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
-
Was the Old Testament written during the Babylonian exile?
LikeLike
-
The Old Testament was not entirely written during the Babylonian exile, but the exile (c. 587–538 BC) was a significant period for its development. Here’s a breakdown of the context:
Pre-Exilic Writings
Many parts of the Old Testament, particularly the Torah (the first five books, attributed to Moses) and some historical books (like Joshua, Judges, and parts of Kings), likely have origins in earlier periods, from oral traditions to written forms.
Wisdom literature, such as parts of Proverbs, may also predate the exile.
Prophetic books like Amos, Hosea, Micah, and parts of Isaiah were written in the pre-exilic era.Exilic Period (587–538 BC)
During the Babylonian exile, significant theological and literary work took place:
Compilation and Editing: Exilic Jewish leaders, such as priests and scribes, likely compiled and edited existing texts. This period may have seen the blending of earlier oral traditions, documents, and scrolls into more unified forms.
Books Written or Expanded: Parts of the prophetic books (e.g., Ezekiel, the second half of Isaiah, known as Deutero-Isaiah) and some Psalms reflect the themes of exile, hope, and restoration.
Theological Reflection: The traumatic experience of the exile prompted deep theological reflection on issues like covenant, sin, and divine justice. These themes influenced the final form of many Old Testament books.Post-Exilic Contributions
After the return from exile (538 BC), the Old Testament continued to develop:
Ezra and Nehemiah played a role in organizing and promoting the Torah.
Historical works like Chronicles and possibly Esther were written.
Additional Psalms, wisdom literature (e.g., Ecclesiastes), and later prophetic books (e.g., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) were composed or finalized.Conclusion
While the Babylonian exile was not the sole period of Old Testament authorship, it was a pivotal time for the compilation, editing, and theological development of the texts. This era shaped the Jewish identity and religious beliefs reflected throughout the Old Testament.LikeLike
-
-
Does the fact that Mary carried and gave birth to a divine being make her divine?
LikeLike
-
No, the fact that Mary carried and gave birth to a divine being, Jesus Christ, does not make her divine. This distinction is central to Christian theology, particularly in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and many Protestant traditions.
Key Theological Points:
Mary’s Humanity
Mary is fully human, not divine. She was chosen by God for a unique role in salvation history as the mother of Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully man. Her humanity emphasizes that God’s plan for salvation involved working through human beings.The Nature of Jesus
Jesus Christ has two natures: divine and human, united in one person (the hypostatic union). Mary is the mother of Jesus, the person, and thus she is rightly called the Theotokos (“God-bearer” or “Mother of God”). This title, affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431, emphasizes the divinity of Christ, not divinity in Mary.Mary’s Role in Salvation History
While Mary has an exalted role as the mother of the Savior, her role is entirely dependent on God’s grace. Catholic teaching refers to her as being “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), but this grace comes from God, not from any inherent divinity in her.Theological Misunderstandings
Confusion may arise because Mary is highly honored in many Christian traditions, especially in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. However, this honor (hyperdulia) is always distinct from the worship (latria) due to God alone. Even her immaculate conception and assumption into heaven (in Catholic doctrine) are understood as gifts from God, not evidence of divinity.Why Mary Is Not Divine
Mary, like all humans, was created by God. Divinity implies being uncreated and eternal, qualities unique to God.
She had a human nature and did not possess divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence.
Her role in bearing the divine does not transform her nature into something divine; rather, it highlights her unique cooperation with God’s plan.Conclusion
Mary’s unique role in salvation history as the mother of Jesus Christ grants her great honor and reverence, but it does not make her divine. She remains a model of faith, obedience, and humility, pointing to God as the source of all grace and salvation.LikeLike
-
Is there no possibility that the divinity of Jesus Christ was passed on to Mary through the umbilical cord?
LikeLike
-
It is not possible for the divinity of Jesus Christ to have been “passed on” to Mary through the umbilical cord or any physical connection during His incarnation. Here’s why:
- Jesus’ Divinity is Eternal and Unique
The divinity of Christ comes from His nature as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, which is eternal and uncreated (John 1:1-3). His divine nature was not acquired through His human birth but has always existed.
The Incarnation means that the eternal Word (Logos) assumed a human nature in the womb of Mary, without any alteration or transfer of His divinity. -
Mary’s Role in the Incarnation
Mary is the Theotokos (“God-bearer”), meaning she gave birth to Jesus, who is both fully God and fully man. However, she is not the source of His divinity. She contributed His human nature by conceiving Him through the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).
Mary is a creature, created by God, and while she was graced with the Immaculate Conception, this does not make her divine. She remained fully human. -
Theological Distinction Between Human and Divine Natures
The Church teaches that Jesus Christ possesses two natures: divine and human, united in the hypostatic union. These natures are distinct and do not mix or transfer qualities to one another (Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD).
Therefore, while Jesus’ human body was nourished through His connection to Mary during pregnancy, His divine nature remained entirely separate and unaffected by any physical processes. -
Mary’s Unique Status
Mary holds a unique place in salvation history as the Mother of God and was preserved from original sin (the Immaculate Conception) to fulfill her role. She was also assumed into heaven body and soul. However, these privileges highlight her singular role as a human being, not divinity. -
Spiritual Union, Not Physical Transfer
Mary’s relationship with Jesus is profound and intimate, but it is a spiritual union of grace and love, not a physical transmission of divinity.
Conclusion
The divinity of Christ cannot be transferred or shared in the sense of passing it on through the umbilical cord or any biological means. Mary’s role as the Mother of God is unparalleled, but she remains a fully human creature, albeit the most exalted among humans. This distinction underscores the mystery of the Incarnation: Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, with His divine nature remaining wholly intact and unaltered by His human birth.LikeLike
- Jesus’ Divinity is Eternal and Unique
-
-
Why is God so vengeful and violent in the Old Testament?
LikeLike
-
The perception that God appears vengeful and violent in the Old Testament often stems from a misunderstanding of the historical, cultural, and theological context of the texts.
- God’s Justice and Holiness
In the Old Testament, God reveals Himself as holy and just. His actions against sin are meant to demonstrate that sin has serious consequences. For example, His judgments on the nations (like the Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) highlight His intolerance of wickedness and His commitment to justice.
This justice must be seen alongside His mercy, which is also evident. For instance, He spares Noah and his family, provides a chance for repentance to the Ninevites through Jonah, and continually forgives Israel despite their repeated unfaithfulness.
- The Covenant Relationship
God establishes covenants with His people, calling them to fidelity and obedience. When Israel breaks the covenant (e.g., by worshiping idols), God’s punishments are not acts of arbitrary vengeance but corrections meant to lead them back to righteousness and the covenant relationship.
The discipline of Israel is often described using the analogy of a father correcting his children (see Proverbs 3:11-12). This reflects a loving intention, not sheer wrath.
- Cultural and Historical Context
Ancient Near Eastern societies were violent, and God’s dealings with His people occurred within that context. Some commands, like those involving warfare, were measures for protecting Israel from the corruption of surrounding pagan nations and ensuring the survival of the chosen people, through whom the Messiah would come.
God’s laws and actions were also progressive for the time, seeking to curb human violence rather than endorse it. For example, the lex talionis (an eye for an eye) was a limitation on retribution, preventing excessive retaliation.
- God’s Patience and Mercy
The Old Testament includes countless examples of God’s patience and mercy. For instance, He waits 400 years before judging the Canaanites, giving them time to repent (see Genesis 15:16). His willingness to forgive Nineveh (see Jonah 3) shows that He desires repentance, not destruction. - Theological Development
The revelation of God is gradual. In the Old Testament, God is preparing humanity to receive the fullness of His revelation in Jesus Christ. The harshness of some Old Testament passages serves to highlight the radical love and forgiveness revealed in Christ.
Jesus Himself fulfills and transforms the understanding of God’s justice and mercy. He emphasizes forgiveness and love, but He does not contradict the God of the Old Testament. Instead, He reveals that God’s justice and mercy are perfectly united.
- Spiritual Interpretation
The Church Fathers often interpreted violent passages allegorically, seeing them as symbols of the spiritual battle against sin. For example, the destruction of the Canaanites could be seen as a call to root out sin completely from one’s life.
Conclusion
God’s actions in the Old Testament must be understood within the broader context of His plan for salvation. What may seem vengeful or violent is often an expression of His justice, His desire to purify His people, and His love for humanity. This same God is revealed in Jesus Christ as loving and merciful, showing that His ultimate purpose is to draw humanity into a relationship with Him.
LikeLike
-
In more than one passage of the Old Testament, God orders the killing of children. Isn’t that a vengeful and violent God for you?
LikeLike
-
The passages in the Old Testament where God commands the destruction of entire peoples, including children, are often perplexing, but it is essential to understand them in their historical, cultural, and theological context.
- Figurative language common in the era
Expressions about the “total extermination” (including children) of a city or nation in the Bible, whether by human decision or divine command, should not be taken literally, as they reflect a literary style common in the ancient Near East. This kind of hyperbolic language was culturally necessary to emphasize the magnitude of an event, such as military victories, and was understood in this context by their contemporaries. Such expressions were not intended to describe exact facts but to convey a powerful message that resonated with the audiences of the time.
In the culture of the ancient Near East, it was customary to use hyperbolic language to describe military victories, such as saying an enemy was “completely destroyed,” even when that was not the case. A clear example can be found with the Amalekites. In 1 Samuel 15, it is mentioned that Saul completely exterminated the Amalekites by divine command, but later, in 1 Samuel 30, they reappear attacking Israel. This demonstrates that the language of total destruction, far from being a literal description, was a culturally accepted way of emphasizing the magnitude of an event, as seen in the examples mentioned, which illustrate this practice in various historical contexts.
We also find examples of this type of hyperbolic language on the other side, among the nations Israel fought against. For instance, in the chronicles of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah (13th century BC), the famous Merneptah Stele boasts of having destroyed Israel, claiming, “Israel is devastated; its seed no longer exists.” However, it is evident that this was not the case, and there was not even a massive massacre; Israel continued to exist. This type of hyperbolic statement was typical in military accounts of the time and demonstrates that declarations of total destruction should not be taken literally but as a culturally accepted way to exaggerate the extent of a victory. This is even more evident in books of the epic genre, such as Joshua.
This type of language can be compared to how we say today, for example, “our team crushed the rival” in a football match, without anyone interpreting these words as literal acts of violence.
- God is not like men
A common mistake is attempting to judge God by the same standards we use to judge men, as if God were one of us, albeit the most powerful of all. On the contrary, God is the creator, not just another creature, and therefore His actions and authority operate on an entirely different level. God is on another level; He is the Creator, and we are His creations. An example of this difference can be seen in nature itself: while humans need pre-existing materials to create, such as wood to build a house, God creates out of nothing. This unique ability highlights His total transcendence and underscores our absolute dependence on Him.
A useful parallel for understanding this difference in level is that of an author concerning their work. If a novelist decides that a character dies or that one of their protagonists commits murders, no one would think the author is a murderer. Instead, we judge the actions within the story according to its internal logic. Similarly, God, as the creator of all reality, acts from a perspective infinitely higher than ours, with a purpose that encompasses both justice and mercy. We might consider that God sends everyone to death, as eventually, everyone dies; but for God, death is not the end of life (as we see it) but rather a relocation.
- A lesson on sin and redemption
These biblical passages also have a pedagogical sense. They reflect the gravity of sin and the necessity of eradicating it, not on a physical level but a spiritual one. This approach applies to the believer’s daily life by inspiring them to seek continuous inner transformation, avoiding small concessions that could allow sin to take root in their hearts. For instance, acts such as regular confession, prayer, and daily examination of conscience help to uproot sin at its core and cultivate a life oriented toward holiness.
The early Church interpreted such scenes as allegories of humanity and sin: when God commands the conquest of a city (evil) and the annihilation of its people, livestock, and even seeds, the message these scenes aim to teach is that we must fight against sin and completely conquer it, leaving nothing, not even its roots. When reading them, we must interpret them in the light of the full revelation in Jesus Christ, who shows us that God does not desire the death of the sinner but their conversion (Ezekiel 33:11). The Old Testament is a process in which the truth about God gradually emerges step by step, but it is in Jesus that we see it in all its fullness. Therefore, if we want to understand better what God is like, we cannot read the Old Testament ignoring the New Testament, as it is there that the Truth shines without a veil.
Conclusion
In the Old Testament, the language of extermination reflects cultural expressions typical of the era, being hyperboles intended to emphasize messages rather than literal commands. Furthermore, God cannot be judged as if He were a creature, as His actions as Creator transcend our human categories entirely. These texts must be read carefully and in the light of the fullness of divine revelation in Christ, who shows us the just and merciful God.LikeLike
- God’s Justice and Holiness
Do you think Mary was like that physically?
LikeLike
-
I cannot open your link but it is probably not necessary to answer your question.
The physical appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not detailed in Scripture or early Church writings, but there are some reasonable inferences we can make. As the only human parent of Jesus, all of His human DNA would have come from Mary. It is possible that God created paternal genetic material for Jesus to ensure His uniqueness rather than making Him a direct male “clone” of Mary. However, the most likely scenario is that Jesus would have borne a striking resemblance to His mother.
Considering that we have an image of Jesus from the Shroud of Turin, we might imagine Mary resembling Him closely, though in a feminine form. Traditionally, Catholics have always regarded Mary as extraordinarily beautiful. In approved Marian apparitions, witnesses often emphasize her beauty and radiance, which reflects her unique spiritual purity and closeness to God.
While her earthly beauty would have been distinct from her glorified appearance in heaven, it is likely that her physical features on earth radiated her inner virtues—her sweetness, spirituality, goodness, and profound relationship with Jesus as her Son and God. Such qualities often lend an aura of attractiveness that surpasses mere physical characteristics, much like how charismatic and holy individuals often appear more beautiful than their physical features alone suggest.
In light of all this, it is reasonable to affirm that Mary was likely as beautiful as tradition imagines her, embodying both physical grace and unparalleled spiritual beauty.
LikeLike
Do you think a homosexual can stop being one?
LikeLike
-
The question is nuanced and touches on scientific, social, and spiritual aspects. Scientifically, sexual orientation is generally stable for most people, but some evidence suggests fluidity in certain cases, influenced by personal growth, therapy, or spiritual journeys. However, this is not universal and varies widely among individuals.
From a Catholic perspective, the focus is not on changing one’s inclinations but on living in accordance with God’s law. The Church teaches that all individuals—regardless of orientation—are called to holiness and chastity. Homosexuality is understood as a tendency, not a defining identity, and individuals are valued for their inherent dignity as children of God.
While the Church acknowledges the struggles associated with same-sex attraction, it emphasizes the transformative power of grace. Many individuals who embrace the Church’s teachings find joy, peace, and deeper fulfillment in living a virtuous life in harmony with God’s plan.
In conclusion, while changes in orientation may occur for some, the Church’s primary message is one of hope, guiding all to live a life of integrity and spiritual growth through God’s grace.
LikeLike
Do you believe that animals have souls and go to heaven after they die?
LikeLike
-
Animals are part of God’s creation, possessing a kind of “soul,” but not in the same way as humans. Here’s a breakdown:
Animals and Souls:
The Catholic Church teaches that animals have a type of soul, called a sensitive soul, which gives them life and allows them to experience sensations and emotions.
Unlike humans, animals do not possess a rational soul capable of reason, free will, and an eternal destiny.Eternal Life:
The Church traditionally holds that animals do not have immortal souls. When they die, their souls cease to exist. This contrasts with human souls, which are immortal and destined for eternal communion with God.
Animals in Heaven:
The Church does not explicitly teach that individual animals go to heaven. However, Scripture and tradition suggest that the new creation after the final resurrection may include animals (Isaiah 11:6-9 speaks of animals in harmony).
In addition to the possibility that the New Creation may include animals as part of God’s perfect design, some theologians have speculated that, if a person’s happiness in heaven were to require the companionship of a beloved pet, God, in His infinite goodness, might grant that as part of His plan to ensure eternal joy for the redeemed. While this idea is not part of official Church teaching and remains speculative, this possibility can offer comfort to those who share a special bond with their pets.
God’s Love for Creation:
Catholics believe that God loves all His creation, and animals are part of His providential care. The Catechism of the Catholic Church encourages respect and kindness toward animals (CCC 2416–2418), but it emphasizes their purpose in serving humanity and glorifying God through their existence.
In summary, Catholic teaching suggests animals do not have eternal souls and do not go to heaven in the same way humans do. However, the idea of animals being part of God’s new creation or pets going to heaven for their masters’ sake, remains open to interpretation.
LikeLike
If everything made by God is perfect, why are there people born with illnesses or physical malformations?
LikeLike
-
That is part of the problem of Evil (if God is all loving and all powerful, why is there suffering?). We need to take some things into consideration.
- God Created the World Perfect, but Adam’s Sin Affected All Creation
God originally created the world perfect in its purpose and harmony. The perfection of creation did not mean an unchanging or static state, but rather that everything was ordered according to God’s divine plan, oriented toward its ultimate goal: union with Him.
However, the sin of Adam and Eve had cosmic consequences. As we read in Romans 8:20-22, “creation was subjected to futility” and “groans in labor pains.” This indicates that the fall of humanity did not only affect mankind but also disrupted the natural order, introducing disorder, suffering, and corruption into creation. Illnesses, malformations, and other defects in the physical world are indirect consequences of this fallen state.
- Creation is Perfect for Its Purpose, Though Not Perfect in Itself
The current creation, after the Fall, is imperfect in that it reflects disorder and suffering. However, it remains perfect for the purpose God has assigned to it in this stage of salvation history: to serve as a space where humanity can mature, learn to love, and freely choose God. This world provides the conditions necessary for that growth—conditions that would not exist if everything were perfect.
The current creation, with all its imperfections, is the necessary framework for the plan of redemption. Suffering, while difficult to understand, plays a crucial role because:
– It invites us to step out of ourselves, practice virtue, and seek God.
– It unites us with Christ’s redemptive suffering, transforming pain into a means of salvation.
Earth is a place of transition and trial, not our ultimate destination. In Heaven—the definitive and perfect creation—harmony will be restored, and all suffering will be overcome. This final state will be even more glorious than the lost paradise, as it will include the fullness of redemption accomplished through Christ.- The Role of Jesus in Redemption
Jesus transforms this imperfect framework into a path toward perfection. Without the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, the suffering and imperfections of the world would be meaningless and, therefore, absurd or cruel. But Jesus:
– Assumed our fallen nature, experiencing suffering and death in Himself.
– Redeemed not only humanity but also all creation, initiating the restoration that will be completed at the end of time.
– Opened the gates of Heaven, giving purpose to our journey of growth and a destination that makes suffering meaningful.
Thus, while Adam’s sin introduced imperfection, Jesus transforms it into a means of salvation. This does not imply that fallen humanity can restore itself; rather, each person is invited to freely participate in the redemptive grace Christ offers.- Suffering as a Means to Mature and Learn to Love
Suffering, though difficult to accept, serves an essential purpose in our earthly life: it helps us grow spiritually and learn to love authentically. After the Fall, humanity was left in a state of imperfection and alienation from God. In this context, suffering is not an arbitrary punishment but a necessary means permitted by God for our inner transformation and redemption.
a) Suffering and Spiritual Growth
Experiencing suffering confronts us with our fragility, limitations, and dependence on God. This recognition:
– Encourages us to seek God as the source of strength and meaning.
– Purifies us of pride and excessive attachment to material or transient things.
– Teaches us to value goodness and orient our lives toward the eternal.
As St. Paul says in Romans 5:3-5: “We even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope. And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.”b) Suffering and Learning to Love
True love requires stepping outside of oneself and giving oneself to others. This kind of love, which is closest to divine love, is cultivated and matured through trials and difficulties. Suffering calls us to:
– Be in solidarity with others, developing empathy and compassion.
– Learn to forgive, even when we are hurt.
– Sacrifice our selfishness to seek the good of our neighbor.
Suffering also unites us with Christ’s sacrifice, who showed us that the greatest love consists in “laying down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13). Thus, our own suffering can become an act of redemptive love when offered in union with Christ’s.c) Suffering as a Tool to Overcome the Fall
In humanity’s fallen state, suffering becomes a divine pedagogical tool, guiding us toward overcoming our imperfection. It is precisely through the struggle against pain, sin, and our limitations that we rediscover our original vocation: to be children of God, capable of fully loving.In this sense, suffering is not an obstacle to God’s plan but a means by which we are perfected and prepared for eternal life. In Heaven, where there will be no more suffering or pain (Revelation 21:4), this growth and learning will be complete. On Earth, however, suffering is indispensable for advancing along this path.
- The Imperfect World as the Perfect Means
In summary:
– The current creation is imperfect because it reflects the consequences of original sin. However, these imperfections are not a mistake but part of God’s salvific plan.
– This world is perfect for its function: to serve as a framework where humanity can exercise its freedom, accept grace, and rediscover its vocation to union with God.
– Suffering, though not part of God’s original plan, has become a crucial element in the plan of redemption after the Fall. It is a means by which we grow spiritually, learn to love, and overcome our imperfections, drawing closer to God and our vocation of perfection in Christ.
– Finally, the definitive state of perfection will be achieved in Heaven, where harmony and full communion with God will be restored.LikeLike
When was the New Testament finished writing?
LikeLike
-
The New Testament was completed over a period of several decades. Most scholars agree that the writings of the New Testament were finished by around the end of the 1st century AD. The latest books are generally considered to be:
Revelation, traditionally attributed to John, which is commonly dated around 95-96 AD.
2 Peter’s date is controversial.
Most of the other New Testament texts, such as the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and other epistles, were written between 50-90 AD. The exact dating of some books remains debated, but by the late 1st century, the bulk of the New Testament writings had already been composed.
LikeLike
If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, why is he called Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible?
LikeLike
-
The title Jesus of Nazareth is used in the Bible because Jesus grew up in the town of Nazareth, which was located in Galilee, after his family returned from Egypt following their flight to escape King Herod’s massacre of infants (Matthew 2:19-23). Although Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as prophesied in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2), he spent most of his childhood and early adulthood in Nazareth.
The use of “Jesus of Nazareth” helps to identify him with the town where he was known during his ministry. This title also served to distinguish him from others named Jesus, which was a common name at the time. Furthermore, it fulfilled the prophecy in the Old Testament, which stated that the Messiah would be “despised and rejected” (Isaiah 53:3), and Jesus being associated with Nazareth, a town not widely regarded as significant or noble, reinforced this aspect of his identity. It was a way of highlighting the humble and unexpected nature of his earthly life, as Nazareth was not thought to be a place from which the Messiah would come (John 1:46).
Thus, even though Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he became known as “Jesus of Nazareth” because that was where he grew up and began his public ministry.
LikeLike
¿What are the deuterocanonical books?
LikeLike
-
Los libros deuterocanónicos (Tobit, Judit, Sabiduría, Eclesiástico, Baruc, 1 y 2 Macabeos, y las adiciones a Daniel y Ester) están incluidos en la Septuaginta, la traducción griega del Antiguo Testamento realizada entre los siglos III y II a.C. en Alejandría.
La Septuaginta fue la Biblia utilizada por la mayoría de los primeros cristianos, especialmente en el contexto del Imperio Romano, donde el griego era el idioma común. Es la versión que citan los apóstoles y los autores del Nuevo Testamento en la mayoría de los casos (aproximadamente dos tercios de las citas del Antiguo Testamento en el Nuevo Testamento provienen de la Septuaginta).
La autoridad de la Iglesia:
En el momento de la venida de Cristo y la formación de la Iglesia, el Pueblo de Dios ya no era Israel, sino la Iglesia fundada por Cristo, compuesta por judíos y gentiles creyentes en Él.
Fue esta Iglesia, guiada por el Espíritu Santo, la que reconoció y utilizó la Septuaginta como su texto sagrado, incluyendo los libros deuterocanónicos.El canon judío y su relación con los deuterocanónicos
Falta de un canon definitivo en tiempos de Jesús:
Durante la época de Jesús, los judíos no tenían un canon único y cerrado del Antiguo Testamento. Había varias tradiciones, y muchos judíos consideraban inspirados los libros incluidos en la Septuaginta, como los deuterocanónicos.
Grupos como los fariseos, los saduceos y los judíos de la diáspora tenían listas diferentes de libros sagrados. Por ejemplo, los saduceos solo aceptaban el Pentateuco, mientras que los judíos de Alejandría (diáspora) usaban la Septuaginta.El rechazo del canon de la Septuaginta:
Después de la destrucción del Templo en el año 70 d.C., los líderes judíos del concilio de Jamnia (ca. 90 d.C.) comenzaron a establecer un canon más restringido, basado en libros escritos únicamente en hebreo o arameo.
Este canon reducido excluyó los deuterocanónicos, pero para entonces, los judíos que rechazaban a Cristo ya no eran el Pueblo de Dios. La Iglesia, como el nuevo Israel, ya había aceptado los libros deuterocanónicos como Escritura inspirada.
La aceptación en la Iglesia primitiva
Padres de la Iglesia:
Los libros deuterocanónicos fueron usados ampliamente por los Padres de la Iglesia, como San Ireneo, San Clemente de Alejandría, San Cipriano, y San Agustín, quienes los citan como Escritura inspirada.
Aunque algunos, como San Jerónimo, mostraron reservas al traducirlos al latín debido a su ausencia en el canon judío palestinense, Jerónimo incluyó estos libros en la Vulgata, reconociendo su uso litúrgico.
Concilios regionales:
Los Concilios de Hipona (393) y Cartago (397 y 419), junto con la aprobación papal, confirmaron la inclusión de los deuterocanónicos en el canon cristiano, siglos antes de la Reforma Protestante.
El Concilio de Trento y la reafirmación
La Reforma Protestante:
Los reformadores protestantes rechazaron los deuterocanónicos, siguiendo el canon judío establecido en Jamnia. Martín Lutero incluso los colocó en un apéndice de su traducción de la Biblia, llamándolos “apócrifos”.
Reafirmación, no introducción:
En respuesta, el Concilio de Trento (1546) reafirmó oficialmente el canon de la Iglesia, incluyendo los deuterocanónicos, como había sido aceptado desde los primeros siglos. Trento no añadió estos libros, sino que reafirmó la tradición de la Iglesia frente a los cuestionamientos protestantes.
Conclusión
Los libros deuterocanónicos han sido parte integral de la Biblia cristiana desde sus inicios, basados en la Septuaginta, la versión utilizada por los apóstoles y las primeras comunidades cristianas. Aunque rechazados por los judíos después de Cristo y por los reformadores protestantes, la Iglesia siempre los ha reconocido como Escritura inspirada. El Concilio de Trento simplemente reafirmó esta tradición milenaria frente a los desafíos de la Reforma, dejando claro que forman parte del depósito de fe confiado a la Iglesia.
LikeLike
If Jesus Christ himself saw the images that exist in both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, would he think they were idols?
LikeLike
-
This question involves both theological reflection and historical understanding of the role of images in Christian worship. It is totally unlikely that Jesus would consider the images used in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches as idols, provided they are understood and used properly.
Theological Context:
In Catholic and Orthodox theology, images of Christ, Mary, the saints, and angels are not considered idols because they are not worshipped as gods. Instead, they serve as visual aids to focus prayer and veneration. This distinction aligns with the Church’s interpretation of the Ten Commandments, where the prohibition against idols is understood as forbidding the worship of false gods, not the use of sacred art.
The Incarnation:
The Incarnation of Christ—God becoming man—is central to the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of sacred images. Because Jesus took on a visible, physical form, it is appropriate to depict Him and other holy figures in art. This is in contrast to the Old Testament prohibition against images, which was rooted in the concern that God, who had not yet revealed Himself in a visible form, could not be represented.
Historical Precedent:
The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD affirmed the use of sacred images, emphasizing that veneration (not adoration, which is reserved for God alone) offered to images passes to their prototypes. For example, venerating an image of Christ is ultimately an act directed toward Christ Himself, not the material image.
Intent of the Worshippers:
What would matter most to Jesus is the intention of the worshippers. If the images are used as reminders of His love, His sacrifice, and His teachings, they are tools for spiritual growth, not idols. However, if someone were to misuse these images, giving them the kind of devotion due to God alone, then that would indeed be idolatry.
Biblical Support:
The Bible itself contains examples where God commanded the use of images for sacred purposes, such as the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22) and the bronze serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:8-9). These examples show that the use of images, when properly ordered to God, is not inherently idolatrous.
In conclusion, if Jesus observed the proper use of sacred images in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, He would likely see them as tools to draw people closer to Him, not as idols, provided they are used with the correct understanding and intention. After all, he did know the use of the Brass Serpent by the Israelites, for example, and he didn’t condemn it, but compared himself with it (see John 3:14-15)LikeLike
-
But the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant were only ornaments, they were never an object of veneration.
LikeLike
-
- Why did God command the making of cherubim for the Ark?
In Exodus 25, God gave very specific instructions for constructing the Ark of the Covenant, including images of two golden cherubim whose wings would cover the “mercy seat” (the lid of the Ark). These were more than mere decorative elements:
They symbolized the presence and majesty of God upon the Ark.
They made visible the notion that the Ark was God’s “throne” among the Israelites (in an analogical sense).
They served to remind the people of the holiness of the place where the Ark was kept and of the objects it contained (the Tablets of the Law, Aaron’s rod, etc.).
Thus, the cherubim fulfilled a theological function: they pointed to the divine reality and invited reverence. They were not a “casual decoration” but were intimately linked to worship.- Were they an “object of veneration” or not?
2.1. The distinction between “worship” and “veneration”
In the Judeo-Christian tradition—and particularly in Catholicism—there is a very clear difference between:
Adoration (latria): directed exclusively to God.
Veneration (dulia or “honor”): a different, lesser form of honor, entirely subordinate to God, which can be given to persons or objects connected with the sacred (for example, relics, religious symbols, holy images).
The Israelites did not worship the cherubim as though they were gods. Rather, they respected them as part of the Holy of Holies where God’s presence dwelt. Likewise, Catholics today do not worship statues or images as if they were gods; we show respect (veneration) to them for what they represent.2.2. Did people prostrate themselves before the cherubim?
If anyone prostrated before the Ark, that would include the images of the cherubim; however, it was not to the cherubim as “false gods,” but rather reverence toward the entire Ark and its holy significance—the place where people encountered the living God—rather than an act of idolatry directed at the statues themselves.- God does not forbid all images, but idolatry
The first commandment (Exodus 20:4) says, “You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor any likeness… to bow down to them.” The point is not to offer adoration to something that is not God. It does not command the abolition of every kind of artistic representation, because the same God who said this in Exodus 20 also commanded the making of cherubim in Exodus 25.
In fact, later on God commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent (Numbers 21:8-9) so that the Israelites might be healed from snakebites. Years afterward, when that same bronze serpent began to be idolized, it was destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). The problem was not with the image itself, but with the idolatrous use made of it.
- Application for today
In the Catholic faith, sacred images (crucifixes, statues of saints, etc.) are not worshiped as gods. Rather:
- They represent Christ or the saints.
- They invite prayer and the proper veneration due to those whom they symbolize (above all God, and secondarily the saints).
- They serve as a visual reminder of the truths of faith and help the devotion of the faithful.
If a religious object were ever to receive adoration (latria), that would be an abuse and a distortion of its real purpose—much as happened with the bronze serpent in Old Testament times.
- Conclusion
The cherubim of the Ark were not merely trivial ornaments; they were associated with God’s own presence in the Holy of Holies. They were not worshiped as deities, but were treated with reverence within the Ark’s sacred context. This passage in Scripture teaches us that the Bible differentiates between sacred images and the idolatrous worship it prohibits.
Therefore, mentioning the cherubim of the Ark should not be used to reject the use of sacred images; on the contrary, it is a biblical example that God approves—and, at times, commands—particular representations for liturgical and symbolic purposes, as long as the adoration that belongs solely to Him is not compromised.
LikeLike
- Why did God command the making of cherubim for the Ark?
-
-
You say that “it is not the image that is venerated but what it represents” but wasn’t that the same thing that was done with the images of the pagan gods of antiquity?
LikeLike
-
No, that is not the same thing.
The images of idols in antiquity were not considered mere representations of a transcendent reality. Rather, it was believed that they possessed powers or that the god inhabited or controlled them.
More importantly, those images represented false gods, and by worshipping those gods, people committed idolatry, giving divine worship to beings other than the one true God.
In contrast, Christian sacred images are not gods, they do not possess power in themselves, nor are they inhabited by God or the saints. They are venerated as symbols that direct devotion to God and His saints, without constituting worship.LikeLike
Does the Old Testament say that a woman who is a victim of rape should be given as a wife to her attacker?
LikeLike
-
This question likely refers to a passage in Deuteronomy 22:28–29, which reads in many translations:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” (RSVCE)
This passage has often been interpreted to suggest that the law required a woman to marry her rapist, but a closer analysis reveals a more nuanced understanding.
Key Points of Context:
The meaning of “seizes” and “lies with her:The Hebrew verb used for “seizes” (taphas) does not necessarily imply violent rape. It can indicate a range of scenarios, including seduction or consensual but illicit relations. This is different from the stronger term used earlier in Deuteronomy 22:25-27, which clearly describes violent rape.
Different scenarios addressed in the same chapter:Deuteronomy 22:25-27 describes a scenario where a man rapes a betrothed woman. In that case, the rapist is punished with death, while the woman is explicitly exonerated as innocent.
By contrast, Deuteronomy 22:28–29 addresses an unbetrothed virgin and assumes a situation that could include consensual premarital relations or non-consensual seduction.
The intent of the law:In ancient Israel, the cultural context prioritized the woman’s future security and social standing. A woman who had lost her virginity (even by force) might have difficulty finding a husband, which could leave her economically vulnerable.
The law imposes a financial penalty on the man and obligates him to provide for the woman as a husband. This was intended as a protection for the woman, not a reward for the man.
The woman’s consent:The passage does not explicitly say that the woman must accept the marriage. Given the broader legal principles of the Old Testament, it is reasonable to infer that the woman and her family could reject such an arrangement, particularly if it was seen as harmful.
Historical context:Laws like this must be understood in their ancient Near Eastern context. They were not ideal moral codes but were meant to regulate behavior and provide justice in a fallen society. They reflect a provisional accommodation to the realities of that time, not God’s ultimate will.
Catholic Understanding:
The Catholic Church recognizes that the Mosaic Law was a preparation for the fullness of justice and mercy revealed in Christ. Jesus himself critiques some aspects of the Law, such as provisions for divorce, as concessions to human hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8). The dignity and rights of women are fully affirmed in the Gospel.This passage, then, is not an endorsement of rape or a divine mandate forcing a woman to marry her attacker. Instead, it represents a specific legal remedy within a historical context aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals, albeit imperfectly.
LikeLike
Apologia 2.1 in English 
Leave a reply to morephrem Cancel reply