According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

Where to read about: Church Fathers discussing the unwritten traditions of the church before year 400 AD. I read that Epiphanius of Salamis has said something about the unwritten traditions in his book - Ancoratus I found this https://dokumen.pub/ancoratus-0813225914-9780813225913.html But I can not find something relevant in this book by searching by keywords. Do you know other church fathers discussing the unwritten traditions and the explanations about these unwritten traditions before 400 AD? Thanks in advance. ---------------------- **Looking to find answers on these traditions and more, from ancient writers:** Both catholic and orthodox may be in strange position for some of these traditiosns. What can be the explanations. 1. The catholics with the **Clerical celibacy**. Is this apostolic unwritten traditions that the apostles taught 2 Thes. 2:15; Peter was married Matt. 8:14-15; 1 Corinthians 9:5-7; Also 1 Titus 1:6-9; Timothy 3:2-5; 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.... About forbidding marriages 1 Timothy 4:1-3; The catholic teaching of the Clerical celibacy seems not to align with scripture or I may not understand it properly, please correct me if I am wrong, not sure how to understand this. If the scripture say Timothy 3:2-5; If this is not apostolic teaching, how can I be 100% sure that the other claimed unwritten traditions are apostolic teachings? Since while researching I learn that there are indeed traditions in the churches that are not apostolic, even borrowed from older pagan traditions like the halo on the icons. 3. Leavened or Unleavened Bread - which one is apostolic and who evt. changed the apostolic tradition and when? As far as I know catholic and orthodox condemn each other on this. 4. If Purgatory is apostolic traditions why do Eastern Orthodox do not accept it? Did ancient writers from East or West mentioned it? Both churches claim to accept "the unwritten traditions" of the apostles. 5. Orthodox do not accept - (Original Sin) but accept Augustine since he is mentioned in ecumenical councils. This is also strange, accepting the person as church father, but not accepting his teachings. 6. Saturday fasting - Orthodox do not do it, if I am not wrong they condemn it. Is this apostolic tradition? 7. Filioque - the original Creed did not include it, it is known to be later addition, so this can not be directly said to be apostolic, also I do not find it in the scripture, even that I have heard, some protestants claim that. The other strange thing is that, Augustine seems to have the filioque and again the orthodox accept him because he was accepted in some of the ecumenical councils, but reject some of his teachings.

Many moons ago, I was surfing through the ocean of Wikipedia and found the page for "[Great Lent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent) ." While reading, I found [this quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lent#:~:text=The%20Church%20Fathers%5Bwhich%3F%5D%20have%20referred%20to%20fasting%20without%20prayer%20as%20%22the%20fast%20of%20the%20demons%22%5Bcitation%20needed%5D%20since%20the%20demons%20do%20not%20eat%20according%20to%20their%20incorporeal%20nature%2C%20but%20neither%20do%20they%20pray.) : > The Church Fathers[which?] have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons"[citation needed] since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray. I have absolutely fallen in love with this idea but have completely failed to find where it came from. I have a feeling it is hidden somewhere in the depths of the [PG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Graeca) or [PL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Latina) and even the most advanced AIs can not find it. Does anyone happen to know where this quote has come from?

**Did the Blessed Virgin Mary teach the boy Jesus the Divine Mysteries and taught him how to pray?** At the Annunciation, it was believed that Archangel Gabriel arrived while Mary was praying and studying scriptures. > According to various Christian and Islamic traditions, the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive a son, Jesus. While the canonical gospels (Luke 1:26–38) describe the event, known as the Annunciation, they do not specify Mary's exact activity when Gabriel appeared. The detail that Mary was praying or studying comes from later apocryphal and patristic sources, such as the Protoevangelium of James, which influenced artistic and theological depictions of the event over time . > > In these traditions: > > The Protoevangelium of James: This second-century text mentions Mary was working on a veil for the Temple when she first heard a voice, then saw Gabriel. > > **Later Patristic Writings:** Other early Christian writers expanded on the narrative,***sometimes placing Mary in a moment of intense prayer or deep study of scripture,*** emphasizing her piety and devotion when the divine messenger arrived. > > Obviously, Jesus from birth to childhood lived in a House of Prayer, and learn how to pray and taught of divine mysteries from His beloved Mother, who learned the scriptures and mysteries thru meditation and contemplation. > > **I am looking for writings based on Church traditions and extra-biblical writings, showing Mary teaching the child Jesus how to pray and explaining the scriptures and mysteries of God's Kingdom, and perhaps Mary narrate to baby Jesus the mysteries of annunciation, incarnation and His divine mission as Messiah.** As Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and power, so, in no way Jesus learn scriptures, the mysteries and His redemptive mission at a younf age, without the Theotokos telling or teaching Him this subject. Also, the young Jesus at twelve, despite showing above wisdom from the Elders in the Tempole, still needs to grow in wisdom and stature, not by Himself, not by Jesus Alone, but thru submission and obedience to His parents. > **The Boy Jesus at the Temple** …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52***And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature***, and in favor with God and man.

> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther,Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.

Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

Which other ante-Nicene fathers besides Victorinus of Pettau (AD 250-303) believed that Rev 7's 144,000 were Jews in the Great Tribulation?

[Athanasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) and [Apollinaris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea) were two important figures in the early church, and both were opponents of Arianism. But while Athanasius is regarded as a faithful defender of sound teaching during this period while Trinitarian Christology was being developed, Apollinaris is considered a heretic because he denied that the Son became a full human in the incarnation, but instead only took on a human body, not a human mind or soul. It has been claimed however, since at least the 19th century, that Athanasius' Christology was essentially Apollinarian. Richard Hanson likened his Christology to that of an astronaut and a spacesuit: > Just as the astronaut, in order to operate in a part of the universe where there is no air and where he has to experience weightlessness, puts on an elaborate space suit which enables him to live and act in this new, unfamiliar environment, so the logos puts on a body which enabled him to behave as a human being among human beings. But his relation to his body is no closer than that of an astronaut to his space suit. (*The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God*, p448) > > We must conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being. (Ibid, p451) Trevor Hart [says](https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-2_155.pdf) that Hanson followed Baur, Stülcken, Richard, and Grillmeier in interpreting Athanasius as "virtually ignoring the presence of a human soul or mind in the incarnate Christ." This is a big claim, but not one I've heard before. Lots of early church figures have mixed legacies, being instrumental for powerfully and clearly stating true doctrine in some area, while getting it very wrong in another, but Athanasius does not have this reputation. Athanasius and Apollinaris were active at the same time, though Apollinaris outlived Athanasius. A [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24916/6071) has asked whether any of Athanasius' writings about Apollinaris survived, but even if they didn't, enough of Athanasius' writings have survived that we should be able to judge whether this claim has merit. Did Athanasius either deny or ignore that Christ in the incarnation had a human mind and soul?

As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

Hymn 22 of St. Ephrem's *Hymns on Virginity* gives his exegesis of Jesus's conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4 . McVey & Meyendorff *ibid.* p. 354 show that St. Ephrem argues that: >It is not the case that this woman has been divorced and remarried five times and is therefore reproached by Jesus for immorality. Instead she is the victim of a plight like that of Sarah before her marriage to Tobias (str. 4–5). Because the deaths of five successive husbands made all fearful of marrying her and yet to be unmarried subjected her to reproach, she had devised a false marriage for the sake of appearances. Far from being virtually a harlot, as others assume, Ephrem argues that her secret revealed by Jesus is that she is living chastely in her marriage (str. 12–13). This is evident on three grounds: 1) the confidence of her manner of argument (str. 5–9); 2) Jesus’ willingness to speak along with her (str. 5, 10–11); and 3) several typological precedents for her behavior for example, others, notably Elizabeth and Hannah were chagrined by their lack of husbands or children (str. 14–15); just as the unmasking of a deception by Abraham and Sarah about Sarah’s marital status led to the respect of a Gentile king for God, the unveiling of this woman’s deception led to the belief of a city of Gentiles (str. 16–18); just as Tamar disguised her marital status for the sake of continuing the messianic line so the deception of the Samaritan woman led to the revelation of the Messiah to her people (str 19–20). What other Church Fathers, besides St. Ephrem, thought that the Samaritan woman in John 4:17-18 was in a lawful (or virginal?) marriage with her husband?

Are there catholic writings of popes, bishops or catholic church fathers that mention Anne the mother of Saint Mary or narratives from the Protoevangelium of James before its condemnation? Did the ancient catholic church believe that Anne was mother of Saint Mary before the condemnation of the Protoevangelium of James? Some may say that the condemnation of the apocrypha does not mean that they did not believe Anne was mother of Saint Mary, because this could be an unwritten tradition of the church, but the question is if there are written ancient church sources that can prove that, they believed that Anne was mother of Saint Mary and that this idea did not come from the Protoevangelium of James, but from parallel unwritten tradition? > "condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and classified as apocryphal by > the Gelasian Decree around AD 500, became a widely influential source > for Mariology." - [Gospel of James](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James) How would condemned apocrypha become "influential source for Mariology"? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------------------------------- **In the East: Probably mentioning the Protevangelium of James** **(c. 375 AD) Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** **Pdf page 641:** > For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his > creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped > the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.”14 If it is > not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of > Ann,15 who was given to **Ann by Joachim**16 and granted to her father and > mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was surely not > born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like > everyone else. (5) For even though the story and traditions of Mary > say that her father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has > conceived,”17 it was not because this had come about without conjugal > intercourse or a man’s seed. The angel who was sent to him predicted > the coming event, so that there would be no doubt. The thing had truly > happened, had already been decreed by God, and had been promised to > the righteous. 12 John 13:23. 13 Cf. Act. John 108–115. 14 Rom 1:25; > 22. 15 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1–3. 16 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.1–3. 17 Cf. Protevangelium of James 4.2. https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf **The book Panarion:** > It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued > about three years later,1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion

How did the early church fathers accepting the doctrine of the Trinity regard Christians who didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity? By early I'm mean 2nd century or before. Constantine changes the picture of government interference. My understanding is they accepted them as Christians but heretical (a schism). But I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to answer this. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107892/as-a-jewish-believer-in-jesus-i-view-him-as-my-messiah-the-son-of-god-but-not

Did any of the Church Fathers write explicitly on the connection between the Church and the New Jerusalem. Did any say that the Church *IS* the New Jerusalem? If so, in a nutshell, what did they say? Can anyone point me to specific resources? Thank you.

In Apostles' Creed , the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor. >I believe in God, the Father almighty, >creator of heaven and earth. > >I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, >who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, >born of the Virgin Mary, >**suffered under Pontius Pilate,** >was crucified, died, and was buried; >he descended into hell. >On the third day he rose again; >he ascended into heaven, >he is seated at the right hand of the Father, >and he will come to judge the living and the dead. > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, >the holy catholic and apostolic Church, >the communion of saints, >the forgiveness of sins, >the resurrection of the body, >and the life everlasting. Amen. My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees? From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because > it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify > the martyrs of Christianity.” > > Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which > is the Mystical Body of Christ. That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the *Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else*? So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (IEP) article on Philo claims that Philo > “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says > “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of Jesus Christ. The IEP article mentions > “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain the Biblical Son of God. Furthermore, and much more important, the IEP article claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New Testament.) The article says Philo > “may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, the IEP article points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IEP), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IEP). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: - In the NT, the Son "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23). - Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IEP). The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal generation (IEP). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IEP). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: - In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), the power by which God made and ordered all things (IEP), and the bond holding together all the parts of the world (IEP). - In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: - In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one (Wikipedia ). - Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: - Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. - Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IEP). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: - In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: - In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an unimpaired condition. (IEP) - Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: - In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a divine being” (IEP). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension (IEP). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor created as men (IEP). - Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: - In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IEP). The Logos is a perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IEP); the mediator between God and men (IEP). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?

## Many Catholic Depictions of Christ Crucified Show the Piercing into the Right Side. ## **Here are some examples of crucifixes from monastery.com:** - **Crucifixion Icon ** - **Byzantine Crucifix ** And - **San Damiano Crucifix ** It was from the image of Christ in the crucifix at **San Damiano** which miraculously spoke these words to **St. Francis of Assisi**: > **"Go repair My Church."** ## What is the Catholic Basis and Support from the *depositum Fidei* for the Depiction of the Piercing into the Right Side of Christ? ## The **best answer** will have arguments from the **72 Books of the Catholic Bible** and **from the writings of the Church Fathers**. *If there is any relevant supporting information on the topic, such as from the well known private revelations, that may be included in an Endnote.* ---------- ## Related Question ## On what side was Jesus' stab wound? ----------

Wanted to ask if there are any historical record (Besides the Bible) that shows that pouring baptism was a common church teaching and/or practice?

> [Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB] 4 **For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit**, 5 **and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come**, 6 **and then have fallen away**, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. > [Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB] 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, **and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace**? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. > [2 Peter 2:20-22 NASB] 20 For if, **after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first**. 21 **For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them**. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” And other similar passages: > [Galatians 5:1-5 NASB] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore **keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery**. 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 **You have been severed from Christ**, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; **you have fallen from grace**. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, **but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [John 15:5-6 NASB] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 **If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned**. > [Romans 11:18-22 NASB] 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: **to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness**; **for otherwise you too will be cut off**. > [1 Corinthians 9:24-27] 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? **Run in such a way that you may win**. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. So they do it to obtain a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly; I box in such a way, as to avoid hitting air; 27 **but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified**. > [Revelation 3:5 NASB] The **one who overcomes** will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and **I will not erase his name from the book of life**, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. > [Revelations 22:19 NASB] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, **God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city**, which are written in this book. How were passages typically quoted to refute OSAS interpreted by the early Church? You can find more passages here: * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87015/117426 * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/117426