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?**

In the *Ineffabilis Deus*, Pope Pius IX states: > Mary ... was > preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed > by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the > faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- **to think > otherwise** than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand > that he is **condemned by his own judgment**; that he has suffered > shipwreck in the faith; that he has **separated from the unity of the > Church**; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the > penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or > writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his > heart. Does this mean that that even if I have confessed my sin, been baptized, and live according to Christ's commands, but I don't believe that Mary was without original sin, then I'm doomed to hell? **If so, why is this an essential doctrine for salvation?** Note that this question asks *if* the Immaculate Conception was necessary for our salvation. I am asking why *belief* in the Immaculate Conception is necessary.

Do people who are Evangelicals, Catholics, Unitarian Universalists, and people of other denominations make decisions based on the Bible? Growing up as an Evangelical, I am familiar with several verses in the Bible that speak to how to make decisions. For example, James 1 speaks to asking for wisdom: > James 1:5 (ESV) > > ⁵If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. Proverbs 3 speaks to acknowledging God for a straight path: > Proverbs 3:5-6 (ESV) > > ⁵Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. ⁶In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Jesus speaks of the greatest commandments to love God and others in the gospels: > Mark 12:28-34 (ESV) > > The Great Commandment > > ²⁸And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” ²⁹Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. ³⁰And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ ³¹The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” ³²And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. ³³And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” ³⁴And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. There are also verses about prayer: > Philippians 4:6 (ESV) > > ⁶do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. > 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (ESV) > >¹⁶Rejoice always, ¹⁷pray without ceasing, ¹⁸give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Are these relevant passages? What other verses in the Bible speak to how to make decisions, and how does each denomination interpret them? Do many kinds of Christians rely on sources other than the Bible for wisdom in decision making? How does each denomination believe God reveals his will for us in how to make choices? What does each denomination believe are the best ways to interpret the verses I shared, as well as other ones that are relevant? For example, in Proverbs 3:5-6, what does each denomination believe the best way is to determine how to make a decision that "acknowledges God"?

We read in Jn 19:19-20( KJV): > And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. So, we have the INRI sign on every crucifix. Now, the images of the Stations of Cross in the Church of Blessed Sacrament in Washington DC depicts a soldier carrying a scroll with INRI written on it. In one station, Jesus himself is holding the scroll ( You can see them during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and Divine Mercy Chaplet held in the Church and recorded in 2020, on YouTube). My question is : Was a scroll with INRI inscription displayed near Jesus all the way to Calvary ? Are there any extrabiblical writings available on the topic ?

How often do you replay your day's mistakes to try see how you failed in comparison to how you did well?

*Note*: This question has been inspired by the related question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99867/61679* --- I'm intrigued by the prospect of tailoring apologetics strategies specifically to effectively present a compelling case for the truth of Christianity to those who adhere to pagan beliefs. While traditional apologetics often focuses on persuading atheists and agnostics, such as in works like "[I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) ," there is a unique challenge when engaging with individuals who already accept beliefs in deities, miracles, the supernatural, and similar concepts within a pagan or non-Christian framework. What arguments and approaches does Christian apologetics employ to effectively persuade individuals holding such perspectives? Delving further into pagan theology unveils intriguing concepts such as [theurgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy) and [thaumaturgy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy) . Theurgy, commonly linked with [Neoplatonism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism) , encompasses rituals and practices aimed at invoking the presence of divine entities. Thaumaturgy, on the other hand, often pertains to the use of magical acts or miracles for practical ends. Additionally, one may encounter related terms such as [Western esotericism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism) , [Eastern Esotercisim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_esotericism) , [Perennial philosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy) , [Kabbalah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah) , [Hermeticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism) , [Occult](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult) , [Modern paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_paganism) , [Shamanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism) , [Spiritualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism) , [New Thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought) , [Theosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy) , [Witchcraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) , [Druidism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druidry_(modern)) , [Yoga](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) , [Reiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki) , [Astrology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology) , and [New Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) . > Theurgy (/ˈθiːɜːrdʒi/; from Greek θεουργία theourgía), also known as divine magic, is one of two major branches of the magical arts, the other being practical magic or thaumaturgy. Theurgy describes the ritual practices associated with the invocation or evocation of the presence of one or more deities (also called "godforms"), especially with the goal of achieving henosis (uniting with the divine) and perfecting oneself. (Source: [Theurgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy).) > Thaumaturgy is the purported capability of a magician to work magic or other paranormal events or a saint to perform miracles. It is sometimes translated into English as wonderworking. > >A practitioner of thaumaturgy is a "thaumaturge", "thaumaturgist", "thaumaturgus", "miracle worker", or "wonderworker". A 'saint', being one who is variably defined as having an exceptional degree of holiness, enlightenment, or likeness or closeness to God, may be claimed to have performed miracles; these generally being defined as exceptional events or deeds not within the normative means of natural or human power, instead being of some supernatural or preternatural manner. Although the definition of a 'miracle', like the definition of a 'saint', will vary yet further among separate religions, sects, and schools. > > **Buddhism** > See also: *Abhijñā* and *Miracles of Gautama Buddha* > In the introduction of his translation of the "Spiritual Powers (神通 Jinzū)" chapter of Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō, Carl Bielefel refers to the powers developed by adepts of Buddhist meditation as belonging to the "thaumaturgical tradition". These powers, known as siddhi or abhijñā, were ascribed to the Buddha and subsequent disciples. Legendary monks like Bodhidharma, Upagupta, Padmasambhava, and others were depicted in popular legends and hagiographical accounts as wielding various supernatural powers. > > **Hinduism** > See also: *Godman (India)* > Godman is a colloquial term used in India for a type of charismatic guru. They usually have a high-profile presence, and are capable of attracting attention and support from large sections of the society. Godmen also sometimes claim to possess paranormal powers, such as the ability to heal, the ability to see or influence future events, and the ability to read minds. > > (Source: [Thaumaturgy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy).) When exploring these concepts, I'm intrigued to know if apologists have crafted arguments or techniques specifically designed to resonate with followers and practitioners of pagan religions. For example, are there instances where apologetics has been meticulously tailored to address the beliefs of modern New Agers or adherents of the *perennial philosophy*? Analyzing specific instances across different religions can provide valuable insights into how apologetics effectively navigates the nuances between Christianity and the diverse viewpoints found within pagan traditions, especially in the context of engaging with and proselytizing a pagan audience.

Context: before answering this question, I highly recommend reading the answers to [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97877/61679 . --- Some Christians believe that Christianity is testable. At least John Lennox [does](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) . According to such Christians, what is a step-by-step guide on how to perform such a test? I'm putting on my scientific hat here. Specifically, I'm interested in the following points: 1. Is there a set of clear, specific, measurable, non-ambiguous conditions that need to be satisfied for the test to become successful? 2. Is there a set of clear, specific, non-ambiguous steps that need to be carried out in sequence for the test to become successful? 3. Are there clear time frames for each step of the test, or for the test as a whole? 4. Are there clear, specific, non-ambiguous, measurable standards for evaluating the success or failure of the test? 5. Is [falsifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) on the table? That is, if the conditions of the test are perfectly satisfied and the steps are performed precisely as instructed, and yet the expected outcome of the test fails to take place, would that falsify the hypothesis underlying the test?

Peter quotes Joel 2:31 in **Acts 2:16–17**: > The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: > And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. But both Peter and Joel were talking about the "Day of the Lord", a terrible time associated with the end of this age, the Tribulation, the Apocalypse, etc.; it is *not* about the Crucifixion. What is the earliest record that associates a blood-moon (typically caused by a lunar eclipse) with the Crucifixion? **Clarification:** - Perhaps using the term "blood-moon" confused things. (I'd remove the term from the question, but there are already answers that refer to it.) - This question is not about the 3 hours of darkness on the afternoon of the Crucifixion. - The question is about the specific association of a *red Moon* with the Crucifixion (regardless of when it occurred or what caused the colour change).

This morning I read an article claiming that during the millennial kingdom the temple described in Ezekiel chapter 40 points to a new temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom on Earth. I understand this view is held by some premillennialists who adopt a literal interpretation of the thousand year reign of Christ. They say Jesus will literally come to earth to rule from the city of Jerusalem. Here is an extract from the article in question: >Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom. To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson. During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God. Animal sacrifices will serve that purpose, "but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year" (Hebrews 10:3). https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html The article concedes that a primary objection to this point of view is that Christ offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it then goes on to assert that since animal sacrifices did not take away sins in the Old Testament the need for animal sacrifices during the (literal) thousand year reign of Christ (ruling from Jerusalem) will serve as an object lessons for human sinners who will be alive after the second coming of Christ Jesus. Is this the view of “most premillennial scholars”? Is Ezekiel chapter 40 a description of a physical new temple to be built in Jerusalem where animal sacrifices will once again happen under a Jewish priesthood from the lineage of Zadok the Priest?

Romans 6:23 states: 'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.' I've understood this is a difficult concept since while some believe it to mean a purely physical death (which we are redeemed from during the end times in our resurrection) others seem to believe that this may simply be a *spiritual* death, entailing disconnection from God? Assuming the physical death is an aspect of this death, how come those who are raptured during the end times are not condemned to death before rising again if the wage of sin is death?

This is intended to be a question of general applicability, but in all honesty, I'm asking inspired by concrete YouTube channels that promote atheism and skepticism, most notably, [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ) and [RationalityRules](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg) . These are examples of a special category of atheists that stand out for their remarkable understanding of philosophy, logical thinking, and skepticism, as well as their outstanding debating skills, even against renowned Christian apologists. Just to give you an idea, Alex O'Connor, the founder of CosmicSkeptic, has debated [William Lane Craig](https://youtu.be/eOfVBqGPwi0) , [Frank Turek](https://youtu.be/b5a3MxIqZOs) , [Jonathan McLatchie](https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM) , [Trent Horn](https://youtu.be/5PF1JgXOKDQ) and several other defenders of the faith. When it comes to atheists of this caliber, I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means. Not even the best apologists have managed to do so. If I were asked my honest opinion, I would say that the only thing that can turn them around would be a supernatural, "road to Damascus" kind of experience. I see no other way. But leaving my personal opinions aside, I would like to know if there are any denominations that provide official advice on how to evangelize highly intellectual and well-spoken atheists and skeptics. What recommendations do they give to win strong atheists for Christ? Or is this category of atheists simply a lost cause and the only thing that we can do is to throw up our hands, leave them alone and hope for the best?

Other questions have covered: - [Biblical basis and our duties](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/48414/10672) of being priest - How being members of this royal priesthood of all believers is [different than specific roles in a church](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/23627/10672) My question is: What is the mature 21st century Reformed theology on: 1. WHAT our duties are TODAY as priests in the [Priesthood of all Believers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers) , and 1. Complete DOCTRINE that cover *all* relevant OT and NT verses interpreted from Reformed perspective, which needs to cover: - Specific Reformed-style typology from OT priesthood - Formal definition of New Covenant "priest" and how it is considered "exclusionary" compared to the "inclusionary" Catholic version - How this priesthood is contrasted to the roles mentioned in the New Testament (largely covered already in the 2nd question linked above) - Identifying what our duties are *now* vs. *future* (after the second coming) - *Practical priestly significance* (to others) of having direct access to God - Relationship to *spiritual gifts* - New Testament equivalent of offering *spiritual* sacrifices - Implications of the *meaning of worship*, whether individually or corporately (since worship WAS part of temple priestly function) - Prophetic and teaching roles to announce Jesus to the unconverted world - Being agents of reconciliation to the world - Relationship to our other duties to be disciples of Christ, etc. - How are we to be stewards of creation, thus recovering Adam's original calling - Etc. Resources in the first linked question (such as [this](https://web.archive.org/web/20160427191009/https://ifwe.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Priesthood-of-All-Believers_Final.pdf)) already have the kernel of an answer but it is not specific to Reformed theology. I'm also asking for a formal definition such as what one would read out of a 21st Reformed Systematic Theology book that has taken into account new Biblical research for better understanding of Second Temple Judaism. Thus, **citations** from those kinds of books (or a journal paper equivalent) would be expected in an answer. Some resources that can be consulted by an answer: - A 2021 *Christianity Today* article [5 Books that Portray the Priesthood of All Believers](https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/09/5-books-priesthood-of-all-believers-cliff-warner/) (not specific to Reformed theology, though)

What is the biblical basis for the priesthood of all believers?

I was sufficiently provoked recently by a Lutheran clergyman identifying as "Rev." That seemed to me to be somewhat a poor fit with a tradition that emphasizes the priesthood of believers. By whom, when and where did that title emerge? What authority or character does that title tell us about the Reverend? Did Luther accept that title?

What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus? The unanimity of the early Church Fathers is something that is often presented as an indisputable fact. However, while they were all in agreement about some major points of faith, there might have been some disagreements on some minor things. So, the question is about that.

>Thus speaks the LORD of hosts, Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassions every man toward his brother; and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10) Although this is an Old Testament quotation, these admonitions seem to be repeated throughout the New Testament as well. (Matthew 25:31-46) >Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27) Is the modern emphasis by Evangelical and Reformed churches on "Salvation by faith alone through grace alone"---and just saying a "sinner's prayer" for salvation---giving a wrong impression as to what the Christian faith is all about? Should the "discipleship decision" include acceptance of the "social gospel" ,as well as, acceptance of the Apostles Creed (or denomination's creed)? And is Zechariah's verses an accurate presentation of what has historically been called "the Social Gospel". ***Is it non-essential in today's presentation of the Gospel of Grace. (A different gospel? Galatians 1:6-7), or is it an essential part of the evangelical Gospel?*** Is what is called "the Social Gospel" legitimate today, if it doesn't surplant the "Gospel of Grace" for salvation? We are basically seeking a critique of the present status of "the Social Gospel idea" in modern Protestantism denominations---and in actual preaching.

This question is regarding the Catholic view. Why did Satan and the other demons rebel against God? What do they get out of it? Demons are outside of time so they perceive everything in one eternal moment [sic]. They do not have physical inclinations that could lead them to sin. Unlike humans they perceive all of their knowledge at the same time, which means they couldn’t forget or not take into consideration the fact of God’s omnipotence and their own damnation for disobeying Him. Wouldn’t they also know that the only reason God allows them to rebel against Him is to bring some greater good out of it, which would defeat the purpose of their actions? Wouldn’t it have been in their personal interest to not rebel against God since hell is the worst thing and it far outweighs whatever they got out of rebelling? This makes it seem like they were irrational, but how can such beings be irrational? **some quotes from Catholic Answers:** > When the angels made their initial choice to love and serve the Lord or not, they perfectly saw—according to their angelic natures—the irrevocably eternal consequences of their actions. That is, they were given the power by God to make a clear and irrevocable choice to love and serve him or not. Some chose well, while others chose very badly. > They understood the world and their decisions immediately—according to Thomas Aquinas, they have no active and passive intellect (I, 54, 4)—and the exercise of their free will is instantaneous and final. I don't know whether they are strictly atemporal or not, but whatever they are, the nature of their decision was such that there was no going back despite God's infinite mercy. **Addendum**: Angels do not know the future (see ST I.57.3) Also, this question differs in no way from the question of why humans choose damnation. The answer to both questions is that there is no answer. This is because free will by definition is the *terminus ad quem* of explanation. The only explanation for an act of free will is God; there's no intervening created explanation. So the closest thing to an answer of this question is that they rebelled in order to manifest God's attribute of justice.

Considering the whole umbrella of Christendom including Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Abyssinian, has there been any acceptance of people as true "Christian" who refuse to believe in Creation by a God? Can a person, in any of these streams of Christianity, deny the part of the Creeds mentioning Creation, and still be considered legitimate members of the Christian Church? Still be called Christian? Is ***Creation of the universe by a God*** considered an *essential belief*, or a non-essential? This question totally ignores "how" a Creation was carried out; it sets aside the discussion of the "manner or method" of said Creation! Or is this a ***universal prerequisite"*** (along with perhaps other beliefs or doctrines)? ***Verses to consider to help in answering this***: >Thus saith God the LORD, He who created the heavens and stretched them out; He who spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; He who gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them who walk therein. (Isaiah 42:5) >Giving thanks to the Father...Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the Kingdom of His dear Son...For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created by Him, and for Him. (Colossians 1:12-16)

It seems that Jesus talks out against divorce. But in other places, divorce is allowed. How does this all play out and where does the bible really stand on this? Is it a sin or is it just part of the culture? I'm seeking the exegesis of [mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) denominations, since I believe that these will all be similar (if not identical). If differences of interpretation exist between the different denominations, please let me know and I'll refine my scope a bit.

Are there any early or ancient sources suggesting Mary was descended from David? I found an argument in Tertullian’s *Against Marcion, Book III* indicating that Christ’s descent from the “seed” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8) and “bowels” (2 Sam. 7:12) of David could only be fulfilled through Mary. Moreover, because Joseph was descended from Jechoniah—whom God cursed so that none of his “seed” would prosper on David’s throne (Jer. 22:30)—Jesus could not be regarded as the “seed” of David through Joseph. I have also come across arguments suggesting Mary might have been of Aaron’s lineage. First, Elizabeth, who was married to a Levite, is explicitly mentioned as Mary’s close relative (Luke 1:36). Second, there is the promise of an “everlasting priesthood” from the seed of Phinehas (Num. 25:13). I’m somewhat confused by these claims and would appreciate any links or references to authoritative or early sources that discuss these points. Later Addition: I have also found that some early writers took a reading of Num. 36:6–7 that implied all inter-tribal marriage was to be prohibited. From what I have been able to track down, this was proposed by St. John of Damascus in *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (De Fide Orth.), Book IV, ch. 14* and later cited by Aquinas in the *Summa Theologica III, question 31, article 3*