In [What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/72/27036) we have explored the biblical basis for the doctrine that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. However, what is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that: 1. the Father and the Son are different persons; 2. the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons; and 3. the Holy Spirit and the Father are different persons? In [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2049/27036) , my question is addressed but not answered; other answers also attempt to explain how the three persons are one, instead of how the three persons are distinct.

(Note that this is the same Question as https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104555 , but asking for a different group's views.) Hereditary diseases include color blindness, Down's syndrome, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and albinism. Sexually transmitted diseases includes chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV/AIDS, and syphilis, at least some of which can also be transmitted from parent to child. All of these diseases require that another person — either a parent or sexual partner — has previously had the condition. If all of humanity starts from Adam and Eve, this implies that Adam and Eve must have carried all of these diseases in order for them to be passed on to their offspring. Did God created Adam and Eve loaded with all those diseases? How do Christians which deny Common Descent and believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve some few thousand years ago explain this situation?

According to the Internet Archive [*See here*](https://archive.org/details/AdviceToParents/mode/2up) , which offers a modern version of a booklet entitled "Advice to Parents" by St. Alphonsus Liguori: > This exceptional booklet was created from a sermon given by the great Saint Alphonsus Liguori, founder of the Redemptorist Order, Bishop, and Doctor of the Church. In it he expounds on the privilege and responsibilities of parenthood as a special vocation from God. He backs up his statements with quotes from Scripture.. Saint Alphonsus Liguori makes two specific points in his text. In the first, how important it is to bring up children in habits of virtue; and, second, the care and diligence a parent should extend to bring their children up well. QUESTION: Does anyone know the whereabouts of the aforementioned sermon on which this booklet is based? And/or, can anyone point me to an older version of the said booklet? Thank you.

Ezra 6:15 gives the completion of the temple after the Babylonian exile as 3 Adar, and the sixth year of Darius. > And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which > was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. Josephus, Antiquities 11.107 gives the completion of the temple after the Babylonian exile as 23 Adar in the *ninth* year of Darius. > Now the temple was built in seven years’ time. And in the ninth year > of the reign of Darius, on the twenty-third day of the twelfth month, > which is by us called Adar, but by the Macedonians Dystrus, the > priests, and Levites, and the other multitude of the Israelites, > offered sacrifices, as the renovation of their former prosperity after > their captivity, and because they had now the temple rebuilt [. . .] The general position, academically, appears to favor the year 516/515 BCE. This is clearly deduced according to Ezra rather than Josephus, since Darius I reigned from 522–486 BCE, his sixth year of reign necessarily beginning in 516 BCE. Given two points of logical understanding, that 1) Josephus claimed to be in possession of biblical materials taken from the temple after the siege in 70 CE, and was therefore potentially accessing older copies of the scriptures than anything we have today, and 2) that the numbers in our current text in other places don't always add up correctly, particularly concerning time periods following the exodus out of Egypt . . . would anyone have any insight into other sources on the rebuilding of the temple that might clarify the year? The relevance of the question is part of a larger study into the priestly courses. I've backdated them from the destruction of the temple in 70 CE per the Talmud, bTa'an 29a and the course of Jehoiarib on the 9th of Ab. But to "check my work" as they say, I'm trying to determine, as best as possible, the precise starting point when the courses were initially reinstituted in Ezra 6:18 immediately following the rededication of the temple. > And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their > courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is > written in the book of Moses. Determining the correct year will allow me to count forward to verify the rotation. Assuming it wasn't broken in the time of the Maccabees, if I can determine the correct year, whether it's the sixth or ninth of Darius, counting forward should result in a match for Jehoiarib on the 9th of Ab if everything is on the up and up. Any additional material anyone can suggest is always especially welcomed.

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference? More or less the same people ---------------------------- The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern: > At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern > half of the empire” (LA, 19). > > “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of > Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in > theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that > Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy > till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners > at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170) > > The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented > the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156) The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian. ---------------------------------- > “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of > Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. > That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one > hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” > (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians > who attended in Nicene Council.] > > “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion > because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as > to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a > view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture ) > > “In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and > Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to > Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were > influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were > never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99) > > After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus > of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no > prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly > came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97) > > “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency > among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term > “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of > controversy was caused in the years after the council by some > supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. > Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)) > > “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for > the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by > Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose > thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … > accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of > Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of > opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171) > > It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say > that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence > to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist > opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a > drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to > Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92). > > The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can > make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop > who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been > shocked and disturbed by **the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea**.” (RH, > 290) The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian. --------------------------------------- While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’. > The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it > particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction > between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287) > > The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287) > > “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, > 119) LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

I had presumed there was one staff through which God performed the miracles, regardless the hand that held it--and that it was the rod or staff that was placed in the Ark of the Covenant. But, silly me, after watching a secular show about Biblical relics, I deduced Aaron's budding staff wasn't the same as Moses' rod(?) I was rather confused since God turned Moses' staff into a snake in the wilderness, but turned Aaron's into a snake before Pharaoh.

So, this might be because of a misunderstanding of the theology, but from what I've been told, most Christians believe in some form of eternal salvation. And in this eternally saved state, the soul of a person will be free from all worry, regret, sadness, etc. Let's take two people, Alice and Bob. Alice loves Bob, and worries that Bob is not saved. Bob dies without salvation. This makes Alice sad. Alice dies and goes on to her eternal reward. Does she still care about the fact that Bob never reached salvation? Will she carry that sadness for eternity, or does she cease to care about Bob? If she doesn't carry that sadness for eternity, but she still cares about Bob's eternal soul, in what sense does she care if the fact that he never achieved salvation causes her no worry or pain? If she knows that during the vast majority of her eternal existence, she won't care about Bob's eternal soul, why does she bother to care about it during her life?

Did Jonathan Edwards apparently misunderstand Jesus' point in John 8:23? In the sermon titled "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" Jonathan Edwards says that sinful man deserves judgement (certainly), has been condemned by God in the law (that's true), then he says this as well: > So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23. “Ye are from beneath,” In John 8:23 it seems like Jesus' point is not that "you are from beneath, hell where you are punished for your sins" but rather "you are from beneath, earth where your minds are set on physical things rather than spiritual things". **Is there any possible explanation for this other than "Mr. Edwards was wrong"?** --------- Sources to find the full text of the sermon: - [Blue Letter Bible](https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/edwards_jonathan/Sermons/Sinners.cfm) - Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University: - [Introduction](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0Ni53amVv) - [Facsimile](https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2011583) - [Transcription](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0OC53amVv) - [Edited transcript](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0Ny53amVv)

Jesus in Matthew 12 appears to give a compelling argument against the possibility of demons casting out other demons: > 22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” > > 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” > > 25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 **If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself**. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 **But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you**. > > [Matthew 12:22-28, NIV] In other words, demons are cast out by the power of the Spirit of God, and in the case of Christians, in the name of Jesus. That said, according to the Wikipedia article on [Exorcism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism) , exorcisms have been practiced since antiquity in other religions. And I find this problematic, because if we think about it, non-Christians do not have the power of the Spirit nor the name of Jesus to drive out demons during an exorcism. And they can't be using the power of Satan either, as per Jesus' argumentation in Matthew 12:22-28. So there appear to be no other options left, and we are faced with a dilemma. **Question**: How do Christians make sense of exorcisms in other religions? Are exorcisms in other religions compatible with a Christian worldview? ____ *Note: I'm not sure if I should request answers from a specific denomination or Christian group for this one. I would imagine that most Christians believe that demons exist and can be cast out, and I'm not sure if there is a specific denomination with an official position regarding exorcisms in other religions. But in any case, if this question needs editing, feel free to let me know or go ahead and edit it yourself.*

I’m looking for answers from Protestant Trinitarians as this seems to be a fairly recent explanation, currently in vogue in some groups (mainly evangelical, I would suppose). The basis for my query is the following scripture texts (all A.V.): > “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus > Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Romans 5:11 > > “And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year > with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year > shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations : it is > most holy unto the Lord. …when they give an offering unto the Lord, to > make an atonement for your souls, and thou shalt take the atonement > money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint if for the service > of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto > the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your > souls.” Exodus 30:10 & 15-16 > > “For the life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to > you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul : for it is the > blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:11 I note that modern translations use the word ‘atonement’ more frequently. However, I am not looking for simple agreement with what those texts say, or any subjective opinion as to what atonement means to individual Christians, but of ***what this one word, ‘atonement’ actually means, in context, and whether it could be misleading to say it means ‘at-one-ment’ (not least because that phrase of cobbled-together words explains nothing, in and of itself.)***

I was reading [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104812/do-you-have-to-be-in-a-state-of-grace-to-be-invested-with-the-brown-scapular) about the Brown Scapular, which got me thinking. If you can go to confession within 7 days of some indulgences and the ordinary parts of an indulgence include receiving communion and going to confession (not in that order if you have mortal sins), can you start the process (i.e. make a pilgrimage) and then go to confession, or do you need to go to confession first?

This is a question I've often had, why exactly a non-Catholic is prohibited from taking the eucharist , if they believe the correct things about the eucharist, and are following Jesus teachings. Whenever I've found an answer, normally it is that Protestants and other non-Catholics who are not in communion with the Catholic church (some orthodox excluded) would bring harm upon themselves because they don't recognize Christ's presence in the eucharist, i.e. transubstantiation, even though logic of transubstantiation was not formalized until the 11th century. However, there are a couple of problems with this answer. First, anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of US Catholics believe the eucharist is just a symbol . Yet, if 1/3 of the congregation suddenly dropped dead from taking the eucharist unworthily, as Paul warns, I'm sure it'd be noticeable. Nor are any of them holding back. While a Catholic service for other nationalities tends to have many holding back, US Catholics are not shy at all about lining up to receive the eucharist. Nor are the confession rates very high (less than 1/2 just once a year), so odds are very high that a US Catholic is taking the the eucharist both with the wrong understanding and wrong moral disposition. So, there doesn't seem to be a lack of opportunity for US Catholics to keel over en masse from taking the eucharist unworthily. However, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence this is happening. Thus, taking the eucharist unworthily seems more a theoretical concern than a realistic concern, at least as far as physical well being goes. Perhaps only spiritual well being is the concern, but this is not what Paul warns about in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, he specifically mentions people becoming physically sick and dying from taking the eucharist unworthily. > For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. Spiritual harm is pretty hard to know evidentially if there is no physical consequences. However, accepting that taking the eucharist unworthily spiritually kills someone, without physical effect, this would only be a problem for those spiritually alive. Yet those outside the Catholic church are either already spiritually dead (how can you kill a dead thing?), or they are an "ecclesiastical community" and spiritually alive. And if they are considered spiritually alive, believe in the real presence, and are morally disposed, then how would taking the eucharist be of spiritual harm? Which brings me to the next point. There are a number of other non-Catholics who do recognize the real presence in one way or another, but are also denied communion: some Orthodox, ancient churches considered heretical by Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, some non-denominational Christians, etc. Yet, all of these are barred from taking the eucharist, even though they are observing Paul's warning. Maybe because they don't believe the precise correct thing about the confection of the eucharist, that it has to be done by a priest with a valid ordination coming down from the pope, then that causes some kind of problem. Maybe they have a Protestant priesthood of believers perspective, or don't believe in papal supremacy. But, this makes taking the eucharist worthily dependent on doctrines that weren't officially declared until centuries after Christ came to earth. What happened to everyone before transubstantiation and papal supremacy were defined? Another weird thing about this line of thought is that the priest could be a complete atheist and moral reprobate, and still validly confect the eucharist, yet for someone to take the eucharist worthily requires correct belief about a host of tricky theological subjects and be in a state of grace. Another answer I've heard is that taking the eucharist is a communal activity, and so groups not part of the Catholic community shouldn't take the eucharist. However, there are many non-Catholics that are very dedicated to the cause of Christ. For instance, evangelical Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the US are [much more likely] to follow Catholic moral teachings on abortion than a US Catholic. The orthodox believe in all the same essentials as Catholics, except for papal primacy, although they believe the pope is the "first among equals". Yet only a portion of the orthodox church is allowed to take the eucharist at a Catholic church. Conversely, a significant chunk of US Catholics that take communion don't believe in following church authority, seemingly at all, as mentioned above. Yet, there is never much concern about them taking the eucharist. Very occasionally will a public personality be barred, who has publicly stated they hold to a position clearly at odds with Catholic teaching, such as abortion, but such barring of any Catholic almost never happens. So, it is unclear exactly what being part of the Catholic community means that is relevant for taking the eucharist. A potential aspect to the answer I want to distinguish. There is the canon law aspect, where it is clear that taking the eucharist is prohibited for all non-Catholics unless there is a special declared exception. So, an [answer stating "the canon law says so"] is not quite what I'm looking for. Rather, I'm trying understand a more fundamental aspect, which is the "wherefore". It doesn't appear concern for physical well being is a realistic concern, as explained above from lack of evidence that physical harm is caused. Spiritual well being could be an answer, since there doesn't need to be tangible evidence of harm, but this is an answer that is hard for me to understand the logical consistency. Nor does the communal aspect make a lot of sense, since the Catholic position bars many who are in line with Catholic moral law and Christ's mission, and accepts many who are not. So, if someone knows a "wherefore" that avoids the sorts of answers I have already covered, or at least clears up my misunderstandings, I would be quite interested to hear. UPDATE: I'm wrong about the Orthodox. Looks like they are all allowed , at least by the Catholic church but maybe not from their side, to received eucharist at a Catholic church. UPDATE 2: Another sort of answer that I think misses the mark is one to the effect of "allowing non-Catholics to take the eucharist gives a false impression of unity". The problem with this sort of answer is that it is barring the eucharist based on symbolism, instead of something that actually happens to the people taking the eucharist. If the person is correctly disposed to take the eucharist, i.e. believes it is truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and is in a state of grace after confession, then the eucharist should be efficacious. Jesus says the eucharist is a life saving medicine, i.e. gives people eternal life. So, whatever symbolism of the act that would be secondary to the life saving effect of the eucharist, just like a US field hospital would give life saving treatment to a captured enemy combatant. Ironically, this symbolism based reasoning is similar to the Zwinglian perspective that the eucharist is just a symbol, so it is strange for that to be a Catholic rationale. Conversely, as mentioned, many Catholics take the eucharist who don't recognize church authority or perhaps even Christ, just out of cultural or social conformity, and are thus more out of unity with the church than a true believer who is not Catholic. Yet, there is no effort whatsoever to remedy this actual lack of unity, and only effort to remedy the symbolic lack of unity.

The [is–ought problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) was articulated by David Hume. >Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his book, [*A Treatise of Human Nature*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature) (1739): > >> In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason. > >Hume calls for caution against such inferences in the absence of any explanation of how the ought-statements follow from the is-statements. But how exactly can an "ought" be derived from an "is"? The question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible. > > In modern times, "Hume's law" often denotes the informal thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements; or, more broadly, that one cannot infer evaluative statements (including aesthetic statements) from non-evaluative statements. An alternative definition of Hume's law is that "If P implies Q, and Q is moral, then P is moral". This interpretation-driven definition avoids a loophole with the principle of explosion. Other versions state that the is–ought gap can technically be formally bridged without a moral premise, but only in ways that are formally "vacuous" or "irrelevant", and that provide no "guidance". For example, one can infer from "The Sun is yellow" that "Either the Sun is yellow, or it is wrong to murder". But this provides no relevant moral guidance; absent a contradiction, one cannot deductively infer that "it is wrong to murder" solely from non-moral premises alone, adherents argue. Even if we assume the existence of God—along with the claims that God prefers X, opposes Y, rewards those who meet conditions Z, punishes those who meet conditions W, and created a universe that operates according to laws R—these are all merely *is* statements. They describe the state of reality, including God as a part of that reality. We can similarly catalog *is* statements about human nature: what humans like, dislike, what promotes well-being, what causes suffering. We could fill volumes with descriptions drawn from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and even alleged spiritual truths about how the divine or supernatural realms function. Yet, no matter how comprehensive this collection of *is* statements becomes, it remains unclear how any *ought* logically emerges from them. It is not clear why we *ought* to act in any specific way based on the facts about how reality *is*. Does Christianity have a robust solution to the *is-ought problem*?

I was surprised to learn that Ash Wednesday is not one of the Catholic Holy Days of Obligation (see [this list](https://www.omvusa.org/blog/catholic-holy-days-of-obligation/)) although it is listed [here](https://hallow.com/blog/holy-days-of-obligation/) as "important liturgical observances". I thought Catholics are obliged to go to Mass on Ash Wednesday, or do they just need to fast ([according to precept #4](http://www.stvincentschurch.com/uploads/4/2/5/8/42588219/the_precepts_of_the_catholi_church.pdf) because precept #1 says to "... attend Mass and holy days of obligation ...")? **Why not make Ash Wednesday into a "holy day of obligation"?** Wouldn't that day be at least as important (spiritually) as the 3 (out of 6 non-Sunday days) dedicated to Mary? (I'm also surprised that Good Friday is not in the list either, but I don't want to clutter this question).

Way of The Cross is a devotion followed by Catholic Church especially during Lent. It comprises of 14 Stations, the representative images of which are placed on the walls of the church. The pattern of positioning of the Stations from first to 14th is anti- clockwise , with Station 1 starting from the right of the altar following Versus Populum tradition. One seldom sees a clock-wise positioning. My question is: **Is there a rule concerning the positioning of Stations of the Cross in Catholic Churches?**

It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity. For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus: >[John 14:26 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:26&version=NIV)
>But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. > >[John 15:26 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26&version=NIV)
>When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. Also, it seems that the Father has control over Jesus: >[Matthew 26:39 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:39&version=NIV)
>Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” My understanding is that the Trinity is three persons in one God. Therefore, each person in the Trinity is equal to the other two. Yet, the verses above seem to indicate that there's a hierarchy. ----------- Is there a hierarchy (and my previous understanding flawed) or is there a deeper understanding of what's going on in those verses above? I'm seeking a [Mainstream Protestant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant) exegesis and viewpoint on this issue.

They all have some quotes which seem to support it and others which seem to deny it. Here are just a few. > Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He **made** it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. This seems like it could be interpreted a number of ways...but if it was solely just a metaphor, why would Jesus "make it" his body? If it's not actually his body, what is he "making it"? > Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh**, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit The way this is phrased makes it seem like it's not literally Christ's flesh. Iraneus says something similar: > For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and **imagining that it was actually flesh and blood**, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Lost Fragments XIII

In a recent interview (January 17, 2025), an oxford scholar and theologian, N.T. Wright, having written 90 books, concluded that the emphasis both in the O.T. and N.T. was NOT on getting people to Heaven, but rather, ***bringing Heaven to earth***! He alleged that there was too much emphasis in hymnals, as well as preaching, on leaving earth for their heavenly home. He did not deny the existence of Heaven nor deny it as our final destination. But noted that God wanted believers to ***seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness*** here in this life-time on earth. >He (Jesus) said to them, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your Name;
***Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven***' " (Luke 11:2; Matthew 6:9-10) He recognized that the presentation of the Gospel transforms not only a person, but societies, and even nations. And that this is what is primary in the intention of God. There is no advocacy of extreme Post-millennialism here; just a need for the awareness of God's purpose for leaving the Church on earth, among the nations. Is this a proper interpretation of the New Testament Gospel message, according to Protestant (and/or Catholic) creeds? And is this a proper interpretation of the phrase in the Lord's Prayer, *on earth as it is in heaven*?

What are the relationships between the terms 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Greek Bible', 'King's Bible', 'Torah', 'Tanakh', 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'? Wikipedia seem to have separate articles for each of them and the discussion is pretty convoluted. Which of these are parts of other ones? The term 'Bible' seems to mean different things to different people. Is the Bible a Christian or Jewish scripture? I would appreciate an overview of how these terms are related.

My question is as it is written. Do Protestants view the Reformation as primarily religious and theological or do they go into more sociological and historic detail? If so which details and to what degree? --- I think church history is something Christians should know, so I am curious about the Protestant church on this matter.