A popular view is that Jesus was crucified on Friday, 14th Nisan, 3rd April AD 33. This is the Julian date. The Gregorian date is 1st April. Interestingly, 1st April 2033 will be a Friday. The current way of calculating the date of Easter is related to the Full Moon, which ties Easter rather more to the Passover events of the Exodus from Egypt than to the crucifixion. What discussions have there been in any major denomination about trying to tie the date more emphatically to a date of the crucifixion rather than to Passover? Has there been any review, especially in modern times, of this issue?

I do not recall any discussion of the consumption of blood in the LCMS church I grew up in. According to Wikipedia, the Catholic Church decided that consumption of blood is OK for Christians (excepting during fasts, of course). Within Protestant circles, I have heard different ideas, but I'm not sure what the overall teaching is for most denominations. Wikipedia didn't give much information on whether any denominations/traditions forbid eating blood in the modern day. It does report that many of the Church Fathers taught that eating blood is not allowed for Christians. To be clear, I am not asking about who is right or wrong on this issue, nor what reasoning leads to the different conclusions (though this is definitely interesting!). I'm just asking for a survey of major denominations, or prominent non-denominational pastors, which forbid blood. I am also not asking about the consumption of blood that Real Presence implies happens during Holy Communion; that is a different issue.

**My context** : I am totally ignorant. LOL. Michael L Brown said > Just as most Christians are almost totally ignorant of what real Muslims believe, so also most Jews are almost totally ignorant of what real followers of Jesus believe. So Orthodoxen are ignorant of what Catholics believe, Catholics are ignorant of what Orthodoxen believe, etc. Please ELI5, don't judge me, etc. In Catholic schools I went to, I learned about Catholic vs Protestant stuff like sola scriptura, sola fide, etc and even about Eastern Catholic , but I'm fairly certainly our teachers didn't teach us about the existence of the Orthodox Church. Idk. I didn't even know about filioque. --- Based on 2:32 or 4:55 in Why Christianity Is So Divided - January 11, 2025 by Versedyoutube (channel ID ) and on my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105402/list-of-jewish-ecumenical-patriarchs-of-constantinople (Perhaps my question is wrong because I don't even understand the 2 seemingly conflicting answers) : I notice the East-West split was and still is just Catholic (Rome) vs Eastern Orthodox (Constantinople) and not anything else for Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria. Why'd Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria break away from Rome but then the 4 of them united under Constantinople and are still united even to today instead of like a separate 3rd 4th & 5th things for Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria? The ff is afaiu : 1. The 4 Eastern bishops didn't mind Rome to rule over them as long as Rome ruled in a 'primus inter pares' way, not a primacy way. 2. The 4 Eastern bishops just then picked Constantinople to replace Rome. 3. Since then Antioch, Jerusalem & Alexandria have no beef whatsoever with the 'primus inter pares' way that Constantinople rules over them.

Lk 22:19 describes the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist: > And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”. Evidently, the pieces of bread that Jesus made,weren't uniform in shape or size. Over a period of time, making of hosts for Holy Communion , got standardised . The Catholic Church now uses perfectly round- shaped hosts. As a practice small hosts are cut out of wafer of larger size, entailing rejection of the pieces between circles. Nature gives a lead to minimising waste when a large surface is divided into smaller unit, the best example being of the beehive. It has hexangular columns that promote both strength and economy of space. My question is : Does the Catholic Church have a standard protocol for preparation of hosts ? If it does, did it ever consider redesigning the hosts in production, for the purpose of minimising left-over ? PS: I did post the question on ingredients and shape of hosts at https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/71046/what-are-the-church-laws-governing-ingredients-and-shapes-of-altar-bread-in-the , but have to been able to get conclusive answers on the shape. Hence this attempt.

Can a member of Opus Dei leave and join a religious order, or is being part of the prelature considered equivalent to being in a religious order?

This might seem strange for a Lutheran, but I have been thinking about confession as a formalized interaction with an ordained minister. It is my understanding that in Martin Luther's day, Lutheran churches would set aside time on Saturdays so that congregants could come and confess their sins before taking part in Communion on Sunday. It was not a requirement, but the opportunity was typically provided. I get that many Lutherans still have a thing about the traditions we inherited from the Catholic Church, but this is one that might be worth continuing. I know that in the U.S., the ELCA and the LCMS do not require that people attend a one-on-one confession with a pastor before Communion, but I know there exist other smaller denominations and am curious if any Lutherans in the U.S. or anywhere else still practice this formally. I realize that in most Lutheran churches, a member would merely need to make an appointment with the pastor and could speak to the cleric about whatever was troubling them. But perhaps there is value in a church setting aside a specific time for personal confessions, as is done in Catholic churches. I would probably avail myself of personal confession if it was provided in such a way that anyone could show up and confess to a pastor at a certain time. This would not make it like a "special request" which could get the sewing circle chatting about why someone made a special appointment to confess to their pastor. If it was just something anyone could show up and do on a certain day, there would be nothing remarkable about it and privacy could be maintained. I think it would encourage people to confess specific sins or regrets that might be on their mind, and provide an opportunity for pastors to offer personal spiritual and practical guidance to people who are struggling with sin. And everyone is struggling with sin. It just seems more effective than reciting the order of confession from memory every week, but I could be wrong so I am curious to know if there are any Lutheran churches that still practice this.

Many Christians (I think especially in Reformed and Fundamentalist circles though I might be mistaken) do not use the expression, "Oh my God!" to express shock or surprise due to it being perceived as a violation of the 2nd commandment. In Chinese, people sometimes use the phrase 我的天哪 or 我的天 in the same context. This phrase actually comes to Chinese by translating the English phrase, but instead of "God" the Chinese word 天 (tian) means "heaven". So 我的天哪 could literally be translated "my heaven ah!" Thus, it is not literally using the title "God" unlike the English phrase. However, I can think of two potential reasons Chinese Christians might still object to 我的天哪: 1. It is translated from a taboo English phrase. 2. Traditionally, 天 in Chinese is often used in the sense of an impersonal divine Providence, such as in the phrase "mandate of heaven" (天命) for the legitimate right of a ruler to rule. In this sense, even though 天 typically means heaven it could also be understood as a title for God. **I'm wondering if any Christians from those traditions who object to "oh my God" on grounds of the 2nd commandment have commented on the permissibility or lack thereof of 我的天哪.** To be clear, I am asking about this phrase's evaluation with regards to the 2nd commandment specifically. For a parallel example, I don't use "oh my God" personally, but not due to the 2nd commandment specifically; rather I avoid it because I see it as irreverent.

One of the most intriguing events in the Genesis accounts of creation is the way Adam tries to pass the blame for the fall to God, was Adam really trying to make God feel responsible for the fall by saying that if God had not created for him the woman, then there wouldn't be a fall in the first place? > And the man answered, “The woman whom You gave me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” - *Genesis 3:12 (Berean Standard Bible)* Was Adam blaming Eve or trying to make God feel responsible by insinuating that if God had not given him the woman, he would have remained sinless?

Lutherans believe in a real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, similar to Catholics. However they also believe that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine even after consecration. Does this belief that the bread is still bread (despite also being God) prevent Lutherans from engaging in eucharistic adoration/worship out of fear of idolatry? If not, can you please provide some examples of situations in which Lutherans engage in such adoration? Does it happen during the liturgy? Does it happen outside the liturgy?

Genesis says that we were ***created by God*** from Dust and God's power. (Genesis 1-2) The theory of evolution says there was ***no transcendent Cause***, and we eventually evolved from apes randomly. Does this show that evolutionary science and biblical religion cannot coexist with each other? What are the answers to this question from the viewpoint of Evangelical Christianity? Do evangelicals who hold to the inspiration of the Bible believe that Moses's statement about Creation disproves the "causitory" aspect of the universe put forth by evolutionists?

It is evident that capital punishment is still in vogue in a few Catholic countries, despite the Pope having spoken in favour of abolishing of the penalty. I wish to know how the New Testament is interpreted to permit awarding of capital punishment for criminal offences like murder.

A recent [question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91738/do-protestant-trinitarians-see-a-completeness-of-the-canon-of-new-testament-scri?noredirect=1) says: > The number three in the bible is significant. … Three persons are associated with the burning bush which Moses saw (Jehovah, Elohim and the Angel of the Lord). [Exodus 3:1–6 (NKJV)](https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/exo/3/1-6/s_53001) describes this incident: > Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of *God[Elohim]*. > And **the Angel** of the *LORD[YHWH]* appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. > Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.” > > So when **the LORD[YHWH]** saw that he turned aside to look, **God[Elohim]** called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” > > Then *He[3MS]* said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” > Moreover *He[3MS]* said, “I am the *God[Elohim]* of your father—the *God[Elohim]* of Abraham, the *God[Elohim]* of Isaac, and the *God[Elohim]* of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon **God[Elohim]**. This contains 5 instances of “*Elohim*” and 1 of “*YHWH*”, which are indirect references. and 2 instances of “*3MS*”, which are a third person masculine singular pronoun. But, there are three different names directly associated with the being(s) in the flame: - 1 **the Angel** - 1 **YHWH** - 2 **Elohim** At one extreme: - “**Elohim**” could be considered simply as a synonym for “**YHWH**” or “**the Angel**”. - The one explicit reference to "**YHWH**" doesn't require his literal presence within the bush. - I.e. the only being in the burning bush was **the Angel**. At the other extreme, there are actually three distinct beings within the burning bush. Do any denominations teach that Moses was talking with three distinct beings?

Before Jesus died on the cross, his body functioned like any other human being — he was breathing to stay alive, and then, after taking his last breath, he died. Then, he rose from the dead, and his body could appear anywhere (at any given time). Assuming Jesus rose with the same body as was crucified, was it subject to natural laws of requiring oxygen to survive? Notably, some evidence leading to the conclusion of a body with some physical limitations like requiring oxygen include eating fish with his disciples, and the fact that holes punched in his feet and hands by the Roman leaders were still visible. Given that Jesus is seated at the right hand of The Most High, does his body require oxygen to stay alive, or does the power of God sustain it?

I did some prior research on the Catholic doctrine on the use of contraceptives and condoms and learnt that they differ greatly with some protestant denominations on this subject and the Pope did publish an encyclical detailing the position of the Catholic church on this matter. *Casti Connubii (1930) by Pope Pius XI* >“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Was this inspired by the Biblical basis where God commanded all human beings to be fruitful, to multiply and fill the whole world or there are more Bible passages that support this doctrine? *Genesis 1:28* >“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” Would prefer an answer from followers of the Catholic faith.

Sacramental theology is one of the key differences between different branches of Christianity. Different groups disagree even on what is meant by a "sacrament", and by how many they are or what should be considered a sacrament. There is pretty wide agreement that Baptism and Holy Communion are sacraments, though some of the more radical Protestants such as Anabaptists would consider these *ordinances* not *sacraments*. Among Protestants, Reformed Churches generally recognize these as the only sacraments, while Lutherans sometimes also include Confession & Absolution as a third. Others, such as Moravians or Anglicans, may have more. However, my question was stirred up by the non-Protestant Nicene Churches: The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East. These churches all agree that there are seven sacraments (or *mysteries* in the Eastern Orthodox Church, "mystery" being the Greek equivalent to the Latin "sacrament"). The Catholic, EO, and OO agree on the list of the seven sacraments/mysteries: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Penance, Marriage, Ordination, and Extreme Unction (this last one seems to differ considerably between the different traditions). However, the Assyrian Church of the East has a slightly different list of seven sacraments : They include the Holy Leaven (*Malka*) and the Sign of the Cross in place of Marriage and Confirmation. **This made me curious how the traditions of the East and the broad West came to different lists.** It's interesting that the Churches of the East were also the first of these traditions to branch off from the West, with their split happening regarding the Council of Ephesus in 431. **Could it be that the idea that their should be seven sacraments arose prior to the Council of Ephesus, but the actual list of them had not been settled yet at that time?** I'm curious about the ancient history of the idea of an enumeration of the sacraments. I have observed that St. Augustine, at the very least, is much more generous in applying the word "sacrament" to things than later traditions are. This suggests that, during his time, the word had not yet obtained its technical meaning. In conclusion, my main question is, **when and where do we find the origin of the idea that there are seven sacraments? And, when do we first find people attempting to catalogue the full list of sacraments?**

I've heard particular denominations claim that although hell is definitely a real place and hell itself will burn forever, people who are condemned to hell don't actually exist forever in hell but instead are eventually destroyed, wiped out of existence. They claim that the soul being naturally immortal is a pagan idea, and that only those given eternal life will live forever. As far as I know most mainline denominations affirm that if you are not saved then you will indeed exist forever in Hell. My question is, what is the biblical basis to support the doctrine that people who are condemned to hell will actually continue to exist in hell for eternity (as opposed to being annihilated)? Alternatively, what is the biblical support for the soul itself being naturally immortal?

I believe the Holy Spirit can make you feel guilty for an actual sin while the enemies of God can make you feel guilty for an alleged sin that isn't one or keep you feel guilty for a sin you repented from. What are ways to discern if a feeling of guilt is from the Holy Spirit or from the enemy? Do any Catholic or Orthodox saints or Pentecostals provide insight on how to discern?

Matthew 22:7-9 seems to teach that the gospel was only preached to the Gentiles after the destruction of the temple, interpreting verse 7 as the metaphorical destruction of the temple, and verse 8 as the preaching to the Gentiles happening *after* the destruction of the temple. But this seems to contradict history as described in the Book of Acts where the gospel is preached to the gentiles *long before* the destruction of the temple.

The Council in Trullo, also called the Quinisext Council, was convened in Constantinople in 692. It did not include any representative from Rome and is not considered an ecumenical council. Canon 13 of the Council in Trullo specifically condemns the Roman practice of requiring clergy to be celibate (either unmarried, or perminantly abstinent following ordination). > if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife This rule is to be enforced by deposition of the offender > If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed. As far as I can tell, this is incompatible with the Catholic convention of requiring clergy to be celibate. Furthermore, the Council in Trullo recognized the 85 Apostolic Canons as authoritative, the 85th of which defines a canon for Scripture which is not followed by the Catholic Church because it includes three books of Maccabees, not two. However, Nicaea II, which is recognized as ecumenical by the Catholic Church and therefore authoritative, says in its first canon: > we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils **and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts,** and of those of our holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. Accordingly, we too anathematize whomsoever they consign to anathema; and we too depose whomsoever they consign to deposition; and we too excommunicate whomsoever they consign to excommunication; and we likewise subject to a penance anyone whom they make liable to a penance. [Emph. added] The Eastern Orthodox Churches take the boldfaced part as an ecumenical endorsement of the Council in Trullo, and thus view it as an authoritative emendation to the fifth and sixth councils. However, the Catholic Church does not (apparently) interpret this canon in the same way, for the reasons outlined above. How do Catholics understand this part of Nicaea II, if they do not take it as acknowledging the authoritative emendations from the Council in Trullo to the fifth and sixth councils?

The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Germany celebrates the anniversary (325-2025) with a new Icon of the Council of Nicaea (see below). Here's the Festival hymn (from [the program](https://www.oekumene-ack.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Theologische_Reflexion/Nizaea2025/Materialien/Die_Pilgerreise_der_Niz%C3%A4a-Ikone_2025.pdf)) : German: >„Wir feiern freudig das Jubiläum des Konzils,
und nun kommt in Deutschland eine neue ehrwürdige Ikone zu uns;
die Väter haben uns das Symbolum des Glaubens geschenkt und darin bekannt,
dass Christus, der Sohn Gottes, Licht vom Licht und Eines Wesens ist; Ihr preisen wir“
-*Festlied der Nizäa-Ikone* English Translation: >„We joyfully celebrate the anniversary of the Council,
and now a new venerable icon comes to us in Germany;
the Fathers have given us the Symbol of Faith and in it professed that Christ,
the Son of God, is Light from Light and of one substance; You we praise.“
-*Festival hymn of the Nicaea Icon* **Is the Catholic church doing anything special or similar for this 1700th year anniversary?**