According to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived for 930 years. From a biological standpoint, cell division is a key part of growth and aging. My question is: If Adam’s cells continued to divide over such a long lifespan, does that imply he may have experienced continuous physical growth, possibly resulting in a giant-like stature? I'm especially interested in whether young-Earth creationist or literalist interpretations of Genesis support the idea that Adam was physically much larger than modern humans, particularly in light of ancient environments that may have included large animals (e.g., dinosaurs). Or is it more likely that his size was similar to ours, and the long lifespan simply reflected slower aging without continuous physical growth?

>1 John 2:15 (ESV): "Do not love the world or the things in the world..." Many Christian teachings warn against loving "the world," often interpreted as a system opposed to God. But since the body is part of our earthly existence and shares in physical desires (e.g., lust of the flesh), is the body itself part of what Scripture refers to as "the world"? Or is the body viewed separately from the "world" that believers are warned against befriending? How do different theological traditions (e.g., Augustinian, Reformed, Orthodox, etc.) interpret the role of the body in this context?

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

In [Genesis 5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%205&version=ESV) , some of the descendants of Adam are listed with their ages. The people listed lived very much longer than anybody does today. For example, Adam lived to be 930. The oldest age, 969 years, is listed for Methuselah. How did these people live so long? Does the Bible explain this at all?

Christianity has always opposed any religion that considered the soul purer or holier by nature than the body, as some eastern religions or Gnosticism did. At the same time Christianity through new birth introduced two natures in a man, at war with each other calling, one the flesh and the other the Spirit. (Gal 5:17) Most biblical commentators I have read make sure it is understood that the term ‘flesh’ in scripture is not just referring to the physical body but by the word ‘flesh’ it means the whole evil nature, soul and body, to make sure the idea of a false Gnostic conflict between soul and body is avoided. To muddy the waters slightly, there is a general admission through the Lords prayer that Christians still need to pray daily: give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. There may be some that think they might not sin a whole day but most Christians, at least the ones I have met, would agree with the concept that they are still very much guilty of daily sins against God’s perfect law after conversion. Only that by the blood of Christ are they cleansed and forgiven by their confession. But even those that believe in some kind of Christian perfectionism and imagine to be sinless for several days or longer would still understand that they frequently sin, just as James says in James 3:2. I personally feel I perpetually fall short of obeying the Law fully as I doubt I have ever loved God more than half as much as I ought to. But that is just my own persuasion along with several famous Protestants mind you. On the other hand, there is a general belief that after we die physically, that we will never sin again. In summary, common Christian beliefs. While in the body: 1 John 1:8-9 (ESV) > If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is > not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to > forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. After we die, in heaven Revelation 21:4 > He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be > no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain > anymore, for the former things have passed away.” So the question is: if the word ‘flesh’ is not highly linked to the physical body, why is this the case (without promoting any kind eastern religious or gnostic ideas) that, while we live in the physical body, we can’t avoid sin and after our soul leaves the body into heaven (or rather with a new body) we are sinless forever? Why does this shift in imperfect-to-perfect, occur, exactly when the physical body dies?

I've been hearing more and more of this concept that humans are vessels, either controlled by the spirit of the world (Satan) or the Holy Spirit (if saved) and that there is no "independent self". This is new to me. I don't think it's accurate, but I may not be fully understanding it. **Does this belief have a name or origin that I could read up on?**

**My Question:** Does the real presence of the Eucharist persist even after digestion to the point of being taken out of the body by defecation? Yes this is a serious question. In case the answer is no, where does the real presence go then? Is it integrated into our bodies like vitamins? I realize that Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. I understand that there are spiritual advantages to taking the Eucharist, but what I would like to now understand is also how those advantages are communicated to us when we eat Christ. **The process.**

What is appropriate for a person to wear? Do those standards change for men or women? How do we know? Why does this, which seems like an important topic, not have much of an explicit commandment in the Bible (for example, you ought to wear something up to the knees, or not show cleavage, like many Christian churches and colleges)? Clearly, the Bible forbids nudity. Genesis 3:7 >And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Genesis 3:21 >Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. Nudity was taken very seriously. Genesis 9 >Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. **22** And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. **23** But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. Uncovering someone's nakedness is considered a sexual act. Leviticus 18 >**6** ‘None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord. **7** The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. Nudity includes at least the genitals. The priests were to wear undergarments that extended from the waist to the thigh to avoid uncovering themselves (this is the closest to a formal instruction I know of; it seems like one should at least wear something equivalent to boxers in coverage). Why not specify to wear this all the time? Exodus 28 >**42** And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their [m]nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs. **43** They shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they come into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place, that they do not incur iniquity and die. Exodus 20:26 >Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it. There is a passing mention of nudity of the legs, though it isn't clear to me whether the first line about having bare legs isn't a poetic building up to the nakedness being uncovered, and not the act itself. Isaiah 47:2-4 >Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your veil, Take off the skirt, Uncover the thigh, Pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, Yes, your shame will be seen; Here, one might deduce an association between sexual appeal and nakedness: Ezekiel 16:7-8 > 7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou > hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent > ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas > thou wast naked and bare. 8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon > thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt > over thee, and covered thy nakedness: Another passage of interest: John 21:7 >Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. Later in the New Testament, dressing appropriately is clearly desirable, but no clear definition is given to what that means, that would not perhaps vary. 1 Timothy 2:9 >in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation..." How would one determine what bathing suit to wear? Whether clothes are too tight? Too short? Whether wearing crop-tops or two-pieces is ok; and if, for example, men can bare their chests? Personally, I have a very conservative view on these topics. However, being married has brought out this topic as a source of considerable worry and pain. Having an objective standard would be helpful either way. It seems like every person has his own standard, and is difficult to explain without offense. Not only that, but cultural issues change the decency of what people wear. For example, in some places, it is normal for women to uncover their breasts for lactation, but it might seem sexual to wear tight pants, whereas in the West it is rather the reverse. (Indeed, one could make an extreme argument that notwithstanding cultural norms, the only requirement about covering nudity goes from the waist to the thigh.) However, we are the same humanity, with the need for, presumably, the same decency. So, one could pose this question another way: how did God clothe Adam and Eve in the garden; and if it is important to follow that standard, why is it not expressed more clearly? Were the Israelites, as God's people, strict on this, as there is seemingly a gap in the law on this topic? A related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/39600/does-the-bible-command-women-to-cover-their-breasts

We see Jesus telling in Mtt 12:40: > For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. The Creed of the Apostles says that Jesus descended into hell after his death before he would rise again on the third day. We also read in I Pet 3:18-20: > For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits - to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. The mention of **after being made alive** by St. Peter in his epistle, prompts one to wonder whether Jesus'visit to the dead as mentioned in the Creed is the same as mentioned by Peter, and if it is, whether Jesus visited the ‘dead' in his living body, before his resurrection in front of the ‘living'? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic scholars, did Jesus descend into hell in his living body?**

Tribal women in Africa, South America and Papua New Guinea have gone around with bare breasts for countless generations. When Christian missionaries arrived they convinced the women to cover their breasts. What arguments did they use to achieve this? I see nothing in the Bible about God commanding women to cover their breasts.

From what I understand, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in a form of Arianism that claims Jesus is “the son of God”, but he is inferior to “God the Father”, as he is usually understood as “God’s first creative act”. Then this spiritual entity was sent to earth, where he “became flesh” in the “incarnation”. I’m not a Trinitarian myself, but it does include words like “human nature” and “hypostatic union” to describe how Jesus can be a “real human”, while “consubstantially” existing as something much different than a human. According to Jehovah Witnesses, in what way is Jesus human? Was he a spiritual entity cloaked in human biology, or would they agree with the Trinitarian idea of a hypostatic union?

The Messiah Jesus is son of Maryam was a human being. He was born from a woman, he ate and drank, got up and went to sleep, suffered pain and wept… and God (Allaah) is far above all of that, Allah is far than biological characters such as sexuality so how could he be God or son of God? **Note:** My Goal is not to argue or to get votes but my goal is to try to understand what is the nature of the logic which works in christianity!

Different Christian denominations have differing theologies of the resurrection: what it means for us, how it happened, and so on. What do the main bodies of Christian belief (Orthodox, Catholic, "mainline" Protestant) have to say, if anything, about Jesus' resurrected body, compared with the human body he had in his lifetime? Did he sleep? Did he grow tired? Did he get hungry? Did he have to defecate? This passage from Luke seems to say that Jesus had flesh and bones, was hungry, and ate food, and this question assumes all those things are to be taken literally. > **Luke 24:36-43 ESV** As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “**Have you anything here to eat**?” **They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them**. Again, I'm looking for an _overview_ of beliefs from major Christian denominations; answers can be based on Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Fathers, or whatever each denomination uses to construct its fundamental beliefs.

Humans have a mind (or soul) and body, but they are not separately divided substances (as Descartes would suggest). So one could say we have a soul and body. But according to the Roman Catholic Church, how are they constructed/connected philosophically together to get one person. Is it allowed to say that the soul is in the body?

According to Rev. S. D. F. Salmond's English translation , John of Damascus wrote,(1) >For since **man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body**, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life. Does Roman Catholicism teach that a human consists of body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit?

References

(1) *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter IX.

Leviticus 19:28 > You will not gash your bodies when someone dies, and you will not > tattoo yourselves. I am Yahweh. In this article: Pope Francis Gives His Blessing for Tattoos and says: > There is nothing wrong with tattoos, Pope Francis told a group of > young people Monday, urging them to be open to cultural expressions of > “belonging.” Pope's statement totally contradicts the Bible's verse. What is the official Catholic teaching on getting tattoos of any kind?

I see questions about the creation of the human soul, and the soul's "infusion" into the body. But the Bible considers a human being to "have" three parts or concepts: spirit, soul, and body. How does the Catholic church regard the relationship between these three concepts? In the bible we read that God breathed "the breath of life" into Adam, and he "became" a living soul. Elsewhere we read that at death a human's spirit "returns to God, who gave it", and Paul says that the human spirit is "dead" until regeneration takes place. A good answer will reference official Catholic teaching on the meaning of the bible passages and the nature of (tri-partite?) humans as spirit, body, and soul. If there is no official position on some point, the view of church teachers is requested. **Bible Passages** from WEB (World English Bible) -- emphasis and [] mine > (Gen 2:7 [WEB]) Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground [**body**], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [**spirit?**] of life; and man became a living **soul**. > (Eccl 12:7 [WEB]) and the dust [**body**] returns to the earth as it was, and the **spirit** returns to God who gave it. > (Rom 8:10 [WEB]) If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the **spirit** is alive because of righteousness. [spirit was dead, but now lives?]

In the 4th Dogma of Assumption Mary was assumed "body & soul" into heaven. Scriptures tells us nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God...(Rev21:27) And also Gospel of Luke 24:36-ff narrates and describes the "resurrected body" of Jesus. Jesus Appears to the Disciples >36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” > >37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” > >40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. > >44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” My question is, Did Mary experienced or was given by God a "glorified body" while on earth? I am looking for Catholic Church teaching or Church Father beliefs on Mary's glorified body that hinted similarity on Jesus resurrected body.

I do not remember exactly where but I think the OT says somewhere that doing things like tattoos to your body is not good and, to God, is morally objectionable. Is this true? I do know that some denominations strictly forbid it, however, I have never heard much reasoning other than tattoos are commonly associated with criminals and the like. I have often heard the old phrase 'The body is the temple of the Lord' but I am not sure if that is even in the Bible and do not know its context. If this argument cannot be made Biblically then why the objection among some Christians?

In public and private, people wear many different crosses in many manners. Which denominations hold any principles, explicit or implicit, that govern the display of crosses on the body? Speculating, such rules might require that the cross touch the skin, or that it never be removed, or that it be hung on the neck and not anywhere else on the body, or that it never be worn by certain persons or in certain situations, or that it must be of certain material to carry.