I'm a Christian and studying the Bible - New Testament in ancient greek, I believe Jesus' clear and explicit confession in Getsemane that Jesus' Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3). But I use the come to disagreement with trinitarians refuting John 17:3 using John 20:28 claiming that Thomas believed Jesus was God - which, according to my knowledge of ancient Greek is a false argument and I want to ask wider community how they understand the grammar aspect of the verse John 20:28. My understanding of the verse is this: Thomas didn't call Jesus God - and this can only be seen in the original Greek. In Greek "my Lord" and "my God" are grammatically distinguished as two persons that Thomas addressed, but we won't see this in any translation because other languages don't have the same grammar rule (known also as Sharp's rule). The Greek language uses the definite article for multiple purposes with precise grammar rules and one of the purposes is CONJUNCTION or DISTINCTION of substantives. The pattern for CONJUNCTION (when the same substantive is meant): 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 (𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 + conjunction + 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦) The pattern for DISTINCTION (when different substantives are meant): (𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 + 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦) + conjunction + (𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 + 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦) John 20:28 has the pattern for 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, each noun has 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 used for distinction between "my Lord" and "my God" which indicates that Tomas after addressing Jesus "my Lord" addressed another person in astonishment "my God" who resurrected Jesus. Our languages don't have this wonderful specific usage of articles and this grammar distinction of two different substantives can't be seen in our translations. John clarified it by grammar which was clear to everyone reading it in Greek. If fact, Thomas said only two words in Hebrew: "ADONI", "WELOHAI" and John's translation in Greek with the DISTINCTION of TWO persons made it clear whom Thomas addressed. (Note: The patterns, Sharp's rule, don't apply in attributive and predicative word connections/syntaxes where the article is used for different functions, namely for marking up attributive and predicative connections - obviously with genitives - which has higher grammar priority than denoting conjunction or distinction.) In the case of John 20:28 it means that Thomas addressed Jesus and then God. And this is how I understand what the situation might look like: Thomas overwhelmed by emotions and astonishment of a shock of seeing something so unbelievable (for him) like Jesus alive again whom he had seen dead must have made him fell down before Jesus exclaiming: “My Lord!” ("ADONI")... and right after that he might raise his eyes with his hands up to heaven with his exclamation “...and my God" (WELOHAI")! Yeah, I know that John didn't describe how this situation exactly looked like, but John grammatically clearly indicated that two different persons had been addressed in Thomas’s exclamation. I kindly ask the community to look at the distinctive usage of the article and for the feedback.

Cyrus the Great reigned about 550-530BC per Wikipedia. Isaiah died in the 7th century BC per the same source. Isaiah was used by God to state intent to give Cyrus a surname, which I assume would be "the Great". Did Isaiah predict Cyrus? >...Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, 'Let it be rebuilt.' And of the Temple, 'Let its foundation be laid.' "
This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus whose right hand I take hold to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor... (Isaiah 44:28-45:1) >In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25, seventy years exile), the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing... (Ezra 1:1)

Constantine the Great and his Christian faith: Does anyone have any insight on how Constantine came to put his faith in Christ and what specifically led him [to commission the making of ***Codex Sinaiticus***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Date) ?

How do Catholics understand Jesus to have died for three days and night and yet be killed on Friday and be raised Saturday, before daylight?

Inspired by [my answer here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/104930/10672) , I wonder how the LDS church celebrates Jesus's Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection in terms of liturgies and/or practices during the Holy Week. How does it compare with the Catholic liturgies for the [Paschal Triduum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Triduum) which include the following liturgies to help the faithful to internalize what Jesus went through during the defining moments of his life since we believers are **in union with Him** in suffering, death, and resurrection? - **Holy Thursday mass** on Thursday evening (the stripping of the altar followed with a solemn procession to the [altar of repose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altar_of_repose)) - **Good Friday mass** (without the glory and without consecration) - **Easter Vigil** (focusing on the Paschal candle being the light that shines in the darkness) - **Easter Sunday** (celebrating the resurrection with special readings, hymns, and prayers, first day of the [Easter Octave](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/easter-octave/)) See this article [*Liturgical Highlights: Holy Week and the Sacred Triduum*](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/liturgical-highlights-holy-week-and-sacred-triduum/) for details and examples on how the faithful prepare for the liturgies at home and at church.

The priest acts as a judge in the confessional. Civil judges must recuse themselves if they think they cannot judge a case fairly (because, e.g., they have conflicting interests, lack the requisite knowledge to judge a particular case correctly, etc.). Must a priest, who otherwise has faculties to hear confessions, recuse himself if he cannot judge a penitent's sins impartially? I am not asking if a priest can deny someone absolution or refuse to hear confession (because, e.g., of improper time and place). My question is more along the lines of 1983 CIC 977 , but not restricted to cases that involve sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments.

I'd like to read and understand Catholic theology, philosophy and Tradition as best as I can. I'm a biologist and not a philosopher/theologian -- and as such, I cannot (and thus far have not) dedicated massive amounts of time to reading/understanding *explicitly* the texts and concepts of specific philosophers/theologians in their entirety. I'm not opposed to reading the many influential authors, but given my lack of time to dedicate fully to this endeavor, I'd like to go about reading these authors in the most efficient way, if you will. My question then: **which major texts/authors should I prioritize reading (and in what order) to better grasp the current theology/philosophy of the Catholic faith?** My impression is, that I would benefit greatly reading the following (with supposed additions added in parentheses) in the presented order (first to last): (Plato) > Aristotle > Irenaeus > Augustine > Aquinas > Ratzinger Does this seem sensible? Are each of these authors necessary (as I suppose) to truly understand the other? Or can I read Aquinas or Ratzinger (for example) and get a good enough grasp of prior thought/philosophers? Are there other authors that are hugely important that I skipped (e.g., Descartes?)? Is there a textbook perhaps that anyone can recommend that introduces me to a sensible and necessary reading list or conceptual walkthrough? (I guess I'm ultimately looking for an "official" list (perhaps from a well-respected textbook, theologian, or the Church itself) vs anecdotal commentary. )

A tenet defended by many advocates of classical theism, intelligent design, and natural theology is that the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, leaving everyone without excuse, as Christians commonly assert by quoting passages such as Romans 1 or Psalm 19. However, statistics suggest that scientists, especially physicists and biologists, may not necessarily see things that way. The following quote comes from [Leading scientists still reject God - Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/28478) : > Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). **Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)**. Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1. > > This other quote comes from [Scientists and Belief - Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) : > The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older. > Lastly, the following quote comes from [Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33) : > Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion. > > > > If the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, how is it that physicists, who study the fundamental laws underlying everything, and biologists, who deal constantly with the complexity of biology, largely fail to believe in a designer God? How is it that something supposedly so obvious turns out not to be obvious for the vast majority of scientists? **I'm interested in published Christian explanations of why so many scientists are not theists.** --- NOTE: people who want to debate about design vs. non-design hypotheses should take it to chat, either [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156039/discussion-between-dcleve-and-matthew) , [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156073/discussing-romans-120-scientifically) , or [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134852/creationism-vs-materialism-naturalism) .

Two answers to a question regarding the Book of Mormon contain the following: > Without the Book of Mormon, nothing at all remains. If the Book of > Mormon is true, Joseph is a prophet and everything else that entails. > If it's not true, then so is the claim that Joseph is a prophet, and > everything comes crashing down. It might still be a good spiritual > book, but of human origin (and of a human who then wrongly claimed to > be a prophet). > > Joseph Smith himself stated: > > > “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our > > religion? We have none” (Minutes and Discourse, 21 April 1834, Church > > History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt > > Lake City). > > What impact is made within LDS theology regarding the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon when the historical claims therein are shown by both secular and Mormon scholars to be factually unsupported? > > None. **Just as the bible is not an archaeological/scientific text > (garden of Eden, Noah flood, etc), the Book of Mormon is not as well.** > It, like the Bible, is a religious text. Archaeological/historic > evidence is nice to have but not necessary (though plenty of evidence > exists IMO. The above are partial responses to the question "How does LDS theology suffer when Book of Mormon historical claims are unsupported?" I know that this is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, question to turn towards the Bible since there are multiple hundreds of individuals, cities, nations, and events described in the Old and New Testaments that have been verified through archaeology, contemporary writings, and other scholarly efforts. Having said that, where science appears to contradict biblical content, the traditional Christian response is often strikingly similar to the Mormon response emboldened above: > Some Christian fundamentalists seem to lose their spiritual balance by reacting too much against science. Others look upon the Bible as an ancient science book. It is not. - faithmag.com There are others, though, who appear to rest quite heavily upon external verification: > I often have people tell me that “the Bible’s not a science textbook!” But the Bible is actually a textbook of historical science—and the only such textbook that is totally reliable and infallible. - Ken Ham Again, acknowledging the complication that the reliance upon external verification may be strong **because** it actually exists, the question I am clumsily attempting to ask is: How would traditional Christian theology suffer if there were little or no verification of the Bible's historical content? * I do not know how to ask this without risking closure due to it's suppositional nature and broad target audience. Apologies.

If whenever communion occurs the bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood then how is there enough of Christ's body to last for undoubtedly thousands of communion events every day for the past 2000 years? That would be millions of pounds of bread and wine over time. How is this explained in the transubstantiation belief system? I assume somebody has had to have wondered this before. Is it explained away by saying that the bread isn't *really* the body, but it *really* is? Does God just perform a miracle and allow Christ's body to become theoretically infinite in mass?

The short list of hereditary diseases includes color blindness, down syndrome, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and albinism. The short list of sexually transmitted diseases includes chancroid, chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV/AIDS, human papillomavirus/genital warts and syphilis. All of these diseases require that another person has previously had them, either your parents or your sexual partner. Humanity begins with Adam and Eve, who must have carried all of these diseases to pass them on to their offspring. Did God created Adam and Eve loaded with all those diseases? How do Catholics explain this situation?

Consider the following examples: Imagine a Christian mother driving her car with her children in the back seats when suddenly, they are surrounded by robbers intent on stealing everything and possibly harming her kids. In such a terrifying situation, would it make sense for her to pray for angelic protection? Or consider a scenario where a Christian encounters a pit bull 100 meters away that suddenly charges toward them with aggression. In that moment of imminent danger, would it be reasonable for the Christian to pray for angelic intervention? Lastly, picture an elderly Christian man in a bedroom with a baby when a fire unexpectedly breaks out, blocking all exits. In such a desperate and life-threatening situation, would it make sense for him to pray for angelic protection, hoping for divine intervention to save them?

According to the book "The Latin Mass Explained ", all of the ancient Christian churches that exist today celebrate the mass as a literal sacrifice of Christ, indicating this was the core ritual that they all shared, even though they went their separate theological ways. The Catholic mass itself is based on the situation of the early church in Rome, since the name is from the dismissal of non-Catholics before the sacrifice of the Eucharist, so this indicates the Catholic mass has been unchanged in its essential function as a sacrifice since the earliest days of the Christians in Rome. Here is a good article showing this is what the Catholic church believes, and a run down of evidence from church fathers that this was the early belief as well. Protestantism often claims to be true to proto-Christianity, what the earliest Christians believed, and in doing so has rejected all the man made rituals built up around this essential seed of the Christian life. Yet, Protestantism, as a whole, seems to have rejected the core function of the mass (as evidenced by this question ), which seems to be consistent with our best evidence as to the early purpose of the mass. So, this is confusing to me, since this suggests that Protestantism is not holding to the core ritual of the earliest form of Christianity. How do Protestants address this apparent discrepancy between the stated intent of Protestantism vs. what the evidence seems to suggest? UPDATE: Many see this question as similar to other questions asking about the Protestant take on transubstantiatio/real presence. This question is different, since while some Protestant groups (Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) accept a doctrine similar to transubstantiation, no Protestant groups think the eucharist/communion is a literal sacrifice. However, based on the two lines of evidence above, that all ancient churches we know of viewed the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, and there are many writings of the early church fathers saying the same thing, then it is quite unexpected that no Protestant groups hold a similar view. Since the basis of Protestantism is rejecting man made rituals to return to original Christianity, it is surprising that all Protestants reject what appears to be a doctrine that all ancient churches considered the central purpose of their religious liturgy. I'm curious how Protestants deal with this discrepancy, since I've never heard anyone address it (I've heard many address the transubstantiation question). CLARIFICATION: This question isn't about the Catholic church. I just cite it as a source of evidence I'm most familiar with. However, the issue is broader than the Catholic church. It includes churches that think the Catholic church is heretical, and visa versa. It includes churches that respect the Catholic church, and churches that don't. The weird thing, which my question is about, is that all these ancient churches have the same thing in common, which is the eucharist as a literal sacrifice of Christ, suggesting this aspect is central to original Christianity.

Timeline from 1 to 9, the first born first,then son and daughters then all the life they lived, in the book of Genesis chapter 5 where Enoch walked with G-D 300 years and was no more for G-D took him on the seventh. 1)Adam: 130 800 930 25+7+18=50 difference 2)Seth: 105 807 912 15+8+7=30 difference 3)Enos: 90 815 905 20+25+5=50 difference 4)Cainan: 70 840 910 5+10+15=30 difference 5)Mahalaleel: 65 830 895 97+30+67=194 difference 6)Jared: 162 800 962 7)Enoch: 65 300 365 disappeared 8)Methuselha: 187 782 969 5+187+192=384 difference 9)Lamek: 182 595 777 187-162=25. 800-782=18. 969-962=7 25+18+7=50 384+194=578 384-194=190 and 17×17×2-16×16×2=66 Then Noah has 3 sons and their age is not mentioned. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died. 500 +100+ 350 = 950 And Noah's Ark's measurements were 300 cubits by 50 cubits and 30 cubits and the interior was divided into 3. 300+50+30=380 380÷2=190 And the house of the Lord were 50 cubits by 100 cubits and the house of The Ark's resting place were 30 cubits long. And the perimeter of the house of the Lord are 50+100+50+100=300 cubits

1 Corinthians 2:11 > For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit > within him? **So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit > of God.** Does the Father have the Holy Spirit within him, and if he does, is it his very own spirit or a separate divine person within him? _This is a question to get an understanding of doctrine comparing Trinitarian, Binitarian and Unitarian perspectives._

Every now and then, I say to myself, "I'll have to ask God about this when I get to Heaven." My Question: According to the Catholic Church, will it be possible to ask such questions once we're in Heaven? Specifically, - Did Jesus (or anyone in the Bible) ever talk about the nature of our interactions with God in Heaven? - Can humans have a private conversation with God in Heaven whenever they want? - Or do they need to schedule an appointment and wait? - Or do we talk to God through prayer, much like we do on Earth? I'm especially interested in Biblical support for any answer.

In several Catholic churches online, I have seen grilles used in large sections of the side walls. These are obviously not gates as they could not be opened. I was thinking it might be a "window grille" but had some doubts since they extend to the floor of the church. I tried searching for the specific term for these church elements but could not find any information. is an image from Wikimedia Commons (photo uploaded by Judgefloro).

I have been trying to find the original source and transcript containing the following famous quote of Ven. Fulton J. Sheen on the laity: > Who’s going to save our Church? It’s not our bishops, it’s not our priests and it is not the religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that the priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and the religious act like religious. I have read that he said it at the Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus in June of 1972, but I would like to locate, if possible, an audio recording or a transcript of the speech. Would anyone know where I can find such? If he uttered this quote earlier than this, it would be very helpful to know this.

I am a Catholic and I notice there has been a growing movement within the Catholic Church to accept anyone who wants to join the Church regardless of whether or not they will go to Confession or regardless of the lifestyles that they choose to live. Basically, for this movement, the Catholic Church needs to become a church of unquestioned inclusiveness. This has made me wonder if this movement is acceptable to God. Moreover, it makes me contemplate **what was the primary purpose of God sending His only Son to the Earth to save sinners**? God sending his Son to the Earth to save sinners implies that God does not approve of Sin and thus does not approve of people committing sins and/or leading a lifestyle that is sinful in the eyes of God. (Recall what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.) God decided to send his Son to the Earth and Jesus did the Will of the Father by preaching a message that people should not sin, for sin and sinful lifestyles are displeasing to His Father. Yet, God also sent Jesus to take away the sins of the world and this was accomplished through His Passion and His Crucifixion. This makes me wonder why was it necessary for the Son of God to come to the Earth and to tell people not to sin and to not lead sinful lifestyles if the Father's Plan of Salvation was for all of mankind's sins to be forgiven by Jesus's death on the Cross. This is an apparent contradiction by God because by Jesus taking away everybody's sins means that everybody can commit an unlimited number of sins and/or lead sinful lifestyles yet everybody will go to Heaven. **Was Jesus sent to the Earth so people could commit sin and lead sinful lifestyles yet still go to Heaven?** I am seeking to get answers from other Catholics, but I am also open to answers from those of other Christian denominations.

Meister Eckhart was a thirteenth-fourteenth century philosopher, theologian, and mystic who lived and worked in the Dominican Order. In later life, he was accused of heresy and brought up before the local Franciscan-led Inquisition, and tried as a heretic by Pope John XXII. He seems to have died before his verdict was received. What is the status now? Was he ever officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church or are his teachings recommended like the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas or other saints?