I am curious to learn which (if any!) sects/denominations/cults of christianity are totally against reducing human suffering related to illnesses via medical science. I believe this is significantly different then the other more general question on this site. A negative example: I am aware that the Jehovah's Witness are against blood transfusions, this would be an example of what I am NOT looking for due to the fact that the opposition is limited in scope to just blood transfusions. To my knowledge the following denominations have issues with "SOME" aspects of medical treatments. But none of them are "fully opposed" which is what I am asking for. - The Amish (do not have doctrinal opposition to medical care, but tend to favor natural remedies) - The Assembly of God - Bapticostal Church (West virginia) - "Christian Science" (Possibly opposed to all, but not clear in my search) - Church of God (some congregations are fixated on faith healers) - Church of the first born (Religious based neglect of children, but not of medical treatments in general or as a whole) - End Time Ministries (Child related, medical care related to children, but not adults) - Faith Assembly (Child related only) - One Mind Ministries (Child related exorcism) - True Followers of Christ Church (Oklahoma, medical neglect of children only, not adults, not universally) - Unleavened Bread Ministries (Wisconsin, child dies of untreated diabetes... seems limited to children again) #### One that is close that I found is "The Church of Christ, Scientist" The Church of Christ, Scientist, for example, is a denomination that promotes healing of physical and mental illnesses and disorders through prayer. They do compromise somewhat in the case of broken bones. There are many cases of apparently preventable deaths due to reliance on faith healing by Christian Scientist. Due to the broken bones aspect it doesn't seem to fit my criteria... ---

In the Catholic Church's liturgical calendar, there is a period known as *Ordinary Time*. What is it exactly and what differentiates this period from the others in the calendar. The answer should also include the origin of the name "Ordinary?" My understanding is that the period is not called Ordinary Time just because the period is "ordinary."

There is some number of images of Jesus or other spiritual beings that are claimed to be miraculous as they miraculously got exposed in a camera. People who took these images swear there was no the image prior to the picture taking. Some of the images of Jesus: Here is a site displaying many images of Jesus's face. Did any of the theologians explain why they resemble the face of Jesus always in a different way? Hardly ever Jesus looks the same. In order to make this question about Christianity, what does the Catholic church say about these miraculous images? Some of the images claim to have the real or similar presence of Christ in them similar to the Eucharist. They also supposedly offer a special spiritual protection if hang in a house.

I am working on writing a blog post about the rapture and am curious about the different theories of the rapture. Could someone explain to me the Mid-Tribulation Rapture theory and show some supporting verses for it, as given by those who support this theory? I previously asked about the Pre-Tribulation theory [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57792/rapture-according-to-pre-trib-theory) .

Matthew 1:25 (NIV): > But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. > καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) ἐγίνωσκεν (he knew) αὐτήν (her) ἕως (until) οὗ (she) ἔτεκε (gave birth) υἱόν (a son) καὶ (and) ἐκάλεσεν (he called) τὸ (the) ὄνομα (name) αὐτοῦ (of him) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) This verse could be read to imply that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after Mary gave birth to Jesus. How do the traditions of the Catholic church interpret this verse? Specifically, I am interested in a teaching of the Catholic church itself (not a Catholic apologist) that explicitly argues against interpreting this verse in that manner, if any exists. I did search before I asked this and I found several questions relating to this verse (unsurprisingly!) but I could not find one that asked this exact question. Even so, I do apologise if this is a duplicate.

I’ve been doing some dedicated reading into what I’ll call the “neo-patriarchy movement” as a lot of this literature has been gaining traction in my congregation. One of the consistent ideas in this camp that I find questionable is that the husband has an exclusive and uni-lateral role in discipling his wife: > The Bible also teaches that a wife should be a disciple of her husband…a husband should be instructing and teaching his wife. She should not make this duty superfluous by going elsewhere for the instruction. > > “Reforming Marriage” Doug Wilson > Though both men and women are to seek wisdom, women are instructed to seek it from men; from their husbands. > > “It’s Good to be a Man” Michael Foster The passages used to support the concept in both cases are 1.) 1 Cor. 14:35 which instructs wives to ask their husbands at home if they have questions in the assembly, 2.) Eph. 5:26 which discusses a husband washing his wife with the word. My thoughts both for and against this view: 1) There are multiple interpretations of the Corinthians passage, which can’t be debated here. However I hold to the “judging prophecies” view. In that case this is just saying in this context it would subvert male authority for women to speak out in judging prophecies.. The purpose of them asking their husbands isn’t to give a universal rule of exclusive husband discipleship, but to maintain order in the worship service. 2) Eph. 5:26: It might be a hot take, but I think it fits better with the flow of this passage if you take this section as referring to what Christ does, not what the husband does. In any case, if you do take this as a command to husbands, its still seems a stretch that this is creating a general rule of exclusive, uni-lateral husbandly discipleship. At most this could be taken as giving the husband the responsibility of caring for his wife's general spiritual welfare. 3) We know that “there is one mediator between God and men” 1 Tim 2:5, that all Christians can approach the throne of God “with confidence” (Heb. 4:16), and that through Jesus we now “have access to the father” (Eph. 2:18). So it seems odd that a woman getting married would result in her access to Christ being reduced. It also seems unbiblical that her husband would act as a sort of mediator to this degree. 4) Multiple examples of women learning directly from Jesus or other men: Jesus with Mary and Martha, the woman at the well, Paul teaching Lydia and the other women in Acts, the women following around Jesus and his ministry in Luke. 5) Even Calvin doesn’t see this passage as an exclusive, uni-lateral discipleship role. “When he says husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity…it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.” 6) This concept does account for a the wife being a helper to her husband. How can she help him, if all the wisdom she receives, he already has since he gave it her? 7) On the other hand, in Genesis, God does give the command to Adam directly and not to Eve as well. (Although Eve wasn’t around to hear it at the time). 8) In my earlier examples of Jesus directly teaching women, none of them were married. The only exception is Joanna the wife of Chuza. But in her case she is not explicitly taught by Jesus (although it’s hard to believe she would not have heard his teaching while traveling with him). 9) If you hold to a different interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 or Eph. 5:26, then there may be a stronger case to take v. 35 as building a general rule of exclusive male discipleship. *I know this can be a hot topic, so thoughtful comments dealing with the biblical text and/or Christian teaching only. Please no patriarchy bashing.

The article below appears on 'Historica Fandom' and I am seeking to substantiate what it says. My question is not about issues arising from the content of the article as such. I am only seeking to substantiate it as being factual. Is this an accurate resume of the current status of the Unification Sanctuary Church ? >The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary Church is a far-right new religious movement in the United States which was founded in 2013 by Hyung Jin Moon and his wife Yeon Ah Lee Moon as a schismatic splinter from the Unification Church. The church officially commenced in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania in January 2015, and it became infamous for its fetishization of firearms as their interpretation of the "rod of iron" mentioned in the Bible. In early 2018, not long after a deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the church gained notoriety for holding a marriage vows renewal ceremony that asked participants to bring their AR-15 rifles. Moon and other members of the church participated in the 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt in Washington DC, and, that same year, the church relocated to a compound near Waco, Texas, the site of the Branch Davidians' former compound. Historica Fandom

> Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55, ESV) In order to maintain the belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary, many Christians claim that the use of the Greek word for brother, ἀδελφός, can also be used to mean cousin . From my understanding the more proper term for cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only once in the NT by Paul: > Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), (Colossians 4:10, ESV) The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions "James the brother of Jesus" in his *Antiquities of the Jews*: > Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother (ἀδελφός) of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; My question is twofold; Do we have any writings from Josephus where he uses the term ἀδελφός and it is clear that he uses it to mean cousin or kinsman? Also does Josephus ever use the term ἀνεψιός?

> Another attempt to restore the original sinless world was the coming of Jesus Christ when God sent the Messiah to establish the perfect family and thus create the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. **Jesus did not fulfill this mission** because he was crucified. Wikipedia - Unification Church >Christ will be successful at His Second Coming – God will send the 'True Parents of humanity' and through them fulfill the purpose of creation. During the previous two thousand years, God has prepared, according to the principle of restoration, a suitable democratic, social, and legal environment that will protect Christ at the Second Coming. Wikipedia - Unification Church It would seem that the Unification Church does not see the sufferings, death, bloodshed, resurrection, ascension and enthronement of Jesus Christ as a 'triumph' - >And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, **triumphing** over them [Colossians 2:15 KJV] What scriptures does the Unification Church use to support their view of the sufferings and death of Christ as being 'unsuccessful' ?

Is this the Trinity, and if it is how do we know? I have read that the Jewish interpretation is that God is talking to angels, or Michel Heiser says it's the divine counsel. Is there any way to figure this out? And JW's have manuscripts where the word for God isn't there. While Latter Day Saints say it was multiple gods that are meant because the word *elohim* is a plural noun translated gods?

Some consider Jesus a new Joseph. See [this article](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/joseph-type-foreshadow-jesus/) as an example. According to the answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89116/is-the-practice-of-seeking-the-intercession-of-rachel-admonished-in-the-new-test) , Dr. Brant Pitre considers the Beloved Disciple a new Benjamin. This consideration explains the Beloved Disciple's moniker, for, if Jesus is a new Joseph, and Joseph especially loved Benjamin, then a new Benjamin would be especially loved by Jesus. It also explains the adoption of Mary by the Beloved Disciple which, in the original Greek, reads more like an adoption than an assignment of a caretaker. >The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. (Genesis 46:19) >After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (John 19:27) [This article](https://orthochristian.com/135233.html) discusses the same claim, but it also credits Dr. Brant Pitre with the claim itself. Who else has spoken or written that the Beloved Disciple is a new Benjamin?

Advocates of Natural Law aver that knowledge of Morals are inherent in mankind, and that the "Conscience" in man causes him to adhere to them, with guilt feelings when disobeyed. But are these morals based on, or "flowing from", Absolute Values; or do "mores and folk ways" of a society trump them? And whence the "list" of Absolute Values? How are they discovered? Is God behind the revelation of them...to those who sincerely care to follow them? The influence of the Enlightenment upon the definition and purpose of Natural Law tended to put great confidence in ***human reason***, and conversely, a low evaluation of the Bible (Revealed Law). This led academia to a promotion of an ***autonomous human ethic***. Modernity seems to have accepted this position in academia. But did Reformed Theology put restrictions on the definition and purpose of Natural Law, insisting on a close relationship with the Scriptures (Revealed Law), which referred to ***Absolute Values*** flowing from a Transcendent and Holy God, as the only valid source of Ethics? Is man autonomous, and allowed to swirl around in the ocean of relativistic morals based on the Enlightenment's definition of values/ethics. Or did/does Reformed Theology provide---and insist upon---a North Star of unchanging Absolute Values drawn from a Revealed Law (Scriptures)?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding, Dispensationalism suggests that there is a distinct and sharp contrast between Israel and the Church. It holds to the notion that God has a separate plan and purpose for each throughout redemptive history, even into the eschatological future. For example, the 70th week of Daniel is often understood in dispensationalist thought as the Great Tribulation, a period where God deals specifically with Israel, with the Church being raptured prior to this time. Now, my question is not regarding the application of the dispensationalist view of Israel vs. the Church but rather the defense of such a view. As I’ve studied the relationship between Israel and the Church, Scripture seems to continually point to something other than a distinct differentiation between the two and instead highlights their unity and cohesion. For instance, we see verses like **1 Peter 2:9-10**: > *“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”* In this passage, Peter seems to be directly using the exact verbiage used throughout the Old Testament to describe the nation of Israel in **Exodus**, **Leviticus**, and **Deuteronomy**. Additionally, in **Galatians 3:28-29**, Paul states: > *“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”* Here, Paul emphasizes that believers in Christ—regardless of ethnic background—are Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promise, which is a foundational identity tied to Israel in the Old Testament. Another example is found in **Ephesians 2:14-16**, which reads: > *“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”* And further in **Ephesians 3:6**, Paul elaborates on this unity, stating: > *“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”* This passage seems to underscore the idea that Gentiles are now fellow heirs with Israel, sharing in the same body and the promises originally given to Israel. Additionally, in **Acts 15:9**, during the Jerusalem Council, the apostles and elders discuss the issue of whether Gentile believers must follow the Jewish law, particularly circumcision, to be saved. Peter, addressing the council, says: > *“And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”* This statement is particularly significant because the Council ultimately concludes that Gentiles are not required to observe the Jewish law, recognizing that there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ. Furthermore, the council affirms that even Jewish believers are no longer bound to the law for salvation. This moment seems to suggest a deep unity between Jewish and Gentile believers, challenging the idea of a permanent, God-ordained distinction between Israel and the Church. How do dispensationalists interpret such passages to maintain their framework of a distinct differentiation between Israel and the Church? Are there common principles or hermeneutical approaches they use to address these kinds of verses? Thank you for helping me understand this perspective better. All verses are from KJV. God bless!

Recently I encountered someone who, upon hearing the song "[Baba Yetu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Yetu) ," a rendition of the Lord's Prayer in Swahili, assumed that it is widely used in the Swahili-speaking church in Africa. However, the song was actually written by an American for a video game – not the church. The song went on to win a Grammy and is now performed around the world by professional choirs and ensembles. Wikipedia indicates that there have been some high-profile performances of the song in Africa. But I want to know: **To what extent has the Swahili-speaking African church actually incorporated this song into their worship?** I realize a definitive answer is likely difficult, but here are a few thoughts on what kinds of evidence might be good indicators: - inclusion in a published Swahili-language/African church songbook/hymnal, - demonstrated use in Christian conferences/seminars taking place in Africa - testimony of a local church leader/missionary

The volatility and Jew-hatred of Luther suggests to some folk that Luther might have been overly fond of the drink. What does history show about his vices? This is from PBS: ![Luther's Vices ][1]

From the Fatima prayer we read where Mary says: > I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one > of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my > Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all > souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. Now that part in Rosary has changed to: > O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead > all souls into heaven, especially those in most need **of thy mercy**. > Amen. What is the history of the added: **of thy mercy**. This was also added in other languages not just English.

As I understand it, the doctrine of transubstantiation maintains that bread and wine *literally*\* become the body and blood of Christ... yet it is impossible to detect this. That is, they do not materially change, so we don't and can't notice, nor can we scientifically show any change. I'm curious: how do Catholics support this view? Especially considering Jesus' statements that the bread and wine were His body and blood could easily be taken as symbolic. --- *In the literal sense of "literally".

In Job 2:12, when Job's friends first see Job at a distance, they "did not recognize him, and they raised their voices, and wept aloud; they tore their robes and threw dust in the air upon their heads." I know that tearing of one's clothes is a common mourning ritual as portrayed throughout the Bible, but is throwing dusts upon one's head as well? Where did the mourning ritual of throwing dusts on one's self originate? What is is symbolic of? What other accounts do we have in the Bible for it?

#### Question: If you believe "Michael" = "Jesus". How does your soteriology work if Jesus is not God but merely another created being?

We read at Mtt 2:16 (NRSVCE) : "When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he was infuriated, and he sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men." No king would want to kill his male subjects since it is they who would form his armed forces in future . Herod ordered the male children to be killed because he feared for his throne, but would definitely minimize the upper age, in order to spare those who were beyond doubt ( of having been born the King of Jews ) . It implies that the Magi had taken nearly two years in travelling to Bethlehem after seeing the star, or in the alternative, it took Herod some two years after the Magi's departure to realize that he had been duped by them. Anyway, they visited Jesus after his presentation in the temple, where Joseph and Mary had been able to offer only the minimum requirement of a pair doves (Lk 2:24), not knowing what the Magi would later offer him . Going by the above, it is evident that Jesus was nearly two years of age when the Magi visited him. My question therefore, is: According to Catholic Church, how old was Jesus when the Magi visited him ?