Will we be subject to being part of a particular race in heaven like we were here in this earth or will it be different than here? Personally, I don't want to be part of a particular race. I don't want there to be ethnicities, nationality or creeds there. Heaven is a place of bliss and everything good and holy. Our heavenly bodies should not be subjected to these things.

I've been ardently searching the Bible for a proverb my wife keeps quoting. But somehow, I don't think it is in there. So, where did the notion that being clean had anything to do with being holy? I like to tell my wife that only my feet need to be clean (I know where that is in the Bible). Looking for historical answers from a Catholic tradition or if it really is in the Bible that would be good too. What I'd really like to know is how clean is clean enough not to be a slothful slob and how clean is so clean that you miss out on the "better part" that Jesus said Martha was missing out on.

Are the notions of [theosis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)) and [spiritual gifts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift) privileges that only saintly monks immersed in ascetic lifestyles can attain? Is there hope for the ordinary person, amidst the distractions and pressures of modern life, to attain them as well? I ask this question impressed by the examples of saints such as [Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrios_of_Kafsokalyvia) , of whom books have been written, including e.g. [*Elder Porphyrios Testimonies and Experiences*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9606890236) : > *"Elder, where can we find the solution to our problems?"* > > *"Only holiness will solve your problems."* > > The realm of the sacred and the transcendent, as expressed by that > child of God and true man, Elder Porphyrios, belongs to the category > of the unbelievable. It can however become believable because, «sin > does not prevail where grace abounds”. Elder Porphyrios was a person > filled with grace, a bearer of the power of the Holy Spirit, a child > of the Kingdom, a genuine and true tree of paradise. > > Whoever wishes to speak about the inner spiritual life of a saint, > must be a saint himself. We, the writers of this book, are not saints. > We are confined to what we saw and what we heard. We are amongst those > many others, who, as St. Luke the Evangelist says, have “taken in hand > to set in order a narrative.” We are not trying, with our poor and > futile speech, to describe the life of a contemporary saint, but > rather we are falteringly trying to express our joy in having met a > saint; our joy that Christ lives yesterday, today and forever; our joy > that holiness is not a thing of the past, that grace can be felt next > to us, that our hands touched a “little father” who really lived the > expression “I no longer live, for Christ lives in me.” > > Until the Lord reveals the servant who was Elder Porphyrios’ > eye-witness, who observed him throughout his life and in all his works > and will write about his life accurately and fully, we are forgiven. > For we have only seen “in part.” We describe, write about and speak of > the miraculous things that God did for us through His servant, > Porphyrios. One of the reviewers of the book said: > His life was a Jesus Christ's life. He was living the Theosis, loving without limits and expectation above all Jesus Christ and all humans. He was there 24/7 for all those who everyday were waiting to receive his blessings his advice and his healing power through the Holy Spirit. He used to tell me, I love all people and they love me, after that I gently bring them to Jesus Christ. A Wonderful book with a lot of little stories from people who met him and learned or were helped by him. Another example is [Saint Paisios of Mount Athos](https://www.amazon.com/dp/9608976456) : > Saint Paisios of Mount Athos (1994) is perhaps the greatest and most revered Elder of the Orthodox Church of our time. Even though he lived the monastic life in obscurity on the Holy Mountain of Athos in northern Greece, he became a shining light for thousands of faithful who flocked to see him. His life, miracles, and teachings continue to touch the hearts of people throughout the world to this day. Unquestionably, this present biography (written by his spiritual disciple Elder Isaac), which is the most authoritative account of his life, will inspire readers forevermore. Given the challenges of a modern lifestyle, is there any hope for the average busy or distracted individual, who lacks access to full-time dedication to a monastic life, to even dream of reaching this level of holiness and spirituality? **Note**: All denominations that believe in theosis and spiritual gifts are in scope.

When I first became a Christian my Baptist minister spoke about sanctification, holiness and aspiring toward Christian perfection in our lives. Personally, I doubt any of us will see perfection this side of heaven, although those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2). My understanding of sanctification is that it is both a done deal and a daily work. It’s on-going. In the past, through saving faith in Christ Jesus, God grants us justification. Through the process of sanctification, God guides us to maturity, a practical, progressive holiness. In the future, God will give us glorification, a permanent, ultimate holiness. These three phases of sanctification separate the believer from the penalty of sin (justification), the power of sin (maturity), and the presence of sin (glorification). With regard to the Methodist view of sanctification, I found a 1988 book ‘What Methodists Believe’ by Rupert E. Davies, which said this on page 58: >One of John Wesley’s favourite teachings was that it was actually possible for a Christian in his life on earth to reach perfection in the love of God and of his neighbour; that is, by the power of the Spirit, really and truly to love God and his neighbour in the way described by Jesus without any imperfections whatever. Is this view of sanctification and attaining perfection in love unique to Methodists? Or is it common amongst Protestant Christians? I am interested in exploring the similarities and differences between Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants on the process of sanctification. Rather than expect people to compare the views of different denominations, I would be content to read views representing individual Protestant denominations. Otherwise, I fear people may be put off from answering!

We read in Lev 10:8-10 (NRSVCE): > And the Lord spoke to Aaron: Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean We see the Lord categorizing the objects to be used for worship into holy/common and clean/unclean. The definitive instructions were preceded by the punishment imposed on Aaron's sons for violating them: > Now Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord (Lev 10:1-2) Now, see St Paul writing to Corinthians in 1 Cor 7:14: > For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Read with Lev 10, St Paul's mention of referring to 'unclean children' appears out of place. Is it that the Church considered children born out of marriages between two non-believers, as unclean? Going by Lev 10, they could at the most be called 'not-yet-holy'. **My question therefore is**: What is the significance of St Paul referring to 'unclean children' in 1 Cor 7:14 *vis a vis* God's instructions in Lev 10:8-10? Inputs from any denominations are welcome.

I was at a conference today and got to hear the pretty awesome Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers. He was explaining something I'd never heard before, and I'm probably butchering it, that holiness makes you unclean according to the Jewish understanding. He said something to the effect that it was out of reverence, more or less, for the fact that women bleed and do not die, that the period for holiness (a time to leave women to be with God) was necessary and that touching something holy was what made one unclean. This is why when Jesus said "Drink my blood" it was a big deal and also why He had to say eat My Body and drink My Blood. Because this would be life reconstituted (a mini sign of the resurrection). Leviticus 17 forbid the eating of blood and Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law, but to complete it, which is why we - Consume the Blood of Christ - Are washed clean in the Blood of Christ. And I think his whole argument made sense with respect to women, who Chesterton in the Everlasting Man argues suffer more at the hands of historians than they ever did at the hands of their husbands. But could that idea apply to leprosy as well? Basically, what the deacon said sounded great when applied to femininity, but entirely didn't make sense if applied to leprosy - as I understand the disease, it involves a lot of bleeding, not a lot of pain, and eventual death, maybe this is the distinction? Am I comparing apples with oranges here? Or is there something hidden in Leviticus that saw a holiness in leprosy? Looking for Catholic exegesis, but anything scholarly will do.

According to Catholic teaching, is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary?

It is very commonly stated that "holiness" means "set apart". What is the scriptural, linguistic, or other basis for this repeated claim? Specifically: - On what basis is it claimed that the semantic domain of קודש (qodesh) and/or ἅγιος (hagios) includes the idea "set apart"? - On what basis is it claimed that this is the primary Biblical meaning? - Who first made these claims? Perhaps the following, from the entry in the *New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology* (Brown, ed) for **Holy** provides some justification for this question: > The basic idea [in the OT] is not that of separation (though that is favoured by some scholars, ...), but the positive thought of encounter [with divine power] which inevitably demands certain modes of response. An example of the sort of evidence that one might expect to find would be קודש occurring in synonymous parallelism with some other word with a clear meaning of "separateness". I would have expected someone to be able to quote some linguistic *evidence* for the "set apart" meaning of קודש and/or ἅγιος from a scholarly tome, but this hasn't happened so far. Indeed, several responses simply restate the purported definition (without any evidence), which seems to justify my statement that it is commonly stated as the meaning, and that it isn't entirely clear where this idea comes from. I'll keep digging.

Does the holiness of a person grow over time? If not, does the acts of charity/love of a person made in their youth matter if they lose their faith later in life? The only way to get to heaven is based on how much of a supernatural love we have in us. > (CCC2000 ) Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and > supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to > live with God, to act by his love. Does this love fluctuate when we gain or lose it? Or is it chronological in the sense that there is always some element of it in us when we gain it? I'd like to know the catholic view.

>"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV) >"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor 7:14 NIV). Taking these two assumptions about Baptist theology: 1. that young children must either believe in the Gospel and are saved, or not believe in the Gospel and are not saved, without there being any 3rd option 2. that the belief of young children is 100% independent of the belief of their parents; it is entirely up to them whether they believe or not Therefore, 3. given a situation where a young child comes to believe in the gospel through a family friend, though his parents do not, how can this be reconciled with 1 Cor. 7:14? It is a contradiction of "salvation by faith alone" (made clear throughout the NT) to be "unholy" ("unclean," depending on translation) and a believer at the same time. One Baptist with whom I spoke said that Paul is using the word "holy" to mean "having been somehow influenced by someone who is holy." But as far as I know the word "holy" throughout the Bible always refers to "being of good standing with God" and not just "influenced." If Paul had meant that, I feel he would have used different wording. There are some answers here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/69028/does-christianity-allow-for-believing-on-someone-elses-behalf , but none of them are specifically from a Baptist perspective. I also already looked through these: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-14.htm

What is the meaning of the word *holy* from a Christian viewpoint? I observed that the term is used for * the gods, especially the Holy God (Father) and Holy Ghost; * persons, such as the holy apostles, Holy St. Florian, etc.; * buildings like churches; * organisations (the holy church); * relics and fetishes, such as the Holy Coat of Trier ; * cities, such as the holy city (this title is used for both Rome and Jerusalem). Since holiness is nothing which can be identified with a scientific instrument, what is it? Is it just an attribute, awarded by a higher priest, which you then believe in? But what is it? Do you have to believe, that it can, for example, have healing effects? Does it just mean that you have to treat something with extra respect? This is what I found in an encyclopedia: > **Heilig**, von Heil, also soviel wie in seiner Vollkommenheit nicht nur noch unverletzt, sondern auch unverletzlich, unantastbar, dann soviel wie schlechthin gut, sittlich vollkommen, makellos. Seine Wurzeln hat dieser Begriff teils im römischen Kultus, wo er das dem gemeinen Gebrauch Entzogene, höhern Zwecken Gewidmete (*sacer*, *sanctus*), teils im Alttestamentlichen, wo der Ausdruck (*kadosch*), von Gott ausgesagt, dessen Unterschiedenheit von allem Irdischen, seine Unvergleichlichkeit und Erhabenheit, von Irdischem ausgesagt, dessen Zugehörigkeit zu Gott, Gottgeweihtheit bedeutet. Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887). > > Meyers Großes Konversationslexikon . For those of you who don’t speak German, I’ll try a translation: > Holy, from ‘intact, complete’, not only undamaged, but invulnerable, untouchable, but also completely good, ethical and morally perfect. The roots of the term reach to the Roman cult, where it means “taken away from common usage”, used for higher purpose (*sacer*, *sanctus*), partly in the Old Testament, where the term (*kadosch*), spoken of God, means his difference from anything terrestrial, his uncomparabliness and loftiness, and means “belonging to God” or antlared (? maybe not. -else: holiness, which is tautological. - remark by me, u.u.). Vgl. Baudissin, Studien zur Religionsgeschichte, Bd. 2 (Leipz. 1878); Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament (Leiden 1887). Maybe we can agree that a building can’t be morally good. Nor can bones, or cities, or weekdays. Isn’t it fetishism to pray to dead objects made by men, to bones without spirit and clothes? Or is holiness something like bacteria, which spread from God to a Saint, from the Saint to his clothes, from the clothes to a prayer? Is there evidence in the new Testament that touching such things is helpful, is something you should do?

In the Creed, [the profession of Christian Faith](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm) , an article of Faith is *I believe in [...], the **holy** catholic Church/We believe in one **holy** catholic and apostolic Church.* How does the Catholic Church reconcile the holiness of the Church, with the [Pope apologising](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS569US569&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=pope+asks+for+forgiveness) and the clerical sex abuse scandal? > cf. [Ephesians 5:27 > (RSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A27&version=RSVCE) > 27 that he might present the **church to himself in splendor, without > spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without > blemish**. **Note:** An article of Faith is not optional. It is belongs to the deposit of Faith that one must believe in order to be saved. *'[The Church] is a Mother, through whom we are born to a new life in God. A mother should be loved. She is holy with regard to her Founder, her works and her doctrine, but she is, nevertheless, composed of sinful men. It is our duty to make a positive contribution to the life of the Church, to help her progress along the way of faithful renewal. This is not accomplished by negative criticisms.' - Pope St. John Paul II [the Great], Homily in Barcelona, 7 November 1982.* *'If we love the Church, there will never arise in us a morbid interest in airing, as faults of the Mother, the weaknesses of some of her children. The Church, the spouse of Christ, does not have to intone any 'mea culpa'. But we do: 'mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa'. The only true 'mea culpa' is a personal one, not the one which attacks the Church, pointing out and exaggerating the human defects which, in this holy mother, result from the presence in her men whose actions can go far astray, but which can never destroy - nor even touch - that which we call the original and constitutive holiness of the Church' - St. Josemaría Escrivá, In Love with the Church, quoted in In Conversations with God, 4/37.2 | Francis Fernandez*