I’m researching the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. I understand that it is not part of the canonical Bible, but that it appears in early Syriac Christian writings, such as the homilies of Jacob of Serugh (5th–6th century CE). I’m curious about how this story is viewed within Christian traditions today, particularly Eastern/Syriac Christianity: Is it considered purely devotional or moral literature, or is it treated as a historical event? How do clergy or believers engage with it—do they tell it as a story for inspiration, include it in liturgy, or otherwise reference it? Are there any standard interpretations or lessons emphasized by these communities? I’m interested in both historical and contemporary perspectives on the story in Syriac/Eastern Christian traditions.

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

Can a woman whose husband is a credo-baptist believer still go to mass with her husband and family? If they want to delay baptism of their children until they are capable of thinking for themselves will you get kicked out of the Catholic church? They are both Catholics; the husband just feels that baptism is something a person has to decide for him/herself to do. The parents do want their kids baptized; they just want them to choose to do so (when they are mature enough to decide).

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

In Christian theology, what is understood to happen immediately after a person dies? Some biblical passages seem to suggest that the dead go to a general realm of the dead (often referred to as Sheol or Hades), while others describe conscious states such as paradise or torment. Additionally, Scripture strongly prohibits consulting the dead, yet there are passages that appear to depict interaction with deceased individuals. How do mainstream Protestant doctrines reconcile the following questions: 1. Do people, upon death, go immediately to paradise or torment, or do they enter a general realm of the dead awaiting final judgment? I am looking for a doctrinally grounded answer using Scripture and recognized Christian theological frameworks.

In Trinitarian readings of 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is often argued (e.g., by Dr. James White ) that Paul intentionally echoes the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 and “expands” it by identifying: - “one God” with the Father - “one Lord (κύριος)” with Jesus Christ On this view, Paul is said to include Jesus within the unique divine identity of YHWH while maintaining Jewish monotheism. **My question is directed to Christians who hold a non‑Trinitarian or Unitarian view:** **What are the primary exegetical and hermeneutical objections to interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a deliberate expansion or reformulation of the Shema?** In particular: - What reasons are there for denying that Paul is intentionally alluding to Deuteronomy 6:4? - How should the distinction between “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” be understood within first‑century Jewish monotheism? - Does Paul’s use of κύριος necessarily imply identification with YHWH, or can it be explained in functional or representative terms? Answers should focus on biblical, linguistic, and contextual considerations, rather than appeals to later creeds or post‑biblical theology.

According to Colossians, there appears to be some disagreement amongst the first century church on *whether* to keep the Sabbath: > Colossians 2:16 > > Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a **Sabbath day**. Did the first century church keep the Sabbath? And if so which day was it on? The Jewish Saturday or the new Christian Sunday?

The question arises whether the millennium is a literal 1000 year period, or a symbolic one. Perhaps the answer could be better ascertained if we look at other prophesied time periods, ones that were already fulfilled, and see what that shows us. Off the top of my head I can think of the several below, all of them fulfilled literally; but I'm not sure how to research this and perhaps others might be able to contribute some other instances, whether literal or symbolic. Here are the instances already thought of: The dreams of Pharaoh's officials interpreted by Joseph as to occur in 3 days in Genesis 40; The 7 years of famine in Pharaoh's dreams in Genesis 41; Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about his insanity in Dan. 4; The 70 years of the Babylonian captivity as prophesied in Jeremiah 25:11-13 and 29:11; Jesus' prophesy regarding being in the tomb 3 days in Matt. 12:40, Mark 8:41, and John 2:19; The destruction of Jerusalem, occurring in the generation still living after Jesus' death and resurrection in Matthew 24:34. The question is directed to any serious student of the Bible. Note that the prophesy has to have been fulfilled already (partial fulfillment is fine), in order to evaluate whether it was literal, or symbolic. Please Note: I am not looking for a defense or rebuttal of pre-post or a-millenialism, nor for general instances of fulfilled prophesy, but for specified time periods of future events, that were fulfilled.

I’m trying to identify an edition of Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman that includes a Q&A section containing the following quote: >If he [Bruce Metzger] and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement—maybe one or two dozen out of many thousands. The copies I’ve checked (Amazon paperback and Kindle editions) do not include this Q&A. Does anyone know which edition or supplemental material contains this exchange, or where the quote is sourced?

One of the defining characteristics of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Israel, meaning the Jewish people, was given specific promises regarding the land of Israel, which are not applicable to the Church in any way but to the Jews only. As I understand it, Dispensationalists believe these will be fulfilled during the Millennium. I am still trying to wrap my head around the Dispensationalist idea of Israelology, by which they mean the study of the Biblical concept of "Israel." They would define it as an ethnic/genetic category, as the descendants of Israel, a.k.a. Jacob. In Orthodox Judaism, one is considered a Jew if your mother is Jewish or if you are a Halahically valid convert to Judaism, i.e. it is both matrilineal and by conversion. My understanding is that Dispensationalism, at least in its classical form, would exclude converts to Judaism from their definition of "Israel" (see for instance this article ). **What is unclear to me is whether physical descent is defined (by Dispensationalists) matrilineally or patrilineally or some mixture. For instance, if my maternal grandfather and/or paternal grandmother are part of Israel, am I?** I have not been able to find a source that gives a well-defined answer to this question. ChatGPT told me that the Dispensationalist theologian Arnold Fruchtenbaum, head of Ariel Ministries argued in his book *Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology* for a patrilineal-only definition of Israel, but without having a copy of that book, I haven't been able to track down any explicit statement to that effect. The quote from Jon Mark Ruthven cited in this article suggests that Ruthven might include either matrilineal or patrilineal descent: > The tradition of identifying a Jew as one whose mother was Jew may represent an attempt to preserve the genetic identity of Jews in the Diaspora. Before that, Jews were those whose fathers were Jews. During the dispersion, oppression of the Jews made it difficult to know who someone’s father was, due to the frequent rape of Jewish women by their oppressors, in times of war and peace. Conversions to Judaism, of course, complicate this purely genetic model somewhat. But the children of these concerts will marry Jews and raise their children to do the same. So Jewish genes soon predominate. However, the quote doesn't define what "Jewish genes" means. It surely does not imply that a genetic Jew is someone whose genetic material is mostly derived from the patriarchs, as that would almost certainly not be applicable to anyone at all who is separated from them by more than two generations. He also does not say whether the shift from patrilineal to matrilineal was legitimate as regards the covenants. To be clear, I am asking about the full Israelite identity, as Dispensationalists often separate partaking fully in the covenants verses spiritual blessings only. I am asking about those who are full partakers in the OT covenants -- is it common among Dispensationalists to believe that this is exclusively for those who are patrilineally descended from Jacob? How is this Israelite identity determined?

While I believe that some of the spiritual gifts listed in the Bible are still operational to us today in the Body of Christ, should the Apostolic sign gifts to do healings and miracle still be existing, or were ceased to be in operation once John had passed away? Looking to have those who hold to Charismatic Biblical Theology to answer this please

Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament. Revelation 11:19 KJV > And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain. Exodus 25:9 KJV > According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. Exodus 25:40 KJV > And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount. The word translated here as *pattern* could have just as easily been translated *model*. >H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f. >1. structure >2. (by implication) a model, resemblance >KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude. Are there any theological suppositions about this?

As a child, I had consistent nightmares about a demonic character who would offer me the power to fly but would demand blood from me as payment. These nightmares began at age 6 and continued until approximately age 12. I had several recurring nightmares again from age 19 until age 23, with essentially the same form: this demonic character would appear in my dreams and demand blood. These dreams became more violent and graphic, with the demon showing me his name written in blood on my thighs, and demanding that I etch his name on my body with a blade that he would offer in my dreams. Obviously, these nightmare have been deeply disturbing to me. I moved to Israel at age 28 (6 years ago). Until last night, I had not had any dreams with this character since moving to Israel. Last night, I had a similar dream, but the demon appeared as a dead and bleeding (but somehow still alive) character trying to drown me in dark water. I want to emphasize that I don't believe in demons (or angels). I'm not a spiritual person, and I'm only minimally religious (Jewish). But I'm wondering if anyone can speak to the potential significance of these dreams (if there is any). What do Christian teachings have to say about demons?

### Question During discussions of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's golden plates, I often hear about "The Kinderhook Plates". What are these plates, what is their connection to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and what is their significance?

I'm reading *St. Seraphim of Sarov: On the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit (Conversation with Motovilov)* ([pdf](https://eeparchy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2013/05/ST.-SERAPHIM-OF-SAROV-ON-THE-ACQUISITION-OF-THE-HOLY-SPIRIT-Conversation-with-Motovilov-.pdf)) . For context: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_of_Sarov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Motovilov On pp. 5–6, Seraphim says (emphasis mine): > "Your Godliness deigns to think it a great happiness to talk to poor > Seraphim, believing that even he is not bereft of the grace of the > Lord. What then shall we say of the Lord Himself, the never-failing > source of every blessing both heavenly and earthly? Truly in prayer we > are granted to converse with Him, our all-gracious and life-giving God > and Savior Himself. **But even here we must pray only until God the > Holy Spirit descends on us in measures of His heavenly grace known to > Him**. **And when He deigns to visit us, we must stop praying**. Why > should we then pray to Him, 'Come and abide in us and cleanse us from > all impurity and save our souls, O Good One,' when He has already come > to us to save us, who trust in Him, and truly call on His holy Name, > that humbly and lovingly we may receive Him, the Comforter, in the > mansions of our souls, hungering and thirsting for His coming? > > "I will explain this point to your Godliness through an example. > **Imagine that you have invited me to pay you a visit, and at your invitation I come to have a talk with you**. But you continue to > invite me, saying: 'Come in, please. Do come in!' Then I should be > obliged to think: 'What is the matter with him? Is he out of his > mind?' > > "So it is with regard to our Lord God the Holy Spirit. That is why it > is said: Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the > nations. I will be exalted in the earth (Ps. 45:10). **That is, I > will appear and will continue to appear to everyone who believes in Me > and calls upon Me, and I will converse with him as once I conversed > with Adam in Paradise, with Abraham and Jacob and other servants of > Mine, with Moses and Job, and those like them.** > > Many explain that this stillness refers only to worldly matters; in > other words, that during prayerful converse with God you must 'be > still' with regard to worldly affairs. But I will tell you in the name > of God that not only is it necessary to be dead to them at prayer, but > **when by the omnipotent power of faith and prayer our Lord God the Holy** > **Spirit condescends to visit us, and comes to us in the plenitude of** > **His unutterable goodness**, we must be dead to prayer too. > > "The soul speaks and converses during prayer, **but at the descent of > the Holy Spirit** we must remain in complete silence, in order to hear > clearly and intelligibly all the words of eternal life which he will > then deign to communicate. Complete soberness of soul and spirit, and > chaste purity of body is required at the same time. The same demands > were made at Mount Horeb, when the Israelites were told not even to > touch their wives for three days before the appearance of God on Mount > Sinai. For our God is a fire which consumes everything unclean, and no > one who is defiled in body or spirit can enter into communion with > Him." As I understand it, Seraphim describes prayer as "inviting" the Holy Spirit, and teaches that when the Spirit "visits" in a special way, one should cease speaking (even cease verbal prayer) and attend in silence to what God communicates. This sounds mystical/contemplative, and also resembles some Pentecostal/charismatic language about experiencing the Spirit's presence. How do Protestants generally evaluate this kind of pursuit? Specifically: - Do Protestants believe Christians should *seek* special "visitations" or intensified experiences of the Holy Spirit during prayer, beyond the Spirit's ordinary indwelling? - Would Protestants agree with the idea that, when such a visitation occurs, one should stop speaking and listen in silence for communication from the Spirit? - Are there particular Protestant traditions (e.g., Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal/charismatic) that would affirm or reject this, and on what biblical/theological grounds?

On page 145 of [*Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi*](https://ia600408.us.archive.org/4/items/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi/SeraphicFatherStFrancisOfAssisi.pdf) , we find the following sentence: >"IV. Fly from creatures, if thou desirest to possess creatures." QUESTION: What does St. Francis of Assisi mean by this quote? --- The context is: > ## FAVOURITE SENTENCES OF THE HOLY FATHER ST. FRANCIS.‡ > > - I. THESE are the weapons by which the chaste soul is overcome: looks, speeches, touches, embraces. > - II. He who retires into the desert avoids three combats: seeing, hearing, and detraction. > - III. Beloved, in this vale of misery may you possess nothing so fair and so delightful that your soul would be entirely occupied with it. > - IV. Fly from creatures, if thou desirest to possess creatures. > - V. Fly from the world, if thou wilt be pure. If thou art pure, the world does not delight thee.† > - VI. Fly, keep silence, and be quiet. > - VII. If thou excusest thyself, God will accuse thee; and if thou accusest thyself, God will excuse thee. > - VIII/ He is not perfectly good who cannot be good among the wicked. > - IX. Temptation, when it is not consented to, is matter for the exercise of virtue, > - X. Love makes all heavy things light, and all bitter things sweet. > - XI. The love of God is never idle. > - XII. Rich clothing and sumptuous dwellings, eating, drinking, sleep, and idleness, enervate men, and foster luxury. > - XIII. When I say 'Hail Mary,' the heavens smile, the angels rejoice, the world exults, hell trembles, the devils fly. > - XIV. As wax melts before the heat of the fire, and dust is scattered by the wind, so the whole army of the evil spirits is dispersed by the invocation of the holy Name of Mary. > - XV. Let every creature become more despicable to the heart, that the Creator may become more sweet. > > ‡ These *Sentences* were frequently used by St. Francis in instructing his Brethren. Some are his own, others are taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or composed according to their doctrine. > > † The play upon the words is lost in the translation. 'Fuge *mundum*, si vis esse *mundus*. Si tu es *mundus*, jam non delectat te *mundus*.'

Scripture clearly warns believers to avoid divisions and those who cause them. For example, Paul writes: >“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” — Romans 16:17 (NKJV) Yet throughout history, we see Christians forming separate factions or denominations. A notable example is the Eastern Orthodox Church, which formally split from the Roman Catholic Church in the Great Schism of 1054 over issues including papal authority, doctrinal disputes, and cultural differences. Given this, how do Christians understand the tension between the biblical call for unity and the historical reality of denominational splits? What principles should guide believers today in maintaining unity without compromising essential doctrine?

Matthew 1:23 uses the word [G3933 - parthenos](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3933/kjv/tr/0-1/) . Thayer's Greek Lexicon says it can mean: - a virgin. - a marriageable maiden, or a young (married) woman. He is quoting Isaiah 7:14, which uses the word [H5959 - ʿalmâ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5959/kjv/wlc/0-1/) . This Hebrew word is defined as: - young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Almost all English translations render it as "virgin". Whether it's "virgin", "maid", "marriageable maiden", "newly married", or whatever, it really doesn't make much difference, as Matthew clearly provides the detail that *is* significant: - 1:18 "*with child of the Holy Ghost*". - 1:20 "*that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost*". It's obvious why the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox) would want "virgin" to be the translation, but why do any other Christian denominations care about it? --- # Note that this is not asking about the Roman/Orthodox position, nor is it asking for what the "correct" translation is. (Yes, I know it's bad form to shout like that, but too many people don't seem to notice it otherwise.) It is asking why *non-Catholic* denominations also seem to believe the "virgin" translation is important and significant. It is similar to, but not a duplicate of [*Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2414/why-was-it-necessary-for-mary-to-be-a-virgin) , as that was too broadly scoped, and was doctrinal rather than about translation.

In apocalyptic works, such as Revelation or the later chapters of Daniel, there is often vivid imagery meant to symbolize other things, especially real-world events (either historical or future). Given the cryptic nature of such passages, they are often the subject of many diverse and conflicting interpretations. One of the most famous such disputes is over the 1000-year period in Revelation 20, which most premillennialists and some postmillennialists take a literal duration of time for the described period, while others take the length of time as symbolic. **My question is whether there is precedent for a vision containing of a definite period of time, where the duration is clearly intended by the author to be taken nonliterally.** As far as I am aware, there is no passage in the biblical apocalyptic texts which mentions a definite period of time such that Christians *uncontroversially* interpret the duration nonliterally. However, I am largely unfamiliar with extra biblical apocalyptic literature. There is a lot of it preserved from the intertestamental period and first couple of centuries AD, but of this the only portions I read are the Septuagint's additions to Esther and the Shepherd of Hermas. **I am looking for any example of an apocalyptic book with these three properties:** 1. Has a definite period of time described in the vision, i.e. with a number and a clear unit, such as "1000 years" or "42 months", or whatever number and unit of time; 2. The intended meaning of that definite period of time is made explicit somewhere in the book. (If there is an alternative means by which the intended meaning could be clear and uncontested, that would also be acceptable); 3. The length of time of the real period of time does not correspond to the time period given in the vision. I am especially interested to see any example where there isn't a correspondence of one unit of time with another, such as days in the vision equally years in real life. (Such a book, of course, ought to be one which might be found in a Christian context, i.e. either written by Christians for Christians or originating from intertestamental Judaism.) Something that isn't a period of time being used for a period of time is not what I am looking for, such as the cows representing years in Genesis 41:3-4. However, it would be a valid example if a time interval were symbolic for something nontemporal, such as 7 years in the vision representing 7 cows in real life.