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

Obviously, we can't say for sure; all these theories float around and from what I can tell, the Church has no concrete position on the matter. I find Girard's scapegoat theory of atonement highly compelling, and I'd like to discuss it more with others. But first, I'd like to have some confidence that it's not in any way heretical or malformed. So, is the scapegoat theory of atonement compatible with Catholic teaching and rule?

I've read reference to a "High Bishop." Scripturally speaking, does such a thing exist?

John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel. What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

In light of passages like *1 Corinthians 15:52-53* which states that only **after** the “dead in Christ are raised” then those who are alive are “changed… putting on immortality” and the teaching on the judgement of the sheep and goats in *Matthew 25:31-46* which takes place at the inauguration of the Millennium, when the non-believers will “depart into eternal punishment” and believers into eternal life… **WHO will remain in perishable bodies (capable of reproducing) to repopulate the earth, thus producing the generations up to the final rebellion?** Whether you hold to a pre- mid- or post-tribulation rapture, there still stands the passage in *1 Corinthians 15* I cited above; you can’t allow for a parousia without first experiencing the resurrection or the putting on of immortality. This has been troubling me for a while, but I’ve concocted a few ways to marry these passages in light of post-trib eschatology… firstly; that “all” of Israel are converted just **after** the “harpazo” to fulfill *Zechariah 12:10* thus they won’t put on immortality. OR (THEORY) The multitude of victims of child sacrifice/abortion/infanticide are resurrected into an *edenic* state and those of us who have put on immortality are tasked with ruling them alongside Jesus with the rod of iron. Because they weren’t in-dwelt with the Spirit but (generally agreed upon) saved by grace nonetheless. Bonus: What do YOU suspect will happen when these fetuses/babies/children are bodily resurrected? Finally, what if there are pregnant believers that enter the millennial kingdom? And what of the children who haven’t reached the “age of accountability?” Thanks in advance!

Matthew 5:21-22 sets the expectation that merely not murdering is not enough to live in accordance with God's will. We must be free of hatred as well. Matthew 5:44 asks us to love our enemies. I don't see how there's any justification there for violence of any kind. Taking someone's life against their will is murder and is not an expression of love. *You can't kill someone if you love them.* Jews have their 6th commandment (you shall not murder), and the Buddhists have their 1st precept (I vow to abstain from taking life). It seems that Christianity would also command a life of pacifism. I know there are pacifist Christian sects. My question is why they are a minority in Christianity?

I've recently been studying [category theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory) (mathematics), in which the relations between objects are generalized to a very abstract level. I was wondering therefore if the relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could be expressed in terms of concepts from category theory. The explanations and analogies for the Trinity are often inadequate / oversimplified, but due to the nature of category theory I thought there may be a way to express the Trinity in terms of category theory. This question of course calls for some background knowledge in category theory, which not everyone may have, but I appreciate any answers anyone can provide!

One of the common criticisms of *Sola Scriptura* (meaning that Scripture is the only infallible rule for Christians) is that the canon list is not found in the Bible itself, so Protestants rely on Scripture being infallible without infallibly knowing what is infallible. I hear this especially from Catholics, but I also hear it from Eastern Orthodox. Anyway, I don't want to debate that point here; I'm just mentioning it to give context. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that in addition to Scripture, the ecumenical councils are also infallible. As I understand it, local synods and councils are not regarded as infallible by either tradition. For the Catholics, this doesn't threaten the integrity of the canon of Scripture, as it was defined for them by the Council of Trent. However, regarding Eastern Orthodoxy, the canon was not defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils. Instead, they follow the decision of the Council in Trullo (692), a.k.a. the Quinisext Council, which was reaffirmed by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672). However, neither of these is one of the seven ecumenical councils. I know that the Quinisext Council may be seen as an emendation of the decisions of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, but is it therefore regarded as infallible despite not being itself an ecumenical council? This canon list is different from those of the Council of Laodicea (364) and the Council of Rome (382), both local councils (though admittedly the provenance of the preserved canon lists from those councils is disputed). So my question is: **Despite not being defined by any of the seven ecumenical councils, does the Eastern Orthodox Church have a belief in an infallible canon list for Scripture?** If so, how is it known to be infallible?

Let's set some ground rules. There is no doubt in a given instance that this is voluntary and that survival is not feasible, and the decision must be taken quickly. Perhaps a platoon of soldiers in a war where one of them receives a wound that is impossible to survive, though not fatal instantly, or where there is an essentially 0% chance of survival even with medical care or medical care is inaccessible. They already know among the platoon of the intention of being part of this pact. Perhaps one of the soldiers after the war has carried it out, and this along with the general trauma of the war makes them turn to a religion, in this case Catholicism. There is an amnesty in the peace terms so civil prosecution is not possible. Sins are normal, in fact, something that all the humans besides Jesus (and Mary to Catholics), have done, and penance is necessary for all Catholics. Priests deal with common sins all the time, but getting this kind of confession and request for a penance prescription would be quite atypical.

The Oriental Orthodox Church is the non-Chalcedonian branch formed as a result of the Chalcedonian controversy (see [*GotQuestion* article](https://www.gotquestions.org/Oriental-Orthodox-Church.html)) . I am curious where the name "Oriental" comes from for them, as this means "eastern" in Latin, and is therefore confusingly similar to the Eastern Orthodox. Most of them are Coptic (Egyptian) and Ethiopian, which makes them to the south of the Eastern Orthodox parts of the world, not to the east. So why was the term "Oriental" chosen?

Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East ? For example, what would they have been in Mongolia in the days of Genghis Khan ? The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after the Church of the East split from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.

There are several ways that Christians have tried to reconcile evolution with the Biblical narrative of creation. Theistic evolution is one option. Another is C.S. Lewis's way of how while the bodies undergo evolution, there was one historic couple Adam and Eve to whom God breathed "a new kind of consciousness" making the couple to be the one truly made in the "image of God" and that we all biologically descended from that couple thus sharing in their Fall consequences (see [this article](https://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis-on-intelligent-design/3/) referencing *The Problem of Pain*). Regardless, evolution over hundreds of thousands of years **necessitated many deaths** before the first species (or before 2 special members of a humanoid species) whom God stamped his image, and from whom we descended biologically, which young earth proponents adduce as one of the KEY theological obstacles if we take seriously Gen 1 where God pronounced his pre-Fall creation as "good". One Young Earth proponent said: > God can make use of death, but for it to be one of his primary creative tools paints the character of God in a very different light. with these as Biblical support: 1. Death itself is described as "enemy" (1 Cor 15:26): > The last enemy to be abolished is death. so how could God use death as a means of creation? 2. In the restoration (presumably to the condition before the Fall), there is no death per Isa 11:6-9: > The wolf will dwell with the lamb,and the leopard will lie down with the goat. ... An infant will play beside the cobra’s pit, and a toddler will put his hand into a snake’s den. ... **They will not harm or destroy each other on my entire holy mountain,** ... 3. In Rom 8:19-23 we read > ... For the creation was subjected to futility -- not willingly, but because of him who subjected it -- in the hope that the creation itself will also **be set free from the bondage to decay** into the glorious freedom of God's children. ... But groaning, suffering and decay is usually seen by YECs as referring to the consequences of the fall wrought by God's curse ("because of him who subjected it", see [answer to the question "Who subjected the creation to futility in Rom 8:20-21"](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/159/3849)) . If death is part of the creative process then it's not decay. Thus, my question is: **How do Christians holding some role of evolution defend against Young Earth proponents' charge that the many deaths required by evolution is adding blemish to God's character, or is counter to God's pronouncing creation as "good"?**

Coming from a Protestant tradition, I grew up hearing about Lent but never having any practice associated with it. In the years since, I've gathered that there's some sort of connection between Easter, Lent, Ash Wednesday, and Fat Tuesday. Would someone please explain how it all fits together?

Paul wrote a letter and said that the Gentiles do some things which are godly because they have the law of Christ written on their hearts through their conscience and thoughts. *Romans 2:15* >They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. If the law of Christ is already written in their hearts, why then spread the gospel and not just wait to judge them at the end of the age since they have the knowledge of God in their conscience and thoughts?

We read in Jn 8:2-6 : > 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou 6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. We generally see images of Jesus sitting on a raised platform say, a rock, to teach so that he is audible to maximum number of people. The Temple courtyard may have had benches of wood or stone. But in John 8:6 we see Jesus writing on the ground . The ground must have had a layer of loose sand where he wrote ( just as children writing their name on beach sand and watching the waves obliterating it ). That implies Jesus was squatting on the ground when the adulterous woman was brought to him for judgement. And the Jews address him as Teacher. In fact, there was a tradition in the Orient, of teachers squatting on the ground along with their disciples . Taking a cue from Jn 8, a few churches in India have images of Jesus squatting on the ground. My question is : Does any Catholic Church in the West have image of Jesus squatting on the ground in a posture of deep meditation.

There is a risk that this question is covered somewhere else between the lines, but I haven't found anything specific enough. What is the prevalence (ideally in numbers or in percentages) of the names of the Christian deity? To be more specific, **which names did early Christian sources articulate in their very own words**? - **No translations**, only counting the very original writing and only writings where the source language is certain. - Only from Christian or Jewish historians and/or writers, **excluding secular sources** and the Bible itself. - Only **1st century BC until 1st century AD**. I am aware that we do not have many writers for that time period, but 1 or 2 confirmed sources are already a great start. - Examples for names include **ΘΕOC (Theos), ΚYΡIΟY (Kurios), יהוה‎ (YHWH)** ... et al, excluding adjectives or descriptions of His character. When we look e.g. at the works of Josephus, we see that he uses in Antiquitates Judaicae alone the term 'THEOS' more than 1300 times. Let us lay aside our prevalent bias for Modern Hebrew and against Koine Greek, and have a balanced view about how the people in that time actually called Him.

Genesis 1:26-28, along with passages like Genesis 2, Psalm 8, and Romans 8, makes it pretty clear that God gave humanity the job of looking after His creation. And I think that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in this responsibility. (Just like most other Christians do) > Other people look to political organizations to solve man’s problems. By doing this, they are rejecting God’s Kingdom. (Who is the devil? , §5, JW.org) > We know that we originate with God, but **the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.** (1 John 5:19 New world translation ) So, the JW steer clear of politics because Satan’s in charge. But from what I can tell they also believe that we’re all called to actively care for creation during our lives. Not taking action does leave creation vulnerable to harm from the wicked one, and God commanded us to protect it. So how does this duty to be good stewards of creation fit with their beliefs on a large scale, **how would a fully JW society operate before God’s Kingdom fully arrives**? As in *a realistic society the size of Germany or Belize that needs to feed people, manage waste, prevent crime, manage a power grid, and handle things like pollution or sickness.*

According to Catholicism, how long can the main meal during Lent last for (time wise)? Most Catholics who fast regularly know how to fast and abstain on fast days, especially during Lent. But, is there some guidance or rule in the writings of Catholic theologians or Canon Law on how long (duration in time) the main meal of a fast is permitted to be? For example, are Catholics permitted to make the unique meal of the day last one, two or perhaps even three hours? Are there any historical references that deal with this subject matter? Naturally we must avoid gluttony even on fast days!

Background = Referring to God as Jehovah is a known practice by Jehovah's Witnesses as written by [Raymond Franz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Franz) in *In Search of Christian Freedom* in 1991: > The fact remains that today no religious group of any size uses the > name "Jehovah" with such intense frequency as does that of Jehovah's > Witnesses. That name predominates throughout their literature. Among > Jehovah's Witnesses it has become almost strange to speak of "God" > without prefacing the term by saying "Jehovah God", while the term > "Lord" is quite rare in their expressions. They read "Lord" in the > Bible but hardly ever use it in their own speech extemporaneously. It > is almost a liturgical form for them in most prayers to initially > address these to "Jehovah" or "Jehovah God". However, the above was written [after his expulsion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Franz#Expulsion) , and thus may not carry any significant doctrinal weight. Question = Are there other denominations or religions that understand God's personal name as the form "Jehovah"?

Re https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105244/list-of-jewish-popes-cardinals and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105402/list-of-jewish-ecumenical-patriarchs-of-constantinople **What's the equivalent of 'cardinals' in eastern orthodox?** Like who votes for the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople? Or what's below this patriarch in hierarchy? My intention is actually to ask next about Jewish 'cardinals' of Orthodoxy, but well of course I can't ask about what I don't understand. Maybe since the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople is 'primus inter pares', the cardinals would be like the other bishops ... namely of Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria ? Idk.