I was listening to a recent Pints with Aquinas (about 25 minutes in) https://open.spotify.com/episode/4GTsBlLybMDqQCxdYltRO4?si=fd22facaad8040a5 the priest being interviewed was talking about different color clerical shirts having some hidden meaning. Is there a list of secret meanings behind this clerical garb? Gray, white, etc... were there other colors that were used in the 1960's and 1970's?

I was just reading about eschatology and somebody was stating that this verse suggests that there will be a one world religion, a false religion: > Revelation 17:1–18 (ESV) > > 1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said > to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who > is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have > committed sexual immorality ... Where is support for this concept found in other scriptures?

It is my understand that John Calvin arrived at Geneva in 1537; and then, because of various theological disagreements and conflicts, was exiled a year later. Then, some years later (1541 I think it was), he not only returned to Geneva, but had been *invited* to do so. QUESTION: Why was John Calvin invited to return to Geneva?

### Introduction In the Hebrew Bible in Deuteronomy 30:15, God says that He is who sets the choice between good and evil before people: > See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. In the Lords Prayer in Matthew 6, God is asked to not lead people into temptation: > Our Father who art in heaven, > Hallowed be thy name. ... > **And lead us not into temptation**, > But deliver us from evil. There seems to be many possible answers from the Christian bible: Satan, mankind's own fallen nature, or even Jesus himself. ### Question In Protestant theology, who or what tempts people into sin?

1 Corinthians 7:4 says: > The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. If a man sleeps with another woman without his wife's knowledge or consent, that would be adultery. But what if he does so at the **behest** of his wife, with her knowledge and consent, even instigation, as Abraham did with Hagar at Sarah's suggestion? Is he then relinquishing "authority" over his own body but yielding it to his wife? I'm interested in an _overview_ of the views of various Christian denominations on this, or other forms of consensual (on the part of both/all parties) open marriages - are there any that consider them to be okay?

One New Testament exhortation is "judge not, lest you be judged." On the other hand, Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." Is there any Christian sect, or school of thought believes the converse of the first line, something like "Judge and let yourself be judged?" The core belief here would be something like, "You are a wicked, evil, sinful (wo)man--and so am I." (That's per the Romans passage.) Put another way, is it possible to pass judgment on e.g. Adolf Hitler, knowing that "in his shoes, you or I might have done the same or similar things?" Some commenters below believe that a Christian can, and should judge the actions of others, while refraining from judging the "righteousness" of the person. Another opined that the admonition is against "hypocrisy," that the "converse" is OK, if you realize that "as you deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal." Are either of these ideas in line with what the Scripture says? I am interested in an overview about what various sects say about judging others.

I was looking for information about the founders of Jehovah's Witnesses. It looks like some notable early people were the founder Charles T. Russell and then Joseph F. Rutherford who was the president after Russell's death. The material at Jehovah's Witnesses websites (here , and here ) however does not provide a lot of information on the titles these or other leaders were referred by, or how their statements or writings were viewed. Example from paragraph 7 in an article titled "Methods of Preaching​—Using Every Means to Reach People" (located here ): > The second event was the death of Brother Russell on October 31, 1916. > Thus, The Watch Tower of December 15, 1916, announced: “Now that > Brother Russell has passed beyond, the sermon feature [in the > newspapers] will be discontinued entirely.” Although this avenue of > preaching came to an end, other methods, such as the “Photo-Drama of > Creation,” continued to have great success. Example from an article titled “When Are We Going to Have Another Assembly?”, located here : > During his visit, Brother Rutherford encouraged these faithful ones > very much with two motivating talks at the convention and five > lectures that were broadcast on the radio. The only reference to a title I have found so far is "brother". **Questions to JWs:** 1. Do you use any other titles ("Reverend"/"Prophet"/"Elder"/etc.) when referring to those who are currently, or have been in the past, in high standing in your organization? 2. Do you consider anybody currently alive, or anyone who has been on earth since Jesus, to be a prophet (someone put in position by God to foretell future events)? 3. Do you consider any current or past JWs to have been infallible? 4. Do you have any books or other writings that are considered sacred or infallible (excluding the Bible)?

I’m seeking some theological and exegetical insight regarding the use of the word “appoint” in the New Testament passages about the establishment of elders (e.g. Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). In many English translations, appoint can sound like a top-down decision made by a few leaders. However, the Greek terms involved (such as χειροτονέω and καθίστημι) seem to carry a broader sense related to recognition, commissioning, or placing someone into a role, often within a communal or ecclesial context. My question is this: Does the New Testament use of “appoint elders” necessarily imply a unilateral decision by church leaders, or does it presuppose some form of communal discernment, recognition, or confirmation by the local church? I would appreciate perspectives from biblical studies, church history, or different ecclesiological traditions.

Both Peter and Paul disapprove the use of jewelry in plain words. > “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. ” 1 Peter 3:3-4 KJV Then again, >“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” 1 Timothy 2:9-10 KJV Did the early Christian women wear jewels? Edit: I am looking for biblical or extrabiblical history / description of Christian women's apparel / ornaments or the lack of it.

Many Christians believe that the writing of the Bible was inspired by God, and that its content is (essentially) correct. I would like to understand on what this belief is based. Obviously it cannot be based on the Bible itself, this would be circular reasoning. What I could imagine: - through prayer or your personal connection with God you came to this conclusion. - there is someone (living, or from the past) that told you this and fully trust that person. - Maybe something else?

Indeed, Paul wrote of the "mystery" of a man and a woman symbolizing Christ and the Church. But he also maintained that the marriage relationship was to be holy. (Hebrews 13:4) And the mention of the "Bride" in Revelation 19:7 and 21:2 depicts a more modest picture. However some have avowed that the racy, quite suggestive melo-drama / opera of ***the Song of Solomon*** is a picture of Christ and the Church! But what we are told of Solomon's life, he was quite addicted to sensual relationships: a thousand wives! And concubines! How could he be considered an authority--even inspired authority--on connubial relationships? ***What hermeneutical reasoning guides these theologians, and justifies this Christian interpretation: Christ and the Church?*** Note: many Protestant Evangelical denominations pride themselves in their "Historical-grammatical-literal" approach to interpreting the Scriptures. If this book were taken that way, it surely would have to be rated PG-13 or even R-rated ("modesty" is not its main suit). Some theologians admit that it depicts is an erotic poem of sensual love...and even shameless lasciviousness. But for theologians (and mature audiences), it was and still is today by some, considered to be a book that should be taken "allegorically" of Christ and the Church. What justifies this symbolism approach?

In Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2 and Luke 21:6, Jesus seems to indicate that in the coming temple destruction, "not one stone will be left upon another". And, indeed, this seems to be the case from the current ruins. However, I have come across several commentaries that state that because the temple was burned, the gold that was on the walls, melted and ran between the stones, as well as into them. The Roman solders then took stone from stone in a effort to retrieve the gold, thus giving literal fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. Having encountered this explanation several times in the course of my studies, I wanted to find the source for this story, but, as of this date, am unable to do so. I don't find anything in Josephus relating to that gold-seeking activity. Does anyone know of a source document or documents that can authenticate this story?

What what day did Yeshua ride on the donkey according to the Bible not today’s calendar? What day did Yeshua die in the cross for my sins, according to Bible not today’s calendar?

(Welcome God Bless You) I am very sorry for such a long question, and attempting a solution in the question. Please bear with me, first a selection of the oldest creeds before the formal/official Filioque clause: [Links to Earliest Pre- Old Roman Symbol “Proto-Creeds” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.i.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.ii.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.iii.html ] ---------------------------------- Old Roman Symbol / Old Roman Creed - Composed in the early 2nd century? I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, [life everlasting]. Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/?msockid=18dbc452ca76677c0084d13bcb516636 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Creed of Aquileia – Date 307-309 AD? Credo in Deo Patre omnipotenti invisibili et impassibili (I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible) Et in Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro (And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord) Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine (Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary) Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus (Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried) Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead) Ascendit in cœlos; sedet ad dexteram Patris; (He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father) Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; (Thence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead) Et in Spiritu Sancto (And in the Holy Ghost) Sanctam Ecclesiam (The Holy Church) Remissionem peccatorum (The remission of sins) Hujus carnis resurrectionem (The resurrection of this flesh) Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm -------------------------------------------------- Eusebius’ Caesarean Creed pre- 325AD: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, τὸν τῶν ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible; Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, 30 θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God of God, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Light of Light, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Life of Life, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, the only-begotten Son, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the first-born of every creature, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, begotten of God the Father before all ages, δἰ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· by whom also all things were made; τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, who for our salvation was made flesh and made his home among men; καὶ παθόντα, and suffered; καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, and rose on the third day; καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and ascended to the Father; καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. and will come again in glory, to judge the quick and the dead. [Πιστεύομεν] καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 31 [We believe] also in one Holy Ghost.32 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. We believe that each of these is and exists, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; even as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ First council of Nicaea 325 AD We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Thank you so much for bearing with me, now for the split between Catholic and Orthodox; So The dominant Eastern expression is: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” This is found in: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, not in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources; a rejection of the filioque? (Tertullian?), Augustine, (later more formulated in Aquinas’s Summa), have a type of filioque, also not found in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources ---------------------------------------------- Perhaps a bias of me – I will give key biblical support for a filioque development: “When the Helper comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…” — Gospel of John 15:26 Central to Aquinas’ teaching on procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 – Spirit “comes from the Father” but also receives from the Son. John 20:22 Jesus breathes the Spirit upon disciples, illustrating the Spirit’s relational reception from the Son. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19 – References to the Spirit as “Spirit of the Son” underscore Tertullian’s relational view. The Spirit of the Son “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts… — Epistle to the Galatians 4:6 The Spirit of Christ “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” — Epistle to the Romans 8:9 From Pauline texts “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6) or interchangeably as the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). -------------------------------------- Perhaps another bias of mine – Fathers early filioque development: [Would Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus if they read the following disagreed?] Tertullian Ontological Status of the Spirit The Spirit is distinct, yet fully divine; Tertullian rejected any notion of created or inferior status. The Spirit receives divinity from the Father via the Son, sharing fully in co-eternal glory Ambrose of Milan (4th century) In De Spiritu Sancto: The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” In De Trinitate (c. 400–420), Augustine writes: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” ----------------------------------- An additional supplement Maximus the Confessor attempted reconciliation – I'm not sure about the Holy Catholic Churches stand on this. Maximus the Confessor introduces a two-level ontology of procession, Creation-Deification: First level: Causal Level (Ontological Origin) Greek term: (αἰτία / aitia) Ultimate origin God, the Logos, and the eternal logoi Property: personal, hypostatic Only the Father is cause Relationship: Source of all; Logos and logoi originate here Second level: Mediation / Manifestation, being and purpose only by participating in the first-level Logos Mutual implicative identity and distinction—creatures partake in divinity while remaining distinct. How what proceeds is expressed or communicated --- "Maximus’ model is non-hierarchical, avoiding Dionysian verticality, allowing movement across ontological boundaries based on participatory capacities rather than fixed ontological grades." The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and is manifested/given from the Son The Spirit can be from the Son relationally Without being caused by the Son --------------------------------- --------------------------------- God the Father (αἰτία) / Ultimate Cause │ ▼ Logos / Eternal Logoi │ ┌──────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Nature Rational Beings │ │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ Manifestation Level Maximus: Mediation Through Son Aquinas (reinterpreted by Maximus): Participation of Son in spiration [side note: related question by another https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35279/the-difference-between-how-the-holy-spirit-and-son-proceed-from-the-father]

At least since the pontificate of John Paul II, and definitely during the times of Francis, the Church ignores the teaching of many popes including - *Quanta cura * together with *Syllabus Errorum * by Pius IX - *Pascendi Dominici Gregis * by Pius X - *Mortalium animos * by Pius XI and, in fact, acts against the teachings explained therein. Vatican II documents never fully revoked these documents explicitly. The question is if Vatican II did it as a pastoral council (it was a council that was not infallible as confirmed by Paul VI so it couldn't do it anyway). So my question is: is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in a state of contradiction? If something was declared by Pius IX, X, or XI as sinful can it be without being explained as erroneous, ignored and in fact encouraged as John Paul II Assisi-style ecumenism?

From the creation until the time of Moses, who documented the events? Abraham? Prophets? Priests?

So I have visited various churches of various denominations throughout my life. There was always a somewhat a "They are wrong"-mentality towards other churches/denominations on a theological level. Aka. baptism means this for us and for these reasons, we think baptism is not what X, Y says it is. This is still fine because it just means that there are differences and that people agree to disagree. But when dealing with charismatic or people in "similar" denominations I face more and more what I call flat-out hostility towards the catholic church in particular but it also is directed towards traditional churches like the protestants. I faced statements like: - The pope is a false prophet/teacher - Rome/The Vatican is the whore of Babylon (referring to Revelation 17:1-6) - Priests do the forgiving during the confessions - Catholics are not really Christians (or at least the faith of many is empty) - and a lot more than I care to remember As you can see these kinds of statements are more than just differences in theology where you can say you simply disagree but still can love each other. Now chances are that this kind of thing happens in every denomination towards any other one, but anecdotally speaking, I found the attacks from charismatics (or similar) towards the Catholic Church in particular but also other traditional churches are rising and are particularly underhanded. Of course, the Catholic Church is not without criticism and I am not in this church for my own good reasons, but I still respect them and see Catholics as Christians, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Hence the question(s): - Is that only my own experience or is there more to it? - If this hostility is prevalent and rising, what are the reasons for it? - (Optional since that might blow up the scope): What strategy do you propose to remedy it on an individual level?

In the Book of Revelation, chapter two, Jesus addresses the church in Thyatira. The NIV translation of Revelation 2:19-23 reads, Jesus speaking: > I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. The end of the last verse (Rev 2:23) appears to contain the motivation for Jesus killing the children of the woman, namely to show that Jesus is the one in charge and the ultimate moral judge; again Jesus speaking: > Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. Why did Jesus kill Jezebel's children? How do different Christian denominations, that include the Book of Revelation in the canonized New Testament, interpret this punishment and the reasons for this divine intervention? (This question applies to trinitatian and non-trinitian denominations, since in both cases Jesus has moral authority regardless of if Jesus is God or merely "imitates the Father" and is "given the moral authority" by the Father.)

Today the Universal Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity. In the Trinitarian Formula, we invoke the NAME (singular) of the Three Persons of the Trinity. In English we say: "In the NAME OF the Father, and OF the Son and OF the Holy Spirit." Note the repetition of the preposition 'OF' prefixed to each of the Three Persons, to reinforce individuality. But at the same time, we do not say: "In the NAMES of the Father, etc." Does it imply that there is but one name for all the Three Persons, and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not individual names? My question therefore, is: What according to Trinitarians is the reason for starting of the Trinitarian Formula with "In the name…" (singular) and not "In the names…" (plural)?

In Catholicism, is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty > >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. > >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there, that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.