Many Catholic churches across the world have an image of a pelican with its chicks. The pelican is depicted as cutting its heart open with the beak, with blood dripping down. Understandably, it symbolises Christ. What was the source of this image? Was there any scriptural base, or was it a code, like the image of fish used by early Christians?

The statement, "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" does not appear in the Bible. When in the history of Christian theology did this specific statement first appear? Who said it? Please provide the actual text (and source) from the writings of the Christian theologians or teachers who first said it—or at least, the earliest ones you can document. **If that is clear to you, there is no need to read the rest of this question.** *Please note:* - This question is specifically about the statement that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Equivalent wordings, such as "Christ paid the *price* for our sins" or *"Jesus* paid the penalty for our sins," are on-topic. However, "Christ died for our sins" or "Christ suffered for our sins" or even "Christ was punished for our sins" are off-topic. I am looking for statements specifically about Christ *paying the penalty,* or *paying the price,* for our sins. - "Paying the price" in the context of Ransom Theory is also off-topic. A ransom is not a penalty or punishment for sin. - I am *not* looking for antecedents for this idea, nor am I looking for passages quoted as the biblical basis for this idea. I am looking for the earliest *explicit statements* of the idea itself. - For reference: the Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution . Please do not just quote from or refer to the Wikipedia article, which seems rather murky and disorganized. ***Edit** in response to comments:* My hypothesis is that the Penal Substitution theory of atonement is closely tied to the phrase "paid the penalty." This is a history of doctrine question rather than simply an English phrase question. However, it is common for proponents of Penal Substitution to see this theory of atonement in phrases representing ideas that are not necessarily the same. For example: - *"Christ died for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and kills you, you have died for (due to) the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ suffered for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you and injures you, you have suffered for the sins of the drunk driver, but you have not *paid the penalty* for the sins of the drunk driver. S/he remains guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. - *"Christ was punished for our sins."* If a drunk driver hits you, and you are wrongfully accused and put in jail instead of the drunk driver, you have *still* not paid the penalty for the drunk driver's sins. The drunk driver remains guilty of the crime, and subject to its penalty if and when it is discovered that there was a miscarriage of justice. Or if you were to voluntarily go to jail *with* the drunk driver, taking the same punishment even though you didn't commit the crime, you would still not have *paid the penalty* for the drunk driver's sins. S/he would *still* remain guilty of the crime, and subject to punishment. The point is, every one of these statements can easily and very reasonably be read as meaning something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins. (And I happen to think that they *do* mean something other than Christ paying the penalty for our sins.) That is why I am insisting on the precise language that most specifically expresses the Penal Substitution theory of atonement: that Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins. Protestant tracts are full of the statement, "Christ paid the penalty for our sins." That phrase is not in the Bible. It must have come from *somewhere.* I want to know where it came from. I suspect this will also provide the origin point of the Penal Substitution theory of atonement in the history of Christian doctrine. If none of that works for you, just repeat over and over again before writing an answer: **Where did the precise phrase "Christ *paid the penalty* for our sins" come from?**

Claims of unexpected and spontaneous fillings or full restorations of teeth with gold are not unheard of in many faith healing services and other religious gatherings. For example, in a [video](https://youtu.be/j09HsDbjLPg?t=28) recorded at the [Demonstrate Conference](https://www.facebook.com/events/living-faith-church/demonstrate-conference/390125865229060/) (an event hosted by [Jennifer Eivaz](https://www.jennifereivaz.com/)) , a woman testifies (*): > [...] I was, you know, asking God ... Holy Spirit to come ... and the miracle started happening ... **and then I got a gold tooth**! And it's so crazy, because you open your mouth, and everyone has their cameras looking at your mouth ... so I can't wait to brush my teeth and look at my gold tooth. Similarly, in [this thread](https://www.christianforums.com/threads/its-a-miracle-i-got-a-gold-tooth.3262453/) a woman shares (*): > [...] I attended a healing/revival meeting tonight, put on by Jeff Jansen, of Global Fire Ministries, and **the Lord gave many people gold teeth**!!! I had been praying and fasting all week for the Lord to show Himself big and make Himself soooo real to me !!! And guess what? **I got one, too**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [...] > **Many people got gold teeth tonight** and NO ONE can tell me that it wasn't real because I saw it with my own eyes....one lady first noticed that **God turned 3 of hers gold on the top and I looked and saw them**. A few minutes later, **two of hers on the bottom had turned and I saw them**. **A few minutes later, 8 had turned gold and I saw them all--before and after**!!!! (*) Emphasis mine. In fact, the phenomenon seems to be relatively widespread, as many more examples recorded in different places and countries can be found with a quick YouTube search: [A](https://youtu.be/Y8GK_I5aiHc) , [B](https://youtu.be/yS4zzVCpXG0?t=35) , [C](https://youtu.be/ojyo_P5FBA4?t=35) , [D](https://youtu.be/wXu96t8ar4g) , [E](https://youtu.be/b402eJ3TdUc) , [F](https://youtu.be/1nNc6_Ycg_o) , [G](https://youtu.be/y7YaOdFlSqY?t=162) , [H](https://youtu.be/_0Iqk2YREyM) , [I](https://youtu.be/WW-dUYjVJwg) , [J](https://youtu.be/UItU6qlKvvA) , [K](https://youtu.be/nS6w5qAw7XY) , [L](https://youtu.be/5Qwn9JA8HU4) , etc. What are the oldest records of this phenomenon? Is it a relatively recent phenomenon in Church History (a few decades old) or can we find older records?

### Introduction The Genesis narrative of the serpent tempting Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of Eve does not seem to indicate overtly that the character known as "Satan" or "the Devil" was involved in any way. The Hebrew bible likewise does not contain any explicit passages co-identifying Satan as the serpent from the garden. However early Christians appear to have identified the Edenic serpent as Satan: **Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD), in First Apology §28:** > “For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil...” **Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–185 AD), *To Autolycus* 2.28:** > “Eve…was deceived by the wicked demon, who also is called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent…” **Early Church Tradition (Book of the Cave of Treasures circa 4th–6th century):** > Satan “took up his abode in the serpent… and… watched for the opportunity… and… called [Eve]…” ### Question - What is the origin of this belief? - Does it pre-date Christianity? - What is the earliest written Christian document linking Satan with the serpent? Sources and views from all denominations welcome

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

There's a concept that I heard used many times throughout my life in regards to idolatry. The idea is that inside each of us is a "God-shaped hole"--a place inside of our hearts that only God can fill. If we try to put anything else in there, it won't fit (meaning, it won't fill the need we have inside of our heart/soul). Where does this concept originate? Is it a biblical concept or just a fanciful rhetoric?

I've seen throughout my life that the accepted symbol of prayer is both hands put together with the fingers pointing upward. I noticed that no one I can recall has ever prayed like that around me. I also noticed it's not in scripture to do that. Where did it originate, and why? ![Drawing of a pair of hands positioned palm-to-palm also known as praying hands ][1]

I was reading a (rather sacrilegious) story the other day in which God walks from the location of Eden to the point where the Ark landed, and it got me thinking... Speculation about where Eden might have been is fairly common. However, Scripture says that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished" (2 Peter 3:6), and modern Scriptural science believes that the Flood scoured the world so completely that virtually no trace of the old remains, and that any attempt to correlate pre-Flood geography to post-Flood geography is futile. **When is the earliest known reference to the idea that the location of the Garden of Eden corresponds to some existing, post-Flood location?**

I was sufficiently provoked recently by a Lutheran clergyman identifying as "Rev." That seemed to me to be somewhat a poor fit with a tradition that emphasizes the priesthood of believers. By whom, when and where did that title emerge? What authority or character does that title tell us about the Reverend? Did Luther accept that title?

Evolutionism [claims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion) that religious beliefs result from their ability to give us a cooperative ability to survive. This, an Evolutionist would argue, would imply that religion comes into existence, not on any truth claim, but from evolution giving us useful, but otherwise untrue beliefs. What is the proper response to this argument? (Here is [another article](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429488818-18/ritual-made-us-human-matt-rossano) on the subject.)

Referring to Acts 11:26 : Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch? Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!? And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!? It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!? Your thoughts fellow Believers?

I have this pendant I’ve been holding on to for about 28 years now and would like to know more about it. It appears to be gold but is not soft enough to leave a depression when bitten however it did scratch slightly on the back from my tooth. I am curious of its age and where it might have come from? Any information would be helpful and appreciated. I’ve included some pictures of it. I am wanting answers at this time so I know if I should hand it down to my grandchildren or let it go. Photo 1: The front says JUAN on the left side and PABLO II on the right. The ones I’ve looked up have a Latin or different spelling of his name. Photo 2: The back has no words just this depiction. There is also something imprinted on the “chain link”which I cannot read clearly. Which are probably makers marks? Idk?

I recently came across the idea of identifying the angel Michael as Jesus. I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Wikipedia documents it as common to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not interested in biblical support of this theory; there are several other questions in that vein with good answers. I'd like to know more of its origin. Sub-questions to help guide what I'd consider a good answer: - How old is this idea? Wikipedia says "early Protestants", but cites John A. Lees (1939) who in turn cites Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1849) who doesn't appear to have a source beyond himself. They are far too recent to be "early Protestants". - Who (or what group) came up with the idea? - If it started with the adventists , how did it spread to Jehovah's Witnesses? - Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity accept the idea? - Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity explicitly reject the idea? (I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.) \* **fork**: picture the christian religion as a road. Way back, promoters of Arianism were a fork in the road that dead ended fairly quick. The Protestants led many forks in the road. Mormons are yet another fork in the road. EDIT: Re: "early protestants". I just found a reference by John Calvin in his Commentaries on Daniel vol. 2, pg 243 . > Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to > this opinion. [...] But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it > in doubt for the present [...] and there's a bit more in chapter 12 , but so far I haven't found who he is referencing by "some". Calvin does go on to defend associating Michael with Christ.

People always make jokes about the number 666 and how it's evil and such. What is the basis of this?

I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred. What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?

One of the arguments in favor of the traditional date of December 25 being the actual date of Jesus birth is that of church tradition. Of course, it's possible that the early church just picked a date connected with the winter solstice to celebrate the birthday of Jesus. The scholar Ray Butterworth points out how the Queen's Birthday, is celebrated on the second Saturday in June in the UK, and the Monday before May 25 in Canada, regardless of her actual birthday. However, it is plausible (perhaps even probable) that Mary, the mother of Jesus, might have spoken to the disciples in the early faith communities about the specific symmetrical period and days of Jesus' conception and birth. While one might argue that was improbable that there was a perfect symmetrical time of 9 months between the conception of Jesus and his birth, C.S. Lewis made a compelling observation: > You must develop a nose like a bloodhound for those steps in the > argument which depend not on historical and linguistic knowledge but > on the concealed assumption that miracles are impossible, improbable, > or improper. And this means that you must really re-educate yourself: > must work hard and consistently to eradicate from your mind the whole > type of thought in which we have all been brought up. (Miracles) A good discussion on stackexchange on the matter of whether it was appropriate for Jews to celebrate birthdays can be found here. The quote from Rabbi Mendy Kaminker, in support of Jews celebrating birthdays, is particularly relevant. The first century philosopher Plutarch writes: > ...they are those that tell us that, as the Greeks are used to > allegorize Kronos (or Saturn) into chronos (time), … Lucian of Samosata (AD 120-180) describes the festivities of *Saturnalia/Chronos*, as seven day event. Marcus Valerius Martialis in his also speaks of the *Saturnalia* being a seven day event (Epigrams, 72, Book XIV). These authors wrote prior to when the *Sol Invictus* was highlighted and celebrated as a Roman holiday in the fourth century. Changes to the Roman calendar moved the climax of *Saturnalia/Chronos* to December 25th, around the time of the date of the winter solstice. So, if December 25th was the birthday of Jesus that Mary shared with the disciples, it may very likely be a type of double entendre when the Apostle Paul writes: > ...when the fullness of time (chronos) had come, God sent forth his Son, > born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the > law,... (Galatians 4) In other words, the primal origins of Christmas can be found in a rebranding of *Saturnalia/Chronos* in line with longings of a mythical golden age coming in Jesus in terms of both time (*chronos*) and spatial (literal) history. In scanning the internet I have come across multiple references to Theophilus (A.D. 115-181), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: > We ought to celebrate the birthday of Our Lord on what day soever the > 25th of December shall happen. - Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. > Hospinian, De origine Festorum Chirstianorum. The problem is that I can't find the original source for this quote. Has it been lost in history? If so, what are some plausible reasons on how this might have happened? In researching the background to the quote from Theophilus, the evidence so far indicates that this quote seems to be based on a fictional account created in Ireland around 600 AD. For example, see this recent research by Roger Pearse. In another line of tradition, McClellan notes that Chrysostom around 407 A.D. (Hom. in diem, natal, ii Col. 351) writes: > It is not yet ten years since this day (December 25) was made known. > Even so, it is now just as seriously observed as if it has come to us > form the the beginning...It is very plain, according to the > evangelist, that Christ was born during the first census, and in Rome > it is possible for any one to deduce, with the aid of the public > archives, when this came about. From persons who have an intimate > knowledge of the records and who still live there and who have kept > the day in accordance with an age long tradition have recently given > us this information. (McClellan, p. 407) Could a large section of the church in those days have forgotten the date of Jesus' birth so easily? If so what are some plausible explanations? Was Chrysostom somewhat limited in his information from other areas? For example, he writes in another place that the charismatic gifts ceased. Yet, other church fathers attest to their continuance. An argument for Clement (150–215 AD) of Alexandria (Stromateis 1.21.145) saying that some hold to December 25th as Jesus' birthday can be found here. The author argues that Clement's 25th day of Pachon should be interpreted along the lines how, "When viewed through the prism of the Athenian calendar, we find that the traditional date of December 25 comes forth quite naturally." Another site, here , argues that Clement held to January 6th as the birthdate of Jesus: > Can we pinpoint the date of Jesus' birth? Various ancient sources lead > us to the answer. Clement of Alexandria (again, about AD 200) says, > "From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus ...are, in all, a hundred > and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days." If we suppose that > he is using the Roman calendar, we deduce that Clement set Christ's > birth on 18 November 3 BC. But it is highly doubtful that this date, > affirmed by no other ancient source, is the one he so confidently > espouses. We arrive at a different date if we suppose that Clement, a > resident of Egypt, is using the Egyptian calendar without > intercalation. Measuring backward from Commodus' death an interval of > 194 years (each exactly 365 days), one month (thirty days), and > thirteen days brings us to 6 January 2 BC. There is also a mentioning of the December 25th by Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel (dated 202 A.D.). The quote itself, along with a textual critical approach on the reliability of this reference, can be found here. The total references, included above, push the earliest testimony of the church fathers to the date of Jesus birth on December 25th to the late 2nd century and early 3rd century. A related question can be found here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/45948/what-is-the-earliest-historical-testimony-of-the-celebration-of-the-nativity-of/45949

> Ex Deo Nascimur, > In Christo Morimur, > Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus > > From God we are born, > In Christ we die, > (and) in (/per) the Holy Spirit we are reborn (revived) This is an old saying that I think is attributed to the Rosicrucians . I'm trying to back track it further as it clearly predates them by at least a millennia. Any ideas on the origins?

I have been told that I possess a very definitive view of faith in regards to baptism. So far as I believe faith in Jesus as personal Lord and Savior must be present at the time of baptism. Hence my adherence to the doctrine of credo baptism. I would just like to know how you would categorize this view? Is it Lutheran or Calvinistic? What part of Christian theology would comprise such a view? I have started to think critically of my views because for the first time in my life settling down and starting a family is a real possibility and I would like to know how to explain this to a potential mother of my children?

Right now, I'm reading *When Heaven Invades Earth* by Bill Johnson. I just came across this sentence: "If I am filled with anxiety in any given situation, it becomes hard for me to release peace--because *I can only give what I have.*" (Emphasis mine.) The phrase by itself is a good and noteworthy one, but the reason I'm posting this question is that I've heard this phrase used before, spoken by Mike Cavanaugh. Both Bill Johnson and Mike Cavanaugh have done many great things by following the Lord, both are senior pastors, and both have used this phrase. This suggests to me that there's an earlier source that both have read and drawn from. Hence, I ask: does this earlier source exist, and if so, what is it? --- I kept reading and I came across "As glorious as the gift of tongues is, it is an entrance point to a lifestyle of power.", which is another thing Mike Cavanaugh said. The answer to this question may very well be a negative in that Mike may have drawn from this book, not an earlier source. If this is the case, an answer should show this.

An associate wrote an open letter (email) of condolence to a friend who'd lost a child. The letter stated that that deceased was now an angel in heaven with wings. What is the ultimate source of this belief?