In this section you can write a comment with any question you may have about Christianity, and we, within our capabilities, will give you an answer.
If you are a Catholic but need clarification, if you are a Protestant and you think you must correct a Catholic error, if you are an agnostic who has not give up in your search for the truth, or if you are simply a Christian but have questions or want to dig deeper, do not be afraid and ask.
When Thomas saw Jesus and still doubted, Jesus did not just reproach him for his lack of faith; he took his hand and asked him to put his finger into his wound. This is how faith problems are resolved, addressing them directly instead of trying to ignore it for fear of losing faith… or discovering it.
Leave your question below (it will be published after review):
Please maintain a respectful tone; offensive comments or those in all caps will be ignored. We appreciate it if you indicate your religion or denomination to help us better focus our response.
previous users’ questions
-
Throughout history, the Roman Catholic Church has had several corrupt popes. Were they infallible?
LikeLike
-
Yes, the Catholic Church has had some morally corrupt popes in her long history. But their personal sins do not compromise the doctrine of papal infallibility.
1️⃣ What Infallibility Means
Papal infallibility does not mean that the pope is sinless, impeccable, or always right in everything he says. It means that under very specific conditions, the pope is preserved from error when he formally defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church (cf. Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I, 1870).
This charism is a gift of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the whole Church, not a reward for personal holiness. So yes, even a sinful or corrupt pope can be an instrument of infallible teaching—just as the high priest Caiaphas unknowingly prophesied about Christ’s death (John 11:49-52).
2️⃣ Historical Examples of Corrupt Popes
There have indeed been popes who lived scandalous lives: Pope John XII (10th century) is often cited, as well as Alexander VI from the infamous Borgia family. These men damaged the Church’s reputation, but none of them defined any dogmas or used the conditions required for infallible teaching. Their immorality was a personal failure, not a doctrinal one.
✅ No pope has ever used his infallible authority to teach heresy. That is what matters for the doctrine of infallibility.
3️⃣ The Biblical Foundation
Christ did not promise impeccable leaders; He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). He gave authority to Peter, despite knowing Peter would deny Him. God works through flawed instruments because it is His truth that is protected, not human perfection that is guaranteed.
4️⃣ A Church of Saints and Sinners
The Catholic Church is both divine and human. Its holiness comes from Christ, not from the moral success of every leader. The infallibility of the pope in teaching faith and morals is part of that divine protection, ensuring the Church does not fall into doctrinal error, even if individual leaders fail morally.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Yes, the Church has had some bad popes—but none of them taught doctrinal error when speaking infallibly, because papal infallibility does not depend on personal virtue. It is a safeguard from Christ, protecting the truth of the faith even when human leaders fall short.
LikeLike
-
-
Protestants often claim that the veneration of Mary arose from the cult of ancient pagan mother goddesses. What do you think about this?
LikeLike
-
No, Marian devotion did not come from pagan goddess worship. This claim misunderstands both history and theology.
1️⃣ Historical Context
Early Christian devotion to Mary developed not in pagan-dominated regions, but in strongly Jewish and Christian environments. The early Church Fathers—many of whom fiercely opposed paganism—honored Mary as the “New Eve” based on Scripture, not mythology. This title appears in the 2nd century with St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus, long before any supposed “Christianized” pagan influence.
✅ Far from copying paganism, early Christians rejected goddess worship as idolatry. To claim they then modeled Mary on pagan deities like Isis or Artemis is historically incoherent.
2️⃣ Mary Is Not a Goddess
Catholics do not worship Mary. Worship (latria) belongs to God alone. Mary is venerated (dulia), and even the highest veneration (hyperdulia) is still infinitely below divine worship. Mary is a creature, entirely dependent on God’s grace.
The difference between Marian veneration and goddess cults is vast:
✅ Pagan goddesses were worshipped as divine beings.
✅ Mary is honored as the most faithful disciple and the Mother of God—not as a deity.
3️⃣ The Bible and Mary
Marian devotion has deep biblical roots:
✅ Luke 1:28 – The angel Gabriel greets her as “full of grace.”
✅ Luke 1:48 – Mary prophesies: “All generations will call me blessed.”
✅ John 2 – At Cana, Mary intercedes, and Jesus works His first miracle.
✅ Revelation 12 – A woman clothed with the sun, crowned and giving birth to the Messiah—a clear Marian symbol according to many Church Fathers.
4️⃣ Human Nature and Motherhood
People in all cultures value maternal figures. The fact that pagans had mother goddesses doesn’t prove Christians borrowed from them—it just shows that motherhood is universally honored. God, in His providence, fulfills and purifies natural human longings in the Gospel. Mary is the true mother figure that pagan myths only vaguely foreshadowed.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Marian devotion does not come from pagan goddess worship. It flows from Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the Church’s reflection on the role of Mary in salvation history. Rather than a pagan invention, Marian veneration is the natural fruit of loving the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold your mother” (John 19:27).
LikeLike
-
-
The goddess Asherah was the wife of the God Yahweh?
LikeLike
-
No, Yahweh did not have a wife. The idea that Asherah was Yahweh’s consort is based on misinterpretations of ancient texts and a misunderstanding of Israel’s monotheistic faith.
1️⃣ The Historical Context
Asherah was a fertility goddess worshiped in Canaanite religion, often linked to the god El or Baal. Some archaeological findings—like inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud—mention “Yahweh and his Asherah,” which some interpret as implying a divine couple. However, this interpretation is misleading.
These inscriptions do not say Asherah was Yahweh’s wife. Rather, they may refer to cultic objects associated with Asherah worship or even be remnants of syncretistic practices by unfaithful Israelites. This does not reflect the true theology of Israel, but rather the sins and confusion of some of its people.
2️⃣ Theological Clarity in the Bible
The Bible is crystal clear: Yahweh is the one and only God (Deuteronomy 6:4). He is not a fertility deity, not one god among many, and certainly not a god with a consort. In fact, the Old Testament constantly condemns the worship of Asherah and the poles or shrines dedicated to her (see 1 Kings 14:15, 2 Kings 23:6).
The presence of Asherah worship among Israelites is a sign of apostasy, not orthodoxy. Just as some Israelites worshiped Baal or built golden calves, others may have mixed in pagan practices involving Asherah. But this was always condemned by the prophets and by God Himself.
3️⃣ The Uniqueness of Israel’s Faith
Ancient Israel stood out from its neighbors precisely because it rejected the idea of gods with spouses and mythological families. Yahweh revealed Himself as utterly unique and without equal. The first commandment begins with: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3).
Claiming that Yahweh had a wife is a projection of pagan ideas onto a monotheistic faith, a confusion between what some Israelites did and what the God of Israel actually taught.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The claim that Asherah was the wife of Yahweh is historically and theologically false. It confuses the sinful practices of some ancient Israelites with the revealed truth of God. Scripture and tradition firmly reject any association between the one true God and pagan goddesses.
LikeLike
-
-
Why doesn’t the Orthodox Church believe in purgatory?
LikeLike
-
The Orthodox Church does not formally accept the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but that doesn’t mean it denies all purification after death.
1️⃣ Shared Beliefs About the Afterlife
Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that:
✅ The souls of the dead may benefit from the prayers of the living.
✅ Not all who die in God’s grace are perfectly purified.
✅ There is a real process of purification or growth after death for many souls.
So what’s the disagreement? Mainly, it’s about how to describe and define this process—and whether it involves “temporal punishment” or a specific “place” called purgatory.
2️⃣ Differences in Theology and Terminology
The Catholic Church defines purgatory as a temporary state where souls undergo purification through suffering due to the remnants of sin. This is not damnation, but a preparation for the vision of God (cf. CCC 1030–1031).
The Orthodox Church, however, tends to avoid such legal or systematic definitions. It emphasizes mystery and prefers to speak in terms of growth, healing, or illumination after death. Some Orthodox theologians reject the notion of “fire” or “temporal punishment,” considering it too scholastic or too influenced by Western legal categories.
3️⃣ Reactions to Medieval Catholic Theology
Some of the Orthodox rejection of purgatory stems from their reaction to the Council of Florence (1439), which attempted to reunite East and West. The Catholic articulation of purgatory was then heavily tied to Latin scholasticism, including ideas of satisfaction and punishment, which did not sit well with the Eastern theological mindset.
But even then, many Orthodox Fathers and liturgical prayers mention post-mortem purification, just without the Western framework.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Orthodox Church does not reject the idea that souls can be purified after death, nor that they can benefit from the prayers of the living. What it rejects is the Latin formulation of purgatory as a place of penal suffering. But in substance, there is significant overlap: both traditions believe that not all souls are ready for heaven at death and that God, in His mercy, completes their purification. The real difference lies in expression, not in essence.
LikeLike
-
Why does the Orthodox Church not accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?
LikeLike
-
The Orthodox Church rejects the primacy of the Bishop of Rome due to misunderstandings of Church authority, historical tensions, and a rejection of legitimate doctrinal development. But this rejection departs from the model established by Christ and upheld by the early Church.
1️⃣ The Primacy Given by Christ
Jesus gave Peter a unique role among the apostles:
✅ “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).
✅ “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17).
✅ He received the keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19), a symbol of royal authority.From the beginning, Peter was recognized as the chief among the apostles. The Church Fathers—East and West—acknowledged this. The Bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, inherited this primacy.
2️⃣ Early Church Testimony
Long before any schism, Rome was seen as the final court of appeal and a standard of orthodoxy:
✅ St. Irenaeus (2nd century) taught that every Church must agree with Rome because of its “preeminent authority.”
✅ The Council of Sardica (343) acknowledged the Pope’s right to hear appeals from other bishops.
✅ Even Eastern Fathers like St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil showed deep respect for the authority of Rome.This shows that papal primacy is not a Western invention, but part of the Church’s ancient structure.
3️⃣ What Happened with the Orthodox?
After centuries of growing cultural and political tensions—especially between Rome and Constantinople—many in the East began to reinterpret the Pope’s role as merely “first among equals.” But this contradicts both Scripture and Tradition.
When the Pope opposed heresies or asserted his authority, some Eastern leaders resisted—not always on theological grounds, but due to local pride or political interests. The final break came in 1054, but even before that, the seeds of division had been sown.
4️⃣ Why the Rejection Fails
The Orthodox emphasize conciliarity and equality among bishops, which is important. But without a visible head, their communion has fractured: today there are ongoing schisms even within Orthodoxy (e.g., between Moscow and Constantinople).
The Catholic Church, in contrast, has maintained unity across nations and centuries, precisely because Christ gave the Church a visible shepherd: the successor of Peter.
➖ Conclusion ➖
The Orthodox rejection of papal primacy overlooks both Scripture and the constant witness of the early Church. Unity in truth needs a visible center. The Pope is not a rival to Christ but His vicar, serving as a sign of unity and a guardian of faith. Rejecting that primacy is not fidelity to tradition—it is a break from it.
LikeLike
-
-
Who are the 24 elders mentioned in the Book of Revelation?
LikeLike
-
The 24 elders mentioned in the Book of Revelation are a mysterious yet deeply symbolic group. They appear repeatedly in heavenly scenes, worshipping before God’s throne, clothed in white and wearing golden crowns (Revelation 4:4). But who are they, and what do they represent?
1️⃣ A SYMBOLIC NUMBER
The number 24 is not random. It likely represents the fullness of God’s people across both Testaments:
✅ 12 patriarchs of Israel (representing the Old Covenant)
✅ 12 apostles of the Lamb (representing the New Covenant)
Together, they symbolize the totality of the redeemed—God’s people throughout salvation history, united in worship around His throne.
2️⃣ PRIESTS AND KINGS
In the Old Testament, King David organized the priesthood into 24 divisions (1 Chronicles 24). These elders in Revelation appear as both priests and kings: they wear white garments (symbol of purity) and golden crowns (symbol of authority). They hold harps and bowls of incense, “which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8), showing their intercessory role.
So the 24 elders represent not only the people of God but also their royal and priestly dignity—something fulfilled in the Church: “You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God” (Revelation 5:10).
3️⃣ LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC?
Some early Church Fathers saw the 24 elders as angelic beings; others saw them as glorified human saints. Both interpretations have merit, but the dominant view in Catholic tradition is symbolic: they stand for the Church triumphant—those who have persevered in faith and now reign with Christ.
They’re not random heavenly spectators. They’re a vision of our future. Their presence is a reminder that heaven is not an abstract place, but the destiny of the faithful, where the redeemed join in eternal worship of God.
➖ CONCLUSION ➖
The 24 elders in Revelation embody the complete People of God—Old and New Covenant—gathered in glory, reigning as priests and kings with Christ. They are both a sign of continuity in salvation history and a glimpse into our own call to holiness and heavenly worship. Their crowns, their songs, their intercession—all point to the eternal destiny that awaits the faithful.
LikeLike
Can we take souls out of hell with our prayers?
LikeLike
-
The short answer is no: once a soul is in hell, no prayer, sacrifice or intercession can change its state. This is a truth deeply rooted in Scripture and consistent Catholic teaching.
1️⃣ HELL IS ETERNAL
Jesus speaks very clearly about the finality of hell. In Matthew 25:46, He says: “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” The punishment is as eternal as the reward. Once a soul has been judged and condemned, its fate is sealed.
✅ Hebrews 9:27 confirms: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.” There is no second chance after death.
✅ The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1035) teaches that “the chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God,” and this state “is definitive.”
2️⃣ PURGATORY IS DIFFERENT
Sometimes people confuse purgatory with hell. Purgatory is for those who die in God’s friendship but still need purification. These souls can benefit from our prayers, Masses and offerings. That’s why 2 Maccabees 12:45 praises prayers for the dead—because they help souls who are not damned, but being purified.
But hell is different: it is the final and irrevocable rejection of God’s grace.
3️⃣ WHY OUR PRAYERS STILL MATTER
While we cannot rescue souls from hell, our prayers do have great power:
✅ They can help souls in purgatory reach heaven more quickly.
✅ They can help the living receive grace, repent, and be saved—before it’s too late.
So while we cannot change the fate of the damned, we can help prevent souls from going there in the first place. That is one of the greatest acts of love.
➖ CONCLUSION ➖
No, we cannot take souls out of hell. But we can pray fervently for those still living, and for the holy souls in purgatory. God’s mercy is infinite—but it must be accepted before death. Let’s use our prayers and sacrifices to lead more souls to salvation, not to attempt what God has declared impossible.
LikeLike
When did the term Mass begin to be used to refer to the Eucharistic liturgy in the Latin rite Catholic Church?
LikeLike
-
The term Mass (from the Latin Missa) has been used since the early centuries of the Church, but it didn’t appear overnight. It developed gradually from liturgical practice, gaining prominence especially in the Latin-speaking West.
1️⃣ ORIGINS OF THE TERM MISSA
The word Missa comes from the Latin dismissal phrase at the end of the Eucharistic celebration: Ite, missa est (“Go, the dismissal is made”). Originally, missa referred simply to the sending forth or dismissal of the faithful—but over time, the term came to refer to the entire Eucharistic celebration.
✅ As early as the 4th or 5th century, Christians in the Latin West began using missa to refer to the Eucharistic liturgy. Saint Ambrose (d. 397) and others used related terms, though not yet in the exact modern sense.
✅ By the 6th and 7th centuries, missa was commonly used in liturgical books, becoming the standard name for the Eucharist in the Roman Rite.
2️⃣ A DEEPER MEANING OF ITE, MISSA EST
While traditionally translated as “Go, the Mass is ended,” some theologians and liturgical scholars have proposed a richer interpretation. The phrase missa est could also mean “the sending has occurred” or even “the (sacrificial) offering has been sent.”
In this reading, missa does not merely mean dismissal—it refers to the mission and the sacrificial offering that has been presented to the Father. Thus, Ite, missa est may be understood as:
“Go, the Sacrifice has been sent (to God).”This beautifully connects the end of the liturgy with both the sending of the faithful and the completion of the Sacrifice of Christ, now offered eternally in heaven.
3️⃣ OTHER NAMES FOR THE EUCHARIST
While Mass became standard in the Latin Church, the Eucharistic liturgy has also been called:
✅ Fractio Panis (Breaking of the Bread) – used in the earliest Christian communities
✅ Divine Liturgy – still used in the Eastern Churches
✅ Holy Sacrifice or Sacrifice of the Altar – highlighting the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist
The name Mass endured because it unites the sacred mystery with our mission: the faithful are not just dismissed, but sent—transformed and charged with carrying Christ to the world.
➖ CONCLUSION ➖
The term Mass may come from a simple word of dismissal, but it contains profound meaning. It reminds us that we are not just ending a ritual—we are sent forth because the Sacrifice has been offered and the mission begins. From the altar, grace flows out into the world through the lives of the faithful.
▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁
LikeLike
Is there evidence that Christians venerated images before the 4th century?
LikeLike
-
Did Christians venerate images before the 4th century?
Yes, there is sufficient evidence to affirm that Christians venerated images before the 4th century. But since this is a sensitive topic, we must argue carefully, avoiding unfounded assumptions or historical anachronisms, and distinguishing between the decorative, pedagogical, or liturgical use of images and actual devotional or cultic veneration. Let’s examine step by step what we know with certainty, what we can reasonably deduce, and what we cannot assert.
- Not every image implies veneration
This is a key point. The mere presence of images in a religious space doesn’t automatically mean they were venerated. For example, many Lutheran or Anglican churches today have images of Christ or biblical scenes, yet their communities reject any kind of worship toward them. They see them as helpful for teaching, meditation, or beautification, but not as objects of veneration. Therefore, the Catholic argument cannot simply point out that there are paintings in the catacombs; we need more than that.
- The location matters: images in places of worship
Here we begin to see a stronger argument. The images in the catacombs are not in neutral or domestic spaces, but in areas explicitly used for worship: burial chambers of martyrs, crypts where the Eucharist was celebrated, and sacred niches known as arcosolia. These images—of the Good Shepherd, the Virgin and Child, Old and New Testament scenes—are not marginal decorations, but located directly in places of prayer, even above the tombs of martyrs, which served as true altars.
We also find Christological and biblical images in places like the house-church of Dura Europos (c. 235 AD), where an image of Christ healing the paralytic appears next to a baptismal font. It’s hard to argue that this was mere decoration. These homes don’t have general ornamental murals like Roman villas, but rather concrete scenes tied to the sacraments and salvation. In this context, the use of images clearly has a liturgical and devotional character.
- The altar argument: a theological difference
A key difference between the Catholic use of images and the Protestant one is where the images are placed. In Catholic churches, images of saints and martyrs are often found near the altar, even on it, or in reredos directly behind. In contrast, in Protestant theology, this would be unthinkable, because placing an image on the altar implies including it in the act of worship, which they reject outright.
But early Christians did place images in precisely those locations: above the tombs of martyrs (which were the first altars), in apses where the Eucharist was celebrated, in liturgically oriented niches. This is clear evidence that images were not secondary decorations, but integrated into Christian worship. They were not ornaments; they were part of the sacred act.
- Literary and historical testimony
Although we don’t find many explicit texts before the 4th century describing image veneration, there are a few suggestive pieces of evidence:
Tertullian (2nd–3rd century), in his Montanist phase, criticizes Christians who make portraits of Christ. His disapproval confirms the practice existed.
Origen and Clement of Alexandria mention images of Christ or the saints, although their opinions are somewhat ambivalent.
Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century) notes that many Christians had portraits of Jesus, Peter, and Paul in their homes.
St. Epiphanius (4th century) destroyed a religious image he found in a rural church. The important point here is not his iconoclasm, but that the image was there, in a church, and no one else seemed scandalized—which suggests it was a common and accepted presence.
All of this suggests that the devotional use of images was not a late innovation, but a practice that existed—whether fully defined or not—already in the earlier centuries.
- Implicit theology: the communion of saints
Finally, the veneration of images cannot be understood apart from how early Christians saw their relationship with the martyrs and saints. They did not view them as figures of the past, but as alive in Christ, present in the liturgy and accompanying the faithful.
Celebrating the Eucharist on their tombs, representing them in places of worship, painting Christ as the Good Shepherd in burial chambers—all of this expressed a deep faith in the communion of saints and in the reality of the Mystical Body. In this context, venerating an image is not idolatry, but a way of honoring the one it represents, just as we venerate a relic, a cross, or a book of the Gospels.
Conclusion
We cannot claim that 2nd or 3rd century Christians venerated images exactly as the Second Council of Nicaea defined in 787. But we can affirm—based on archaeological, liturgical, and historical evidence—that these images were not merely decorative, and that they had a place in the devotional and cultic life of the Christian community.
The images were placed in worship spaces, over the tomb-altars of martyrs, near the Eucharistic table, inside domestic churches. Their content was theologically significant. And although the doctrinal reflection on their use was still developing, the Christian faithful were already living a practical form of veneration—one that the Church would later confirm not as an innovation, but as a legitimate expression of the faith made visible.
LikeLike
-
I understand that the first Christians did not celebrate the Eucharist in the catacombs but rather in private homes.
LikeLike
-
Yes, you’re right that early Christians typically celebrated the Eucharist in private homes. But it is not correct to say they did not celebrate the Eucharist in the catacombs. They did—especially during times of persecution and on the anniversaries of the martyrs buried there.
1️⃣ Homes and Catacombs
In the earliest decades, Christians gathered in private houses because they had no public buildings and needed to remain hidden. But during imperial persecutions, the catacombs offered a safer place for gatherings. These were not daily meeting places, but they became sacred spaces especially linked to the memory and veneration of the martyrs.
Celebrating the Eucharist on or near the tombs of the martyrs was a widespread custom. This is why many of the early altars in churches were built over relics or tombs of saints—because the practice began in the catacombs.
2️⃣ Images and Liturgical Context
What’s important is that these catacomb spaces were not merely cemeteries—they were liturgical settings. Christian art found in the catacombs—like depictions of Christ, the Good Shepherd, the orantes (praying figures), and even the Eucharistic banquet—was not just decorative. These were religious images placed where worship occurred.
So when we find Christian images in the catacombs, especially in tomb niches or small chambers where Mass was offered, we are looking at early forms of sacred art connected to worship, not just “art for memory.”
3️⃣ Testimony of Tradition
Church Fathers like St. Jerome, and archaeologists like Giovanni Battista de Rossi, confirm that liturgical celebrations took place in catacombs. In fact, the anniversaries of martyrs were important feast days, and Mass was offered at their tombs—as noted in the Depositio Martyrum and other early calendars.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Yes, most Christian worship took place in homes. But it’s historically inaccurate to deny Eucharistic celebrations in the catacombs. The presence of religious images in these sacred spaces, directly linked to the liturgy and veneration of the saints, shows that from the earliest times Christians used and honored sacred art in contexts of worship.LikeLike
What is kenosis?
LikeLike
-
Kenosis is a Greek word meaning “emptying,” and it refers to a profound mystery in Christian theology: how the eternal Son of God, without ceasing to be divine, humbled Himself to take on our humanity and even suffer death.
1️⃣ The Biblical Basis
The term comes from Philippians 2:7, where St. Paul writes that Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” The Greek word used here is ekenōsen (ἐκένωσεν), from which we get kenosis. This “emptying” does not mean Christ stopped being God, but that He willingly refrained from using His divine privileges. He lived with human limitations—hunger, fatigue, suffering—out of love for us.
2️⃣ What Christ Emptied Himself Of
Christ did not cease to be divine. Rather, He voluntarily set aside the glory, majesty, and full exercise of His divine power to live as one of us. He submitted Himself to time, space, suffering, and even death. It was an act of supreme humility, not a subtraction of divinity, but an addition of humanity.
✅ He still possessed all divine attributes, but chose not to display them at every moment. ✅ He accepted obedience, weakness, and even rejection—things God cannot suffer in His divine nature alone.
3️⃣ Theological Importance
Kenosis helps us understand the depth of Christ’s humility and love. It reveals that God’s power is shown most perfectly in humility and sacrifice. It’s a central pillar of the Incarnation: God became truly man, not in appearance only, but in full solidarity with us.
4️⃣ A Model for Christians
St. Paul introduces the kenosis of Christ as a model: “Have this mind among yourselves…” (Phil 2:5). We are called to humility, service, and sacrificial love, just as Christ “emptied Himself.” Kenosis is not only about who Christ is—it’s about who we are called to be in imitation of Him.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Kenosis means that God stooped down in love. Jesus Christ, true God and true man, chose to hide His glory to draw near to us, suffer with us, and redeem us. It is not the loss of divinity, but the fullness of love.
LikeLike
Genesis 20:12—If incest is condemned, why did Abraham marry his sister?
LikeLike
-
En Génesis 20,12 Abraham dice que Sara es su hermana, “hija de mi padre, aunque no de mi madre”. A simple vista, esto parece un caso de incesto, lo cual plantea una aparente contradicción con la Ley de Moisés que lo prohíbe más adelante. Pero este juicio ignora el contexto histórico, progresivo y teológico de la Revelación.
1️⃣ ANTES DE LA LEY, NO HAY TRANSGRESIÓN FORMAL
Cuando Abraham vivió, la Ley mosaica aún no existía. Las normas específicas sobre relaciones prohibidas (como las de Levítico 18) fueron reveladas siglos después. Por tanto, no se puede juzgar su acción como “pecado legal” desde una ley que no conocía. En términos bíblicos, el pecado requiere conocimiento de la ley (cf. Romanos 4,15).
2️⃣ NO ERA SU HERMANA PLENA
Sara no era su hermana biológica en sentido estricto. Abraham dice que era hija de su padre, pero no de su madre. Esto puede indicar un parentesco más lejano, como una medio hermana o incluso una sobrina, según usos antiguos del término “hermana”. En Génesis 11,29 se dice que Sara era hija de Harán, hermano de Abraham, lo que haría de ella su sobrina. Es decir, hay ambigüedad lingüística y cultural que impide imponerle una calificación moderna de “incesto”.
3️⃣ LA REVELACIÓN ES PROGRESIVA
Dios no revela toda la moral de golpe. El matrimonio entre parientes cercanos era común y necesario en los primeros tiempos de la humanidad (Adán y Eva, Caín, Noé, etc.). El linaje era puro y la reproducción entre cercanos no suponía los riesgos genéticos actuales. Cuando el pueblo de Israel estuvo listo, Dios dio leyes más específicas para educarlos en santidad (cf. Gálatas 3,24). No hay contradicción, sino pedagogía divina.
➖ CONCLUSIÓN ➖
Abraham no violó ninguna ley que conociera, y su unión con Sara no puede juzgarse con parámetros posteriores. Lo que a nosotros nos parece extraño, en su contexto no lo era. Además, Dios aprobó la descendencia de Abraham y Sara, lo cual confirma que su matrimonio no fue impío ni escandaloso. La Biblia no es un manual moral fuera del tiempo, sino la historia real de la salvación, guiada paso a paso por Dios.LikeLike
Someone I know told me that believing in the resurrection of Jesus is completely irrational. What do you think I should tell him?
LikeLike
-
To say that believing in the resurrection of Jesus is irrational is actually a misunderstanding of both reason and faith.
1️⃣ What Does “Irrational” Actually Mean?
“Irrational” means something that goes against logic, not merely something that is hard to believe. The resurrection of Jesus is not irrational—it is supernatural, and those are not the same thing. A supernatural event transcends the laws of nature but does not contradict reason. For example, the idea that God—if He exists—could raise someone from the dead is entirely coherent. So the real question is not whether the Resurrection is rational, but whether it is true.
2️⃣ The Resurrection Is Based on Historical Claims
Christian faith is not grounded in vague mystical experiences or myths—it is rooted in a specific historical event. These are the facts that even secular historians generally agree on:
✅ Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate.
✅ He was buried in a known tomb.
✅ That tomb was later found empty.
✅ Many of his disciples claimed to have seen him alive afterwards.
✅ These same people were transformed—timid fishermen became fearless preachers, willing to suffer and die rather than deny what they had seen.
This isn’t the pattern of a legend slowly developing over time. It’s explosive, immediate, and hard to explain unless something extraordinary really happened.
3️⃣ Alternative Explanations Fall Short
Some say the disciples lied. But what did they gain? Persecution, exile, and martyrdom. Liars make poor martyrs.
Others suggest hallucinations. But hallucinations don’t happen in groups, don’t result in an empty tomb, and don’t explain the physical interactions (eating, touching, walking) that are described.
Others propose legend. But legends take generations to form. The proclamation that Jesus rose from the dead appears in the earliest Christian writings, dating just a few years after the event. There’s no time for myth to develop.
4️⃣ Faith and Reason Go Hand in Hand
Christianity does not ask anyone to leave their brain at the door. It asks us to use reason to evaluate the evidence, and then to take a step of trust in what reason finds plausible.
Think of it this way: we believe in things all the time that we haven’t seen firsthand, because we trust the witnesses, the consistency of the message, and the transformation that follows. The Resurrection is no different.
5️⃣ The Resurrection Makes Sense of Everything
If Jesus really rose from the dead, it confirms everything He said about Himself: that He is the Son of God, that death is not the end, and that God’s love has conquered sin.
It explains the birth of the Church, the courage of the martyrs, and the enduring power of Christianity to change lives and cultures. Without the Resurrection, none of it makes sense. With it, everything does.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Believing in the Resurrection is not irrational—it is the most reasonable conclusion based on the historical data, the consistency of witness, and the profound impact on history.
It challenges us, yes. It stretches the limits of what we think is possible. But truth often does. The real irrationality would be to dismiss the Resurrection without seriously considering the evidence—or to claim that reason ends where mystery begins.LikeLike
Were Mary and Joseph Married or Engaged at Jesus’ Birth?
LikeLike
-
Yes, Mary and Joseph were legally married at the time of Jesus’ birth, though they had not yet begun to live together as husband and wife in the full sense.
1️⃣ Jewish Marriage Customs
In first-century Jewish culture, marriage occurred in two stages: the kiddushin (betrothal) and the nissuin (the formal bringing of the bride into the groom’s home). Betrothal was not like modern engagement—it was a legally binding covenant. To dissolve it, one needed a formal divorce. This is why Matthew 1:19 refers to Joseph as “her husband,” even though they had not yet “come together.”
So, although Mary and Joseph were still in the betrothal phase, they were truly husband and wife in the eyes of the law and of God.
2️⃣ The Gospel Accounts
In Matthew 1:18-25, Joseph considers divorcing Mary quietly when he learns of her pregnancy, which only makes sense if they were already legally married. The angel, however, tells him not to be afraid to “take Mary your wife into your home,” meaning to complete the second stage of marriage.
This indicates that their marital bond was already in place, even if the conjugal aspect had not yet been initiated.
3️⃣ Theological Implications
Understanding that Mary and Joseph were married is essential for preserving the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. If they had not been married, Jesus’ birth outside of wedlock could have been perceived as illegitimate, something God clearly prevented.
Also, by being married, Mary’s vow of virginity within marriage becomes a radical testimony of her complete consecration to God, and Joseph’s cooperation in this mission shows his exceptional righteousness and obedience.
➖ Conclusion ➖
Mary and Joseph were not “just engaged” in a modern sense. They were truly married according to Jewish law, though not yet cohabiting. This detail protects both the honor of Christ’s birth and the deeper mystery of Mary’s virginal motherhood. Far from being a minor legal point, it reveals the harmony of God’s plan with the customs of His chosen people and the holiness of the Holy Family.LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to nabd radio Cancel reply