Throughout the Bible, angels typically appear as men or a masculine form. They're often described as warriors, engaging in battle. (Source ) However, in modern, generally Western (or at least American) culture, angels are thought of as feminine figures, often portrayed by women (or Victoria Secret models). (Source ) **When (about) did this change occur?** --- I realize this may not be a very well-developed question (please, feel free to modify/enhance it), but I think I'm on to something here - even if it is merely a curiosity. I get the feeling that one of the reasons for angels being thought as feminine has something to do with the New Age movement and their concept (and often worship of) Guardian Angels, but it's just a gut feeling or sorts.

Can you be a Christian while also being a part of the lgbtq+ community or supporting the community.

In Gen 1, the "wildlife of the earth" were created on the 6th day (Gen 1:24-25) *after* the vegetations (3rd day) and the "first couple" last. But in Gen 2, Adam was created in v. 7 *before* the "wild animal" (v. 19-20) while Adam named them, before Eve was created. Those who use the [Framework view](https://biologos.org/series/science-and-the-bible/articles/the-framework-view-history-and-beliefs) to interpret Gen 1 doesn't have a problem because they see Gen 2:4-25 as *another* creation story that is functionally different (more in terms of man's and woman's role in creation as caretaker of Earth [symbolized as the Garden of Eden in its pre-Fall state](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/104562/10672)) . But how would strict 6 day Creationists (especially those who interpret Genesis 1-12 historically) interpret the 2nd creation account where there seems to be a contradiction in the sequence of events?

According to the Catholic Church, can abortion be grounds for marriage annulment?

Are certain actions considered sins more due to societal norms than actual biblical principles? For instance, imagine it's the 1400s, and a newly discovered psychedelic plant is found. Since it’s just been discovered, I try it and experience hallucinations and a sense of emotional warmth (essentially getting "high"). At the time, no one knows the long-term effects, but by the late 1600s, it’s classified as a drug. Would I now be considered a sinner because, according to 1600s societal standards, the plant is a drug, and drug users are deemed sinful? This would imply that what I had been doing was sinful, even though years earlier it wasn’t viewed as such simply because its effects were unknown. One might argue that if the plant distracts me from God, it’s sinful. But what if, instead, getting high from this plant allowed me to read and visualize scripture with deeper emotional connection and understanding? How would this align with the idea of sin, especially when societal perceptions shift over time?

In 1842, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) acquired writings in Egyptian hieroglyphics.These writings were genuine hieroglyphs and were the bases for his translation, the Book of Abraham (see sample in Wikipedia). But, after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, linguists ascertained that Joseph Smith's translation of the hieroglyphs was not only inaccurate, but better described as fraudulent. His hieroglyphs contained no theological information and nothing about the biblical Patriarch Abraham. Thus,the main question arises,if Joseph Smith fraudulently translated his Book of Abraham, then what is the probability that he also committed fraud in his Book of Mormon, the very centerpiece of LDS?

Let's say someone was going to confession over multiple days and they confessed a sin but then committed it again in the interim. And let's also assume they enumerated it as "numerous" or "countless" times so that there wouldn't have been any difference other than the day they confessed it. Would that be a valid confession or would they have to say it again?

My son's history book covering the Reformation has a few chapters on the various Protestant reformers, regarding Calvin it says: > John Calvin also had his own ideas about how the Church should be governed. He said that there should be no bishops. He wanted the Church to have no real authority above the parish level. He thought parishes should be ruled by groups of elders - called presbyters - who would elect a pastor. When a parish is governed by a body of elders, it is called Presbyterian > > The story of Civilization - Volume III - Phillip Campbell Now, some folks here are telling me that this also describes Congregationalism - or at least describes the present situation. But the definition of Presbyterianism seems like it ought to mean that the parish is governed by a body of elders (called presbyters, I'd guess - even though to a Catholic the order of Presbyter in the New Testament means the ministerial priesthood, and it is even part of the current [code of canon law](https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann460-572_en.html#CHAPTER_V) that there should be some sort of pastoral council of lay people assisting the pastor of any parish). So, are Congregationalist churches presbyterian (lower case p)? Did both systems come from Calvin and the original reformers or was that something they fell into and then split into, eventually becoming Presbyterian and Congregational churches?

The archaeological and geological record dates a a period of the earth approximately 11000 years before the appearance of jesus. Most records of the Christian religion date the covenant beteeen Moses with God to be 3000 BC. The acendents of Moses pre dated this. There are tales of a great flood that occurred before this in which noah was a recipentent of a prophecy and from that prophecy he created an ark to preserve the species of animal and human life into the future. At which timescale according to the jewish and Christian faith did this flood occur? The geology and archaeological record estimates from radiocarbon dating calculate that an ancient apocalypse happened called the younger Dryas approximately 11000 years BC. This apocalypse could have resulted in the ice formed before this event heating up and flooding the earth. Do the biblical accounts of Noah come before this younger dryas event, are they after, or concur with the geological evidence?

The God of Israel entered into a formal covenant with His people. The Bible is, besides a doctrinal, historical, and prophetic text is also a legal one. The Blessings and Cursings of Deuteronomy 28 show the dual-sided covenant: if Israel does this, God will fulfill such and such. And in Christianity, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him as well as eternal life. Baptism is a formal covenant agreement. As I thought on these things, I began to wonder if any other religion has a legal covenant-based relationship with their God (based on grace and/or obedience). In end-times we see Judgment Day - a legal, court-room like situation. I suppose one can make a Deal with the Devil, but repentance is the fine print which breaks the contract with the devil and puts one back into God's graces and is thus non-binding. Is there any religion that has a similar legal and formal covenant relation written in stone i.e. sacred text with their God as Christianity has with its God? Or is the covenant with the God of Israel both in Old Testament and New Testament a unique thing in religion.

Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified but someone instead replaced Jesus Christ during the crucifixion, Surah An-Nisa - 157-167 states that: > and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the > messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was > only made to appear so.1 Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ > are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making > assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. > > Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty > All-Wise. Is there any historical evidence outside of the bible that i could use to prove to Muslims that Jesus Christ was crucified?

I believe God did not coerce the thief to the right to confess that Jesus is the Messiah, he did it because he loved the truth and out of his free will, the thief to the left also did not mock Jesus because the devil incited him but most probably because he wanted to appease the crowd. The actions of these two thieves , one in repentance and the other in rebellion caused them to go to different places in the afterlife. How do Calvinists who say God has already chosen the elect and our free will doesn't matter defend this? Also if God interferes with your free will to achieve a result where you go to heaven, then the race of salvation is not fair, or if He interferes with your free will to make you go to hell, makes him a crucial factor in your condemnation, which is not the case .

Note: this is a different question from [this one](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/39419/is-non-catholic-non-orthodox-modern-western-denomination-an-ok-definition-of-p) , which posits one definition and asks if it is OK. My question asks for a standard definition. I also hope to know the authorities involved in putting forth such a definition. (I have edited the headline question to include the word "Standard".) ---------------------------- Is there a standard definition of a Protestant Church? This question came up as a result of my using the guideline in the tag for Protestantism: > Protestantism is a broad tradition referring to the churches which > broke from the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th Century and those > that descended from them. The problem with this description is that "those that descended" from the mainline Protestant movement include a number of groups that do not affirm the Nicene Creed. Some reject all or parts of it, while others simply do not demand that members adhere to it. So how should Protestantism be defined if it does not include the various churches that descended from the original Reformation churches of the 16th century? Here are some short attempts to clarify what the term "Protestant" means. Wikepedia > Various experts on the subject tried to determine what makes a > Christian denomination a part of Protestantism. A common consensus > approved by most of them is that if a Christian denomination is to be > considered Protestant, it must acknowledge the following three > fundamental principles of Protestantism. (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fides > and the priesthood of all believers). Britannica > In England in the early 17th century, the word was used to denote > “orthodox” Protestants as opposed to those who were regarded by > Anglicans as unorthodox, such as the Baptists or the Quakers. Roman > Catholics, however, used it for all who claimed to be Christian but > opposed Catholicism (except the Eastern churches). They therefore > included Baptists, Quakers, and Catholic-minded Anglicans under the > term. Before the year 1700 this broad usage was accepted, though the > word was not yet applied to Unitarians. New World Encyclopedia > Protestants generally may be divided among four basic groups: 1) The > "mainline" churches with direct roots in the Protestant reformers, 2) the > Radical Reform movement emphasizing adult baptism, 3) nontrinitarian > churches, and 4) the Restorationist movements of the late eighteenth and > nineteenth centuries. Various denominations exist within each group, > and not every denomination fits neatly into these categories. [Learn Religions Website](https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-protestantism-700746) > Protestant churches today consist of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, > of denominations with roots in the Reformation movement. While > specific denominations vary widely in practice and beliefs, a common > doctrinal groundwork exists among them. These churches all reject the > ideas of apostolic succession and papal authority. **Summary**: None of these definitions addresses the theological boundaries of Protestantism in terms of the Trinity, or other aspects of the Nicene Creed. One specifically includes non-trinitarian traditions. So the question remains: is there a standard definition of what constitutes a Protestant Church? If so, on what authority was this standard decided?

In St. Matthew's genealogical account of Jesus' ancestry, only four women are mentioned. Interestingly enough three out of the four are clearly non-Israelites: - Rahab was a Canaanite by birth. - Ruth was a Moabite by birth. - Bath-sheba was a Hittite by marriage. That being said, the status of the first woman mentioned (Tamar) seems unclear. We read in Genesis that > "Judah saw ... [a] Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he took her, and > went in unto her. And she conceived, and bore a son, and he called his > name Er." It is my understanding that from a Jewish perspective (based on an interpretation of Deuteronomy ch. 7, v. 3 -4), this would make Er and all the other sons of Judah by Shua, Canaanites, and not Israelites. Later, we read that Er would marry a woman named Tamar of whom we know nothing about: > "And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar." From what I have gathered, this would make Tamar a Canaanite by marriage. Please correct me here if I have made a mistake.

When Jesus was tempted in the desert in Matthew 4, Satan told Jesus to turn the stones into bread. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, Jesus said that when a child asks their father for bread, he will not give his child a stone. Then in Revelation 2:17, we have this: > He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. > To the one who conquers I will give some of the **hidden manna**, and I > will give him a **white stone**, with a new name written on the stone that > no one knows except the one who receives it. Here Jesus is offering bread (manna) and a stone! Is there some special meaning behind the juxtaposition of bread and stone in Revelation 2:17?

I've been trying to find a verse I read not too long ago for quite some time about sinning and knowing it's wrong, but sinning anyway because you know God will forgive you. I believe it also mentioned how people who do this are even lower than people who sin, then repent and attempt to stop doing it. I know that verse-identification has had a lot of discussion on the meta as to whether it should be allowed, and it seems most people would only allow it under very strict circumstances. That said, I do agree with this opinion, but I also believe that this question meets those circumstances, so I will take the risk. I have been trying to find this verse for quite some time, and I can't find it. I've searched Google, I've looked it up on quite a few websites, I've even asked other people if they had seen the verse. It's almost like it didn't exist, but I'm 100% certain that I saw it, but I can't find it. Point is, I've searched all over the place to no avail, and I feel that this is the last place I can possibly turn. If anyone has seen this verse I would very much appreciate it, but if you haven't seen this particular verse, I would rather you not answer with a verse that has a similar subject, but is different. Thanks. --- **Update:** I just asked a particular person who I hadn't asked before and they said they knew the verse I was talking about, but wasn't sure where it was. They hunted around for a while looking for it and found a few similar verses, but not the correct one. To make things easier, I will name a few verses it isn't, but it would be nigh impossible to track down every similar verse I've seen that isn't the one. *I'll also include passages that have been put in answers that aren't it.* **Many of the verses I have seen that aren't it are as follows:** - Romans 6:15 - Luke 13:3 - 1 John 5:18 - Hebrews 10:26-31 - 2 Peter 2:20-21 There are other verses I have seen, but these verses were the closest ones I found.

In Acts 15:19-29, were the Apostles of The Jerusalem Council acting in accordance with the Law of Moses, where each violation of the Torah equated to a "cutting off" of the community? Further, aren't three of the four dietary restrictions? The Four detailed prohibitions (Acts 15:19) are: 1) That they abstain from foods sacrificed to idols (dietary), as described in Leviticus 17:7-9. Note Leviticus specifically addresses the alien (Heb. *Ger*) shall be "cut off". 2) That they abstain from fornication, which is associated with Idolatry. (ref. Leviticus 18:26, 29). Here too both the native and the alien are addressed (vs 26), violations of such equate to a "cutting off" (vs. 29) removal from the Covenant. 3) That they abstain from consuming blood (Dietary, ref. Lev. 17:10-12). Verse 10 specifically states that both Native Israelites and Aliens who consume blood will be "cut off". 4) That they abstain from eating foods strangled. (Dietary, ref. Leviticus 17:12-14) The Torah specifically instructs the community to pour out the blood and cover it with earth which is not done in slaughters performed by strangulation. Note once again that those who do such are "cut off" - ref. vs. 14 Is this practice not associated with the idolatry of the surrounding nations and religion according to Leviticus 18:24-25? If the apostles are not standing upon the authority of the Law of Moses, being led by the Holy Spirit, where did they derive such an arbitrary set of conditions for new believers to enter the synagogue (vs. 21)?

Does the idea of "secondary causes" imply that God reveals Himself by His creation, or that He does not at all? *Wikipedia* provides this definition of "secondary causation " where there seems to be a very strong autonomy of world realities relative to God: > Secondary causation[3] is the philosophical proposition that all material and corporeal objects, having been created by God with their own intrinsic potentialities, are subsequently empowered to evolve independently in accordance with natural law. The definition provided here seems to still insist that there is a link between world's realities (humans, nature, etc.), although they are separate: > The theologians speaking of those forces truly operating in the world as "secondary causes". God is the first cause, but the forces of nature and free actions of personal beings whom God has created are second causes; and it is extremely important, if we would be true to the bible, that the existence of secondary causes should not be denied. > >Only, it is important to observe that the two causes are not on the same plane. They are not coordinate, but one is completely subordinate to another. In every event in the natural world God has completely accomplished what he willed to accomplish. He is not limited in any way by the forces of nature or by the free actions of his creatures. They act truly; but they truly act only as he has determined they shall act. The correct way, therefore, expressing the relation between secondary causes and God, the great First Cause, is to say that God makes use of second causes to accomplish what is accordance with his eternal purpose. > >Second causes are not independent forces whose cooperation He needs, but they are means that He employs exactly as He will. This picture illustrates the idea of "secondary causation": So **what is the idea behind "secondary causation"**? Is it that we can interpret natural things as revealing something about God (e.g. God's will, God's perfection, God's goodness), or is it that by studying nature, we should not think about God's presence behind those natural things? Or is it the idea that it allows to be agnostic on that matter, allowing us to see God's presence if we will, nor not if we prefer not to. **Response to comments**: From discussion with users in the comments, I get the impression that the “secondary causation” principle can itself be object of various interpretations.

I have searched many sites to find evidence of the incorrupted body of St. Cecilia. But I have failed to find any evidence of the real body, only statues of the saint. Can anyone help to find out real photo of the saint's incorrupted body?

It seems that those who attack the veracity of the Christian faith also dislike the faith on a qualitative level. They dislike what it fundamentally is about. Similarly, it seems that those who support the veracity of the Christian faith value the faith on a qualitative level. They cherish what it fundamentally is about. I am very curious to learn of any exceptions to this. I think someone who sees the faith as so good that it is worth believing in would probably not need extensive evidentialist support as a precursor to belief. Someone who sees the faith as essentially bad and not worth believing in would probably not need extensive evidentialist support as a precursor to disbelief. (This is not to undermine the value of evidence.) A quote by Thomas Nagel comes to mind: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."