John the apostle wrote to the early church and expressed the visions which had been given to he, himself, alone, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, given by God. That revelation contained letters to seven churches which were viewed as lampstands with the Son of man seen 'in the midst'. These churches were all subject to the apostle John. *There was unity of teaching.* These churches were singular in the districts in which they existed. *There was no schism.* Many denominations today admit of differences within their numbers. Many allow of their participants following different 'ministeries' and 'leaderships'. If such a state as that seen in Revelation is not real, today, then is it a fact that the Son of man is not 'in the midst' of much of what professes to be the 'church' ? True, he is in the midst where but two, or three, are gathered in his name. Even if it is but one household within a district. Or like-minded persons meeting in a place where many 'churches' exist but none are truly naming Jesus Christ and properly identifying him. My question is adressed to Protestant Trinitarians. Does any Protestant Trinitarian gathering, anywhere, specifically profess to be gathered to the same state and condition as the seven churches addressed by John ? For if gatherings do not so profess, then by so much they are admitting that the Son of man is not 'in their midst'. --------------------------------- Edit, for clarity, regarding comment : There was, indeed, the beginnings of schism at Corinth, as you refer, in the first epistle. This was corrected by apostolic authority and was largely absent by the time the second epistle was completed. Thereafter Paul's writings and the gospel accounts, together with Peter's epistles, Hebrews, James and Jude, were widely available. So by the time John wrote there was a unity *which is very noticeable indeed* in the content of the seven missives to the seven churches. My question is, Who claims to have such a unity, right now, and who, thus, can say that the Son of man is in their midst ?

> [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

About what ancient temples does Clement of Alexandria talk about in (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46) - (It sounds to be the pagan temples?) and additionally he mentions (facing the images) what are these images? - there seems to be similarity in the book - **De architectura Chapter V** As far as I know from what I have read it seems that God had only one temple - the Jerusalem Temple Deuteronomy 12:5-14; 1 Kings 9:3; 2 Chronicles 6:6; Psalm 132:13-14; 1 Kings 8:29-30; 2 Chronicles 6:20-21; and the Jewish prayed towards the Hollie of Holies in the temple, if I am not mistaken, this is towards the West when the person is in the Jerusalem Temple and pray towards the Hollie of Holies, this person may have faced West I think? The Jerusalem Temple had entrance from the East, so in the temple people may have prayed towards the West - towards the Hollie of Holies where I think was God's presence Leviticus 16:2; Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; - I think that this was the reason the Jewish prayed towards the Jerusalem Temple - because of the Hollie of Holies where should have been God's presence? - if they turned to pray towards the East (Ezekiel 8:15-16) in the Jerusalem Temple they may have prayed turned with their backs to the Hollie of Holies (*Spiritually Jeremiah 32:31-33 and Physically Ezekiel 8:15-16*?) - where God's presence should have been? If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. (Clement here is talking about temples not single temple, so I assume that he is talking about the pagan temples. Also he says - "the most ancient temples looked towards the west" this is the opposite of the Jerusalem Temple that looked towards East since the entrance was from the East I think - if this is the case then why would any true Christian look to the pagan temples in order to be taught to pray towards the East facing the images ?) - ("the most ancient temples looked towards the west") - ("that people might be taught to turn to the east") - ("when facing the images") **(Comparing this with the pagan - De architectura CHAPTER V)** > CHapter V How the Temple should Face > > 1. **THE quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face** is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella **should face the western quarter of the sky**. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices **to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple**, and thus those who are undertaking vows look **toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth,** and **likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice.** > > 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of > the gods. > > - [The Ten Books of Architecture](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) **Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;** > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. 2. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,**(Pagan temples?)** **(Maybe - (De > architectura CHAPTER V))** 3. that people might be taught to turn to the > east when facing the images. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; **The book:** [Clement of Alexandria *The Stromata*](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) (Should I understand that Clement of Alexandria here is teaching that the Christian is taught to pray towards East by the orientation of the pagan temples?)(So the pagan temples are pointed as reason?) **If this is the case what could we say about** **2 Cor. 6:15-18** > **15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?** or **what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?** > **16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in > them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my > people. > **17 Wherefore come out from among them,** and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 > And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, > saith the Lord Almighty. How should we understand this. - is this practice pagan or Christian? - is it appropriate for a Christian to practice it or is it not? Having in mind Matthew 15:9; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 7:19. The most wide and accepted interpretation today I think is the second coming from East as reason for praying towards the East. But this interpretation seems to be not that ancient, I have yet not found ancient church father that mentions the second coming from East as reason for the worship towards the East - since Basil and the rest before him does not mention that Christ will come from East and that this is the reason to pray towards the East. It seems that this interpretation gets widespread after John Damascus, but I am not sure. Maybe he was influenced by the Didascalia from probably around 4c.AD. But I still can not find any ancient church father that points to the Didascalia or mentions this interpretation, the first that mentions this is I think John Damascus after the Didascalia.

1. Why did they enlarge the ends of the crosses in early time from the time of Constantine, since we see coins with such cross? Thanks in advance. [Amazing colorful mosaics at the basilica of Almyrida, of the early byzantine era (6th century bC), in Apokoronas, Crete, Greece.](https://www.alamy.com/amazing-colorful-mosaics-at-the-basilica-of-almyrida-of-the-early-byzantine-era-6th-century-bc-in-apokoronas-crete-greece-image568479165.html) [Croix Christianisme (Wikipedia)](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_(christianisme)) [The Christogram in the mosaic may look like a cross, but it's actually more like a "chi rho" symbol, which puts together the first two captial letters in the Greek word for Christ.](https://www.livescience.com/42761-ancient-church-mosaics-uncovered-israel.html) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/see-the-greek-biblical-inscription-embedded-in-an-ancient-mosaic-floor-discovered-in-israel-180985849/ https://wowcappadocia.com/aidesim-mosaic-basilica.html https://www.dailysabah.com/history/2017/03/03/1600-year-old-byzantine-mosaics-in-kilis-to-attract-tourists [A Church Beyond Compare - The Nea Church, or the Basilica of Saint Mary the New in Jerusalem (543-614)](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/11/a-church-beyond-compare-nea-church-or.html) https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html I mean this - the enlarged ends of the crosses. It looks like the ankh and the equal sided cross from the near east have enlarged ends, not exactly sure why, there is similarity. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483203978736/ https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/constantine/t.html How can there be sol invictus with Christian cross? [Ancient Numismatic Coins](http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.7.tic.45?lang=hu)

Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

Building on the previous question regarding scriptural support (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108086/117426) , I'm now seeking historical evidence pertaining to the practice and instruction of contemplative prayer by the apostles or the early Church (i.e., the first two centuries). For a definition of contemplative prayer, please refer to the aforementioned linked question.

I'm interested in whether there was an early Church Father who ***explicitly*** drew the connection that Trinitarians commonly draw today: the connection between Jesus' "**I am**" statement, found in **John 8:58** and God Almighty calling Himself the "**I am**" in **Exodus 3:14**. I would be interested in any Trinitarian answer that holds on to the Chalcedonian creeds. **When did the Church start drawing this connection?** I couldn't find such an explicit reference to such a connection being made by any of the 1st to 3rd-century Church Fathers in my research and am wondering if I'm missing something.

Are there ancient writers that mentions halos / nimbus - from 1-8 century? 1. How was the halo adopted in the church? And what is its historicity? 2. I read from some sources that in the beginning it was reserved only for the Lord but in later time it was depicted on saints. 3. Did anyone wrote anything about it? Thanks in advance. ........................................................................... **UPDATE** I found only this - > “Marcus Servius Honoratus, a Roman grammarian of the late 4th century, > in his commentary on Virgil's works defines the Nimbus as a "divine > cloud" ("nimbo effulgens: nube divina, est enim fulgidum lumen quo > deorum capita cinguntur. Sic etiam pingi solet" - Servianorum in > Vergilii Carmina commentariorum / Ed. E. K. Rand. Lancaster, 1946. > Vol. 2. P. 471). The Latin theologian Isidore of Seville in his > Etymologies mentioned the Nimbus as a radiance around the heads of > angels (Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2).” https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2577657.html Are there maybe church fathers that talk about it or other persons besides from Marcus Servius Honoratus and Isidore of Seville?

I'm starting a more thorough journey into understanding Anabaptism and neo-Anabaptism (largely through Hauerwas), but I've not used any "generalist" resources yet and so it's not entirely clear where writers are drawing their ideas from at times. So, my two questions: i) Do Anabaptist thinkers draw heavily upon the church fathers? ii) If so, who is the most notable thinker from the tradition(s)? iii) Is there a resource which attempts to show connections and/or tensions between Anabaptists and the church fathers? Thanks!

I'm currently reading Eusebius' History of the church and stumbled upon this passage: > These earnest disciples of great men built on the foundation of the > churches everywhere laid by the apostles, spreading the message still > further and sowing the saving seed of the Kingdom of Heaven far and > wide through the entire world. Very many disciples of the time, their > hearts smitten by the word of God with an ardent passion for true > philosophy, first fulfilled the Saviour's command by distributing > their possessions among the needy; then, leaving their homes behind, > they carried out the work of the evangelists, ambitious to preach to > those who had never yet heard the message of the faith and to give > them the inspired gospels in writing. Staying only to lay the > foundations of the faith in one foreign place or another, appoint > others as pastors, and entrust to the the tending of those newly > brought in, they set off again for other lands and peoples with the > grace and cooperation of God, **for even at that late date many > miraculous powers of the divine Spirit worked through them**, so that at > the first hearing while crowds in a body embraced with a whole-hearted > eagerness the worship of the universal Creator. To me, this seems to imply that readers at Eusebius' time would not expect performing miracles to be a gift that one could possess. Is this line of thing correct? To further clarify, I'm using the same definition of cessationism found on Got Questions > Most cessationists believe that, while God can and still does perform > miracles today, the Holy Spirit no longer uses individuals to perform > miraculous signs.

Between Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius what are some actual doctrinal disagreements? In your response, please list the relevant writings of the Church Fathers with citations in the usual format such as "Cyprian, *Epistle* 54:14" (Author, *Book* chapter#:section#, see [helpful article](https://jimmyakin.com/2020/08/how-to-decode-mysterious-church-father-citations.html)) .

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?

Syriac Christianity (as well as with other oriental orthodoxy denominations) today use Arabic as their liturgical language. It is known that they have been using Arabic since the times of Muslim invasions, as early as second half of 8th Century (as suggested here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7304/when-did-arabic-enter-into-usage-as-a-liturgical-language-among-orthodox-christi , *The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque* by Sidney Griffith also mentioned the same). But why did they turn into Arabic instead of keeping Aramaic as their liturgical language? Is it because: - Arabic became the *lingua franca* and it is easier to reach common people (non-priest) if they use Arabic instead of Aramaic. - If it is so, I wonder why? Was the influence of Arabs so strong that they have to use Arabic? Or was the use of Aramaic banned during the Muslims rule? Why can't they maintain the usage of Aramaic, as the Muslims do (until now) with Arabic as their liturgical language? - Also, if this was the case, doesn't this mean Syriac Christianity was the first Christianity to "localized" their language to every day man, not Protestant Christianity? - Syriac Christian priests were involved in intense theological debates and discussions with the dominationg Muslim theologians. So they use Arabic to make it easier for their Muslim friends to understand their points. - Or maybe both? Or are there any other reasons? I hope I layed out my question/explanation clear, since English is not my mother tounge.

The book of Esther is included in both the Jewish canon and Christian canons of all denominations. However, it seems to have enjoyed a questionable status for much longer than any other of the now-accepted writings. For example, it is the only Old Testament book not to be found at Qumran, it is one of the few OT books not referenced by Sirach, it is omitted from Melito of Sardis's canon, and Athanasius also expressly categorized it with the Apocrypha as useful but not canonical. Jerome, whose opinion is often cited by Protestants in discussions of the canon, counted Esther as canonical but not the deuterocanonical books (although it seems he changed his opinion on the deuterocanonical books at some point in his career). I haven't read Jerome's comments myself but, usually his reason is explained to be that the canonical books were the ones where the Hebrew manuscripts still existed while the others were only preserved in Greek (or were composed in Greek). However, Jerome seems to have known of Hebrew manuscripts of 1st Maccabees, so there must be something else going on to distinguish it from Esther. Protestants usually cite as the main criterion for OT canonicity some prophetic authority guaranteeing the divine inspiration of a book. However, Esther has no association with the prophets, unlike any other book of the Protestant OT canon. However, Esther was included in the canon by the Council of Rome (382) and by all subsequent streams of Christian thought. Why? What reasoning lead the Church to set aside the doubts specifically about the book of Esther that apparently had existed for quite a while prior? **This is a historical question.** I am not asking why it is included in the canon by Protestants or Catholics today, but rather why it was included starting in the 4th century, i.e. why the doubt which originally surrounded the book was cleared up.

Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?

Irenaeus, in a letter addressed to Victor, the Bishop of Rome, pleads with him to him to not cut off unity on the Asian dioceses that celebrated Easter with a different tradition: > For the controversy is not merely as regards the day, but also as > regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves > bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while > others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they > measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among > the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long > before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not > very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the > custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been > [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace > one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the > difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our > common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of > the Church which you now rule — I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and > Telesphorus, and Sixtus — did neither themselves observe it [after > that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding > this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully > disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which > it was [so] observed although such observance was [felt] in more > decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with > it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On > the contrary, those presbyters who preceded you, and who did not > observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses > who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in > Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen > among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined > towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing > that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither > could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own > way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John > the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been > conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in > persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he > maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters > who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship > with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the > celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that > they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the > whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who > did not. Contained within the previous quote, there is a statement mentioning earlier presbyters that had diverse customs that remained in communion and shared in the Eucharist despite these differences. In 1964 the Second Vatican Council published the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio , where this statement is made: > Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose > certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in > subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their > appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full > communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of > both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these > Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of > the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces > upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe > in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the > Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The > differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the > Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or > concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many > obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. > The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But > even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified > by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right > to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by > the children of the Catholic Church.(22) The Magisterium admits that there are "brothers" in the faith, as they share in the essentials of the faith. Despite this admission, the Catholic church practices closed communion where they do not offer the Eucharist to these fellow "brothers". How does the Catholic church interpret Irenaeus' more ecumenical approach to sharing in the Eucharist? I am aware that there are many other denominations that practice closed communion, but I'd like to narrow this down to a Catholic response.

According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on *whether* to keep the Sabbath: > Colossians 2:16 > > Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a **Sabbath day**. Did the first century church keep the Sabbath? And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?

What is the best translation of *The Ecclesiastical/Church History* by Eusebius? By best I mean, something that is accurate, yet written in modern English that's easily understood. I see translations by G. A. Williamson; Jeremy M. Schott; Arthur Cushman McGiffert; and Paul L. Maier.

I know that transgenderism is somewhat a new concept, but how did the Early Church Fathers view the act of transgenderism, did they condemn it or did they interpret the verses differently than we do? Verses such as: > Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he > him; male and female created he them. > Genesis 5:2: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their > name Adam, in the day when they were created. > Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. > Deuteronomy 22:5: The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither > shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are > abomination unto the Lord thy God.

In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so: 1. Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9) 2. Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return. 3. The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.) I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense. So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return? I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.