I might be making much ado about nothing and/or being nit-picky. However, was it an accepted custom amongst the Ancient Israelites to name their children Ishmael? I'm asking because in 2 Kings 25:25-27 and the Book of Jeremiah, it mentions a person named Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal family. > 25 But it came about > in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of > Elishama, of the royal [a]family, came [b]with ten men and struck > Gedaliah down so that he died along with the Jews and the Chaldeans > who were with him at Mizpah. - 2 Kings 25:25-27 (New American Standard Bible 1995) > 8 So they came to > Gedaliah at Mizpah, along with Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and > Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of > Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah the > son of the Maacathite, both they and their men. - Jeremiah 40:8 (New American Standard Bible 1995) However, is it strange for Ancient Israelite to name one of their children, Ishmael, which is a name usually associated with a quasi rival as Ishmael was an opponent of Isaac (one of the paternal ancestors of the Ancient Israelites)?

I was curious about all of your thoughts on the idea of "Believer's Baptism" found in the Early Church. For those who don't know, "Believer's Baptism" is the view that people who have put their faith in Christ are allowed to be baptized I was curious if anyone on this platform can show me Early Church evidence to support this claim. I am aware of Tertullian had his own take on this belief, but not at the exact match as the main purpose of this idea. So, I was wondering if anyone can show Early Church proof of "Beliver's Baptism."

Was John 13:9 ("Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.") ever used to justify baptism by effusion on other body parts than the head?

Peter quotes Joel 2:31 in **Acts 2:16–17**: > The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: > And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. But both Peter and Joel were talking about the "Day of the Lord", a terrible time associated with the end of this age, the Tribulation, the Apocalypse, etc.; it is *not* about the Crucifixion. What is the earliest record that associates a blood-moon (typically caused by a lunar eclipse) with the Crucifixion? **Clarification:** - Perhaps using the term "blood-moon" confused things. (I'd remove the term from the question, but there are already answers that refer to it.) - This question is not about the 3 hours of darkness on the afternoon of the Crucifixion. - The question is about the specific association of a *red Moon* with the Crucifixion (regardless of when it occurred or what caused the colour change).

Is there the expectation among the early Christians to give a 10% of their income to the Church?

From what I have found the nature of prayer in the early church seemed to be mostly recited prayers. Prayers originating from either the psalms, early prayer books, or sometimes personal prayer books. I’ve also found that off-the-cuff prayer in front of other believers was seen as a spiritual gift. Would the type of prayer were you spend many minutes or hour(s) praying to G-d about your day, wants, emotions, etc be seen by the early church as a normal practice?

The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source ). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition . Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not? >21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition )

I have often heard historical arguments like the following against the use of musical instruments: > Neither he [Paul] nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. This too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the Greeks and heathen nations all used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems there cannot be doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attraction accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son. > > — David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb, pp. 226-227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, pp. 376-377. Taken from jasonsbibleblog.com . The argument is that the original Christians did not use musical instruments—even though the Jews and all other religions at the time did use them. Therefore, the argument goes, Christians should not use musical instruments in worship. Does the quote above accurately portray early church history? I am not asking for the validity of the conclusions, only for whether Lipscomb gets the history right.

In many languages, countries when people pray rosary they insert the mysteries in the Hail Mary after saying "Jesus". It is used officially in public places by everyone. For example: > Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus **"who was scourged at the pillar,"** Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Why wasn't this custom adopted in English-speaking countries? This makes praying the rosary to go faster and easier to forget the mystery you are currently praying, or it can even turn the prayer into vain repetition. Some asked for an example of the phrases commonly used (provided here via *Google Translate*): 1. Joyful mysteries: >Jesus, whom you conceived by the Holy Spirit Jesus, with whom you visited Elizabeth Jesus, whom you bore in Bethlehem Jesus, whom you presented in the temple Jesus, whom you found in the temple 2. Sorrowful Mysteries >Jesus, who sweated blood for us Jesus, who was flogged for us Jesus, who was crowned with thorns for us Jesus, who carried a heavy cross for us Jesus, who was crucified for us 3. Glorious Mysteries >Jesus, who rose from the dead Jesus, who ascended to heaven Jesus, who sent the Holy Spirit Jesus, who took you to heaven, O Virgin Jesus, who crowned you in heaven 4. Luminous Mysteries >Jesus, who was baptized in the Jordan Jesus, who revealed his divine power in Cana Jesus, who proclaimed the kingdom of God and called for repentance Jesus, who revealed his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus, who instituted the Eucharist [List of resources edited in by @GratefulDisciple] - Common English names of the 20 mysteries from the USCCB website: [How to Pray the Rosary](https://www.usccb.org/how-to-pray-the-rosary)] - [thanks, @njuffa] lightly edited *Google Translate* of the seemingly official German phrases, since it is published in **katholisch.de** (a news and information portal for the Catholic Church in Germany, operated by a non-profit company in cooperation with 27 German dioceses) in the article [*Das Rosenkranzgebet, so wird es gebetet*](https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/41-das-rosenkranzgebet) ("The Rosary, how it is prayed"): > **The Joyful mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit 2 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, carried to Elizabeth 3 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, gave birth to in Bethlehem 4 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, presented in the temple 5 ... Jesus, whom you, O Virgin, found again in the temple > > **The Luminous mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus, who was baptized by John 2 ... Jesus, who revealed himself at the wedding in Cana 3 ... Jesus, who announced the kingdom of God to us 4 ... Jesus, who was transfigured on the mountain 5 ... Jesus, who gave us the Eucharist > > **The Sorrowful Mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus, who sweated blood for us 2 ... Jesus, who was scourged for us 3 ... Jesus, who was crowned with thorns for us 4 ... Jesus, who bore the heavy cross for us 5 ... Jesus, who was crucified for us > > **The Glorious Mysteries**: 1 ... Jesus who rose from the dead 2 ... Jesus who ascended into heaven 3 ... Jesus who sent us the Holy Spirit 4 ... Jesus who has taken you, O Virgin, into heaven 5 ... Jesus, who has crowned you, O Virgin, in heaven

**What is the difference between a Catholic custom and a Catholic tradition?** I have noticed a trend in recent years to call Catholic customs a Catholic tradition (with a small t). Much confusion is out there in this domain. Tradition with a capital T is less confusing for most with what a tradition with a miniscule t actually is. The confusion I am seeing lately is confusing Catholic traditions with Catholic customs and Catholic devotions. There is a French author out there that really explained this quite well and stated that a Catholic custom could not be considered a Catholic tradition (local) if it has not been around for less than 100 years. Unfortunately, I can not recall the source. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. I imagine some local customs are now considered true local traditions.

While studying the book of Daniel I came across: >Daniel 6:10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days. and since it is necessary that Muslims face mecca when praying I wondered if that was some ritual that all exiles followed or if it was only a custom of Daniel. I checked this question but it does not address my point, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35444/why-did-daniel-feel-the-need-to-pray-towards-jerusalem-even-at-the-cost-of-his Does anyone know the answer to my question or where I might find some guidance on this?

I grew up in a credobaptist tradition. Studying both Scripture and church history for myself without the blinders of tradition, I have come to accept paedobaptism, as I have come to a different understanding of what baptism is altogether. However, try as I might, I have been unable to find any sources that seem to be giving sprinkling an honest look (from either credo or paedobaptist perspectives). As far as I can tell, credobaptists seem to simply lump it in with infant baptism (and therefore reject it as part of that), or as Catholic tradition (that pours over into later traditions, and therefore reject it as part of that), while paedobaptists seem to argue that you can't safely immerse an infant, and so sprinkling has to be acceptable. Both arguments seem circular to me. **Can someone help me out with sources, either in Scripture or early Church tradition, linking sprinkling with Christian baptism?** Sprinkling/splashing was very much a part of Jewish tradition and law, but is it clear somewhere, or just assumed, that sprinkling according to Jewish custom was equivalent to baptism by immersion?

In the era of handwritten parish registers, when a diocesan or missionary priest performed a sacramental rite, he wrote it up in a semi-structured form in a record book. Sometimes that priest was the only literate person around, making the parish books essentially internal documents, but some parishioners were literate too. Who was allowed to look at church registers: only priests, anyone the priest saw fit to share it with, or anyone at all that was interested? Did canon law and local practice differ on this point? Modern norms might be different because of the legal concept of privacy , so this question is about the past. I am particularly interested in the policy of Franciscans in the Spanish Empire, but information on how this was addressed elsewhere could be helpful too. I have the specific case of a recently converted godparent who was described in the register as falsely pious ; the remark was presumably not meant for the public. Who did the priest expect would ever be able to read it?

I’m Catholic, and have been since birth. I attend parish of St. Francis in Bakersfield, California. I have noticed recently, that all Catholic Churches, for the most part are named after a Saint, i.e. Saint Francis, Saint Phillip, Saint Anne, Saint Stephen etc. I’ve always wondered, how to they pick which Saint? Is their a list of names to choose from or are they just chosen at random?

I have been a Christian since my youth, but I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question. **Why must a Christian close their eyes during prayer?** In large services in the west, (I am not familiar with other traditions) believers bow their heads and close their eyes while being led in prayer, often speaking internally to God or self reflecting. Bowing one's head, or prostrating themselves is itself a form of worship. Personally, in moments of personal prayer I do not close my eyes because I find it more distracting. But in my family and church I grew up in this would be seen as very offensive if someone might walk in and see me praying with my eyes open. I'm mostly interested in the scriptural basis for closing one's eyes while praying. Not so much the historical reason for the tradition developing, although I recognize it might be difficult to separate the two.

I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus. > And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11:19 One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time. 1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid? 2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19? If yes, could someone please explain them?

There are eighteen plainchant settings of the ordinary of the Mass (kyriales ), sixteen of which have specific names. 1961 *Liber Usualis* : **Ordinary Chants** | | Name | Season | Mode | Century | |----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------------| | 1 | _Lux et origo_ | In Paschal Time | 8 | 10 | | 2 | _Kyrie fons bonitatis_ | For feasts of the I class. 1. | 3 | 10 | | 3 | _Kyrie Deus sempiterne_ | For feasts of the I class. 2. | 4 | 11 | | 4 | _Cunctipotens Genitor Deus_| For feasts of the II class. 1. | 1 | 10 | | 5 | _Kyrie magnæ Deus potentiæ_| For feasts of the II class. 2. | 8 | 13 | | 6 | _Kyrie Rex Genitor_ | For feasts of the II class. 3. | 7 | 10 | | 7 | _Kyrie Rex splendens_ | For feasts of the II class. 4. | 8 | 10 | | 8 | _De Angelis_ | For feasts of the II class. 5. | 5 | 15-16 | | 9 | _Cum jubilo_ | For feasts of the Blessed Virgin. 1. | 1 | 12 | | 10 | _Alme Pater_ | For feasts of the Blessed Virgin. 2. | 1 | 11 | | 11 | _Orbis factor_ | For Sundays throughout the Year. | 1 | (10) 14-16 | | 12 | _Pater cuncta_ | For feasts of the III class. 1. | 8 | 12 | | 13 | _Stelliferi Conditor orbis_| For feasts of the III class. 2. | 1 | 11 | | 14 | _Jesu Redemptor_ | For feasts of the III class. 3. | 8 | 10 | | 15 | _Dominator Deus_ | For commemorations and ferias of the Christmas season. | 4 | 11-13 | | 16 | — | For ferias throughout the Year. | 3 | 11-13 | | 17 | — | For the Sundays of Advent and Lent. | 1 | (10) 15-17 | | 18 | _Deus Genitor alme_ | For the ferias of Advent and Lent as well as for Vigils, Ember Days, and Rogation Days. | 1 | (10) 15-17 | **Chants “*Ad Libitum*”** | | Name | Mode | Century | |----|------------------------------|------|---------| | 1 | _Clemens Rector_ | 1 | 10 | | 2 | _Summe Deus_ | 1 | 11 | | 3 | _Rector cosmi pie_ | 2 | 11 | | 4 | _Kyrie altissime_ | 5 | 11 | | 5 | _Conditor Kyrie omnium_ | 7 | 10 | | 6 | _Te Christe Rex supplices_ | 8 | 10 | | 7 | _Splendor æterne_ | 1 | 11 | | 8 | _Firmator sancte_ | 6 | 13 | | 9 | _O Pater excelse_ | 8 | 11 | | 10 | _Orbis factor*_ | 1 | (10) | | 11 | _Pater cuncta†_ | 1 | 10 | *For Sundays throughout the year.
†For the Sundays of Advent and Lent. Perhaps the most well-known name is *Missa de Angelis,* which is Mass VIII; the most used setting is probably the “Missa Simplex” which is assembled from parts of Masses XVI, XV and XVIII. Mass XVIII has the name *Deus Genitor alme.* I’m aware that polyphonic settings of the Mass texts can be based on other tunes and inherit their names, for example the *Western Wynde* Mass of John Taverner or the Missa *Salve Regina* of Victoria . I haven’t been able to find a source for the names of the plainchant Masses. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriale) mentions that the names are inherited from the “opening of the *prosula* formerly sung to each respective Kyrie melody,” but the page has the incipit of Kyrie XI and it’s difficult to see how the words “Orbis factor” fit. And there is no information about what these *prosulae* actually are and where to find them. Is there any light to be shed here, or is it all shrouded in the mists of time?

We can understand in Protestant circles that **Biblical Hermeneutics** are important; for without such methods of interpretation the Scripture becomes “hard to understand” in many portions & passages. The definition of Hermeneutics according to Wikipedia is: > “Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of > interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the > broader field of hermeneutics, which involves the study of principles > of interpretation, both theory and methodology, for all forms of > communication, nonverbal and verbal.” Some Christian’s assume illumination is all we need, yet the production of sermons, books, and seminary classes exist with respect to principles of interpretation, and yet we have this passage on illumination: > “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit > searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. > > For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man > which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the > Spirit of God. > > Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who > is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given > to us by God. > > These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches > but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with > spiritual. > > But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, > for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they > are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, > yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. > > > For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But > we have the mind of Christ.” ‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭2:10-16‬ We have a great **example** of the type of approach the elders at the living hope Baptist church have explained here: > "The one this post is about is what I call “the Holy Spirit is my > hermeneutic”. It is often restated in one of two extremes. The one > extreme is where, instead of actually reading the Holy Spirit inspired > Word of God, the person simply claims that “the Holy Spirit told me” > in some direct way, and that is enough for them to believe they know > what God has said. The other extreme of this approach to Scripture, is > the boast of “***I don’t need my elders, or good Christian books, or > those of the faith who have gone before us, because I have the Bible > and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit alone is my teacher.***” source: https://livinghopebaptist.co.za/the-holy-spirit-is-not-a-hermeneutic/ Such a mentality of the Holy Spirit alone being our teacher, is it warranted? We also read of true Christians “tasting the Good Word of God and the powers of the age to come” Heb 6:4-5) which aids in our understanding that the Bible is the Word of God. So despite all of this illumination, here is my question: **Q: According to Protestantism, why are Hermeneutics necessary if we have the Holy Spirit?** ___ Related: [What role does the Holy Spirit play in hermeneutics?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/19/38524)

In the Catholic world, Holy Thursday is mostly celebrated with a mass, the Mass of the Lord's Supper, where the Washing of the Feet is performed. The liturgical texts concentrate on those events and do not focus on the following episodes (the visit to the garden of Gethsemane and betrayal and arrest of Jesus). And yet, after the mass, the altar is stripped and statues and crucifixes are covered, to prepare for the next day. I've recently found the celebrations of that day a bit wanting in the sense that, while I go home and do my life, Jesus "is" in the garden praying, being betrayed, arrested, and in prison, while awaiting trial. I feel a kind of vigil is missing, where one "re-lives" that process together with Jesus, in prayer. I wonder whether there was, or there still is, somewhere, a traditional vigil celebration to "accompany" the Lord during the night. The closest I could find is the Seven Church Visitation , which seems to be ancient, although not very widespread. Still, nothing like a kind of "vigil".

In Catholic churches where pews are in place, one rarely notices the faithful kneeling down in prayer except perhaps during the Prayer of Consecration . In fact, in earlier times, the faithful would kneel down on entering the church and during a number of prayers of the liturgy. Of late, there seems to have come up some schools of thought advocating against kneeling in prayer. My question therefore is: **What are the Catholic Church's instructions on kneeling down at the church, by the faithful during the liturgy and otherwise.**