This question is NOT: * what does John Bunyan believe about predestination * is predestination biblically accurate? This question is: * Does "Pilgrim's Progress" take a position on predestination? * And if so, which chapter / section? Thanks!

In his Peristephano (a collection of confessional poems on various martyrs), Prudentius asserts that prior to conversion Cyprian of Carthage practiced the dark arts: > He was pre-eminent among young men for skill in perverse arts, would > violate [a woman's] modesty by a trick, count nothing holy, and often > practice a magic spell amid the tombs to raise passion in a wife and > break the law of wedlock. The whole Peristaphano here: https://archive.org/details/prudentius00pruduoft/page/328/mode/2up Yet according to the basic recount of his early life in the wiki page on [Cyprian of Carthage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian) , it makes no mention of this. It was well documented that another Cyprian, the veritable Cyprian of Antioch, *did* practice such devious acts. Compared to the Cyprian of Antioch, the early life of Cyprian of Cartage seems uneventful: an unassuming rhetorician/lawyer. Later on in Cyprian of Carthage's wiki, it in fact points out that he is often conflated with Cyprian of Antioch. All this leads me to believe that Prudentius is one of those authors who mistaken the identity of these two early church figures that share the name Cyprian. That said, I cannot prove it, it's all still circumstantial evidence.

Question

Do we have any "hard" textual evidence or authoritative testimony that can assure us that Prudentius has indeed mistaken Cyprian of Carthage for Cyprian of Antioch?

I'm not sure about the book's title also. Here is a link to where you can get a PDF (it's public domain), where it's referred to as "Dialog of Catherine of Siena", but I've seen several alternatives. I've looked on Google and in the introduction to the book itself but I'm just finding dates related to her life. I want to know when people were first exposed to "Dialog", and what kind of medium was used.

I am currently reading up on of apocryphal and pseudopigagraphical literature, and I see on a list that the Testament of Hezekiah is enumerated as one of them. However, I cannot locate a source or any short blurb on its date, origin, and content? Do any of you know? Thanks!

I read the book by C.S. Lewis some years ago. I would be interested in finding more fiction or nonfiction works offering relatively contemporary perspectives on the experience or functioning of dark forces within lived (e.g., practiced or historical) Christian faith. For example, I would like to be made aware of an ostensibly nonfiction polemic specifying how FDR's New Deal appears to have met the criteria for a work of the devil; and I would also like the book list to identify a fictional piece visualizing Satan in the halls of FDR's White House. The problem is, I don't know how to characterize what I'm searching for. I seem to lack a name for what this literature would be called. For instance, Warnke's *Satan Seller* would be within the scope of my interest, though it is not an apologia or otherwise obviously similiar to *The Screwtape Letters*, beyond its generally satanic orientation. Satanology comes to my attention, but I don't believe I'd want to get bogged down in the theology of Satan. I'm relatively familiar with biblical remarks on the subject. I'm looking more for arguably real-world elaborations or applications - for material that might tell me something I haven't already heard. But what is a name for that body of publications?

This question is related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/79563/how-did-ussher-determine-that-the-world-began-on-sunday-evening-october-23-40 From a Christian perspective (i.e., beginning with the premise that the human race is approximately 6,000 years old)---has anyone come across an estimate (with underlying justifications) for the number of souls that have thus far existed on earth? Of course, such can only be an educated guess based on a mathematical model with certain underlying assumptions. In fact, I recently looked over an article published in 1996 by the MAA entitled "How Many People Have Ever Lived"---but the model used therein was merely an exponential growth model which is clearly erroneous as it gives no consideration to the carrying capacity of the earth. One need not be a mathematician to answer this question, as I would be very happy with a good reference or two pointing me to appropriate literature. Perhaps some astute Christian considered this problem centuries ago? Does anyone know of one? To recapitulate: QUESTION: How many souls have ever lived? Who has considered the problem (not from a standpoint of strict exponential population growth) from a Christian perspective; and where may I find the literature? Thank you.

C.S. Lewis knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote *The Chronicles of Narnia*, as many theses, dissertations, and books have shown. He purposefully fused elements from European mythology (like dwarfs, dryads, dragons), Arthurian legends, medieval feudalism, mysticism, as well as Christianity when creating the imaginary world of Narnia. While he did NOT intend to write Narnia as a Christian allegory (such as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress), he clearly intended the Narnian characters to possess analogous moral agencies with the earth Christians counterparts through the creatures's relationship with Aslan and the Emperor beyond the sea. **Magic in Narnia vs. the Bible, explaining to children** Christian children and adults alike obviously want to read *The Chronicles of Narnia* alongside the Bible. **But how do we reconcile *some* use of magic depicted positively in Narnia with apparent Biblical condemnation of *all* use of the magical arts** (see [Bible verses](https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-magic/)) ? When you read the Bible on some days and Narnia on other days to your kids, the natural questions from intelligent kids, especially whose parents prohibit them to read Harry Potter books are: "But Daddy, why is magic OK in Narnia, but not in the Bible? Why is it OK for me to read Narnia but not Harry Potter? Why is the magician Merlin in *The Story of King Arthur and His Knights* a good guy?" Imagine the Narnia children *themselves* (Peter, Lucy, Edmund, etc.). We presume they are Christians on earth and read the Bible. How would **they** *translate* their experience of Narnian magic: embracing the positive ones into the earthly Christian equivalent but refraining from the negative ones? **Types of magic use, and how C.S. Lewis depict them in the stories** It looks like C.S. Lewis was careful enough while the story is happening on earth to *disapprove* the use of magic: portraying the usage of the magic rings for traffic between Earth and Narnia in *The Last Battle* and the amateur magician uncle's dabbling with magic in *The Magician's Nephew* negatively. Even in Narnia, it is clear that several magicians are portrayed negatively, such as the White Witch in LWW and the hag whom Nikabrik invited in PC. That's not problematic at all. But what about Doctor Cornelius who used a little magic in PC, the magician [Coriakin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriakin) , and even Lucy's reciting the spell to make the Duffers visible again in VDT? After that, Coriakin even used more magic to feast the Narians, generated a map of their travel magically on parchment (which Caspian then hang in Cair Paravel), and even "mended the stern of the Dawn Treader where it had been damaged by the Sea Serpent and loaded her with useful gifts." All those are depicted *positively*. Another issue is how the characters and the narrator seem to be using the word "magic" as though it's a morally neutral descriptive term. "Aslan mentions "Deep magic" in LWW. C.S. Lewis labels the traffic between Earth and Narnia as "magic", Susan's gift as "the great magic horn of Narnia", Lucy's cordial as "magic fluid", preservation of treasure in Prince Caspian as "by some magic in the air", and countless other references. **Problem of translation between Narnia magic and Biblical concepts** Obviously the answer is complicated. We probably need to translate C.S. Lewis use of the word "magic" in positive Narnian context to equally positive concept in real earth and Christianity. When Aslan attributes his resurrection to "Deep Magic" it probably means *miracle*. The operation of Susan's horn is analogous to *prayer*. Lucy's cordial is analogous to [oil of the sick](https://simplycatholic.com/what-are-holy-oils/) , etc. Rather than a case by case conceptual translation, **is there a unifying principle that ties good magic/magician in Narnia to a single concept/principle in earth Christianity and bad magic/magician in Narnia to another?** I'm looking for something relatively simple that a Christian parent can use to explain to a child. An acceptable answer has to provide a single (or a handful) of principles that can translate **every** occurrence of magic in all 7 books, either by good actors or bad actors. Especially when the narrator (C.S. Lewis) depicts the occurrence positively, because C.S. Lewis is Christian, there has to be a Christian explanation that does not violate [the Biblical prohibition on magical practices](https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-magic/) .

I have a necklace that is a cross charm with Jesus Christ on the cross but on both sides. What's the meaning of this symbol?

I recall reading something by C. S. Lewis some time ago in which he recommends that a person who wants to develop a virtuous, right attitude in some area of life should begin acting virtuously in that realm, even though his attitude is wrong. After a time, Lewis says, the virtuous actions will lead to the development of a virtuous attitude. Recently this struck me as a particularly Aristotelian approach to moral development . One introductory textbook relates Aristotle's view this way: > We should perform acts that resemble virtuous acts, that resemble what we would do if we had the disposition. In this way we build up the right habits. If the disposition I wish to acquire is liberality, the way to acquire it is to ask how I would behave if I possessed the habit and continue to behave that way. (Ronald Nash , *Life's Ultimate Questions *, p. 152 ) I'd like to explore how this idea might fit in the framework of sanctification, but unfortunately I don't remember where I read it. Where in the works of C. S. Lewis does he teach that a virtuous attitude can be developed by acting virtuously?

By *books collating modern-day miracle reports* I concretely mean Lee Strobel's book *The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural* ([amazon link](https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185)) and Craig S. Keener's book *Miracles : 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts* ([amazon link](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-volumes-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-ebook/dp/B007KOI2PY/)) . I'm copying & pasting the prefaces below: Lee Strobel's book's preface: > New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel trains his investigative sights on the hot-button question: is it really credible to believe God intervenes supernaturally in people's lives today? > > This provocative book starts with an unlikely interview in which America's foremost skeptic builds a seemingly persuasive case against the miraculous. But then Strobel travels the country to quiz scholars to see whether they can offer solid answers to atheist objections. **Along the way, he encounters astounding accounts of healings and other phenomena that simply cannot be explained away by naturalistic causes. The book features the results of exclusive new scientific polling that shows miracle accounts are much more common than people think**. > > What's more, Strobel delves into the most controversial question of all: what about miracles that don't happen? If God can intervene in the world, why doesn't he do it more often to relieve suffering? Many American Christians are embarrassed by the supernatural, not wanting to look odd or extreme to their neighbors. **Yet, The Case for Miracles shows not only that the miraculous is possible, but that God still does intervene in our world in awe-inspiring ways**. Here’s a unique book that examines all sides of this issue and comes away with **a passionate defense for God's divine action in lives today**.​ Craig S. Keener's book's preface: > Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume's argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. **In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles**. New Testament scholar Craig Keener argues that it is time to rethink Hume's argument in light of the contemporary evidence available to us. This wide-ranging and meticulously researched two-volume study presents the most thorough current defense of the credibility of the miracle reports in the Gospels and Acts. **Drawing on claims from a range of global cultures and taking a multidisciplinary approach to the topic, Keener suggests that many miracle accounts throughout history and from contemporary times are best explained as genuine divine acts, lending credence to the biblical miracle reports**. Do Cessationists reject these books? ____ UPDATE: Craig S. Keener recently released a new book titled [Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World](https://www.amazon.ca/Miracles-Today-Supernatural-Modern-World-ebook/dp/B08MXZVXLW/) . The preface reads: > Do miracles still happen today? This book demonstrates that miraculous works of God, which have been part of the experience of the church around the world since Christianity began, continue into the present. Leading New Testament scholar Craig Keener addresses common questions about miracles and provides compelling reasons to believe in them today, including many accounts that offer evidence of verifiable miracles. > > This book gives an accessible and concise overview of one of Keener's most significant research topics. His earlier two-volume work on miracles stands as the definitive word on the topic, but its size and scope are daunting to many readers. This new book summarizes Keener's basic argument but contains substantial new material, including new accounts of the miraculous. It is suitable as a textbook but also accessible to church leaders and laypeople. _____ Related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/10020/50422

I have long been a fan of [J. R. R. Tolkien](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien) , and have enjoyed his works from an early age. I am aware that he was raised by a Roman Catholic priest, and remained a deeply religious man his whole life. I'm wanting to pin down some of the major christian symbols and undertones in his works that are a byproduct of his Catholic world view. I would particularly like to know who or what symbolizes Christ in [*The Lord of the Rings*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings) .

I've heard a few Christians say, perhaps half-jokingly, that Adam only ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden because he realized that it was the only way for him to stay with Eve. By this they seem to suggest that Adam only sinned out of a sense of altruism, sacrifice, and love. I don't find the biblical evidence for this view convincing, but when researching the origin of it, I stumbled across [John Milton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Milton) 's [*Paradise Lost*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost) . In the following lines, Eve is responding to Adam's choice to eat the forbidden fruit despite the threat of death: > Tenderly wept, much won that he his Love
Had so enobl'd, as of choice to incurr
Divine displeasure for her sake, or Death.
([Book 9, lines 991–93](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_9/text.shtml)) Thus, I wonder: 1. Is *Paradise Lost* actually the origin of this theory? 2. Have any Christian theologians/commentators in church history (before or after Milton) argued for this interpretation of the Fall? Or is this simply an example of pure poetic license that has infiltrated Christian thought?

Stephen Hawking, in [*The Grand Design*](http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/055338466X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448399881&sr=1-1&keywords=the+grand+design) , argues that God did not create the universe. One review of the book states its aim as "to banish a divine creator from physics". The essence of the argument is: > Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will > create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there > is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we > exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper > and set the universe going. The Biblical stance is that all things were created by God (Gen 1:1, Is 42:5, Eph 3:9...). Are there any books or articles written with a Christian world view as a foundation that address and incorporate what physics has to say about the cosmos, but still make a strong case that all things were created by God? Such a response, written in a way that makes sense to somebody like him, but that remains firmly Biblical, would be a fascinating thing to read.

In Arthur Miller's play *The Crucible *, Puritan John Proctor says the following: > Now remember what the angel Raphael said to the boy Tobias […] “Do that which is good, and no harm will come to thee.” To my knowledge, an encounter between an angel named Raphael and a boy named Tobias is not in the Bible. Does it have its origin in some other Christian literature? And if so, does this phrase appear?

Not all translations are created equal, and often the public domain ones freely available online are some of the worst. Augustine fans out there – whose translation of *Confessions* is the best in English? I'm looking for readability (out-loud or otherwise) here, not necessarily technical accuracy. Here are the English translations that I'm aware of (I doubt this is a complete list): + E.B. Pusey (1838) In Public Domain, free online at Project Gutenberg + J.G. Pilkington (1886), free online at www.newadvent.org + F.J. Sheed (1948) + Albert C. Outler (1955), free online at www.ccel.org + John K. Ryan (1960) + Maria Boulding (1997) + Hal M. Helms (2010) + Pusey translation revised by Cormac Burke (2012), free online www.cormacburke.or.ke + Benignus O'Rourke (2013) Here are four excerpts from different translations, all from the first few sentences of Book I, Chapter 3: Pusey: > Do the heaven and earth then contain Thee, since Thou fillest them? or > dost Thou fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain Thee? > And whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pourest Thou > forth the remainder of Thyself? or hast Thou no need that aught > contain Thee, who containest all things, since what Thou fillest Thou > fillest by containing it? Burke: > Do the heaven and earth then contain You, since You fill them? or do > You fill them and yet overflow, since they do not contain You? And > whither, when the heaven and the earth are filled, pour You forth the > remainder of Yourself? or have You no need that aught contain You, who > contain all things, since what You fill You fill by containing it? Boulding: > So then, if you fill heaven and earth, does that mean that heaven and > earth contain you? Or, since clearly they cannot hold you, is there > something of you left over when you have filled them? Once heaven and > earth are full, where would that remaining part of you overflow? Or > perhaps you have no need to be contained by anything, but rather > contain everything yourself, because whatever you fill you contain, > even as you fill it? O'Rourke: > Do heaven and earth contain you, then, since you fill them? or do you > fill them, and is there something of you left over because they are > not able to contain you? If so, where else do you pour the rest of > your being, when heaven and earth are filled? Or is it that nothing > can contain you, because you contain everything and fill everything? My initial impression is that Boulding sounds the most contemporary and in many regards is "easier to read," but perhaps it is weak in other areas. Sheed seems to be a very close second (and superior in other regards). The book reviews on Amazon rarely address the translation, so I'm asking here.

I'm currently studying the Resurrection, which I believe 100%. What ancient Jewish texts close to the first century speak about the Resurrection, or about the empty tomb that Christians claimed Christ rose from the dead from. what does the Talmud say about it?

This is the beginning of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan: > As I walked through the wilderness of this world, I lighted on a certain place where was a den, and laid me down in that place to sleep; and as I slept, I dreamed a dream. I dreamed, and behold, I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand, and a great burden upon his back. I'm referring to the story Pilgrim's Progress. I believe it was written while he was imprisoned. My question is, did he really _literally_ dream this dream, and write it down, or was it like he had written "in a land far far away ... ?" Secondly, Pilgrim's Progress is just filled with Bible verses everywhere (one of the things that impresses me most about the book.) If this book was written while in prison for preaching, how did he have access to a Bible in order to cite all these verses? Or did he have them all memorized?

Were Origen's commentaries the earliest attempt to systematically exegete the New Testament texts, so far as there is any record?

I recently became aware of the *Dialogue with Trypho *, a Christian apology regarding Jesus being the Messiah, written by Justin Martyr sometime during his lifetime (in the years 100–165). However, Wikipedia doesn't say more specifically when during his lifetime this apology was written. Have any historians more specifically dated *Dialogue with Trypho*?

Have any writings or fragments of ante-Nicene Church Fathers previously unknown (that is the actual words were not known, not necessarily that the name of the work was also previously unknown) to modern readers been discovered within the last 20 years or so? If not, when was the last time such a writing was discovered?