After the Flood abates, God reassures Noah that it was a one time event: Genesis 9:13 (ESV) > I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. The most obvious interpretation is that this is a rainbow, and that it was something new. But rainbows are a physical consequence of having rain and sun . God spells out the significance of the sight: the earth will not be flooded again. But should we interpret this as an already-familiar sight being used as a reminder, or did He somehow change things then, and rainbows had not appeared before the Flood? Or was it not actually a rainbow at all, but some other phenomenon with which we are no longer familiar?

Clint Anderson has composed the following hymn about the end times: > [**Thru Tribulation**](https://simple.uniquebibleapp.com/book/Hymn%20Lyrics%20-%20English/Thru%20Tribulation) > > > Though it is dark in this world of sin, > Though evil prospers it shall not win. > First tribulation, then with a shout > We'll be caught away 'fore his wrath's poured out. > > Refrain: > The Lord will come with ten thousands of saints, > He'll judge the earth for his righteous name's sake. > Through tribulation, though we must come, > There's naught can sep'rate us from his love. > > When sorrows increase, be not dismayed, > All must be fulfilled before that day. > The man of sin we will surely see, > The sun and moon darkened, then we shall be free. > > We must trust in him, though times seem dire, > These trials purify us with refining fire. > When these come to pass, redemption is nigh, > He'll catch us away in the blink of an eye. Is it biblical?

The famous "serenity prayer" reads something like this: > God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Many Catholics seem to attribute the above to St. Francis of Assisi; however, it seems to me that the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr may have indeed authored it. See, for example, [*Original Serenity Prayer*](https://proactive12steps.com/serenity-prayer/) QUESTION: Can anyone provide any evidence that the "serenity prayer" was known by anyone prior to Reinhold Niebuhr (1892--1971)? Can anyone suggest why it seems to have been long attributed to St. Francis of Assisi? Is there any evidence that St. Francis ever uttered or wrote it? Thank you.

I cannot find in the New Testament an obligation on Christians to tithe 10% of their income. Instead I read that it is up the individual to decide: > [2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV1984)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%209:7&version=NIV1984) > Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Is there a church tradition established by the early church to encourage everyone to tithe 10%? What was the early church's view on tithing?

Where was the Holy Family when the Magi visited them in Bethlehem (Mt. 2:8 )? In a house or manger? Mt. 2:11 says: "entering into the **house** (*domum*, οικίαν), they [the Magi] found the child with Mary his mother". St. Matthew's Gospel doesn't use the word φάτνη (manger, *præsæpe*). Did the Holy Family move into a house in Bethlehem before the Magi appeared to them? However, the Magnificat antiphon for Vespers on Epiphany says: "this day a star led the wise men to the manger (*præsépium*)".

What is the table behind the main altar where the Sacramental wine and chalice are placed before Consecration? I see altar servers or sacristans place the chalice and glass flasks in this table during a Mass. I have tried searching online for the specific term (if there is any) but have found none. Here is an (photo uploaded by Judgefloro) showing the table.

Were any saints gifted with invisibility? Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., *The Three Ages of the Interior Life: Prelude of Eternal Life* ch. 56, § "Ecstasy and Stigmatization" mentions that St. Catherine of Siena 's stigmata were invisible , but I am wondering if any saints' entire bodies have supernaturally disappeared and reappeared. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., *Teología de la perfección cristiana* (5ª ed.) pp. 928-57 lists the following mystical phenomena, but not invisibility: - Stigmatization - Tears and sweat of blood - Renewal or exchange of hearts - Inedia - Sleeplessness - Agility - Bilocation - Levitation - Subtility - Lights or glowings - Supernatural prefume

Were any of the saints in the Eastern Orthodox Churches gifted with the supernatural ability of invisibility from time to time?

Or, in mathematical terminology, is the relationship of full communion a transitive relation ? I can easily imagine a scenario where church A is stricter in their rules for full communion than church B, but not so strict as to exclude B from full communion on those grounds. However, since B is more lenient, they have full communion with C, which is outside the bounds for church A. While that's easily imaginable, I don't know of any example of three church institutions where this is the case. Do any exist? Does communing with C create any tension in the relationship between B and A?

Well, I was recently listening to Mike Wingers Biblethinker Q and A, and in it he said that attempting to speak with deceased loved ones is equivalent to necromancy in many cases. The question I had is how Catholic teaching regards this. According to Catholic doctrine, is it considered necromancy to try to speak with deceased loved ones? I am aware that Catholicism teaches that it is appropriate to pray to saints and to pray for deceased loved ones, but how does it regard speaking to loved ones who have passed on. Can they hears us? If so, can they respond? Heres the link to Mike Wingers Q and A episode where he addressed the subject of speaking with deceased loved ones and necromancy: [10 Questions with Mike Winger (Episode 13)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=BQjBRaVXDCI&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fbiblethinker.org%2F&feature=emb_imp_woyt) YouTube video.

I am interested to know if any spiritual wonders or miracles were performed by arius or his followers. I'm not looking for answers like "wisdom", the church has many saints that performed wonders or had miracles around them. Healing, understanding language, being teleported, invisibility, feeding a small amount of food to a large group, resurrecting people, etc. Do the churches of Arianism have any miracles, wonders, etc.?

I know that the Orthodox Church considers direct suicide (as in killing yourself via a single specific harmful act, such as taking pills you know will kill you, hanging yourself, etc.) to be a "mortal sin" and as such the usual prayers for the departed are not said. I know someone who died when their body failed due to many years of poor care. This person drank an obscene amount of alcohol, ate very poorly, and did not exercise at all. I'm wondering is this considered a form of suicide (at least to the Orthodox Church)?

The Catholic understanding of the celebration of the eucharist is that it is fundamentally a representation of Christ's sacrifice, and is a fulfillment of the Levitical sacrificial system. Are there Protestant denominations that continue this tradition of sacrificing God to Himself via the eucharist? To give some background as to why Catholics celebrate the eucharist this way, the reasoning is that sacrifice is a universal human expression of the ultimateness of God. It is not only about propitiation for sin. Mankind destructively sacrifices to God what is most materially precious to him to demonstrate that all he owns, including himself, belongs to God, and he is even willing to sacrifice his own life. The first instance of this is the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, which were not sacrifices as propitiation for sin, but rather sacrifices to indicate the supremacy of God above all created things. The Levitical sacrificial system is a continuation and elaboration of Abel's sacrifice, and sin propitiation is only one aspect of this system. That is why after Jesus' bloody sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and non bloody sacrifice during the institution of the Eucharist during the last supper, there is still a need for continual non bloody sacrifice, to still indicate God's supremacy. However, the Levitical system, and all previous sacrifices offered by humans are insufficient, since God is all sufficient and needs nothing from us, therefore nothing we can sacrifice to God is a worthy sacrifice. Jesus fixed this problem by offering God Himself, through Christ transubstantiated in the Eucharist, as a non bloody sacrifice during mass. So, that is why the Catholic church continues to offer the eucharist as a sacrifice of Christ, not because it doesn't believe Christ's death on the cross is all sufficient for forgiveness of sins, but because of the general institution of sacrifice as an expression of God's ultimateness, and only God is an adequate sacrifice for God. As a side note, this is why the Catholic understanding of the eucharistic sacrifice necessitates the doctrine of transubstantiation. If the bread and wine were not truly turned into Christ's divinity, then the eucharist would not truly be a sacrifice of God to Himself, and so we'd still have to be carrying on the Levitical animal sacrifice system, or something even more extreme.

I am interested in the oldest Anglican hymns that are still in use either in the (https://archive.org/details/hymnalofprotesta0000prot/page/n5/mode/2up) or the [1982 Episcopal hymnals](https://archive.org/details/hymnal1982accord00epis/page/n3/mode/2up) .

In Catholic doctrine, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach that Jesus Christ died specifically for the expiation of our sins. Historical Christianity professes that God became a man by way of Incarnation to restore man's fallen nature to full communion with the Godhead. > Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all > people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life > for all people. (*Romans 5:18*) > > > > > For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that > whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."For > God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that > the world might be saved through Him.… (*John 3:16*) > The Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed professes: > ...for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was > incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.. The current Catholic Catechism states about man's specific responsibility for "nailing" Jesus to the Cross with our sin: > **All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion** > > **Paragraph 598** In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners > were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the > divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our > sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute > to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted > upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often > burdened the Jews alone: > > *We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the > cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify > the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him > up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is > greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness > of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for > if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, > however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in > some way seem to lay violent hands on him*.(1) > > *Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins*.(2) > > 1. Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; cf. Heb 6:6; 1 Cor 2:8. > 2. St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5, 3. The Church *also* teaches that God gave man free will...beginning with Adam. > **MAN'S FREEDOM** > > **Paragraph 1730** God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. > "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' > so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain > his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."(1) > > Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will > and is master over his acts.(2) > > **MAN'S FIRST SIN** > > **Paragraph 397** Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's > command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.(3) All subsequent > sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his > goodness. > > **Paragraph 398** In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against > the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his > own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be > fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to > "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance > with God".(4) > > > 1. GS 17; Sir 15:14. > 2. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983. > 3. Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19. > 4. St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5. ---------- **However, paradoxically speaking...** Scripture *also* explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ is God - who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. He was with God in the beginning. (*John 1:1-2*) > > Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. *(Hebrews > 13:8*) The Miaphysite heresy - **which holds that the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onward** - was officially denounced at the Council of Chalcedon. The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ: > We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach > people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the > same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and > truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial > [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and > consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like > unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according > to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our > salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to > the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be > acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, > inseparably; (ν δύο φύσεσιν συγχύτως, τρέπτως, διαιρέτως, χωρίστως – > in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) > the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, > but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring > in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted > or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only > begotten God (μονογεν Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the > prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the > Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy > Fathers has handed down to us. **Considering all this...it seems to me that, although the Incarnation is a temporally necessary for Man's salvation, it ultimately is eternal in essence since the essence of God eternally transcends time.** **Question:** If Adam, by exercising his free will, had chosen *not* to partake of the forbidden fruit (a.k.a. Original Sin), **would the Incarnation still have taken place due to God's omnipresence?** I'm looking for authoritative Catholic/Orthodox teaching about this subject.

Quoting Biblical text is technically a dicey proposition. While the original manuscripts are obviously public domain, not every translation is. Indeed, the NIV even posts the following [copyright notice](http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/) on BibleGateway: >Copyright Information > >The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. > >When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows: > >THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. > >These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale. Given this, what significant translations of the Bible can I actually quote at length?

What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified? What I’ve heard is Peter was about the same age as Jesus (30-33), while John was an older teenage, approximately 18. This makes sense in the passages: >When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26–27, ESV) A teenager along with women would be less threatened being present at the crucifixion. >Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John 20:4, ESV) For men who were not athletes, you would expect an 18 year old to outrun a 30 year old. > Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” (John 21:20–21, ESV) Jesus had told Peter to feed his sheep. Usually younger brothers were given the task of taking care of the literal sheep. Peter had to get used to the idea that shepherds (pastors) were elders. What other evidence to we have for the ages of Peter and John at the crucifixion.

The idea of Latreia (Greek) or Latria (Latin) was brought up in a separate thread (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/104414/43260) on the translation of the Hebrew and Greek terms for bowing down - and how translators tend to translate the term as “worship” when applied to God / a god / Christ / Etc, but translate it literally as “bow down” when applied to, say, a human king. It would appear that Latreia is defined to be a special type of veneration which is reserved only for God - which would explain the source for the argument that if Jesus received worship then he must be God. It is in fact a simple deduction (but one that relies upon selective mistranslation). I am now interested in better understanding the origins and arguments for Latreia. Are there any instances of the term in scripture? Which Church Fathers first put forth the idea, and were there any debates around the idea? Although Protestants seem to be unwitting recipients of the idea of Latreia, the concept appears to be much more well defined in both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The question is open to all - but answers should focus on the origins of the concept first and foremost.

While acknowledging that the Gospels likely contain **most** of the key events of Jesus' life... > Has the Vatican ever acknowledged that the New Testament may be missing **some** key parts of Jesus' life? Emphasis: The original authors of the Bible, who trace their lineage to the Evangelists, did the best they could to compile accounts of the *key* parts of Jesus' life, they could not (and in fact did not) bear witness to Jesus' entire life. And consequently, they may have unknowingly omitted key parts of His life.

There are a several prominent Christian denominations which include young earth creationism as official dogma, such as the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which I grew up in. Many other denominations do not have any official stance on creationism, such as the far more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. And, of course, lots of Christians are not young earth creationists, including lots of people I know personally, as well as famous figures such as Pope Francis and William Lane Craig. **I am wondering whether there is any Christian denomination which, as an organization, officially opposes young earth creationism.** I was unable to find any examples by a quick Google search, or by consulting ChatGPT. The closest example that I can find is the Catholic Church, whose Canon 337 says: > God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." This, and some of the other canons, plainly *lean* towards a non-YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, but does not strictly require it. The word *symbolically* in the second sentence is only expressly applied to God "working" and "resting", and in any case there is no reason why "symbolic" and "literal" meanings cannot coexist. See this article on Catholic Answers for a good summary of the Catholic teaching regarding creation and evolution. In short, Catholic dogma lends itself to theistic evolution (which is the view of the three most recent popes), but does not require it. So, my question is: **Is there any Christian denomination which goes a step beyond this and certifies a non-YEC position as official doctrine?**