Adam made the first covenant with God. When this covenant was broken he and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden as punishment for breaking this covenant and they then had to fend for themselves with their newly acquired knowledge of the world. Jesus was sacrificed in order for man to redeem himself of his actions and sins which broke a prior covenant with God. A New covenant was made between God and man as result of jesus death and mans redemption. My question is what happens to the souls of men between these covenants as each covenant with God is on new terms? God changes his terms with new covenants and because he does what happens to the souls he had previously judged on these prior terms?

What is the biblical basis for in the catholic theology of a priest being "*in persona christi*"? The idea that only a Priest can conduct the New Testament Passover meal that Christ told us to "do in remembrance of Him" was for all believers surely? Why is it that in Catholicism the Priest is essentially "*in persona Christi*" and is therefore the only way for a "valid" communion meal? Where in the Bible is the justification for a Priest being *in persona Christi*? (an emphasis especially on the Eucharistic sacrament please, but also interested in the theology as a whole). Thank you.

I found [the abridged Book of Enoch from the Dead Sea scrolls](https://www.academia.edu/36950542/the_abridged_Book_of_Enoch_from_the_Dead_Sea_scrolls) . Which says at the end "Here endeth the original Book of Enoch the Prophet translated from the Aramaic and Greek". It is 23 pages long. Ethiopian Enoch is over 100 pages long. So is that the parts of 1 Enoch in the DSS? Edit: Ethiopian Enoch RH Charles version is 70 pages long with no commentary.

While researching for [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32544/how-does-the-bible-teach-us-to-direct-our-prayers/32588#32588) , I came across [this quesion](http://www.gotquestions.org/pray-Father-Son-Spirit.html) . In its answer it stated: > Roman Catholics are taught to pray to Mary and various saints. Such > prayers are not scriptural and are, in fact, an insult to our heavenly > Father. The question is, what is the Scriptural basis for Catholics praying to Mary and the various saints? Please note that [What is the basis for the solicitation of prayers from dead saints?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/767/what-is-the-basis-for-the-solicitation-of-prayers-from-dead-saints) is seeking **'how'** these prayers originated - and categorically states *'it does not intend to get answers why these prayers are acceptable'* - while this question is seeking the scriptural basis of these prayers, i.e. **'why'** are they acceptable from scripture? Please note that the acceptable answer will be one that does not just rattle off scriptural verses, but also demonstrates an understanding of the Catholic practice in light of scripture. The answer should also address: *'Roman Catholics are taught to pray **to** Mary and various saints.'*

The Catholic Church always has taught that Our Lord Alone redeemed mankind; and so, only through Him are salvation and Grace obtained. The term *mediator* means a "go-between." Thus, and in a sense, we are *mediators* when we pray to God on behalf of another person. Over the centuries, many Christians have believed the Blessed Virgin is the dispenser of all of the Graces which God deigns to grant; for example, St. Peter Damian: "In thy hands are all the Treasures of Divine Mercies." St. Bernardine of Sienna: "Thou art the dispenser of all Graces; our salvation rests in thy hands." And also, says St. Alphonsus Liguori, "was the doctrine of St. John Damascene, of St. Germanus, of St. Anselm, of St. Antonine, of Idiota, and of so many other learned authors..." Furthermore, although The Church has never solemnly defined this as dogma, the term "Mediatrix of All Graces" seems to have been used for centuries in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary. As far as I can tell, the title dates back at least the fifth century, when Bishop Basil of Selucia made use of it. Prior to that, Church Father, St. Ephrem of Syria (4th century) writes: *"after the mediator, you (Mary) are the mediatrix of the whole world."* However, I'm not sure this means "mediatrix of all graces." QUESTION: When might the title, "Mediatrix of All Graces," first have been applied to the Blessed Mother; and, did any of the Church Fathers definitely make use of it (or something equivalent to it) to describe the Mother of God? Thank you.

How will God judge those who never heard the gospel, this is because Jesus said knowledge of the gospel will be used as testimony to all nations. >This good news of the kingdom [the gospel] will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end [of the age] will come. (Mathew 24:14)

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentating on John 18:31 ("It is not lawful for us to put any man to death"), writes: >it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, *Hist. Jud.* iv. 6). But weren't the Pharisees known for following the letter of the law, such as Ex. 22:18 : "Malefactors thou shalt not suffer to live"? They considered Jesus a great seducer, sorcerer, malefactor.

Original Sin is the Catholic doctrine that all human are born sinners due to the inheritance of the sin of Adam. However, Jesus Christ atoned for the sin of mankind. Therefore, one would assume the sin of Adam which Man inherited would be included, and thus children would not need to be baptised in order to be saved as they would be innocent. Why do Catholics believe original sin was not washed away along with other sins?

I've been hearing some tributes to Rev. Billy Graham today and one of the things that people were praising him was that he "emphasized people over religion". Now I'm guessing that is not necessarily the Catholic definition of religion which is "the virtue of reconnecting with God". So, it seems to me, based mainly off of my interactions with Evangelicals here and listening to Christian Radio that religion is either bad or a necessary evil. But is this what Evangelicals truly believe? Are they always talking about organized religious ceremonies when they say "religion"? Is there a concrete definition of what religion is, according to Evangelicals?

Genesis 2:24 says, > Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. This makes sense in Trinitarian theology since we are made in God’s image as Genesis 1:27 says. > So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. I understand Genesis 2:24 to be a reflection of the Trinity since a man and a woman, which are two people, become one flesh in the bond of marriage. This is similar to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three persons in one essence. How do Unitarians explain being created in God’s image while also holding to this unification within marriage? P.S. I am not putting forward some twisted idea that the Trinity is a marriage.

The language that is used to describe the Mass as a sacrifice is confusing to me, i. e. calling it "Sacrificial Mass." I understand that Catholics say that Jesus continually offers himself as a sacrifice before God for our sins. From Is the Mass a Sacrifice? : > He appears in heaven in the state of a victim not because he still needs to suffer but because for all eternity he re-presents himself to God appealing to the work of the cross, interceding for us (Rom 8:34), and bringing the graces of Calvary to us...So, the Mass is not repeating the murder of Jesus, but is taking part in what never ends: the offering of Christ to the Father for our sake What is happening during this offering? Why is is called "Sacrificial Mass" if no sacrifice is taking place but just a reference to the cross?

In Nazi Germany, most Jehovah's Witnesses did not salute the flag, say "Heil Hitler," or enter the armed forces. Why did most other denominations do these things.

### Temple Incident All four canonical Christian gospels record an (potentially more than one, but not pertinent here) incident where Jesus enters the Temple, observes money-changers and merchants selling animals inside the Temple, and drives them out of the Temple with a whip: Mark: > Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” Matthew 21: > Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a den of robbers.” Luke 19: > Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there, and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” John 2: > The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” ### Money Changers *Mishnah Shekalim* records that on the 25th of Adar (just before Passover) money-changers sat in the Temple to help Jews exchange currency and pay the required half-shekel donation prescribed in Exodus 30:13–16​. ### Animal Sellers The *Torah* and *Mishnah* teach that animals like doves were offered by poorer worshipers (for example, as sin offerings or after childbirth), and these birds could easily become blemished during travel. Thus it was entirely reasonable to buy the doves in Jerusalem instead of bringing them from home since a blemished animal would be invalid as an offering (Leviticus 12:6–8, Leviticus 5:7, *Mishnah Keritot* 1:7 & *Mishnah Bekhorot* 7:6) ### Question Given that both money-changers and animal sellers were performing vital services required for Temple services, what do various Christian denominations believe the reason was for Jesus whipping them out of the Temple? What sources do Christian denominations use as support for accusations of corruption/robbery occurring in the Temple?

If we believe and confess, why do we need Jesus to intercede for us? >Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. - Heb.7:25 > If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. - Rom.10:9 Heb.7:25 sounds as if we need for Jesus to intercede for us repeatedly, in order for us to be saved completely/to the uttermost. I am looking for answers from persons who believe that Rom.10:9 is true. If I get different answers from those who interpret Rom.10:9 differently, that is fine. If a person is saved (by your definition), why does the person need for Jesus to intercede for them repeatedly?

God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people. God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve? I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.

Protestants reject the Catholic and Orthodox practice of asking deceased saints to pray for them, and I think there are two main reasons why they reject it: it is communicating with the dead, and it is dishonouring to Jesus. The first has been dealt with in many other questions, but I'd like to focus on the second one to see how valid an argument it is. So the second major reasons why protestants don't ask the deceased to pray for them is that they believe they need no other mediator than Jesus. For protestants, asking anyone other than Jesus to intercede with God for them is dishonouring to Jesus! But Protestant Christians have no hesitation at all in asking *living* Christians to pray for them. Why does the argument against dead Christians not apply to living Christians? If you ask your Christian brother or sister to pray for you, why is that not seeking another mediator than Jesus? The Bible clearly instructs us to pray for others, and it frequently show that early Christians asked other Christians to pray for them (ex. in Paul's letters), but does it ever instruct us to ask others to pray for us?

We read about the introduction to Annunciation in Lk 1:28-29: > And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. Note the words "she was troubled at his saying". Luke does not say that Mary was taken aback to see a male stranger suddenly standing in front of her. Now, most of the images depicting the Annunciation show Mary kneeling down in contemplative prayer in a room, purportedly her at home. But, wouldn't she be startled to see a man appearing before her in the safety of her home? Is it possible that she was outside, tending the garden, or drawing water, or caring for the domestic cattle, or even shopping? Out of her home, she had the chances of meeting a stranger and not getting afraid. Or, is it possible that Mary had an intuition of the ensuing Annunciation, on account of which she was spending time in prayer and contemplation, remaining mostly at home? My question is: Are there any extrabiblical writings on where Blessed Virgin Mary was, at the time the Angel addressed her before the Annunciation?

I was reading a (rather sacrilegious) story the other day in which God walks from the location of Eden to the point where the Ark landed, and it got me thinking... Speculation about where Eden might have been is fairly common. However, Scripture says that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished" (2 Peter 3:6), and modern Scriptural science believes that the Flood scoured the world so completely that virtually no trace of the old remains, and that any attempt to correlate pre-Flood geography to post-Flood geography is futile. **When is the earliest known reference to the idea that the location of the Garden of Eden corresponds to some existing, post-Flood location?**

It was a surprise to me during a recent conversation that a marriage could be performed by someone other than a priest in the Catholic Church. And after reviewing the only similar question on this site, I decided that I would ask it more properly. Here is some of my understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage within the [Eastern] Orthodox Church. However, as I know people might like to read a source, here is the Orthodox Church of America website (The Orthodox Faith, Volume II - Worship / The Sacraments - Marriage ) >Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God’s love for men, and of his own love for the Church. > > According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church. 1. The Sacrament of Marriage is the oldest sacrament, instituted by God Himself within the Garden of Eden. 2. A Man and Women become one spirit and one flesh, in a way that is not possible for humans alone. (The Holy Spirit is involved here) 13. Marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, (the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity) 14. As such a Marriage is a relationship between Man, Woman, and God. 3. Marriage does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues. (It is an eternal sacramental reality) 8. Marriage is a mystical participation in the divine relationship with God. (it is a Sacrament) 15. Marriage is a sacrament, it requires a Priest/Bishop. 4. Marriage as Sacrament is closed to the non-Orthodox, without explicit permission from the Bishop. 9. The Sacrament is preceded by the Betrothal rite. (Where rings are exchanged) 5. The Physical Symbol of the Marriage are crowns. (Stefana) 6. There are no Vows or Contractual Language, God unites the couple through the Church's blessing. 10. Marriage involves the Eucharist, the couple receive communion together. 7. The marriage is a combination of Joy and ascetic struggle. 11. Marriage is a path to theosis (union with God) where the couple helps each other grow in holiness. 12. Only 1 marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance that Christ has given us. (Divorce/remarriage is ... a whole other subject) I'm not sure if that is everything, but that is what came to mind after looking up and remembering the preparation stuff for my own marriage. How is it different for the Catholics?

I read somewhere a couple of years ago that Eastern Orthodox believe marriages contracted on earth, remain in place in heaven (however it is impossible to get married once you arrive in heaven). Whereas Catholics believe that marriages are dissolved at death and everyone in heaven is single. I also heard that Eastern Orthodox allow divorce, but I don't understand how that fits with the "eternal marriage that persists even after death" theology I described above. Is my understanding of Catholic and Orthodox marriages correct? More generally, what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of marriage?