For those who believe that God is outside of time, is Jesus also outside of time? On the one hand Jesus existed in time on Earth during His incarnation and perhaps as the Word of God in the Old Testament. >But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God - Heb.10:12. **Conclusion** The answers below agree that yes, Jesus' spiritual self is outside of time. His physical body was within time.

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Prote >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

In a [debate](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno) between [John Lennox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox) and [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) on the topic *"Can science explain everything?"*, at minute [44:47](https://youtu.be/fSYwCaFkYno?t=2687) John Lennox claims: > Lennox: "And the major reason why I believe that Christianity is true is because--and here comes science again as a base--because **Christianity is testable**." > > Atkins: "Oh nonsense. How can it be tested?" > > Lennox: "Well, Peter, let me face that head-on. Christ said that if a person considered the evidence and came to believe that he was God incarnate who was dying on a cross to give forgiveness and bring peace with God, well we can test that! I've tested it! And I've seen hundreds of people test it. I mean, take an example. I was lecturing at Harvard a while ago to a couple of thousands of people, and when I'd finished, a young Chinese student stood up and he said 'look at me!'. So we we looked at him. And I said why should we look at you? And he was absolutely beaming. He said 'you should look at me because six months ago I came to a lecture you gave at Penn State University. I was at the end. My life was in a complete mess. And something you said triggered a search. And I started to read the New Testament for myself and I became a Christian. And just look at me now.' Now ladies and gentlemen, I've seen that happen not once, not twice, dozens of times. And when you see addiction to drugs transformed at the foot of the table, when you see broken relationships mended, and you ask people what happened to you, and they say variously 'I became a Christian', 'I had an encounter with Christ', you begin to put two and two together and make four! **And I wouldn't sit here for a nanosecond if I didn't believe these promises that Jesus made actually can be fulfilled in a person's life today**. **And that's immensely important to me, the testability of Christian relationship with God**." He makes similar claims in a short 5 min long video titled [Is Christianity testable? | John Lennox at Texas A&M](https://youtu.be/MA9vqWkfrVc) . What is the biblical basis for John Lennox's view? Is this a common view? --- EDIT: for those interested in a philosophical counterpart to this question, consider visiting [Is Christianity testable? Philosophy Stack Exchange](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156)

To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is. > “*For by **a single offering** (blood offering) he has perfected **for all time** those who are being sanctified*.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:14‬ ‭ . > *“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but **by means of his own blood**, thus **securing** an eternal redemption.”* ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:12‬ To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian) —————— The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged > “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:4‬ ‭ Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient? If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind? It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body > *“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but **a body have you prepared for me**;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, **I have come to do your will**, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:5‬,7 > “For **I have come down from heaven**, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭6:38‬* And secondly *“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, **from eternity**.””* ‭‭Micah‬ ‭5:2‬ ‭ If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient? > “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, **how much more will the blood of Christ**, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:11-14‬ Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God? ———— - Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing - One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution - **Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind? It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?**

Let me start by quoting a [question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111993/104300) and top [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/112012/104300) from a different site: > **Is Alzheimer’s disease evidence for the non-existence of the soul?** > > As Alzheimer's disease kills off neurons, a person's personality and cognitive abilities gradually fade away. Doesn't this suggest that the self or "soul" is simply an emergent property of the brain's physical structure and function, rather than some immaterial essence or spirit that exists independently of the body? > > The classical notion of the soul as an immaterial, eternal essence that exists independently of the physical body is challenged by the way Alzheimer's systematically dismantles a person's mental faculties and sense of identity over time. As the disease destroys neurons and neural connections, the patient's personality, memories, and very "self" seem to disintegrate, suggesting that these aspects of the human experience are products of the brain's physical structure and function, rather than some non-physical soul. > Alzheimer's disease (and other brain disorders with some observable > physical effect along with psychology and neuroscience generally) does > seem to make the existence of an immaterial soul much less plausible > and less useful or necessary for explaining anything. > > Science tells us that: > > - Different parts of the brain correspond to different neural functions. > - Physical changes in the brain affects your memories, your emotions, your ability to reason, etc. > - People consistently behave in certain ways given certain environments and stimuli (which isn't direct evidence against a soul, > but does support the claim that we're merely the result of our biology > and environment). > - Etc. > > But the existence of a soul is ultimately unfalsifiable, so someone > can accept all of that and still hold that there's an immaterial soul > by saying roughly either of the following: > > - The soul sort-of mirrors the brain, with some unclear connection between the two (which seems to render the soul completely unnecessary > as a hypothesis) > - There's some separate part of your being that is your soul (but we have no reason to think such a part exists, we don't know what that > part would do, and we already know parts of your physical brain > affects memories and emotions and your reasoning ability, so does the > soul exclude all of that?) > > Also, if one accepts evolution and common descent, the human-only soul > is also a lot less plausible, given the unclear line between humans > and other apes. [Related > answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/110085/does-it-matter-if-certain-professions-have-a-lower-rate-of-theism-and-if-so-wh/110089#110089) . **What arguments do Christian apologists use to defend the soul's existence against the materialist challenge posed by Alzheimer's disease?**

The problem of **theodicy** is the answer to the question of God's justice posed by the evil plainly observable in the world: If God is all-powerful, he has the power to prevent evil. If God is all-knowing, he knows that evil is happening and how to prevent. How, then, can God be just if he does not prevent evil when he could? It's very popular to answer this with the idea of **free will**. God could prevent evil, but he allows people to do evil because our free choice to do or not do evil is necessary in order for us to genuinely do good. In particular for us to have genuine love for God we must have a free choice with the possibility of not loving him. I'm surprised by how commonly people find this an emotionally satisfying answer to the theodicy problem; to me it doesn't help at all. When I first heard it, it seemed strikingly hollow to me. And it still does today. (Please note I'm only talking here about the emotional appeal, not the intellectual appeal.) First of all, it doesn't seem relevant to the theodicy problem. "People have free will, therefore God is justified in not stopping evil" seems like an obvious non sequitur. Free will doesn't generally justify non-intervention in our day-to-day lives. For instance, a police officer who failed to stop an active shooter could not make the excuse that doing so would have interfered with the shooter's free will, nor could the officer defend his own justice by saying that the only way for people to freely obey the law is if they also have the free uncoerced option not too. While it's certainly desirable for people to freely choose to follow the law, I don't see why one would infer from that that it's better not to enforce the law. In the same vein, I note that loving parents regularly interfere with their children's free choice in order to protect them from harm. A father who allowed his child to walk off a cliff when he could have prevented it would be arrested, and couldn't defend himself by saying that he was respecting his child's free choice. Secondly, the claim that genuine love requires the real possibility of not loving seems artificial to me. I don't think I've heard love defined that way outside of this specific context, and it does not seem to apply anywhere else in Christian theology. For instance, we believe that the persons of the Holy Trinity are all mutually loving one another. We would surely never say that the Father's love for the Son is not genuine, nor would we say that the Father might possibly not love the Son. But if neither of those is true, then it cannot be the case that genuine love requires the genuine possibility of not loving. Similarly, isn't the future we look forward to in the Resurrection a future wherein we no longer have the possibility of sinning? But surely we cannot say that in the New Heavens and New Earth we will no longer have free will. And even in popular usage, we often talk about "love" without thinking about whether there is the possibility of not loving. E.g. when I tell my mom I love her, neither of us are thinking that it necessarily entails the possibility it could have been otherwise. I'm sure free will theodicists would say that that is implicit, but it certainly isn't close to the top of mind in most situations. It's not how I *normally* think about love. I am certainly aware that it's possible to philosophize your way out of those problems. This is not intended to be a refutation of free will theodicy, I am simply explaining why it's counterintuitive to me. The solutions to these problems require complex, sophisticated arguments which sacrifice the simple satisfaction that so many people find in free will theodicy. **My question is primarily psychological:** I want to understand why the free will theodicy is appealing. Is it that people generally don't consider these objections, which appear to me to be both obvious and catastrophic? I'm skeptical of that because I don't believe I'm that much smarter than average. Or are the philosophical answers to them actually obvious and straightforward? I'm skeptical of that too because I don't think I'm that much stupider than average. I'd like to believe there is some other explanation which I'm not thinking of. For instance, perhaps there is a better framing of free will theodicy which shifts the intuition such that my objections don't seem so severe. I could imagine that might be possible without requiring too much complexity to be easily understood. **I'm not asking for an explanation that is both airtight and simple**. That's too much to ask from any theological idea. Rather, I'd like to see a simple explanation that doesn't have *obvious* holes. Or if that's not possible, then I'd like to understand the psychology a little better of those who are satisfied by free will theodicy. Perhaps the objections that seem natural to me appear forced? Or perhaps they really do find the sophisticated philosophical defenses of free will theodicy emotionally compelling even though the simple explanation isn't (except as a summary of something more complex)? ---- I apologize if this sounds like a "gotcha" question, but it is a genuine concern for me. Many people I meet put a lot of stake in free will theodicy and I'd like to understand why a little better. Also, to be perfectly clear, I don't believe free will theodicy is a useless or anti-Biblical idea. But I see it as a minor plank or supplementary to a broader theodicy, not as the primary defense of God's justice.

*Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy* (IEP) article on Philo claims that Philo > “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says > “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of Jesus Christ. The IEP article mentions > “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain the Biblical Son of God. Furthermore, and much more important, the IEP article claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New Testament.) The article says Philo > “may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, the IEP article points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IEP), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IEP). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: - In the NT, the Son "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I was established” (Prov 8:23). - Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IEP). The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal generation (IEP). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IEP). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: - In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), the power by which God made and ordered all things (IEP), and the bond holding together all the parts of the world (IEP). - In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: - In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one (Wikipedia ). - Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: - Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. - Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IEP). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: - In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: - In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an unimpaired condition. (IEP) - Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: - In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a divine being” (IEP). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension (IEP). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor created as men (IEP). - Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: - In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IEP). The Logos is a perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IEP); the mediator between God and men (IEP). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). - Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

Agustín Fernández de San Vicente, Canon of the Cathedral of Durango, traveled in 1822 to California as a political emissary. He was a gambler and a dandy who, unsurprisingly, dressed better than the mendicant friars ministering to Californians at the time: > ... the canon's attire was really striking and colorful. His outfit was reddish in color. Whenever some girl or woman would be taken aback by the splendor and colors of his outfit, she would ask, "Who is that man?" [_Testimonio of Juana Machado_, in Beebe and Senkewicz] > > He wears a small calotte, a blue frock coat and a three-cornered hat.... [_The Khlebnikov Archive_] It's not clear to me whether the two quotes describe the same outfit. Traveling through California and conducting meetings with local officials, would the canon have worn some kind of clerical clothing, vestments, or some other non-church clothing? Would his cathedral college have entitled him to fancier clothing than a parish priest of the same diocese?

I recently watched the debate between the Apostate Prophet and Jake Brancatella from DebateCon earlier this year. Jake was a touch aggressive and AP was flakey, but a good discussion regardless. Jake pointed out something interesting in his argument that I think demands attention: In Genesis 37, Joseph's second dream depicts the sun, moon, and eleven stars all bowing to him. Israel then interprets this as Joseph being lauded by his mother, father, and brothers. However, Rachel was already dead and thus was unable to bow to her son in Egypt. **What is the generally-accepted solution to this problem?** I can think of four answers, but I'm not confident about any of them: 1. Rachel and Israel already played favorites with Joseph, before the whole debacle. The window for this is pretty small, because Israel was flabbergasted by the idea when Joseph brought it up. 2. This is a post-mortem thing that will happen in the afterlife. This is unverifiable on our end and I think defies logic. 3. This is not about Rachel, but one of Israel's other wives (Leah was also probably dead, so not her. Still, two other potential candidates). This seems like a bit of a stretch, but it's possible. 4. Rachel (and all the other wives) were of one flesh with Israel through marriage, so his actions may turn over to them via association. I don't think there's precedent for such a reading. What thoughts do others have on this matter? I'll be the first to say that I may be missing a simple answer somewhere.

What does virginity really mean? It appears to me either not to be a categorical variable, or an arbitrary state. My commonplace understanding of virginity would mean that someone had no sex so far; that would lead to virginity being a continuous variable instead of a categorical one, as sex can mean anything between fingering, licking, masturbation, penetration and so on. In the reception history, virginity seems to be a testable claim (see e.g. Jeanne d'Arc). We know now that there is no test for virginity. We could also assume that virginity is a state of mind, but that would make it kind of arbitrary if we do not assume asexuality. There could be another definition, but I doubt that that is how it could be interpreted in our times, and that would be based on the value of a woman for marriage, which would boil down either to the possibility of pregnancy outside of wedlock or sexual experience of any sort, depending on why virginity has such a high value in certain cultures regarding marriage. I am sure I missed something. How do different denominations teach this? What errors did I make in my naive pre-assessment?

In the Book of Acts chapter 1, the name of Mary is only mention in one verse. >All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.-Acts1:14 Is there any Early Church Fathers, Church Fathers, Theologians, Saints or Catholic Church teachings describing the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Upper Room? We know that the Catholic Church proclaimed Mary as the "Mother of the Church". Mary plays an important role in giving birth to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. It follows that, if Mary gave birth to the Head of the Church, and to become the Mother of the Church, She must also give birth to the Church, the Body of Christ. We can also see, that in Mary's presence, in Her visitation to Elizabeth, at Her "greetings", John leaped and Elizabeth were filled with the Holy Spirit. **Is there any Catholic Church writings or doctrines describing the important role of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Upper Room?**

### Background: In the final vision of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet describes a detailed restoration of a Temple and its sacrificial system. There are two relevant elements in these chapters: * **A Temple:** Ezekiel 40–48 describes a massive, precise architectural layout for a Temple which, to date, has never actually been constructed according to these specifications: > "In the visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel and set me down upon a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south." — **Ezekiel 40:2** * **A Prince and Sin Offerings:** The text describes a "prince" (*nasi*) who offers sin sacrifices for his own atonement and that of his people: > "On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering." — **Ezekiel 45:22** ### Question How does the Catholic church/Catholic theologians reconcile the description of animal sacrifices and a physical Temple in Ezekiel 44–46 with the New Testament teaching that Christ is the final, sufficient sacrifice?

Some Christians reject the doctrine that the punishment of hell is everlasting, instead holding views such as annihilationism or conditional immortality. However, this raises questions about how these views are reconciled with Jesus’ own words. In Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as a place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” language that appears to suggest ongoing, unending punishment. Similarly, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal life,” using the same Greek adjective (aiōnios) to describe both outcomes. For those who deny that hell is everlasting: - How are these passages interpreted in a way that avoids an eternal duration? - Is aiōnios understood differently when applied to punishment versus life, and on what linguistic or theological basis? - How do these interpretations remain consistent with Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels?

As stated into the Catechism > **CCC 1996:** Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. and also > **CCC 1997:** Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. Grace is the action of God, through the Holy Spirit, of sanctifying the soul, i.e. transforming it to be in conformitiy with God. Thus, my question is how can we talk about God disposing greater graces to some or lesser graces to others? And if its only a "matter of language", how can we talk about some saints being greater or lesser than others, e.g. The Blessed Virgin Mary being the Most Holy and greatest of all saints?

I Cor 5, Mt 18:15-17 and 2 Thes 3:6-15 speak of disassociating from unrepentant but professing Christians in the local body. Is it biblical to disassociate with an unrepentant Christian from a different church (thus under different leadership) who hasn’t been excommunicated from their own local church? How would a Reformed Protestant church answer this?

Which other ante-Nicene fathers besides Victorinus of Pettau (AD 250-303) believed that Rev 7's 144,000 were Jews in the Great Tribulation?

One of the key differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the practice of prayer to saints in heaven, which encouraged in Catholicism but absent in Protestantism. My question is, **according to Catholic teaching, when did this practice begin?** I can find many resources from Catholic sources arguing that it ancient Christians prayed to the saints, pushing the beginning back at least to the late 1st or early 2nd century. How much older they believe "at least" means is not clear. For instance, this article at Catholic Answers has a lengthy collection of quotes from the Fathers, the earliest of which cited is Shephard of Hermas. However, it doesn't say when this practice actually began. They give a Biblical argument for its legitimacy, but nowhere claim that any of the Biblical figures *actually did* pray to deceased saints in heaven. So, I can think of several possibilities for the origin that are consistent with that: * It was first practiced by the early church shortly after the Apostles. * It was first practiced by the Apostles after the ascension of Christ, as an inference from his teachings and revelation from the Holy Spirit. * It was explicitly affirmed by Jesus to the Apostles while he was on the earth. * It was already practiced prior to the Incarnation. The last of these is the most interesting. If it's a pre-Incarnation practice, how far back does it go? Might Noah have prayed to Seth, for instance? Or is it an intertestamental development? Or somewhere in between? *Please note I am **not** asking about any of the following:* 1. Critical perspectives on the origin of prayers to saints. (I want a Catholic perspective.) 2. The idea that the saints in heaven pray for people still on Earth. (That's something Protestants generally accept; the point of difference is whether *we* should invoke *them*, not whether they're praying for us.) 3. The theological foundations of the intercession of the saints. (I want to know when it began to *actually be practiced by the Church,* not when it could have been theoretically valid.) 4. Anything related to prayers to angels. (I'm specifically asking about prayer to human beings in heaven.) 5. Prayers on behalf of the deceased, such as 2nd Maccabees 12:42-46. (There's a significant difference between praying *to* and praying *for* the deceased—in the former case the living are communicating directly with the dead while in the latter they are not.)

In Genesis 2:2–3, God rests on the seventh day and blesses and sanctifies it. However, the explicit command to observe the Sabbath does not appear until Exodus 16 and is formally given in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:8–11. Does Genesis imply that the sanctification of the seventh day functioned as an ordinance for humanity from creation? Or is the Sabbath understood in Christian theology to have been instituted later, particularly within the Mosaic covenant?

What does Isaiah 43:26 really means. Some persons say God said we should remind him of his word but I dont get that meaning although I reviewed several versions of the Bible. >Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified. [Isaiah 43:26 KJV] >Cause me to remember -- we are judged together, Declare thou that thou mayest be justified. [Isaiah 43:26 Young's Literal]

In Genesis 8:8–12, Noah sends out a dove that returns with an olive leaf, signaling peace, renewal, and the end of God’s judgment through the Flood. In the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 3:16), the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus “like a dove” at His baptism, marking the beginning of His ministry. Within Christian theology, is the dove in Noah’s account understood as a foreshadowing or symbolic parallel to the dove appearing at Christ’s baptism? Do major Christian traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology) interpret these events as typologically connected, or are they generally treated as sharing symbolic imagery without an intended theological link? I am interested in answers grounded in Christian doctrinal teaching, historical theology, or respected theological commentary.