> And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. - Mark 2:7 Swaddling clothes are narrow strips of cloth wrapped around an infant to restrict movement, and also to give it a snug feeling. Usually , the work of cleaning the new-born baby and clothing it , is done by the mid-wife , who could either be hired (Gen 35:17; Gen 38:28; Ex 1:16 ) , or be a close female relative of the expectant mother . Mary is traditionally believed to have been a teenager when Jesus was born to her. Notwithstanding the fact the Joseph and Mary were travelling, they could have taken along a close lady relative to take charge when the time would arrive. My question therefore is: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?

> Revelation 22:
(2) and flowing down the middle of the city's > street. On each side of the river was the tree of life, which bears > fruit twelve times a year, once each month; and its leaves are for the > healing of **the nations**. > > (3) Nothing that is under God's curse will be found in the city. The > throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and **his > servants** will worship him. > > (4) **They** will see his face, and his name will be written on > **their** foreheads. > > (5) There shall be no more night, and **they** will not need lamps or > sunlight, because the Lord God will be their light, and **they** will > rule as kings forever and ever As long as I understand (from reading the internet), it seems Revelation 22 is about a place (called heaven or kingdom of God) AFTER the Judgment Day. No more mortal human. Assuming that my understanding is correct, so the inhabitants of the heaven are all :
1. His servants (verse 3)
2. have His name on their foreheads and see His face (verse 4)
3. rule as kings forever and ever (verse 5) My questions are :
- are the inhabitants of heaven = the nations mentioned in verse 2 ?
- who are to be ruled and why ? are the inhabitants rule to each other ?
I realize that my questions are not valid if my understanding is not correct.

Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? What about the **first century**? What about the **second century** (and so on)? Was the belief in the divinity of Jesus widespread? Was it the norm or the exception? Can we find reliable answers to these questions in the historical records? Answers to this question should provide clear unambiguous evidence of post-New Testament writings which teach the divinity of Jesus.

The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”. Were they **all** evil?

In many of King David's *Psalms* , he seems to harbor a vengeful attitude toward his, Israel's, or God's enemies: Psalms 6:11: > Let all my enemies be ashamed, and be very much troubled: let them be turned back, and be ashamed very speedily. Psalms 24:3: > Neither let my enemies laugh at me: for none of them that wait on thee shall be confounded. Psalms 24:4: > Let all them be confounded that act unjust things without cause. Shew, O Lord, thy ways to me, and teach me thy paths. Psalms 34:4: > Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek after my soul. Let them be turned back and be confounded that devise evil against me. Psalms 34:26: > Let them blush: and be ashamed together, who rejoice at my evils. Let them be clothed with confusion and shame, who speak great things against me. Psalms 39:15: > Let them be confounded and ashamed together, that seek after my soul to take it away. Let them be turned backward and be ashamed that desire evils to me. Psalms 68:7: > Let not them be ashamed for me, who look for thee, O Lord, the Lord of hosts. Let them not be confounded on my account, who seek thee, O God of Israel. Psalms 69:3: > Let them be confounded and ashamed that seek my soul: Psalms 70:13: > Let them be confounded and come to nothing that detract my soul; let them be covered with confusion and blame that seek my hurt. Psalms 82:18: > Let them be ashamed and troubled for ever and ever: and let them be confounded and perish. Psalms 96:7: > Let them be all confounded that adore graven things, and that glory in their idols. Adore him, all you his angels: Psalms 108:28: > They will curse and thou wilt bless: let them that rise up against me be confounded: but thy servant shall rejoice. Psalms 128:5: > Let them all be confounded and turned back that hate Sion. What have Catholic commentators on the *Psalms* said about these verses? Is this vengeful attitude of King David sinful or justified? Or does King David in fact desire the conversion of his enemies?

Is there contradiction between John Chrysostom and John Damascus in regard to the interpretation of Matthew 24:27; Luke 17:24 according to the catholic and orthodox churches? What can be said, about it and are there additional writings that has to be taken in consideration? The most prominent explanation about the prayer towards the East today is that Christ will come from the East and this verse will be pointed to - **Matthew 24:27** that is equivalent to **Luke 17:24**. But it seems that this believe, may be of later time, maybe popularized by John Damascus? Comparing the interpretations of John Chrysostom on **Matthew 24:27** with what John Damascus said about the verse, at first sight there seems to be contradiction and John Chrysostom seems that does not mention that Christ will come from East, but that at the same time everywhere. Neither do Basil, Gregory of Nysa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria mention that the reason for praying towards the East is that Christ will come form the East, at least it is not mentioned by them, when writing about the reason for the prayer towards the East or the similar practice. --------------------------------------------- **John Chrysostom on Matthew 24:27** > Having told them how Antichrist comes, as, for instance, that it will > be in a place; He says how Himself also comes. How then does He > Himself come? As the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even > unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. For > wheresoever the carcass is, there also will the eagles be gathered > together. Matthew 24:27-28 > > How then shines the lightning? It needs not one to talk of it, it > needs not a herald, but even to them that sit in houses, and to them > in chambers **it shows itself in an instant of time throughout the whole > world. So shall that coming be, showing itself at once everywhere** by > reason of the shining forth of His glory. But He mentions also another > sign, where the carcass is, there also shall the eagles be; meaning > the multitude of the angels, of the martyrs, of all the saints..” > https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200176.htm --------------------------------------------------------- **John Damascus on Matthew 24:27 - Chapter 12. Concerning Worship towards the East.** > It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the > East. But seeing that we are composed of a visible and an invisible > nature, that is to say, of a nature partly of spirit and partly of > sense, we render also a twofold worship to the Creator; > >............ > > **And when He was received again into Heaven He was borne towards the > East**, and thus His apostles worship Him, and **thus He will come again > in the way in which they beheld Him going towards Heaven Acts 1:11;** **as > the Lord Himself said, As the lightning comes out of the East and > shines even unto the West, so also shall the coming of the Son of Man > be Matthew 24:27**. > > **So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East.** > **But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten.** For much that has > been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten. > > > **An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (John of Damascus) > Book IV - > Chapter 12. Concerning Worship towards the East.** > https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm ------------------------------------ **The Gospel according to Luke:** > **Luke 17:24** **For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven;** so shall > also the Son of man be in his day. -------------------------------------------- **The Gospel according to Matthew:** > **Matthew 24:27** > **For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west;** so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. --------------------------------------- Please let me know if I miss something. If you know more sources from ancient church fathers let me know. Thanks in advance.

How did St. Jerome defend the Blessed Virgin's virginity *post partum* in light of Matt. 1:25 , which says St. Joseph "knew her not **till** she brought forth her firstborn son"?

If someone carries with them a longstanding doubt constantly throughout the entirety of their life, regarding if they can be saved. Do they have enough faith to be saved? This applies to me personally, and I would love to hear your thoughts. Is there a difference between faith and belief? And in my personal context I think there is a relatively small chance I have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and if true, I would be unforgivable. If I carry with me the belief that there is a small chance I am not saveable, do I really have enough faith to be saved?

If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

When Elizabeth greeted Mary - >42 ...she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..." - Luke 1:42-43 (RSVCE) Why don't Evangelical Protestants treat Mary with at least this much reverence?

### Background I am intrigued by this conversation between God and Devil in the Book of Job: > "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” > > Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” If Job was a historical person and the conversation between God and Devil is the verbatim reproduction of what really happened, I wish to believe that they were not such sworn enemies as we have been trained to believe. I prefer to believe that heaven is the place where the faithful who choose to live for ever with God go, and hell on the other hand, is that state of continued existence which the people who consciously choose to ignore God are assigned to be in. The very fact that those who choose the 'adversary' above God are deprived of God's presence, itself becomes their agony after death. ### Question Has there has been a historical development of the 'image' of devil through the history of the Church?

I often find it helpful to illustrate my point with extreme cases. Let's examine some well-known examples of unbelievers: [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) , a distinguished atheist philosopher specializing in philosophy of religion; [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) , an atheist scientist highly proficient in Chemistry; [Stephen Hawking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) , a globally recognized atheist theoretical physicist and cosmologist; and [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) , a renowned astronomer and science communicator who identified as an agnostic. For example, on the question of whether God exists, Carl Sagan once said: > An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. **To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed**. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-Sagan2006-120)) Graham Oppy was [asked](https://youtu.be/OQv_K9toh2k) the question of what it would take to convince him to believe in God during an interview on *Premier Unbelievable?*. He essentially expressed uncertainty, leaning towards skepticism that a new philosophical argument for God's existence would be persuasive to him, given the countless arguments for God he had already studied. Similarly, when Peter Atkins was [asked](https://youtu.be/dRWIsuEL0Ac) on a different occasion, "*Could anything convince you God exists?*" he responded by stating that he couldn't think of any convincing factor, given his unwavering commitment to naturalism. In light of individuals with such backgrounds—who genuinely grapple with the inability to conceive of anything convincing—I find it challenging to reconcile this reality with the notion that the gift of saving faith in Christ is universally accessible. It's difficult for me to envision someone like Graham Oppy simply "choosing" to embrace and exercise the gift of saving faith in Christ supposedly available to him, or simply "choosing" to become born again. Absent a miracle, direct revelation, or an encounter akin to Acts 9, I genuinely struggle to see how this could plausibly unfold. If the offer of saving faith in Christ is a universal gift from God, does this extend to unbelievers like those mentioned earlier? If the opportunity for saving faith is accessible to all, can committed unbelievers such as Carl Sagan or Graham Oppy also avail themselves of this gift?

Are Catholic schools run by seculars (non-religious laity) a post-Vatican II novelty?

Was there ever a saint who, while living, convinced his or her spouse to enter religious life?

Is saying "Jeez(e)!" (also: Geez(e), Jese, Jez, and with lower-case initial) using God's name in vain? According to the *OED*, the U.S. slang interjections Jeez(e and gee (from which comes gee whiz(z , a corruption geewhillikins , itself a corruption of "Jerusalem!") are corruptions of "Jesus!" These are called minced oaths .
🎩-tip Cairnarvon

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? A complete justification for a contested statement includes not only support for one's point of view but also the arguments for other points of view, explaining away those arguments, arguments against your support and explaining away those arguments. I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. Therefore I have provided three answers to the original question - 1. "God knows every detail of the future that He wants to know, including things that He hasn't planned". Answer 1 provides the Bible passages used to support this position. It also explains why this position is unlikely to be correct. 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". Answer 2 provides the Bible passages used to support this position. It also explains why this position is unlikely to be correct. 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". Answer 3 provides the Bible passages used to support this position. It also provides counterarguments to this position and shortcomings of those counterarguments. Answer 3 also contains an index of Bible passages referenced in any of the three answers. >Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions. If you have a question that you already know the answer to, and you would like to document that knowledge in public so that others (including yourself) can find it later, it's perfectly okay to ask and answer your own question on a Stack Exchange site. - The Christianity.SE Help Center.

He starts with a most powerful declaration of the One who became Jesus in the flesh as having being God in the beginning, see John 1:1-14. But from there on in, similar expressions of deity come thick and fast, and with a clarity that seems to be crisper than in the other accounts. I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others, but **to seek from Trinitarians of the Protestant group how they would respond to a non-trinitarian accusing John of portraying Jesus differently to the others, perhaps due to an unwarranted bias.** A linked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78496/the-statements-of-the-early-church-fathers-regarding-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity does allude to John calling the Word 'God' but it enquires about the early Church Fathers and the formation of the formal Trinity doctrine, not about why the apostle John had his particular emphasis in his gospel. I am not searching out the history of the formation of the doctrine but sticking to why John wrote the way he did. Nor do I want answers majoring on disagreement with my claim that John writes far more clearly about the deity of Christ than do other New Testament writers. That has been dealt with elsewhere on here. Surely nobody will disagree that his first 14 verses are immensely more attention-grabbing as to the deity of Christ than elsewhere in the N.T? If we can take that as understood, **can answers suggest whether or not John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ is too much, or perhaps understood in light of what he wrote in his epistles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?** This should not end up as a mere argument about manuscripts (as if John's strong claims can be diluted by questioning the veracity of ancient manuscripts). I hope answerers will grasp that we view the biblical gospel of John as taken, because that is what Protestant Trinitarians do. If anyone disagrees, please post your own question on that!

One aspect of Christian theology that has long puzzled me concerns the internal logic of those sects and denominations – Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox alike – that affirm belief in a literal Lucifer. In discussions with adherents from various denominations, I have encountered a range of explanations for Satan’s motivations. However, these explanations tend to converge on a common theme: that Satan, consumed by envy and hatred toward both God and humanity, seeks to inflict as much destruction and suffering as possible. Yet this account raises certain difficulties. The portrayal of Satan as an embodiment of unrestrained malice seems to mirror the archetypal villains of literature and popular culture. Figures whose motivations are often exaggerated or simplistic, such as the spiteful fairy or the vengeful antagonist whose actions are driven by little more than resentment or jealousy. The evil, but just misunderstood and socially outcast, witch. The evil antihero in Pocahontas that just wants to annihilate the native tribe for no good reason, only based on incredibly superficial, shallow and hateful grounds. To me, it appears somewhat incongruous that a being described as possessing superhuman intelligence and insight would act with such emotional impulsivity and self-destructiveness. From a logical standpoint one might expect such a being to recognize the futility of opposing an omnipotent deity and to comprehend that rebellion against ultimate goodness is contrary to its own self-interest. The paradox, then, lies in the idea that Satan, though vastly more intelligent than any human being, acts with less rational foresight than the average person. If Satan is fully aware that his defiance will culminate in his own ruin, his continued opposition to God appears irrational, even absurd. Is Satan like those cartoon characters? Maybe *that is* the answer. Maybe Satan is just so blinded with hatred, for no apparent good reason, that he just cannot stop hating human beings and God’s creation. Maybe Satan is like one of those evil caricature in children’s movies, that just wants to destroy everything no matter the cost. Maybe he just cannot reason about his own self-interests. Maybe Satan is a *theological* caricature, a personification of evil in its most absolute and irrational form. Maybe Satan is a caricature of those characters. Or maybe both are a caricature of what we humans identify as the corrupt, destructive, hateful, malevolent and vicious forces of the world – they both take the evils to their respective extremes. To provide some personal context, I approach this question as an atheist and former believer. I lost my faith at the age of sixteen, and since then I have sought to understand Christianity as an intellectual and cultural system rather than as a lived faith. One aspect I found particularly burdensome within my former belief was the tendency of some Christians to use an interpretive framework that cast all events and moral choices as elements within a vast cosmic, constantly raging, struggle between good and evil. While this worldview can offer moral clarity and a sense of taking moral stances, seeing oneself as a “soldier of God” in a colossal war, it can also be profoundly exhausting. It is a mode of understanding existence that definitively do not miss.

What is the Biblical justification that God controls every detail of the future (as accepted by Reformed Theology)? I'm sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it. Tim Keller cites two verses from Proverbs 16. >The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:1 >The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. - Proverbs 16:9. I think I have found both a better exposition of my question and the answer here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4098/102058 My thanks to Mike Borden for giving me the word, "sovereignty", which led me to this question and answers.

> And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:4-6 > What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5 > This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. - Galatians 3:2-6 Does Reformed Theology (RT) assert that God made/caused/enabled Abraham to believe the promise God made in a primary fashion? What I mean is, one might say that the giving of a promise creates an opportunity for the choice to believe without directly causing that belief to occur in the same way that the prohibition in the Garden of Eden created an opportunity for Adam to choose but God didn't make Adam disobey. I think that RT affirms the latter (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does RT reject the former and assert that Abraham in no way would or could have believed unless God enabled/gave that ability to him? If yes (which I am sort of expecting) then a good answer will explain why real choice occurred in Genesis 3 but not in Genesis 15 and also whether God activated something latent in Abraham or gave him something brand new. In other words, did Adam's ability to make an actual choice disappear from humanity, go dormant, or something else? Bonus points for explaining (if yes) why Abraham's first act with his God-given faith was to ask for proof of God's re-iteration of his promise from Genesis 12:7. If God gave Abraham faith to believe (which Abraham played no part in), why was it a faith that doubted? > And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? - Genesis 15:7-8