In the Council of Florence (1438-1445), the Church states the following: > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (*The Council of Florence*, Session 11) I may be missing context because I didn't read the council, but from this alone, it appears that schismatics (non-Catholic Orthodox Christians) and heretics (e.g. Protestants) have no possibility of salvation despite the Church today speaking of them as separated brethren who simply lack the fullness of truth, while still being a part of the body of Christ. So my question is: When the Council of Florence mentions heretics and schismatics, are they only referring to those who are members of the Catholic Church who leave/apostatize? Or are they also referring to heretics and schismatics who never join the Catholic Church (e.g. Protestants who were raised Protestant from birth and didn't know the Catholic Church was true and therefore didn't join)?

Mark 14:20 >And he said unto them, [It is] one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish. Luke 22:21 >But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. He doesn't single Judas out at all here. Matthew 26:25 >And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? He saith unto him, Thou hast said. Plenty of others asked in turn if they would be the one, and when Judas asks, Jesus seems to reply affirmatively. Did he do so quietly? Was no one else paying attention? John 13:26 >Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, [the son] of Simon Iscariot. Again, why wasn't this noticed or remarked upon, or acted upon by anyone? Did they not believe what he was telling them? Did they not find Judas' subsequent hasty departure suspicious? John extends the incident a bit further: John 13:27-30 >And after the sop, then entered Satan into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. **Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.** For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night. [bold mine] How could they not have known, when he straight out told them what was going to happen and who was going to do it? How could any of them think "Hey the guy that Jesus just said is going to betray him is probably just running off to the shops to get some more food, probably for the poor."

I have wondered that if it is faith alone that gets a Christian into Heaven, then why was it important to Jesus that his followers do certain things such as obeying His commandments and caring for their fellow man? Case in point, consider these two Biblical passages: _"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”_ -- John 14:21 _“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’_ _“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’_ _“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."_ -- Matthew 25:34-40

I have been thinking about cremation but don’t want to go against the Word so leaning more towards burial.

The word homoousios is not in the Bible. It also was not a standard part of the Christian confession immediately before Nicaea. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5). The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural” and “untraditional” (RW, 234-5). In contrast to these “radical words,” Williams refers to “the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language” (RW, 234-5). [Rowan Williams - Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001] In the third century, the word homoousios was associated with Sabellian Monarchianism which taught that God is one person as well as one being. The word was used by some Libyan bishops to say that Christ and the Father are one and the same God, by Sabellius to abolish the distinction of the three hypostases, and by Paul of Samosata to describe Father and Son as a primitive undifferentiated unity. This was one of the reasons why the Arians did not like the word. But the anti-Arians did not like the word either: > 1. Eusebius of Caesarea unambiguously stated that it was Constantine, and nobody else, not even the anti-Arians, who wanted the word > homoousios. > > 2. After Nicaea, the word falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over > twenty years (See - Homoousios ). > > 3. At the Council of the Western Bishops at Sardica in the year 343, where they rephrased the Nicene Creed, the pro-Nicene theologians > omitted the word. > > 4. At the end of his life Ossius gave his unconditional consent to the so-called "blasphemy" of Sirmium (AD 357), which states that neither > homoousios nor homoiousios are Biblical. > > 5. Eustathius, archbishop of Antioch in the 4th century, whose anti-Arian polemic made him unpopular among his fellow bishops in the > East, openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the formula approved > at Nicaea. So, if the word homoousios is not found in the Holy Scriptures or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea, why was it included in the Nicene Creed?

John 18:36 says, > "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." If the kingdom of Jesus is not of this world, and he did not request his disciples to fight for his sake, does bodily welfare have anything to do with the Kingdom of God?

The driving conflict for the 1054 Great Schism was over the insertion of the *filioque* (and from the Son) into the Nicene Creed. The Western, largely Latin speaking churches said that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*" while the Eastern, largely Greek-speaking said simply "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father". This lead to the separation and mutual excommunication of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. My question concerns the Eastern Orthodox perspective on this, particularly historically as I am aware that some modern EO theologians have downplayed the difference. If *filioque* is regarded as heresy, what then does the EO make of pre-schismatic Latin saints who used the term? For instance, in Augustine's *De Trinitate*, Book IV chapter 5 argues that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son: > Nor, by the way, can we say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well. I have heard that other Latin fathers such as Jerome and Ambrose also taught *filioque*. If *filioque* is regarded as heresy by EO theologians, how are Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose regarded as saints?

Hebrews 10:4 states that 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins'. However, the book of Leviticus introduced sin offerings for the purpose of atoning for sins (be they unintentional). How can these two statements be reconciled? I've read another thread on the same subject , but the answer provided simply seems to say that this problem is cleared up by the fact that the nature of the sin offering was a temporary removal of sin, while Jesus' sacrifice resulting in atonement was a *permanent* sacrifice. While this is of course true, Hebrews 10:4, in all translations I have seen, declares that the blood of animals cannot take away sin***s***, plural; this implies no sin whatsoever can be atoned by the sacrifice of animals.

In the Pure Land school of Buddhism, especially in Japan, there is an idea which sounds very similar to Protestant soteriology, especially *Sola Fide*, which is basically the idea that one can be "saved" only and entirely by putting one's trust in the saving power of the work of Amitabha Buddha. This is the practice of *shinju nembutsu*, or "*nembutsu* only", was taught by Honen in the 12th century and especially by his disciple Shinran. Now, there are obviously myriad fundamental differences between Buddhism and Christianity. However, I am wondering if any Protestant scholars have commented on the difference between the understanding of faith encapsulated by *Sola Fide* and the understanding of "*nembutsu* only" in Pure Land Buddhism. *Note: I am not asking about differences between Buddhism generally and *Sola Fide*. Also, I am most interested to hear from sources that have actively studied the teachings of Honen and Shinran; if this is your first time hearing about Pure Land Buddhism, please do not answer unless you first studying it thoroughly or cite sources which have already done that work for you.* A brief review to see why I'm interested: **Sola Fide** is the Protestant idea that faith alone is necessary for salvation. Our good works contribute nothing to our justification. It is intimately tied to the idea of *Sola Gratia*, which is that salvation is accomplished solely by the grace of God. **Shinju Nembutsu** is based on a statement in the *Sutra of Infinite Life* wherein the Amitabha Buddha makes a series of vows before becoming enlightened. The eighteenth of these vows is > If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences and abuse the right Dharma. Since Amitabha did attain enlightenment, the followers of Honen and Shinran taught that this statement must true that all who sincerely trust in Amitabha will be born into his land (where they would later be able to attain enlightenment). The more radical idea of "*nembutsu* only" is related to the Buddhist concept of Dharmic decline, which basically means (for Shinran), that in the present age it is not possible to attain enlightenment by good works, and thus the only hope for mankind in the present age is the work of Amitabha. Hence, one must only say "*namu amita butsu *" (I trust in Amitabha) with true faith, and one will be saved. As a further parallel with Protestant soteriology, Shinran also apparently taught that this faith is a gift from Amitabha to the believer, and not something which arises from within the believer himself.

I’ve been grappling with a major theological question: Is it fair and just for people who died without ever hearing the gospel to be raised, judged, and condemned to hell, especially since some might have believed if they had the chance to hear it? Paul says in Romans 10:17, "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," which suggests that faith is impossible without first hearing the gospel. This raises a significant issue about what happens to those who never had that opportunity. I’d like a general overview of how different Christian viewpoints address this dilemma. This seems to leave us with two possibilities: either these individuals will be raised back to life and given an opportunity to accept Jesus, or they will be judged based on an inherent, objective knowledge of good and evil that’s built into everyone’s consciousness from Adam and Eve. However, Hebrews 9:27 appears to challenge the first option, stating, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment," implying that all people—whether they heard the gospel or not—face judgment after a single life, with no second chance. Consider the people of Nineveh as an example. They didn’t have the same knowledge of God as the Jews did—with the ark of the covenant, the Ten Commandments, the tabernacle, and so on—yet this didn’t exempt them from judgment based on their actions. That’s why God sent Jonah to warn them. It seems God ensured the Ninevites heard Jonah’s message before executing judgment, even forcing Jonah to go by sending the whale to swallow him. Does this imply that those who never heard the gospel will instead be judged based on the innate knowledge of good and evil inherited from Adam and Eve, since they never heard about Jesus? This also highlights that a sense of right and wrong seems to be intuitively present in everyone, passed down from our first parents through birth. I am asking for an overview of various denominations on this topic.

This question of mine springs from reading this article (Orthodoxy and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ) referenced in this answer to this Christianity SE question: [What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/20000/27623) Basically it contests the modern assertion of Orthodox teachers that the Eastern Orthodox church has always opposed the idea of the immaculate conception and instead taught that Mary became pure while raised in the temple as articulated in this podcast: [Perfection Possible](http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/voicefromisles/perfection_possible) . I have a suspicion that the article imposes Western Catholic meanings on the writings of the Eastern fathers/teachers that they cite. I could not look up the references on the internet (for free anyways). Can anyone provide support for or argument against this article while actually citing texts from Eastern Orthodox teachers that I can read or at least providing quotes. Any citation from an EO teacher before the 15th century would be fitting, as the article maintains that it wasn't until this time that the Orthodox began to react against the immaculate conception. The one source I looked up this morning was from St. Gregory Palamas: [Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple](https://oca.org/fs/sermons/sermon-on-the-entry-of-the-theotokos) . Where he seems to teach something in complete agreement with the contemporary Orthodox view. Specifically, that the Virgin Mary was made pure not simply by election of God, but that her own will and ascetical efforts were involved as well. The corollary being that original sin doesn't need to be miraculously removed by the pre-election of God, but that our ancestral sin is removed by a participatory process.

### Is the practice of interpreting revelation as entirely an unresolved imminent future... based on anything intellectually solid? This is the other side of the coin compared to my other question here . Instead of reconciling the logical contradiction of persisting in the practice. What is the basis of the practice itself? I understand that interpreting the Bible is definitely a good thing. But considering that the book has about 675ish allusions to the old testament and is full of a type of writing called hypocatastasis... > For example, one may say to another, “You are like a beast.” This would be Simile, tamely stating a fact. If, however, he said, “You are a beast” that would be Metaphor. But, if he said simply, “Beast!” that would be Hypocatastasis, for the other part of the Simile or Metaphor (“you”), would be implied and not stated. (from Bullinger 1898, Figures of Speech as Used in the Bible | found quoted here by Ian Paul) So we can see Revelation contains great power within it, and its hypocatastatic metaphors require significant responsibility and care in interpretation. Like how coca leaves are a great remedy for mountain sickness... or they can be the reason you see shadow people on the edges of your vision. #### If it helps my perspective is based on the Eastern Orthodox understanding. > ...the Orthodox Church does not accept the notion that everyone can properly interpret the Bible as he or she wants. Some Protestant bodies believe in this, but Orthodoxy does not. We say that the Church has the ability to properly interpret Scripture... ...This is especially the case with Revelation, which as noted above cannot be interpreted as one wishes, lest one come to ridiculous conclusions that Gorbachov’s birthmark is the “mark of the beast.” (OCA - Q&A - Book of Revelation ) Or that Chernobyl was the Star "wormwood" that poisoned the waters... or that Ezekiel proved UFOs are real... > Many of the Church Fathers have written about the end times. But the fact of the matter is, there is only so much we can say because there is not alot that Christ has revealed to us. **He tells us He will come again, that He will judge all mankind, that He will be victorious once and for all over all evil, that those who have remained faithful to Him will indeed find spending eternity in His presence “paradise.” And that’s about it.** (OCA - Q&A - Book of Revelation )

I've read where The Gospel of Thomas was originally composed in the Coptic language (actually some sayings are believed to have been written in Greek predating the Coptic) but I've also seen where scholars have 'reversed engineered' the Coptic back into a Greek dialect. I'm wondering if such a document is easily accessible and its location. Specifically I'm looking for the Greek (from Coptic?) for saying number 108: "Jesus said, 'He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.'"

In the history of the Catholic Church, I know there's been extra days of fasting and prayer called for by the Pope and Bishops, but other than prior to the Battle of Lepanto and today (March 19th 2020, The Solemnity of St. Joseph) at 9:00 PM Rome Time . Has the Pope ever asked all Catholics to pray the Rosary in unity (or as simultaneously as possible prior to mass communication and computerized synchronization)?

Joseph's words resonate with my experience a lot, except that Joseph received information about hidden things from God via dreams, while other men discover hidden things through demonic means, such as sending spirits to people's homes (I have been a victim of this). So when Joseph said he could use divination to uncover hidden things, did he mean that he has always done this through prayer to God or did he encounter some supernatural things at the Pharaoh's palace? This is because this land was Egypt and later we saw how the Pharaoh had witches who could uncover hidden things using demonic means. *Genesis 44:15* >Don't you know that a man like me can find things out by divination? So did he mean he could do it by prayer or was he using what was rumored of those who worked in the presence of Pharaoh (divination) to threaten his brothers?

### Context The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants) in 431 over the Council of Ephesus and specifically the issue of whether the Virgin Mary should be called *theotokos* (God-bearer) or not. Thus, they were not represented at any of the subsequent ecumenical councils. The veneration of icons is allowed by the Assyrian Church of the East (their theology may even encourage it), but they have not actually used icons in worship for a very long time. The FAQ of the Australian archdiocese of the ACotE says: > Icons are holy images. Man is the image of God, in as much as He was fashioned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). As the perfect revelation of God, Jesus is the image and reflection of his Father who is unseen (John 14:8-9). In baptism, we are ‘re-created’ in the image of the Son, whom bear by means of the sacrament. The saints are images of whom we strive to become, by the grace of Christ, after having being perfected in faith. There are liturgical and canonical prescriptions which indicate the use of icons in the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East. However, **they have fallen out of use for many centuries,** and have only remained in some Gospel lectionaries. [emph. added] Similarly, Reverend Tower Andrious mentions that Assyrian Christians might "think it sound[s] normal and true" that their church does not use icons "because they did not see Icons in their churches" (*Icons in the Church of the East *). In the West, the issue of icon veneration was the primary controversy resolved at Nicaea II (787), which, of course, had no representation from CotE. This council is accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The decisions of Nicaea II appear to mandate the use of icons, as they declared: > We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. and in another place: > Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. These statements are interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as mandating that churches be adorned with icons and that believers ought to venerate them. I am not sure that they could be interpreted otherwise. ### My question **Given that the Assyrian Church of the East does not currently use icons, despite expressly permitting their veneration, would it be considered heretical on that basis by the churches who follow the authority of Nicaea II?** To be clear, I am not asking if they would be considered heretical on other grounds, but solely on their attitude towards icons. One might put the question more abstractly: If a hypothetical church were in total agreement with the Catholics or EO on all points of doctrine but did not actually have icons in their church building nor venerate them in private, would it be considered heretical by the Catholics or EO, respectively? If the answer would be different between Catholics and EO, then I'm interested in hearing both perspectives.

Since God revealed the gospel to all nations through his Son for free, is any church justified to withhold certain sermons from some of its members citing *membership requirements* reasons, should any pre-recorded sermon sit behind *password protection*? Is this what Jesus urged the church to do?

I know that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Scripture is held to be a part of Sacred Tradition, with equal authority to all the rest of that tradition which was handed down from the Apostles without having been penned by them. Despite not being different in authority, there is plainly some difference between the Scripture and other traditions, as the EO publishes Bibles which include the canonical Scriptures, but not (for example) the decrees of the councils (which are also considered sacred and infallible). Scripture evidently has a unique place, distinct from the councils and the rest of Sacred Tradition, though the mode of difference isn't clear to me. **What is the difference, if it is neither in sacredness nor authority?** Perhaps there is some clear-cut difference in function, which I only perceive vaguely.

According to this post  it claims that Bob Jones predicted the 1985 Kansas City Royals win and how they won. It says > “I heard it! I heard it out loud. I heard it in my dream. I heard the > voice of the Lord. It spoke resounding. I heard it very clear. The > Lord said, ‘Eleven is the number because it’s the 11th hour victory. > It’s the 11th hour victory he’s going to give Kansas City.” Then, in 1985 in the last game the royals won 11-0. You can read more about this prophecy here . People also say he predicted an Earthquake will start the healing revival . Then, another prophet by the name of Paul Cain predicted many other things you can find some of his prophecies here . He was also part of the CIA division of paranormal, met with Saddam Hussein, and was a presidential consultant for three presidents. You can find a joint prophecy by both of them in this video  about the arrowhead stadium . **So my question is are these examples of prophecy by Christian prophets and is there any evidence to believe that Bob Jones posted this prophecy before the Kansas City Royals win? And is there any evidence or counter evidence that debunks Paul Cain's and Bob Jones' prophetic powers?**

Apart from the specious Pastorals, does Paul or any other NT author discuss "Bishops"? When do they first appear in history?