Given various quotes and hymns from the mid 1700s onward, it seems some Reformed Protestants were showing how the Old Testament law only served to make it impossible to find the liberation that the gospel of Christ brings. From then, even till today, a popular claim in many Reformed Protestant circles is that the Law of Moses is the believers’ ‘rule of life’ – meaning the Ten Commandments which have the moral essence. One example of such a claim was a sermon preached on behalf of the Evangelical Association on 16th August, 1787 at a chapel in Artillery Lane. There it was stated from the pulpit that, *“The moral law is the foundation of all religion, both moral and divine.”* To substantiate it, the way Moses struck the rock so that water gushed out, was paralleled with Christians ‘smiting the law’ by keeping it, to get refreshing comforts from doing that. Another preacher of the time wrote at length about such claims. One instance was where he said, “A friend of mine once asked a certain divine in London what he thought of the law as the believer’s only rule of life. He replied, *"The believer must look with one eye to Christ, and with the other to the law."* (The author’s friend said to the divine that, then, every believer must be cross-eyed!) *Law and Grace Contrasted* William Huntington – Addresses, p.125, edited and abridged version published in 1999 **Was there something of a battle going on between two groups of Reformed Protestants on the matter of Mosaic law-keeping, and if so, why?**

Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the [*New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/world/asia/china-catholics-vatican.html) reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual. This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per [Canon 1382](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P52.HTM)) . It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found [Canon 378](http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1C.HTM) , which says that suitable candidates "must": > 1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question; > > 2° be held in good esteem; > > 3° be at least 35 years old; > > 4° be a priest ordained for at least five years; > > 5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law... On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication. However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2: > The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See. My question, then, is – **does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?** That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion? Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2? I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.

Why do some denominations require parishoners to go get the bread and wine while others serve the congregation? I read bread broken and prayed for, given, then eaten. After this was done wine was prayed for and given then they drank. Would seem to me the items were passed.

Open theism posits that God possesses comprehensive knowledge of every possible future but is unaware of which particular future will be actualized due to human free will. Wouldn't this result in the same thing as Molinism? If God has exhaustive knowledge of every potential future, He knows precisely how each individual would act in any given situation. Thus, God would be aware of whether a person will ultimately be good or bad from the moment of their birth. Isn't this analogous to Molinism's concept of "middle knowledge"? One could argue that God's awareness of possibilities is so vast that He comprehends every conceivable outcome for an individual, not just every choice they might make. For instance, there exists a potential world where I become a terrorist, and another where I become a priest. God understands all these possibilities in perfect detail but is unaware of which one will unfold because it depends on my exercise of free will. However, wouldn't this contradict the Christian concept of the soul? This perspective seems to suggest that there is no inherent soul, and that a person's character is entirely contingent on circumstances. For example, if I had been born to strict Muslim parents, I might have become an extremist Muslim. If I'm not misunderstanding open theism, it appears to imply that a person's characteristics are solely determined by the random chance of their upbringing.

Some Eastern Patriarchs in the Catholic Church are also Cardinals. Given that they are otherwise eligible, they can participate in the Conclave to elect the pope. However, they specifically *cannot* elect the [Dean of the College of Cardinals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_of_the_College_of_Cardinals) . I was not aware that their voting rights were abridged in this manner. This led me to ask... What other positions in the College of Cardinals can the Eastern Patriarch Cardinals *not* vote for?

When a layman is elected Pope, they are first ordained deacon, then priest, then consecrated bishop, then become Pope. For laymen in the Western Rite, it's safe to assume that their Deaconite is under the Western Rite, and same for their Priesthood and Bishophood. However, for a layman in an Eastern Rite, is their intermediary deaconite, priesthood, and bishophood under the Eastern Rite that they were respectively baptized in? Or are their intermediary positions under the Western Rite?

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?