycle. The Jubilee cycle overlapped the Sabbatical year cycle. The specific instruction for the Jubilee was to count seven Sabbatical cycles, equaling 49 years, and then hallow the 50th year. If the Jubilee is in the 1st year of the new cycle (49 years, and then the 50th year following it), it results in two consecutive years where no sowing or reaping of the land was permitted. Since provisions for one fallow year are provided, one would certainly expect provisions for *two* fallow years to be addressed. But no such provision is provided, negating this as their likely method. To remain in lock-step with the Sabbatical cycles, it has to overlap the 49th year rather than the first. So, the 49th year is also the 50th inclusive year from the previous Jubilee. This keeps the Jubilee synchronized with the Sabbatical cycle, and prevents two consecutive fallow years of no sowing or reaping. In which case, year 49 is the 49th year of the Sabbatical year cycle count, the 50th year inclusively from the previous Jubilee, and the 1st year of the new inclusive count towards the next Jubilee. So, the seventh Sabbatical year is year 49, 50, and 1 simultaneously. Ergo, I am not asking how Jubilees are reckoned. I do understand the intricacies of the cycle. What I want to know is whether they were counting 49 years or 50. When Ezekiel says that it was the thirtieth year, did he mean that it was the thirtieth year of a forty-nine-year count, or the thirtieth year of a fifty-year count? If he’s counting 50 years from the actual year of the Jubilees to the next Jubilee, then the 30th year of that count is going to be different by one year compared to counting 49 years from the first year of the new Sabbatical year cycle. The answer to this question also affects where the Jubilees following and preceding should fall. If the 30th year is incorrectly displaced, it affects where the upcoming Jubilee falls. And counting backwards, we don’t know if we should be counting back to year 1, which is year 49, or if we should be counting back to year 1, which is year 1 of the first Sabbatical cycle. SO! I’m asking for logical arguments on whether they were doing a 49-year count, and reckoning the 50th year inclusively from the previous Jubilee on the 49th year, or if they were doing an actual 50-year count from Jubilee to Jubilee, using the Jubilee cycle as an epoch. Scripturally, it would seem that a 49-year count is correct, per Leviticus 25:8–10. Just count 49 years, and hallow the 50th year (inclusive, from Jubilee to Jubilee). > And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times > seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be > unto thee forty and nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of > the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day > of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. > And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout > all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile > unto you — (Lev. 25:8–10) | Sabbatical Yr. | Running Cnt. | Jubilee Yr. | | --- | --- | --- | | 7 | 49 | 50/1 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 2 | 2 | 3 | | 3 | 3 | 4 | | 4 | 4 | 5 | | 5 | 5 | 6 | | 6 | 6 | 7 | | 7 | 7 | 8 | | 1 | 8 | 9 | | 2 | 9 | 10 | | 3 | 10 | 11 | | 4 | 11 | 12 | | 5 | 12 | 13 | | 6 | 13 | 14 | | 7 | 14 | 15 | | 1 | 15 | 16 | | 2 | 16 | 17 | | 3 | 17 | 18 | | 4 | 18 | 19 | | 5 | 19 | 20 | | 6 | 20 | 21 | | 7 | 21 | 22 | | 1 | 22 | 23 | | 2 | 23 | 24 | | 3 | 24 | 25 | | 4 | 25 | 26 | | 5 | 26 | 27 | | 6 | 27 | 28 | | 7 | 28 | 29 | | 1 | 29 | **30** | | 2 | **30** | 31 | | 3 | 31 | 32 | | 4 | 32 | 33 | | 5 | 33 | 34 | | 6 | 34 | 35 | | 7 | 35 | 36 | | 1 | 36 | 37 | | 2 | 37 | 38 | | 3 | 38 | 39 | | 4 | 39 | 40 | | 5 | 40 | 41 | | 6 | 41 | 42 | | 7 | 42 | 43 | | 1 | 43 | 44 | | 2 | 44 | 45 | | 3 | 45 | 46 | | 4 | 46 | 47 | | 5 | 47 | 48 | | 6 | 48 | 49 | | 7 | 49 | 50/1 | While Ezekiel's "thirtieth year" may be a fixed point, determining precisely when the Jubilee occurred is directly relative to whether he's in the thirtieth year of a forty-nine-year count, or a fifty-year count. I would say that we can simply use the other surrounding context, but there are debates over whether Ezekiel is counting reigns, years of captivity, years from the destruction of Jerusalem, etc., from Nisan to Nisan or Tishri to Tishri. Depending on which counting method you use in that particular regard, it alters the results. This question also applies retrospectively to the reign of Josiah. It is alleged that the Talmud (bArak. 12a–b, 33a, bMeg. 14b) puts the start of a Jubilee in the eighteenth year of Josiah (personally, I think the text suggests that it was *not* the Jubilee, but that's another problem for another day). Whether the count is forty-nine years with the fiftieth merely reckoned as such from Jubilee to Jubilee, or whether it's a literal fifty-year count, directly affects where the Jubilee would have fallen in the reign of Josiah. Soooooo, any thoughts?

There are objections made that scripture does not explicitly state that 'Jesus Christ is God' and I see many arguments to and fro about this matter. However it *was* preached, by Paul as soon as he started preaching, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And this was the reason that Jesus was crucified because it was claimed (but not proved) that he, himself, stated this in public. Of course, Peter said, privately, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God ; and was not rebuked for so saying, rather Jesus said that this was the rock on which his church would be built. That Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son is clearly stated in the bible and that he is equal to God, being in form, God. And that he is God manifest in flesh. And that the eternal life which was with the Father was manifested. And that God was the Logos who was also in the beginning with God. But some do not see these things, in scripture, and arguments are constantly raised against such scriptures being used to express Trinitarian faith. I notice that Peter's faith was only confirmed after he had, first of all, been under the ministry (a ministry of repentance) of John the Baptist. He it was to whom Jesus came and those disciples (John and Andrew at the time) who followed John, first, were then told to Behold the Lamb of God ; and the only way to do that was to follow the one who was walking onwards, further. (John 1-3.) Thus those who do not submit, first, to the words of John the Baptist, in a baptism of repentance, will not actually follow Jesus, the Lamb of God, the one who will voluntarily be sacrificed. They will follow what they call 'jesus' but it will not, actually, be the Son of God. Note what 'Son' clearly means : only begotten and equal. For if one does not perceive the depth of one's sins ; the profundity of transgressing against the Almighty ; the absolute necessity that sins against the Eternal warrant an eternal response ; that crimes against the Most High cannot possibly be eradicated by other than Divine means . . . . . then they will simply not appreciate the need of a Divine Saviour, a Mediator between Deity and humanity, who possesses all the attributes of Deity and all the attributes of humanity that he might resolve eternal justice against mortal human beings. So I ask of Protestant Trinitarians, in their expressing the doctrine of Christ, whether they think they should continue to argue a point that scripture does, not, as such, state. And whether they should not dig deeper and see that the problem is one of lack of repentance and not one of religious argument ? My question is asked of Protestant Trinitarians who wish to enlighten others regarding the doctrine of Christ.

I heard that a Polish anthem or hymn addressed Our Lady as the "Warrior Queen". Which hymn was this? Is "Warrior Queen" one of her official titles?

Some rabbinic texts make the rather blasphemous (and bizarre) claim that God lied to Abraham in Gn. 18:13/4. >"In one case we even find **God twisting the truth** in order to preserve amicable relations between Abraham and Sarah and to prevent Abraham’s feelings from being hurt. Upon overhearing the prediction that she was about to become pregnant, Sarah laughs, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?” (Gen. 18:12); God, however, quotes her in Abraham’s hearing as having said, “Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?” (Gen. 18:13), making no reference to Abraham’s inadequacy. This episode was used by the Sages of the Talmud as a proof-text showing that it is permitted to deviate from the strict line of truth in order to establish peace (BT Yeb. 65b; BT B.M. 87a)." - **Yael Shemesh**, Lies by Prophets and Other Lies in the Hebrew Bible, 2. Lies in the Bible (paper|Bar-Ilan University), p. 4. >"I BEING OLD — Scripture [euphemism for God] in relating her words to her husband alters them for the sake of peace, for she had said (v. 12) 'my lord is old'" (Rashi on Gn. 18:13). >"Bar Kappara said: Peace [between spouses] is a great thing, as even Scripture [euphemism for God] spoke untruths [baddāʾîṯ] in order to establish peace between Abraham and Sarah" (Bereshit Rabbah 48:18). The Bible doesn't seem to say God can't lie in a way that is completely immune to textual abuse. So, my question is, can it be proven through unaided reason (that is, natural theology) that God can't lie? I would like a detailed explanation that goes beyond "God is truth."

There appears to be a predicament among the various reputable interpretations I can find for Matt 6:31-33: > 31Do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’. > 32For the Gentiles strive after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. > 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you. Here are the interpretations I can find, taking into account lived experience, and why I find each actually _increases_ worry: * Prosperity: God clearly promises here to give you all you need *if* you're seeking him first enough, and if you have enough faith. If you're not receiving all you need, it's because you do not have sufficient faith/seeking-gods-kingdom-first-works. The worry is that you cannot rely on this promise because by experience we all live with oscillating levels of faith/works, thus neutralising this promise. * [GotQuestions interpretation](https://www.gotquestions.org/seek-first-kingdom-God.html) : "Perhaps God knows that what truly we need is a time of poverty" - this lines up with the lived experience that many Christians are indeed poor. However this also provides plenty of room for worry for a family provider, that God may soverignly decide to impoverish your family. * The interpretation that God only supplies food/drink/clothes as per this verse, and that is where his provision stops. How can this be of any comfort for someone who needs to provide their children a house, bed to sleep in, education, etc? * The interpretation that this verse is in context of Jesus talking to the 12, thus was a promise for them, not us. In light of these options, what maximally worry-dispelling biblical advice/counsel/interpretations for this verse can be reasonably justified?

Bishop Josephus Meile (†1957) claims in *Die jungfräulichen Seelen in der Welt* (*The Virgin Souls in the World* ) p. 28 that >At the time of the *wedding at Cana*, as the Fathers of the Church testify, Mary was married as the new Eve to Christ as the New Adam. The new wine of Cana symbolizes the love that unites the King and the Queen.
Bei der *Hochzeit zu Kana*, so bezeugen uns die Kirchenväter, ist Maria als neue Eva mit Christus als neuem Adam vermählt worden. Durch den neuen Wein von Kana wird die Liebe versinnbildet, welche den König und die Königin verbindet. Which "Fathers of the Church" say the **wedding at Cana** was that of the **New Eve marrying the New Adam?**

Who came up with the idea that Genesis doesn't tell us "how the world was made" but "that it was made"? It seems to deny the historicity of the Genesis 's account of the creation of the world.

It is evident that the Last Judgment is the **last** one in the sense that it comes at the end of times, after which no other judgment will occur. However, the adjective "last" indicates that there have been previous judgment(s), of which the judgment of the End of Times will be the last one. Which are these other judgments? Do they refer to God judging the human race or the people of Israel? (e.g. The Deluge) I notice though that the Catholic Church speaks of the [General Judgment](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm) , which does not necessarily imply another one (although there is also the [particular judgment](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm)) . PS: I think this issue transcends the Catholic Church, but I am content with an answer coming from such tradition.

### Background Latter Day Saints believe that "plain and precious truths" were lost from the Bible : > Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that **there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book**, which is the book of the Lamb of God. - (**1 Nephi 13:28**) LDS/Non-LDS Christian disputations often center on apparent discrepancies between the Christian Bible vs Mormon scriptures. ### Question If LDS believe important information that corroborates the Book of Mormon and Mormon beliefs were lost from the Christian Bible, are LDS and non-LDS Christian disputes always talking past one another? Can scriptural arguments ever be employed against a belief system like Latter Day Saint theology which always has the "escape hatch" of 1 Nephi 13:28?

I understand that the Bible teaches that humans have a body and a soul. I have heard it stated that at death, the soul is separated from the body. I also am aware of those who take the “soul sleep” position which I think would say the soul remains within the body at death, but is asleep until the resurrection. My question then is this: what Scriptures describe what happens to the believers at death?

If the hymn [*Panis angelicus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panis_angelicus) refer to the Eucharist (flesh of Christ, bread of life), why did St. Thomas Aquinas not say "Christ's bread" (*Panis Christi*, if that's the right Latin grammar) instead of "Angelic bread" (*Panis angelicus*)? Why switch the focus from Christ's body to Angels?

I am planning on leading a Bible Study and want to try and provide some commentary by people such as Augustine, St John Chrysostom, etc. I've tried looking around and found it very difficult to find anything and it seems a lot of the references are implicit rather than explicit from my searching. I found Augustine's "On Grace and Free Will" which has some good references but I'd like to find more if possible.

I'm Catholic, so I subscribe to the idea that constructing and venerating images and statues is permissible and encouraged as a matter of Church dogma. However I must admit that I find it hard to square this position with the explicit command NOT to construct and venerate statues found in scripture. > 4 “**You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them;** for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. I understand that Christ "fulfilled the law" and as such there are large portions of the law which no longer apply (for example the dietary laws, sacrifice laws, ritual cleanliness laws) while other parts of the law still apply (ie, the moral component of the law). Does the prohibition against constructing and venerating images fall under the "abrogated" category of the law, or the still in force "moral" component of the law? I've heard many arguments in defence of venerating images and statues, and I reckon they are all great arguments with much merit and insight, nevertheless I still get the feeling that they can all be easily shot down in one go with a quick quote of the proof text above. It's causing me some annoying cognitive dissonance which I would love to resolve... Stuff which is great but doesn't really answer my question: 1. Constructing images of angels, saints and Christ is permissible due to the incarnation. Christ is the perfect image of God/Christ is a "living icon" of God. Therefore by becoming man God demonstrated that it is ok to make images of Divine things. That's all well and good, but it just results in a contradiction with the above scripture quote, unless Christ abrogated that particular commandment. 2. When we pray to statues, we are not worshipping the statue, we are merely venerating what the statue represents: in other words "veneration given to an image travels to the prototype". Again, I follow the logic, but it still doesn't explain why we are allowed to construct these images in the first place, in light of the explicit prohibition in the 10 commandments. 3. Elsewhere in scripture God explicitly commands us to construct religious statues. Eg the bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of the covenant. Therefore the prohibition against statues can't be absolute. That's great, but these things seem to be very specific exceptions to a general rule, and the general rule forbids us from constructing and venerating images. 4. "Statues of Jesus and Mary are just like having a photograph of your spouse and Children in your wallet. They help you to remember them and keep them in mind". Again I follow the argument and agree in principle, however I still don't understand how we can construct these images in the first place considering we have been explicitly forbidden from doing so, even if the reason for constructing them is as benevolent as desiring a visual reminder of our Lord and Lady. The only way I can find to square this scripture quote with the Catholic/Orthodox use of images and statues is to assume that this particular commandment was abrogated by Christ after he fulfilled the law. Is that right?

The Hail Mary is [very often called a 'prayer'.](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/995/6071) Some Catholics like to distinguish between 'praying', which is only said to God, and 'asking' which is acceptable for the deceased saints. So is the Hail Mary a prayer (even though it's offered to Mary) or something else? Answers from any perspective which uses the Hail Mary would be welcome.

The practice of a saying a "Hail Mary" is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals. However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual? **Edit:** If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying "so-many" Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better.

> Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: **Who**, being in the form of God, **thought** it not robbery to be equal with God: - Philippians 2:5-6 Various translations render "*hegeomai*" as thought, consider, regard, count, esteem, deem, reckon, and even a strange "take advantage" (which I think is outside the box). All of these rightly represent a function of mind, as the object in question (equality with God) is perceived and rationally, accurately considered. For comparison, the exact same word in the exact same form appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 (he counted) and Hebrews 11:11 (she judged). Indeed, we are exhorted to have the same mind in us as was in Christ Jesus when He, Christ Jesus, thought (*hegeomai*) it not robbery to be equal with God **when** He was in the form of God. Following that consideration he "took upon him the form of a servant". The condescension follows after and flows from the consideration in the text of v. 6-8 just as the exaltation of v. 9 follows after and flows from the condescension. There are those who declare that, prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist with person-hood and that, if he existed in some form, he existed as "an idea in the mind of God". Biblical Unitarians are one such group. However this verse declares that, prior to his birth in Nazareth, Christ Jesus displayed function of mind. He considered, thought, reckoned, esteemed, or counted. Additionally, having considered he then acted by "making himself of no reputation" and "took the form of a servant" in accordance with his reckoning. It is crystal clear from the verse in question that it is the "who" which "thought" and equally clear that the "who" is Christ Jesus prior to his birth in Nazareth. The who, "being in the form of God", is prior to "in the form of a servant" and "made in the likeness of men" as evidenced by the conjunctive "but" separating the *hegeomai* of equality with God, which took place when in the form of God, and the actions of making himself of no reputation, etc. which result from the *hegeomai*. If the latter activity can be understood as Jesus' birth in Nazareth (and indeed it must if he did not pre-exist his birth), then it is prior to his birth in Nazareth when he considered. From those who deny a pre-incarnate "person" of Christ; Who or what performed "*hegeomai*", that function of personal, rational mind?