### Background *Sola Scriptura* is commonly defined as follows > **The Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for faith** (alternatively doctrine) **and practice.** Protestant discussions about the scriptural basis for *Sola Scriptura* nearly always involve 2 Timothy 3:16 and other NT verses, but I have not seen Protestants argue for for *Sola Scriptura* on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. ### Question Do Protestants believe the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament taught *Sola Scriptura* prior to the advent of Christianity and the writing of the New Testament? If so, which passages teach this? If not, how do they explain this doctrine only being introduced by the New Testament?

According to Catholicism, can Satan or the Devils perform true and genuine miracles? God can perform great wonders and miracle, but can the Devil and his minions perform such wonders and miracles as Almighty God is able to perform. > A miracle is defined as an extraordinary sensible effect wrought by God that surpasses the power and order of created nature. - [What Constitutes a Miracle?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-constitutes-a-miracle)

At the beginning, the apostles gave the teachings of Jesus Christ to the people, and the communities continued their lives, occasionally meeting to talk about God and / or to perform the Eucharist. And then the next historical information is that there were churches, and priests structured hierarchically with ranks like in armies and so on. So, when was the transition done from "people changing their lives according to the teachings of Jesus Christ" to full fledged religion with temples (churches) and priests? As far as I know Jesus: - came to fulfill the (existing) law, not to cancel it or its prophets (Matthew 5:17) - sent the apostles to teach - did not send anyone to administrate / organize anything (food, widows...) - did not command anyone to build any temple (church) - did never show any love towards priests and other "spiritual" leaders.

We are told that God calls, but is there any denomination which describes the nature of that call? >9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord - 1 Cor.1:9. 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God - 1 Cor.1:24. For instance, if it is a voice in our mind , what does it say? Or if it's an urge, what are we urged to do? **Summarizing the answers** - God's saving call is the Gospel message we'd probably already heard. The difference is that God opens our spiritual ears to accept that call.

The book 'The Tragedy of the Six Marys ' catalogues the practice of '*P'ikareum* ' within the Unification Church as led by Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han, his wife, this practice being a supposed 'purification' of inbred sin in a woman by conjoining with the leader of the organisation (who took the title 'Father') and, supposedly, by that act, the 'inbred sin in her womb' was 'purified'. >Apart from the continuing controversy about its alleged practice in the Unification Church, in 1957 Korean journalist Kim Gyeongrae published several articles and a book tracing the roots of p'ikareum to Kim Baek Moon and the Israel Monastery and claiming, offering some evidence, that it was practised by what was at that time the largest Christian new religious movement in Korea, the Olive Tree founded by Park Tae-Seon (1915–1990). The Victory Altar, an offshoot of the Olive Tree, was also accused of having practised *p'ikareum* in its early days. Wikipedia - *P'ikareum* Sun Myung Moon died on 3rd September 2012 and shortly after his death, in a YouTube video his son, Hyung Jin Moon, appears to admit that his father did, indeed, engage in such a practice. However, in a later video, erroneously titled 'Hyung Jin Sean Moon and Kook Jin Justin Moon explain the Six Marys Part 7' (for he does not explain anything at all) he appears, wearing a crown and calling himself 'King', to condone his father and blames his mother. The video is rambling, skirting the subject without fully addressing it. I am therefore not clear as to whether *'P'ikareum'* is still being practiced by the Unification Church itself, or by the various organisations started under the leadership of the Moon family which have split from each other. I am looking for substantial evidence either way.

My question is directed to the Catholic perspective. While meditating on the Ascension of Our Lord, this thought came to my mind: There's only One Christ, which ascended into Heaven. If so, does that mean that when we unite ourselves to Him, be in our sorrows uniting to His, or our joys or some other aspect of the human life, does that mean this which we unite to Him (or what is His) is elevated to Heaven also, respecting, of course, the degree of perfection of this union? Furthermore, if that is the case, is this at least one sense of Christ's mediation between us and God? I'm asking this because I'm new to the faith, a cathecumen indeed.

Was the encounter of Yeshua (Jesus) with the Samaritan woman that had 5 husbands after any of the times that He talked about divorce and remarriage, like, for example, in the Sermon of the Mount? It is important to know whether His law of divorce and remarriage was already in place when He talked to her.

From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that: >God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, >has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath". >Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith >and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all >graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for >heaven. (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism .) 1. Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction? 2. If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2:5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the disobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2:17), that Christ fulfilled the Law and was exalted above all creation. Meditating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a Catholic opinion, and it's indeed Catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, had the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including on the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfilled the Law firstly in virtue of his holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), I have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the Catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to Catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be too simple (I have not completed my catechism yet, if this can serve as an excuse), but what I'm really searching is how to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and to go more deeply in this mystery. God bless.

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that he may be punished on our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the Offended something that He loves equally or even more than He hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of humankind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general terms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He, being God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why is it that Christ's sacrifice needs to be in the sense of Christ giving His life to suffer and die on the cross, instead of just an offering of Himself in a less bloodshed way? I know that God could save us in any other way, for He is omnipotent, and that He chose the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I came to another facet of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Gethsemane He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how can the Father is pleased in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven by feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I want a way to resolve this. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

**Question:** Does God, according to Calvinism, command people *He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so* to repent and believe in Christ *or be damned?*1, 2 And if so, why? --- Scriptures such as as 1 Corinthians 10:13 come to mind: >(NASB) No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. The inverse of which means God would be *unjust* to tempt (or let suffer temptation rather: James 1:13) and *not* give any means of escape. Thanks in advance. --- 1 By 'choice' I don't mean a 'creaturely will' as James White puts it, but a will that can choose salvation or damnation with the help of God post Fall (in the sense of refusing salvation in the case of damnation; and in the sense of accepting Christ and all that means in the case of salvation). I specify this as a 'creaturely will' which God *invented to specifically not choose* salvation does not meet the definition of 'was given the choice to be saved,' since such a choice was never even theoretically possible. Choice is here assumed to mean there is more than one *really possible* outcome (else choice is defined as 'you are free to do exactly what I tell you and nothing else.' 2 By 'ability' I mean the real and not merely theoretical capacity and power to do or perform some thing.

According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which Apostle is believed to have celebrated the Eucharist first? The question is quite simple. Is there any tradition of any apostle in particular who is believed to be the first to say mass, following the Resurrection of Christ? I am not overly confident that such a traditional belief exist within either Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism! One may use references from Sacred Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers or other sources if applicable like the writings of recognized Christian mystics, like Catherine of Siënna to help find an answer.

I think I know at least 2: Abraham and Moses. Are there any others? Were the Prophets just inspired or did any of them talk to God?

I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like *"Praise the Lord"* and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the **main purpose** of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from Genesis 1:28 is to *multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.* Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God?

The Upper Room is associated with the word "cenacle". >The term "cenacle" refers to a small faith-sharing group, particularly in the context of the Roman Catholic Church. It is derived from the Latin word "coenaculum," meaning dining room, and is historically associated with the site where Jesus held the Last Supper with the apostles. The cenacle is also the location where the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles on Pentecost, making it a significant site in Christian tradition. Since cenacle is associated with Jesus at the Last Supper, where Jesus was seen as teaching the Apostles how to consecrate the bread and wine, it follows that the Apostles at the Upper Room, during the 50 days preparation, had celebrated the First Holy Mass. The possibilities is high, as we know that during the consecration of the bread and wine, the Holy Spirit will come down to sanctify it, and so, the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Upper Room, is because of the First Celebration of the Holy Mass. And the Book of Acts described the Apostles as if they were drunk, correlating with drinking the wine, like in the Last Supper. **Is there a Catholic writings, pointing to the Upper Room, where the first celebration of the Holy Mass, and the Apostles or Apostle acting as the Bishop/Priest celebrant, was believed to occured?**

I believe that when Paul stated that he thanked God that he spoke with tongues more than the others that he actually meant that he knew more "foreign languages" than the others... otherwise, it would be virtually impossible to know that he "spoke in tongues" more than the others without taking a survey from the people or being around them all 24 hours per day.

In researching for this question, I found other questions/answers that make me believe Elohim in genesis is translated as singular because it is associated with singular verb forms (as well as plural like "let us make man in our image"). Are there textual variants where these verb forms are plural as well? I find it very strange that the Bible mentions a divine council multiple times, but then genesis has the bare minimum of singular verb forms to make it clear Elohim is speaking alone, in a place where it would be natural to just have a divine council (for example, of God + his angels).

**Do Unitarian Universalist churches acknowledge the possibility that the Quran may be the inspired Word of God?** **Wikipedia** states the following, but I desire to know if Unitarians nowadays hold the Qur’an as being inspired from God. > **Approach to sacred writings** > > Originally, both Unitarianism and Universalism were Christian denominations, and U.U.s still reference Jewish and Christian texts. Today, the Unitarian Universalist approach to sacred writings, including the Christian Bible and Hebrew Scriptures, is taken more broadly: > > > While Unitarianism and Universalism both have roots in the Protestant Christian tradition, where the Bible is the sacred text, we now look to additional sources for religious and moral inspiration ... . We celebrate the spiritual insights of the world’s religions, recognizing wisdom in many scriptures. > > > When we read scripture in worship, whether it is the Bible, the **Dhammapada** , or the **Tao Te-Ching** , we interpret it as a product of its time and its place, ... not to be interpreted narrowly or oppressively ...[S]cripture is never the only word, or the final word. > > > From the beginning we have trusted in the human capacity to use reason and draw conclusions about religion ... [E]ach of us ultimately chooses what is sacred to us. > > Unitarian Universalists regard the texts of the world's religions as venerable works of different peoples attempting to understand and explain 'the mystery' and 'the sacred' that surrounds all human existence and experience. They treat with respect the scriptural works of peoples of all religions or spiritual backgrounds.

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?**

I'm hoping someone can refer me to a graphic, flowchart or even a list of when various Christian denominations formed. For example, a biggie is the Lutheran church breaking off from the Catholic church. Or the Anglican church splitting off from the Catholic one. Will appreciate any help, thank you.