I know our Gospel of Mark is anonymous, and I am trying to understand where the traditions of attribution come from. As far as I understand, the tradition is that the Gospel was written by Mark the interpreter of Peter, who would also be the John Mark referred in *Acts of the Apostles* as a companion of Paul who split up with Barnabas at some point. As *Acts* does not state that John Mark became an interpreter of Peter, I assume these are two different claims: - **Claim 1:** "The author of Mark was the interpreter of Peter". - **Claim 2:** "The author of Mark is John Mark, the character from *Acts of the Apostles*". I know that we can trace *Claim 1* one to Papias (though we do not know if he's discussing *our* Gospel of Mark), and later to Irenaeus (who is definitely talking about our Gospel of Mark). But they do not seem to indicate that the author was also John Mark from *Acts of the Apostles*. I have failed to find our first source for *Claim 2*. **I am interested in finding out at which point in history people started assuming that John Mark (the character in *Acts of the Apostles*) is the author of our Gospel of Mark** (or, failing that, at which point people started assuming that John Mark from the Acts of the Apostles became later in his life an interpreter of Peter).

About what ancient temples does Clement of Alexandria talk about in (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46) - (It sounds to be the pagan temples?) and additionally he mentions (facing the images) what are these images? - there seems to be similarity in the book - **De architectura Chapter V** As far as I know from what I have read it seems that God had only one temple - the Jerusalem Temple Deuteronomy 12:5-14; 1 Kings 9:3; 2 Chronicles 6:6; Psalm 132:13-14; 1 Kings 8:29-30; 2 Chronicles 6:20-21; and the Jewish prayed towards the Hollie of Holies in the temple, if I am not mistaken, this is towards the West when the person is in the Jerusalem Temple and pray towards the Hollie of Holies, this person may have faced West I think? The Jerusalem Temple had entrance from the East, so in the temple people may have prayed towards the West - towards the Hollie of Holies where I think was God's presence Leviticus 16:2; Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; - I think that this was the reason the Jewish prayed towards the Jerusalem Temple - because of the Hollie of Holies where should have been God's presence? - if they turned to pray towards the East (Ezekiel 8:15-16) in the Jerusalem Temple they may have prayed turned with their backs to the Hollie of Holies (*Spiritually Jeremiah 32:31-33 and Physically Ezekiel 8:15-16*?) - where God's presence should have been? If I am wrong somewhere please let me know. (Clement here is talking about temples not single temple, so I assume that he is talking about the pagan temples. Also he says - "the most ancient temples looked towards the west" this is the opposite of the Jerusalem Temple that looked towards East since the entrance was from the East I think - if this is the case then why would any true Christian look to the pagan temples in order to be taught to pray towards the East facing the images ?) - ("the most ancient temples looked towards the west") - ("that people might be taught to turn to the east") - ("when facing the images") **(Comparing this with the pagan - De architectura CHAPTER V)** > CHapter V How the Temple should Face > > 1. **THE quarter toward which temples of the immortal gods ought to face** is to be determined on the principle that, if there is no reason to hinder and the choice is free, the temple and the statue placed in the cella **should face the western quarter of the sky**. This will enable those who approach the altar with offerings or sacrifices **to face the direction of the sunrise in facing the statue in the temple**, and thus those who are undertaking vows look **toward the quarter from which the sun comes forth,** and **likewise the statues themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and sacrifice.** > > 2. But if the nature of the site is such as to forbid this, then the principle of determining the quarter should be changed, so that the widest possible view of the city may be had from the sanctuaries of > the gods. > > - [The Ten Books of Architecture](https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf) **Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46;** > In correspondence with the manner of the sun's rising, prayers are > made looking towards the sunrise in the east. 2. Whence also the most > ancient temples looked towards the west,**(Pagan temples?)** **(Maybe - (De > architectura CHAPTER V))** 3. that people might be taught to turn to the > east when facing the images. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.7.43–46; **The book:** [Clement of Alexandria *The Stromata*](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html) - [The Stromata (Book VII)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02107.htm) (Should I understand that Clement of Alexandria here is teaching that the Christian is taught to pray towards East by the orientation of the pagan temples?)(So the pagan temples are pointed as reason?) **If this is the case what could we say about** **2 Cor. 6:15-18** > **15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?** or **what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?** > **16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?** for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in > them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my > people. > **17 Wherefore come out from among them,** and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 > And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, > saith the Lord Almighty. How should we understand this. - is this practice pagan or Christian? - is it appropriate for a Christian to practice it or is it not? Having in mind Matthew 15:9; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 7:19. The most wide and accepted interpretation today I think is the second coming from East as reason for praying towards the East. But this interpretation seems to be not that ancient, I have yet not found ancient church father that mentions the second coming from East as reason for the worship towards the East - since Basil and the rest before him does not mention that Christ will come from East and that this is the reason to pray towards the East. It seems that this interpretation gets widespread after John Damascus, but I am not sure. Maybe he was influenced by the Didascalia from probably around 4c.AD. But I still can not find any ancient church father that points to the Didascalia or mentions this interpretation, the first that mentions this is I think John Damascus after the Didascalia.

Some traditional drawings of crucifixion of Jesus show him hanging on the cross with his feet at a man's height above the ground. That seems justified, as we read in Jn 19:28-29: > After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine **on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.** Given that the convict was prone to give violent and painful jerks on the cross , it had to be positioned in a pre-dug hole say, of three feet on the ground. Let us presume that the vertical beam of Jesus' cross measured 12 feet, considering the portion that went to the ground, the position of his feet above ground and the top portion of vertical beam where INRI was placed. Now, Jesus was made to carry the entire cross, with the lowest end dragging on the path. In terms of geometry, the ideal length of the cross would be proportionate to his height so as to allow enough space between the shoulder and the vertical and horizontal beams built at 90 degree angle. The cross on which he was crucified appears too long for such a proportion. One is therefore, inclined to conclude that Jesus in fact carried a cross proportional to his height, and was crucified on a different cross vertically much longer. My question therefore is: Was Jesus crucified on the same cross he had carried to Calvary? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In [Chapter 2 of Holy Apostle St Paul's 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians, vv. 1-12], the RSVCE Title of which is **The Man of Lawlessness**, i.e., the **Antichrist**, St Paul in v.5 asks his audience to recall: > *5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?* It appears that the early Christians right from the **Apostolic Age** were taught about and were familiar with this **Antichrist** character. The Church teaches that the heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church from the Apostles, is contained in the the ***depositum fidei***, i.e., in Sacred Scripture and [Holy] Tradition. > **The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church** > > **[CCC 84]** The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the ***depositum fidei***), contained in Sacred Scripture and > Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] > the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful > to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking > of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and > professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a > remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful." Chapter 13 in the Apostle St. John's Apocalypse introduces the Apocalyptic Beasts and their relationship . In the preceding Chapter 12 , the dragon had already been introduced, described, and the readers told what he does: > *the **great dragon** [...], that **ancient serpent**, who is called **the Devil and Satan**, **the deceiver of the whole world*** That leaves us with the two Beasts, the 7-headed First Beast from the Sea, and the Second Beast with with two horns from the earth. Which of these two Beasts, from the Catholic Deposit of Faith, Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, is identifiable with the **Antichrist**?

How did the Catholic Church choose which Sacred Tradition is infallible when there are conflicting traditions, such as the Filioque controversy, especially considering that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession according to the Catholic Church?

> Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was **because of a revelation** that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. - **Galatians 2:1-2, NASB** I am wondering ***what*** Paul's revelation was? Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

A “panel with a central oval” was inserted in the 16th century in the frontal lower part of the high altar of the S. Maria della Passione church in Milano, Italy. The altar cavity in oval shape located in the central panel contains relics and is adorned with gold gilded symbols of the passion. Inside this cavity are relics of the saints presented in small glass containers and identified with written documents. Question: Did this individual central panel with cavity for the relics require 5 crosses for the high altar to be consecrated in the 16th century? Did the imagery of this panel require sacred imagery? Is the cavity a sepulcrum?? ![The high alter with panel of Santa Maria Della Passione ][1] Please view the image of the high altar and panel on the YouTube video "[MILANO, la meravigliosa chiesa di SANTA MARIA DELLA PASSIONE](https://youtu.be/PVhw393Bdno?t=541) " at minute 9:04.

I have counted over 200 prayers by believers (though not being thorough in Psalms) but find none addressed to anyone else in Heaven but God, or exhortations to do so. While support for this is attempted via appeals such as exhortations to pray for each other, and elders and angels offering incense before the climatic judgments on earth, and to tradition, yet I am looking for prayers in the Bible actually addressed, formally or implicitly, to created beings in Heaven, or instructions to do so like as "our Father who art in Heaven."

Lk 22:19 describes the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist: > And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”. Evidently, the pieces of bread that Jesus made,weren't uniform in shape or size. Over a period of time, making of hosts for Holy Communion , got standardised . The Catholic Church now uses perfectly round- shaped hosts. As a practice small hosts are cut out of wafer of larger size, entailing rejection of the pieces between circles. Nature gives a lead to minimising waste when a large surface is divided into smaller unit, the best example being of the beehive. It has hexangular columns that promote both strength and economy of space. My question is : Does the Catholic Church have a standard protocol for preparation of hosts ? If it does, did it ever consider redesigning the hosts in production, for the purpose of minimising left-over ? PS: I did post the question on ingredients and shape of hosts at https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/71046/what-are-the-church-laws-governing-ingredients-and-shapes-of-altar-bread-in-the , but have to been able to get conclusive answers on the shape. Hence this attempt.

How often do you replay your day's mistakes to try see how you failed in comparison to how you did well?

I know that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Scripture is held to be a part of Sacred Tradition, with equal authority to all the rest of that tradition which was handed down from the Apostles without having been penned by them. Despite not being different in authority, there is plainly some difference between the Scripture and other traditions, as the EO publishes Bibles which include the canonical Scriptures, but not (for example) the decrees of the councils (which are also considered sacred and infallible). Scripture evidently has a unique place, distinct from the councils and the rest of Sacred Tradition, though the mode of difference isn't clear to me. **What is the difference, if it is neither in sacredness nor authority?** Perhaps there is some clear-cut difference in function, which I only perceive vaguely.

We read in Jn 8:2-6 : > 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou 6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. We generally see images of Jesus sitting on a raised platform say, a rock, to teach so that he is audible to maximum number of people. The Temple courtyard may have had benches of wood or stone. But in John 8:6 we see Jesus writing on the ground . The ground must have had a layer of loose sand where he wrote ( just as children writing their name on beach sand and watching the waves obliterating it ). That implies Jesus was squatting on the ground when the adulterous woman was brought to him for judgement. And the Jews address him as Teacher. In fact, there was a tradition in the Orient, of teachers squatting on the ground along with their disciples . Taking a cue from Jn 8, a few churches in India have images of Jesus squatting on the ground. My question is : Does any Catholic Church in the West have image of Jesus squatting on the ground in a posture of deep meditation.

The question is above. The term Sola Scriptura: Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures. The Adherents are generally speaking Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals --- Please note, This is not directed at those who believe in **solo** scriptura: The Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians usually cite the authority of tradition in order to refute Protestants on any point where we have disagreement. Many Protestants also like to cite tradition; for instance, Luther and Calvin were adamant that they were not innovators, but simply returning to the doctrines of the ancient church which the Roman Catholics had drifted away from. However, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox point to institutional continuity and the idea of Apostolic Succession in order to argue that Protestant churches are not legitimate churches. Similar appeals to tradition and apostolic succession are made by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East and other splinter groups. For the purposes of this question, "traditionalist" refers to those groups which emphasize the Sacred Tradition as an additional authority beside Scripture, and emphasize the institutional continuity back to the apostles. Thus the principle branches of traditionalists are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. These groups are all mutually not in communion with one another and have profound disagreements. **How do they discern which tradition is the correct tradition?** This is an *epistemological* question; while the particular disagreements among them are interesting and may serve as examples, I want to know by what methods traditionalists determine which tradition is correct. From my limited understanding, I see a lot of arguments that amount to begging the question. For instance, you might appeal to ecumenical councils, but how do you determine which councils are ecumenical? Only the First Council of Nicaea (325) and the First Council of Constantinople (381) are recognized by all four traditionalist branches. (And it would appear from reading Wikipedia's article that even within a particular tradition, there may be different opinions as to which councils are "ecumenical".) Or you might appeal to the authority of the Pope, but that is exactly the point at issue. How do you know that the tradition of following the Pope is the correct tradition?

The Eastern Orthodox Church values Scripture and the non-Scripture parts (hence denoted subsequently in this Q as simply "Tradition") of the **Holy Tradition** with equal importance. This is most quickly seen on the OCA website. > Sources of Christian Doctrine. > - Revelation > - Tradition > - Bible > - The Liturgy > - The Councils > - The Fathers > - The Saints > - Canons > - Church Art The above are easily divided into "Scripture" and "Tradition" for the Eastern Orthodox Church, "Tradition" here denoting all non-Scripture parts of the Holy Tradition hinted in the list above. The Eastern Orthodox Church puts equal importance on Tradition as Scripture. Why and on what basis? --- ### For anyone who doubts the axiomatic statement that is presented in the question above, see evidences below: - **The Orthodox Church of America Website** > **None of them stands alone. None may be separated or isolated from the other** or from the wholeness of the life of the Church. - **The orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church** by Mogila, Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, 1596-1646 - **The Scripture’s Teaching on An Authoritative Apostolic Tradition** on **orthodoxchristiantheology.com**, written by Craig Truglia with the blessing of Bishop Luke of Syracuse >Conclusion. In review, **the Gospels attest to Christ teaching extra-biblical tradition to the Apostles.** This tradition was, in effect, the interpretation of these teachings in the parables. One must infer from this that Christ gave the interpretation of many other things, especially the Old Testament (cf Acts 24:32, 45), **without these interpretations being committed to writing.** > >In the writings of Saint Paul, it is simply taken for granted that this **“tradition” is a doctrinal understanding that Christians in absence of the Apostles ought to be faithful to.** The fact that this idea finds its way in three different letters whose composition are separated by several years shows that it was not some minor idea, but **central to Paul’s thought.** - **My orthodox study Bible** - **Scripture is part of Tradition**

### Motivation of the question I find out that many debates about "Scripture", "tradition", and "authority" result in **cross talk** because each of the 3 main branches don't sufficiently define what they mean by those 3 key terms. At the same time all 3 main branches acknowledge much commonality, which more or less coalesce under the banner of "rule of faith", "apostolic tradition", or "Apostle's Creed". In the spirit of **Peacemaking** (Matt 5:9), this question asks for VERY PRECISE **common core** definition of "tradition" **that all 3 branches can *first* AGREE**. Only then can each branch propose: 1. their own meaning of "tradition" (which has to be related precisely with the common definition) 1. their own precise location of authority and its relationship to tradition and Scripture ### Evidence of the existence of a common core "tradition" in all 3 branches 1. Eastern Orthodox Churches can say that their authority is centered on the relatively "frozen" **"Holy Tradition"** which includes BOTH Scripture and Tradition (defined by EO as an extension of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q). "Tradition" in EO's extended sense (which includes all non-Scripture parts of the Holy Tradition) is of equal importance to Scripture, both exerting equal authority to believers. This extended EO "Tradition" includes proper interpretation of Scripture. 1. The Roman Catholic Church can say that their authority is centered on the **Magisterium** who interprets the current meaning and the current application of BOTH Scripture and "Tradition" (defined by RC as an extension of the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q). 1. Protestantism can say that their authority is centered on **Scripture** (said by *sola scriptura* as the *norm*, but not the *exclusion*, of everything else), but they have to account for *how the various interpretations are related* to the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. I realize this may require a paradigm shift for Protestants, but if we are honest: - EACH interpretation **IS** a part of a denomination's "tradition" **which includes** a certain *orthodox* interpretation that ALL 3 main branches agree to (thus giving substance to the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q), that would yield an agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity for instance (let's not worry about the *filioque* here), and on the majority of the propositions in the Apostle's Creed. - This common core definition of "tradition" has a Biblical basis in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and Jude 1:3 (see Note #2 below). - Although some Protestants claim that "it's obvious" (under the banner of perspicuity) that John 1:1 implies the pre-existence of Christ, this interpretation (that was subsequently fought over until today) counts as part of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q, which **can even be argued** to be included in the "tradition" referred to by the 3 verses above. ### Ways to answer the question 1. For RC and EO, specify a *criteria* on HOW to **delimit** the common core subset out of their respective (more expansive) Traditions. On the other hand, Protestants can come up with a Biblical exegesis of ALL verses that imply the existence of an apostolic "tradition" (such as 3 verses mentioned above) and specify a *criteria* to **populate "tradition"** so that we know what the apostles meant by "tradition" in those verses. 1. For each branch, list the common interpretation / common doctrines to populate the common core definition of "tradition". Examples: the Chalcedon definition of the dual nature of Christ, the necessity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, justification by grace only, Pre-existence of Christ, etc. 1. Cite elements of statement of faith from an ecumenical Christian organization (such as World Council of Churches). 1. List common doctrines in each branch's confessions / documents, even if you have to notate slight differences such as how each branch deals with Original Sin, which was clearly articulated for the first time by Augustine and since then *handed down* to us today (thus part of "tradition" by definition) with minor variations. 1. List common features of all 3 branches' theology. For example we can argue that Divine Simplicity ***is*** a tradition, so are Resurrection of the Body and how one's decision *for* or *against* God is frozen at death. Or cite books such as C.S. Lewis's *Mere Christianity*. 1. Etc. (Come up with your own strategy so that the definition is agreeable by all 3 branches) ### NOTES 1. I don't want debate on the various canons. For the purpose of this question, it's already a given that each branch has their own canon. What matters is Scripture's relationship to the common definition of "tradition". 1. "tradition" as a lexical definition means "that which is handed over"; but it is too general and too vague to explicate - what 1 Cor 11:2 refers to ("maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you") - what Jude 1:3 refers to as what was "delivered to the saints" - what 2 Thess 2:15 means by "traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" all 3 verses are Biblical hint to the **existence** of the **common** core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. On the other extreme, definitions of "tradition" can include accretions since the writing of the Book of Revelation. 1. WARNING: Answers which do not include common *core* definition of "tradition" *ACCEPTABLE* to all 3 branches will be rejected. 1. The answer's own proposal of how the common *core* definition of "tradition" relates to Authority and to Scripture can be added as a bonus. I prefer that the answer attempts to isolate the common core of "authority" *first* before fleshing out the branch's more extended definition of "authority".

On the note of soon to pass Good Friday, Good Friday is the time of the year where we remember the death of Jesus, and Easter is where we remember the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I am wrong. However, people seem to associate Easter with egg hunting and bunnies and chocolates. I wouldn't mind a little celebration considering that it is the day Jesus rose from the dead, however I would like to know what in the world eggs and bunnies have to do with it.

A recent highly upvoted answer on a different question sparked this question to me. It is at the bottom. Searching found this similar but different question I will quote the parts that sparked the question here. I as always will leave the author unnamed. (I'm not here to put anyone on "blast" so to speak) > ...we don’t blindly accept what men claim. We follow Acts 17:11 where the Bereans were commended because “they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” > >**If it wasn’t done during the first century when Christ Jesus established his church** – not a building, not an organisation but the body of believers – **then we reject it.** We follow Scripture. > >That, in a nutshell, is how Protestants deal with the claims of men who lived after the death of Jesus and the apostles. If their teachings and claims are found in Scripture, then we accept that as our authority. **What we reject is the teachings and traditions of men who have added to the word of God.** I assume "add" would also include "remove or change". To understand the spirit of the words written here. Edit: It has come to my attention that the above is likely to be incorrect with regards to how protestants do things. This makes the question based on a misunderstanding I thought it was accurate. Knowing this resolves the issue of the main question, and leaves the "bonus questions" remaining. --- Immediately I find myself wondering how the logic can possibly work here. Because we have several problems that are immediately apparent. (As noted here in another question, but I'm not focused on Sola Scriptura like that question is) Facts. 1. The Scriptures were starting to be canonized maybe as early as 382AD (Rome) or 393 (Hippo). This does not mean the early church had no scriptures, but there was much that was "repeated" and also "not divinely inspired" (Protogospels, multiple letters, gnostic false scriptures... etc) This process was formally completed in the 6th Ecumenical Council Canon 2 **in 692AD** 2. Who decided which texts were "divinely inspired" and "good for worship"? The Church fathers did *after the 1st century*. > Edit: I just remembered the local councils at Carthage (255 AD). So the process started even earlier in some formal sense. --- Claims from above combined with facts. 1. Protestants only accept things within Scripture. 2. Protestants reject things after the 1st century. (So they do accept some "direct contact tradition") 3. The New Testament and Bible was starting to be canonized from multiple texts in multiple councils starting in 382AD. And at this point the protestants somehow accept the Biblical Canon. Though they seem to have a problem with the original canon list. Even Luther wished parts of the Bible didn't exist (see here... ) --- #### How do protestants, accept* the given tradition of the Bible, despite it being canonized by the traditions of men after the 1st century? - Bonus question: How do they reconcile changing the Bible from the original canon of 692AD? - Bonus question: How is this not cherry picking which tradition you like? (You like scripture, but dislike XYZ)

I have a leather jacket that just picked up from a girl who was selling it and I didn’t notice that it had a Chimera on its back. Truthfully, the image disturbs me a bit. I don’t want to curse my household neither my family by keeping it. It has a lion head with a goat’s body and a serpent head at the end of its tail. I know the image of the serpent represents Satan & goats could represent unbelievers & maybe the lion could represent the enemy roaring like a lion. Please help me understand this further. Are there any Christian traditions on this Chimerical imagery to indicate if it represents something particularly un Christian, or if it is linked to the occult?

Can anyone link me to a source for Christian meal foods that can be linked to a particular day in the life of Jesus and particular events in the lives of Christian saints. In the event that such sources do not exist can anyone point out if such cases are adequately known to exist? Allow me to make three suggestions as to what I am getting at. - 1. At Easter, it is traditional amongst some Christian to eat lamb in remembrance that Chris the Lamb of God rose from the dead. - 2. The day after Jesus's resurrection Jesus ate broiled fish and honey from the comb. That is right on Easter Monday. (Luke 24:42-43) - 3. On the fourth Friday of Lent, in Oaxaca,Oaxaca, Mexico there is celebration of the [Samaritan woman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_woman_at_the_well) who gave water to Jesus. The Catholic Church has this part of the Gospel read at mass this day. The custom of the day involves churches, schools and even businesses to give passers-by water and fruit drinks in honour of the biblical events recounted this day at mass. I am not limiting this to events of the New Testament, but may be from the lives of saints. I welcome input from any Christian denominations