How can the following verses be reconciled? Matthew 5:18-20: >“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 23:1-3: >”Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” Matthew 12:1-4: >”At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat?”

Jesus and His disciples follow Jesus' interpretation of the Mosaic law rather than that of the Pharisees on several occasions. How does this fit with Matthew 23:2-3?

The US Census Bureau: [Easter Dates from 1600 to 2099 ](https://www.census.gov/data/software/x13as/genhol/easter-dates.html) describes the date of Easter from the years 1600 to 2099. There is a noticeable movement of the date from one year to another, ranging from the third week of March to the fourth week of April. Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday after the Paschal full moon (a mathematical approximation of the first astronomical full moon, on or after 21 March – itself a fixed approximation of the March equinox). This formula for deciding the date was fixed with a view to making Good Friday coincide with Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar, the date on which Jesus was crucified. But the coincidence rarely happens. This year, Nisan 14 falls on Saturday, the 12th of April, whereas Good Friday falls on the 18th of April. My question is: Has the Catholic Church ever considered an alternative formula for deciding the date of Easter?

Is there a default obligation for Catholics to formally take the three evangelical counsels (poverty, chastity, and obedience), meaning if you believe yourself to be capable of doing so, then that is automatically your vocation? If you think the answer is yes, can you provide sources for this?

> And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, **Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.** - Acts 16:27-31 "What must I do to be saved?" is the question put to them. Isn't the Calvinist answer, "There is nothing that you can do ."? Paul and Silas answer, "Believe...and you will be saved.". Isn't the Calvinist answer, "You cannot believe unless God spiritually regenerates you first .". If Paul believed and taught Calvinism, why did he respond in a way that appears to give the jailer a decision to make? A background, related question would be, why, if Paul was Calvinist, did he expend effort in trying to persuade men? Persuade,in Koine Greek, means much the same as it does in modern English: cause (someone) to do or to believe something through reasoning or argument. How does Calvinism expound on this passage of Scripture and the notion of "persuading" men?

It seems that in order to become a Catholic priest you have to either already be part of a religious order or commit to serving a certain bishop. Can anyone become a priest without a lifelong commitment of this sort? I know that diocesan priests can join religious orders, but I assume they wouldn't want you to intentionally do that.

Is drunkenness necessarily a sin, like hating God, or is it just because God decreed it to be? This is of particular interest to me because Rabbinic Judaism claims that it is not (It's only allowed on Purim) hence one could argue the following: 1. Rabbinic Judaism says that getting drunk is not (always) a sin. 2. But getting drunk is always a sin. 3. :. Rabbinic Judaism is false. Is this a sound argument? I know Aquinas and the Catholic Church would say yes, but advocates of some versions of divine command theory might say no. But it's also true that getting intoxicated can be allowed in a medical context although presumably in that case you're in a sort of controlled environment and there's a proportionate risk of bodily harm. Also Judaism concedes that sins committed due to getting drunk on Purim are still sins hence doing so may be a sin for some people. **Note:** Just for clarification, especially for those who don't speak English natively, we're talking about getting severely intoxicated, not just drinking alcohol.

For context: yesterday I asked two questions regarding what I would call "non-standard binitarianism" Father & Spirit no Son and Son & Spirit no Father the answer to both of these questions was that no such theological structure exists or by evidence seems to have ever existed. Given that there seems to be no theological underpinning for a belief system that includes the Spirit to the exclusion of the Son my question now becomes: Is Trinitarianism the only theological model that includes the divine entity of the Holy Spirit?

While reviewing the superb answers to this question about *free will* , I was inspired to leave a comment for Ian that I realized ought to be its own question. As I understand (and possibly misunderstand) Reformed theology, "works" are things that we do, and as such are not included in that which provides justification nor salvation. I then consider the act of will that is making a choice to open one's heart to Jesus Christ, a decision that I finally made in my late 40's to accept salvation through Him alone. Thus began my walk in Faith (though I keep stubbing my toes on those rocks in the road ...). It appears to me that my choice, my decision to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ is a Work since it is something that involved my agency. From a more Determinist and Calvinist perspective, how does my acceptance of Jesus Christ *not* classify as a Work, since it was something that I did but that I could have chosen not to do? (If other Reformed denominations view this differently, that perspective would also be appreciated in contrast). From my perspective, I feel like I've tripped over a contradiction in the general case of not being saved nor justified by Works, yet it took my agency to accept Christ as my Savior. (It is quite possible that I simply don't understand the theology well enough, hence the question). How does the Reformed/Calvinist theology resolve this (seeming) contradiction? ----------------------------- I am under the impression that there are other Reformed denominations than Calvinist, but that may be wrong so the bottom line question needs to be answered from the PoV of Calvinist/Reformed theology. (I am seeking more help in chat to get my terminology right on this). I note that this question is related to my question in addressing the free will issue.

What is the date this year for Jehovah’s Witnesses to commemorate the annual memorial of Jesus’ death? How can I find the time and location near me?

Implying earth will be 6000 years and Jesus returns is imminent. I find this youtube channel 2028 end during covid 2020 pandemic. So is this correct? Peter implying the earth gonna be 6000 years young earth.? https://youtu.be/6YtG0etke28

There are trinitarians who believe in God in three persons, and there are binitarians who believe in God the Father and the Son but do not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and there are unitarians who believe in God the Father but neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. My question is, are there any Binitarians that profess belief in a different two of the Trinity. I have already asked about the Son and Spirit at Is there any theological model believing in God the Son and the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of God the Father? .

There are trinitarians who believe in God in three persons, and there are binitarians who believe in God the Father and the Son but do not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit. And there are unitarians who believe in God the Father but neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit. My question is are there any Binitarians that profess belief in a different two of the Trinity. in the interest of asking one question at a time I will post another question asking about God the Father and the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Son.

One of the objections to the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that they use statues/icons as part of worship. (These objects are within churches, believers tend to have a few, etc) > John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter 11, "Impiety of Attributing a Visible Form to God—The Setting Up of Idols a Defection from the True God." But if you go to a reformed church, they have stained glass windows, depicting people or biblical events. It is even possible and likely that a picture book Bible could be there. ### So what exactly is the difference from the reformed protestant position? #### The "Epiphany" Window in the United Reformed Church in Somersville NJ See here for details. // *Side note, I do not understand why they call this the Epiphany window... it looks like the Nativity to me.* ### Mosaic Icon of the Theophany in the Monastery of Osios Lukas ### My old church First Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, above the massive organ pipes. Seriously, I crawled around up there... it's huge. This building was finished by them in 1905, and they claim their roots go back to 1758 on their website. ### Every Orthodox Church has this Icon of Jesus Pantocrator on the ceiling. This one is in St. Petersburg in a Russian Orthodox Church. ### St. Giles Cathedral - The Cradle of Presbyterianism in Scotland. The North Transept Window - Jesus Walking on the Sea ### Orthodox Icon of Jesus walking on the Sea, (from the website of the Orthodox church of Osaka )

According to the tradition Constantine had a vision in which Jesus showed him the sign of the cross with the command “in this sign conquer”. How does this reconcile with Jesus’s command to love enemies? >> “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you,” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭44‬ ‭NET‬‬ Or Jesus’s command that his kingdom isn’t one that will come through violence? >>>“Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.”” ‭‭John‬ ‭18‬:‭36‬ ‭NET‬‬ Could this be a different Jesus that appeared to Constantine? One that Paul warns about in his letter to the Corinthians >> “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough!” ‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭4‬ ‭NET‬‬

A disciple asked Jesus why he used parables and in response he told him. >He replied, "The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand. Luke 8:10 Why reveal it to the disciples directly but reveal it in parables to others?

I've been ardently searching the Bible for a proverb my wife keeps quoting. But somehow, I don't think it is in there. So, where did the notion that being clean had anything to do with being holy? I like to tell my wife that only my feet need to be clean (I know where that is in the Bible). Looking for historical answers from a Catholic tradition or if it really is in the Bible that would be good too. What I'd really like to know is how clean is clean enough not to be a slothful slob and how clean is so clean that you miss out on the "better part" that Jesus said Martha was missing out on.

Jesus tied some of the end time events to what Daniel prophesied. One of them is the abomination that causes desolation and the other one is what an angel told Daniel directly, that **knowledge shall incRease** (a prophecy that has been fulfilled in recent times) and **many shall move to and fro** (transport using airplanes from one corner of the globe to the other). Since these two have been fulfilled then the abomination that is yet to cause desolation is yet to appear but some Christians seem to believe that Jesus already appeared to the 1st century AD church, why? >"So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation..." (Mathew 24:15) The event above has not yet happened but the other two prophecies of Daniel happened.

I don't understand what the works that accompany faith are for Catholics to be saved. Are they: 1) Keeping the Moral Law 2) Doing good deeds (i.e. charity work) 3) Both If it is both, what good deeds do we need to do? And how often do we need to do them to remain in a state of grace? (Matthew 25 is concerning).

If a friend tells me something he said in confession, does that bind me to [*The Seal of the Confession*](https://catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/the-seal-of-the-confessional.html) ? > The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses.