In the beginning chapters of the book of Revelation, the Lord Jesus appears to the apostle John and tells him to write individually to the seven churches which are in Asia. The churches listed are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Since both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claim to be the original Church, and taking note that Jesus speaks about **the** seven churches in Asia rather than seven **of** the churches in Asia, according to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy why are the Asian churches singled out?

Previously for Catholicism : https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105244/list-of-jewish-popes-cardinals/105245#105245 Now for Orthodoxy ... **Question 1:** Where can I list of Jewish Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople besides St. Andrew? **Question 2:** Also, what are the 'synonyms' for this? Based on Wikipedia ...searching 1. 'ecumenical patriarchs of Constantinople' - Nothing 2. 'Bishops of Byzantium' - Just St Andrew

There are some online sources, that say, that in Venezuela, capybara is "allowed" during Lent, because it's classified as a fish with a Papal bull. [In Atlas Obscura](https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/capybara-venezuela) > Sometime between the 16th and 18th centuries (accounts vary), Venezuelan clergymen wrote to the Vatican with a special request. They had discovered an animal that lived in water, had webbed feet, and tasted like fish. With Lent approaching, they asked the Vatican to grant the animal the status of fish, so they might eat it during the upcoming days of meat-free fasting. By letter, the Catholic Church agreed, and the capybara—the largest living rodent in the world—became a coveted addition to many Lenten dinner tables. [In this blogpost](https://www.cogwriter.com/news/religious-news/did-a-pope-conclude-a-rodent-was-a-fish-for-lent/) , citing a biology book > “In 1784 and after several attempts at obtaining a Vatican license, a Papal Bull (decree) allowed the consumption of capybara flesh during Lent…” – Capybara: Biology, Use and Conservation of an Exceptional Neotropical Species, by José Roberto Moreira, Katia Maria P.M.B., Springer Aug 15, 2012, page 307 [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/world/americas/21rodent.html) > Legend has it that eating capybara, known here as chigüire (pronounced chee-GWEE-reh), got a boost in the 18th century when the local clergy asked the Vatican to give capybara the status of fish. [Sun Sentinel](https://web.archive.org/web/20150219020316/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-03-18/news/0303170443_1_rodents-lenten-capybara) > The missionaries reported back to Rome that they had encountered an animal that was hairy and scaly and spent more of its time in the water than on land. They asked whether their new converts could continue to eat capybara at Lent, a time when Catholics traditionally avoid meat. > > With no clear idea of what the capybara was or looked like and concerned a ban would lead to indigenous communities starving during Lent, the Vatican immediately ruled that the semi-aquatic mammal was in fact a fish. This claim is also repeated on Wikipedia, but also citing just biology books. > After several attempts a 1784 Papal bull was obtained that allowed the consumption of capybara during Lent. > > López de Ceballos, Eduardo (1974). Fauna de Venezuela y su conservación. Venezuela: Editorial Arte. > > Herrera, Emilio A.; Barreto, Guillermo R. (2012). "Capybaras as a Source of Protein: Utilization and Management in Venezuela". In Moreira, J.; Ferraz, K.; Herrera, E.; Macdonald, D. (eds.). Capybara: Biology, Use and Conservation of an Exceptional Neotropical Species. Springer New York. pp. 305–320 The second source is then citing the first source (Ceballos 1974); that book is not available online. (edit: I have removed this claim from Wikipedia Capybara article now.) However, I cannot find any actual bull or any actual Catholic source. (I don't speak Spanish.) Is this an urban legend and capybara is canonically not a fish?

I seem to remember a passage in which a New Testament writer (the Apostle Paul, if I remember correctly) referred positively to boasting of Christ's death. It is a similar idea to the lines "Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, / Save in the death of Christ my God!" from the hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," but I think there was a Biblical passage about this. Does this passage exist, and if so, where is it? I tried searching for "boast" in the King James Version, but the verse I was looking for was not in the search results. (As Andrew Shanks pointed out in a comment, the verse is Galatians 6:14; I did not find it because it uses "glory" rather than "boast" in the KJV).

I'm reading Thomas Schreiner's new commentary on Revelation (BECNT), and he supports this theory. He makes eleven points, which he says explain and give evidence to his view, but they are extremely confusing and ambiguous when it comes to the temporal nature of this view. Here are some chronological points he makes to give context: > The millennium is the first age of the new creation. (p. 677) > The reign and rule of believers as priests and kings, though it is exercised to some extent during this life in an already-but-not-yet fashion, reaches its zenith at the second coming of Christ. Believers are vindicated in the judgment and rule with Christ during the millennium, which is the first age of the new creation ... The ultimate vindication doesn't take place during the present age but commences in the new age that is inaugurated by the millennium. (p. 679) From what I observe, it basically sounds like premillennialism but with a bit of already-but-not-yet theology sprinkled on top. Is this correct? My main goal is to understand, relative to this view, when the events of Revelation 20 happen with regard to the second coming. Reference: Thomas Schreiner, *Revelation*, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2023).

As I understand, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to serve in the military in countries with compulsory national service, since it's viewed as directly violating or participating in violation of the sixth commandment as well as the principle of political neutrality. Many countries with national service (including mine) offer alternative national service based on religious convictions, often in hospitals or postal services. However, a (now edited) answer on this question quotes a former member of the JW Governing Body (now rejected by JWs as apostate) as saying: > "...doing civilian work in lieu of military duty is... a tacit or implied acknowledgement of one's obligation to Caesar's war machine... A Christian therefore cannot be required to support the military establishment either directly or indirectly." > "For one of Jehovah's Witnesses to tell a judge that he is willing to accept work in a hospital or similar work would be making a 'deal' with the judge, and he would be breaking his integrity with God." > "To accept the alternative civil service is a form of moral support to the entire arrangement." Alternative service is rejected as implicitly supporting "Caesar's war machine", but it seems obvious that someone who works a regular 40-hour week in an office supports "Caesar's war machine" more substantially and more directly by paying taxes than someone working in a hospital (which seems a fairly worthy profession for a believer). Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses pay taxes . They justify this (reasonably enough) based on Romans 13. However, I don't really see the distinction between a government taking my *money* (and possibly using it for immoral purposes) and taking my *time* (and using it for purposes that aren't inherently immoral). Is there an official explanation of why Romans 13 doesn't apply to alternative national service? Or, I noted that there is some controversy over the source of the quotes above, are they not in fact representative of the JW position?

Revelation is apocalyptic language and is often interpreted as the most difficult book of the bible to understand. However, I find there are valuable details that should inform our understanding of eschatology. For example, Revelation 20:4-5 states: >**4** I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. **5** (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. While this text includes language that should not be taken literally (like the 1000 years often meaning "a very long period of time" in the Hebrew culture of the time), this still informs us of two things: 1. There **must** be a resurrection that kicks off the millennial kingdom, as those resurrected individuals must reign during the millennium. 2. This resurrection is made up of those who have lost their life due to their testimony of Christ. I understand that Full Preterists claim the millennial kingdom began in 30 AD. However, I do not understand how they interpret the first resurrection of those who died for their testimony of Christ (no one had yet died for their testimony of Christ). I believe 1 Thessalonians 4:16 further addresses this issue: >For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. I've heard the argument that the first resurrection is the resurrection of our spiritually dead souls to the life of salvation, but both Revelation 20 and 1 Thessalonians 4 allude to the "dead in Christ". If we are speaking of spiritual death, then we must assume you can be spiritually dead (unsaved) in Christ.

I'm trying to find Calvin's commentary on Psalm 88 in his original Latin.

I was just reading about Clement of Alexandria on Wikipedia , which says that in 1586 he was removed from Roman Martyrology by Pope Sixtus V. I have never heard of another instance of a figure being removed from veneration. Is this an occurrence that has happened more times? If so, what is the process by which the martyrology can be amended by removing veneration from a figure?

NPR ran an interesting piece about [the saga of whether or not Catholics could eat alligator on Fridays during Lent](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/27/175058833/forget-fish-fridays-in-louisiana-gator-is-on-the-lenten-menu) . According to the story, an alligator merchant by the name of Jim Piculas advocated in a letter to [Archibishop Gregory Aymond](http://www.arch-no.org/aymond) for permission to consider alligator as seafood, and thus exempt from the prohibition on Friday meat consumption. Now, aside from the giggles on the matter, what authority does the Archbishop of New Orleans have to set out the orthopractic model of Catholic belief in New Orleans? I understand that the Bishop of Rome has the authority, when speaking ex cathedra, to promulugate doctrine - but I've never heard that other Bishops have this right. In declaring a reptile equivalent to a fish, the Archbishop seems to have made a fairly significant theological interpretation. What gives him the authority to do so?

I'm trying to figure out the First verse to mention forgiveness in the Scriptures (Bible or other Gospels or other writings) w.r.t Eve - a savior among her progeny. Is there a reference in the New Testament or Apocryphal writings? More specifically, is there any reference to verses where the Almighty teaches what forgiveness is & to which first Human? Since the concept of 'Sin' was first from Eve, I was quoting that. Maybe there are other passages elsewhere. An example, Say, if you want to teach Lilith - 'The Screech Owl' or Natural instinctual beings what forgiveness is when such a concept is not known.

There are two major frameworks of Biblical Theology in Protestant Christianity: Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Simplistically, Dispensationaliam says there is a big discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while Covenant Theology says there is a great continuity between Israel and the Church. While the Southern Baptist Covention has a mix of Calvinist and Arminian congregations, my understanding is that the seminaries tend to the Calvinist side. Neither Dispensationaliam nor Covenant Theology would sit well with Reformed Baptists, so I was wondering what these seminaries teach. New Covenant Theology is a more recent framework that tries to chart a middle path between Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Do any of the SBC seminaries teach NCT? Or do they teach their own framework that similarly tries to chart a path between the two, but differs in the details? Or do they teach traditional Dispensationaliam or Covenant Theology? The SBC seminaries may not all teach the same framework, but as there are only six, it shouldn't be too hard to summarise what they do.

Give positive and negative views, was Angel Gabriel fair to react to Zachariah's doubt in the way that he did? The account is found in the first chapter of the gospel of Luke. (Quoted below from the NKJV) > 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. > 18 And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.” > 19 And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. 20 But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.”

The wikipedia entry for Christian Metal says that some of the stations which do play said genre: > as a whole these larger stations generally maintain a GMA-prescribed format. > > [Christian metal (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_metal) That would seem to exclude metal since the GMA's mission statement apparently is: > Founded in 1964, the Gospel Music Association serves as the face and voice for the Christian/Gospel music community and is dedicated to exposing, promoting and celebrating the gospel through music of all styles including pop, rock, praise & worship, black gospel, R&B;, hip hop, southern gospel, country, and more. I guess it says all styles "including" and not to the exclusion of. But what is the connection between GMA and the many Contemporary Christian Music stations around the country and what, exactly, would be likely to not meet their seal of quality?

I was recently discussing theology and baptism with my Arminian teacher when he mentioned that he doesn't believe in the doctrine of original sin, saying "I don't believe sin is genetic". This actually caught me off guard, as I was unaware that there even was a dispute over the doctrine of original sin. Yet later in the day and in the next following days, I spent a little bit of time looking for the basis of such a doctrine. I wasn't really able to find anything online. So that leads me to my question. What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of original sin? It may be helpful to me if you defined what is meant by original sin, as I may just be confused.

**God Names**
It is often heard from Seventh Day Adventists that they give a reason for not worshipping on Sunday because "it carries the name of the Sun god." But is this reasoning a valid one for deciding to worship on Saturday? A study of the names of the week confuses this logic. Sunday may (or may not) be the name of a sun god, but Saturday was named after the god/planet, Saturn! And in northern Europe the rest of the days of the week do also reflect the names of ancient gods: Woden (Wednesday), Thor (Thursday), Frei Friday) etc. Would this mean worship would not be allowed on those days? And in Hispanic countries, the weekend days are called "Sabado, Domingo". That is 'sabbath" and "the LORD'S DAY"! So in Spanish, what we call Sunday in English, is referred to, when translated, as *a day belonging to the Lord* ***for worship.*** [And many cultures do set aside that day for worship.] So would simply a name of the week in just a few languages be one legitimate or valid reason enough "to accept or reject" worshipping on that day?

I was wondering why most monks aren't ordained. It seems like some monasteries are about half and half while others seem to have as few priests as necessary. This would make sense in medieval times when it wasn't possible for that many people to be highly educated but why today? Given that they are Catholic monks and probably just as educated as the priests why would they remain lay, especially in monasteries where many of the monks are priests? Is there a specific reason for this in some monasteries?

So I was listening to one of the live Q and As conducted by Dr Frank Turek on his official YouTube channel ***Cross Examined Org***, someone asked him if the Word of Faith movement are right, in the sense that God wants everyone to be healthy and wealthy, The doctor responded with a sense of humor and I quote >***God is not a cosmic candyman who gives us everything that we want, earthly fathers don't give kids everything they want, if they do, what happens to the kid? The kid becomes spoilt, God does not give us everything we want for our own good*** The thing is Jesus himself removed the veil on our prayer requests by using the term ***anything***, any request we make to the Father in his name shall be given to us. *John 14:13* >You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it Paul also said that the believer can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens them. *Phillipians 4:13* >I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. All things means literally all things and anything means anything literally, so why is Doctor Turek right that God is not a cosmic candyman who gives believers what they want?

Is the Nestle-Aland *Novum Testamentum Graece* or the United Bible Societies *Greek New Testament* available in .sword format, for use with software such as Xiphos or AndBible?

The Latin Vulgate is considered to be the official version of the bible of the Roman Catholic church. I'm wondering if this means it is only the official version of the Roman Catholic Church, or does it include the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. If it is only the official version of the Latin church, do the individual Eastern Catholic Churches have their own official versions as well? (Eg. Perhaps the official Melkite version is the Septuagint, while the official Chaldean version is the Peshitta etc)