The Bible reveals the year and month of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. But does anyone have an idea of ​​the exact day and hour?

Wikipedia explains the etymology of the word Pope as follows: > The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας > (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later > referring to a bishop or patriarch. The earliest record of the use > of this title is in regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope > Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248) in a letter written by his > successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon, a Roman > presbyter: > > τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. > > Which translates into: > > I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas. > > From the early 3rd century the title was applied generically to all > bishops. The earliest extant record of the word papa being used > in reference to a Bishop of Rome dates to late 3rd century, when it > was applied to Pope Marcellinus. Eventually the term Pope/Papa was limited to the Bishop of Rome alone and now, in the Roman Catholic church, the term 'Father' is usually used to address priests: > In the early church, members of the clergy generally did not have standard titles. However, an accepted way to address bishops was “papa” or “pappa,” which referred to the role of the bishops as father figures. This name eventually became associated solely with the Bishop of Rome. The highest title in the Catholic Church, that of “Pope,” is derived from those early titles. By the late Middle Ages, priests belonging to various religious orders were called father. This practice has persisted to modern times, as priests are customarily called father today. - Mercy Home Regardless of whether papa/father is used to refer to the Pope or Bishops or local Priests the idea underneath seems to be a reference to spiritual and familial paternity based ultimately upon the notion that Adam was created to be both High Priest and Father of all humanity: > Adam is the father of the human race, as well as the high priest of humanity. Thus, there is an intimate link between priesthood and fatherhood. The priesthood leading up to Aaron and the Levites is a familial priesthood. What is important to understand during this period of salvation history is that the father of the family is a priest, and the prominence of the first-born son in the family. - Catholic News Agency In Matthew chapter 9 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and the disciples and He is talking about the Scribes and Pharisees, that is to say the religious teachers and leaders. What he tells everyone is: > But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. - Matthew 23:8-10 1) Don't allow anyone to call you teacher/guide or Master because Christ is in that role and you are all brothers/equal under Him. 2) Don't call anyone on earth your Father because only God fills that role The prohibition appears to be twofold: One is against accepting the designations of teacher or master over another and the second is against assigning the designation of Father to anyone. It should be obvious that these prohibitions are expected to be understood 'spiritually' both from the immediate context and the Bible as a whole (since Jesus has made clear that, spiritually, there are only two fatherhoods : God or the Devil) as well as from common sense ... we all have natural fathers as well as secular teachers, mentors, and bosses. Taking the Matthew passage at face value there is no clear prohibition against a priest, for example, accepting the designation (spiritual) 'Father' but there is clear prohibition against anyone actually assigning that designation to 'any man on earth'. A highly voted answer to this strongly related question indicates a Catholic view that Jesus was prohibiting the term 'Father' being applied to those who are undeserving of the term: > Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it. With this understanding in mind coupled with the fact that priests in the Catholic Church seem to be called 'Father' by custom rather than according to whether they deserve the title (that is to say, a priest who does not have the heart of a shepherd nor the well-being of his flock as priority will still, by custom, be called 'Father'), how does the Catholic Church interpret Matthew 23:9 so as to normalize priests being called Father irregardless of their performance?

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?

We read in Mtt 2:1-2: > After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”. As per the First Commandment, God alone is to be worshipped. It is not written if the Magi realised that the newborn babe they were searching for was God's Only Son. And it is traditionally believed that the Magi were Gentiles. But why did Herod say that he too wished to worship the newborn King (Mtt 2:8) ? Agreed that he had a hidden agenda, but why Herod, himself raised as a Jew, did not correct the Magi? That leads one to the conclusion that the Magi indeed saw Jesus as the Saviour. The gift of frankincense they offered him (though listed second by Matthew in 2:11), also points to the fact. **My question therefore is**: Why did the Magi want "to worship" Infant Jesus after identifying him as King? PS: Psalm 72:11 (KJV) says that all kings shall "fall down" (prostrate) before him. Prostration is a physical symbol of paying utmost respect or acknowledging submissiveness, and not necessarily of offering worship.

>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [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**. > [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**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

In [Matthew 25:1-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A1-12&version=ESV) we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom. Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast. The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace. (See [my analysis](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/20227/10092) on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.) A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming). This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought". How do *sola fide* adherents explain this passage? A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.

We read in Mtt 16:13-16: > When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”. It is usual for people entering public life to introduce themselves , or to get the introduction done by someone else. We see John the Baptist introducing Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29). We also see Jesus reading from Isiah and introducing himself as the Anointed One ( Lk 4:21). But Mtt 16 suggests that it was Peter who first acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, before which he had been known to the public by other attributes. My question therefore is : When did Jesus first introduce himself as Son of God ?

Some say that Matt 24:40-41 is referring to a Rapture with the righteous Church removed first. But Jesus said very plainly that in the end time after the tribulations the angels will come and gather the Tares from the wheat first. So if you are taken first you are a Tare and will be cast into Hell to be burned. Tares are church goers who are not saved but of the evil one. Only then are the righteous people dealt with. I can't see how people could still interpret Matthew 24:40-41 with the Rapture idea? What am I missing? How do they interpret these passages in a consistent manner? >Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Matthew 24:40-41) >As therefore the tares are gather and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the End of this World...Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:40-43)

I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head. The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39... Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6). Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people. Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7). So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age. However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?). Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them? And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) **OR** they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..? **So, my question:** Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is: According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

As I understand neoplatonism within Christianity (from this answer ) all people are envisioned as being on a 'path', with a relationship with Christ at one end and the opposite at the other end. Where one is and what direction one is heading on that 'path' is indicated or determined somewhat by what one does and more so by why one does it. The foundation seems to be (as the answer explains) that > "In the neoplatonist tradition, all goodness comes from God, and to be good or do good, in any sense, is to participate in God's goodness" therefore "to do good is to serve Christ, whether or not you know you are doing it, and to do evil is to go against Christ, even if--or especially if--you do that evil in Christ's name.". Therefore there is, for the Christian neoplatonist, just one path and everyone is on it either serving Christ or opposing Christ whether they know it or not. At Matthew 7:13-14 Jesus says the following: > "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.", and He appears to be delineating two different 'ways' and two different entry points to those 'ways'. Way, here, is *hod-os'* (see [interlinear of Matt 7:13](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/7-13.htm)) which is the common Greek word for road or street. **How does Christian neoplatonism understand Jesus' apparent delineation of two different ways, or roads, or paths having two different entry points?**

Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork. Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster. Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat. Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: ***Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”*** My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we *can* eat these things but we *shouldn't*?

> Matthew 22:24 (KJV) Saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." In general do Christians believe it is OK to marry the wife of a deceased brother? How about if she has already children from the first marriage?

Matthew 22:7-9 seems to teach that the gospel was only preached to the Gentiles after the destruction of the temple, interpreting verse 7 as the metaphorical destruction of the temple, and verse 8 as the preaching to the Gentiles happening *after* the destruction of the temple. But this seems to contradict history as described in the Book of Acts where the gospel is preached to the gentiles *long before* the destruction of the temple.

I asked this question on the hermeneutics SE but I was told it would be better to ask here. What I can say is I'm not looking for an answer explaining that salvation is through Christ only, because it is obvious and it was even my assumption for this question. What I'm wondering is more about what Jesus actually meant if we know He is the only way of salvation. In Matthew 23:13, we can read: >But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because **you shut the kingdom of heaven against men**; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in - **Matthew 23:13 (RSV-CE)** In Catholic, Polish Bible "Biblia Tysiąclecia", there's a commentary to this verse (translated to English): >By imposing excessive requirements around the Law, **they made it impossible for people to observe it, thereby closing the way to salvation**. They also bear the greatest blame for the people's unbelief in Jesus the Messiah. Is this commentary accurate? I'm asking because in my opinion, someone could conclude from this verse that the Law could've been observed in a feasible way that leads to salvation which we know is actually impossible because humans are not able to observe the Law entirely and perfectly (that's why Jesus, who can do that, had to redeem us on the cross). And also, would observing the Law in a hard way be considered a sin if it "shuts the kingdom of heaven" or not so much sin as it leads to commiting one? If it is, who is actually responsible for that sin? Were people aware of it? If not, why would God close the heaven for such people if they did it unintentionally? Or were they kind of deceived, so both deceived and deceiver commited sin? The only interpretation that comes to my mind is it refers to observing the Law before Christ's death, but still those people couldn't observe the Law perfectly and needed redemption on the cross. Maybe it is just about observing in the right way as much as possible, not observing perfectly and entirely?

Roman Catholics believe that the virgin Mary was not only a virgin up until her birth of Christ, but remained a perpetual virgin until her death, but doesn't Matthew 1:25 affirm that Mary and Jospeh did in fact have sexual relations? Matthew 1:25 reads: > And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he > called his name Jesus.

Prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, angels spoke to Zechariah, to Joseph and to Mary. After his birth, angels spoke to shepherds, then to Joseph and Mary together, and then to Joseph again (four times). Yet again, an angel spoke to Peter who released Peter from the prison. John the Apostle also received multiple communications from angels in the visions which form the Apocalypse. Yet in none of these cases did any interpretation have to occur. Indeed, in almost all of these occasions, interpretation (by a human interpreter) was impossible, due to circumstances (dreaming, solitude, imprisonment, personal vision). The particular occasion of note is the herald by angels to shepherds in the fields. An angel communicated a message and then the entire host of heaven gave utterance and eleven Greek words are reported : >δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια [Luke 2:14 TR], which can be translated into eleven English words 'Glory in highest God-ward, and on earth peace, among humanity goodwill' (which requires but the hearer to add an 'Amen' to make twelve). Yet, though many shepherds were present, none was required to interpret to the others. On *all these occasions* there was no interpretation recorded. The angelic communication was in language *which the hearers were able to understand.* --------------------------------------------- So it would appear that when angels have a message to utter, they speak in a language which the hearers can appreciate and understand without intervention or assistance. Why, then, do some persons nowadays communicate in languages (apparently and reportedly) which do not exist anywhere on earth and thus the communication has to be 'interpreted' by another human person, by (one understands) a form of 'revelation' ? What do those who support and participate in this activity have to say in answer to this question ?

At Matthew 26:14-15 we read: > Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me if I betray him to you?” They paid him thirty pieces of silver. I would like to know if the amount of money Judas was paid had any specific significance, or was it a random amount offered for the life of Jesus by the High Priests? What do the Catholic teachings say on the subject ?

>Matt 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Given that, >1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

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

Some Christians hold that the Second Coming of Jesus is yet to come, and some hold it has already happened (certain kinds of preterism). Would holding that Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:30, "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.") was prophesying an event that has already happened (say, associated with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple) be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?